Blame the faulty drivers of dangerous machinery. 4WDs most dangerouson road

Terry Collins wrote:

So I decided when I acquired my
first motor vehicles that it was far, far wiser to reverse my motor
vehicle into my driveway as I had a clear view of driveway, footpath
and road way when I arrived home. Reversing out to me seemed like
playing russian roulette.

I used to live in a street which had 27,000 cars a day pass my house. The
afternoon peak traffic flowed on my side of the street. Backing in would
have been way too dangerous.

The street I live in now has closer to 27 cars a day pass my house.

Theo

"Theo Bekkers" wrote in message
...
fasgnadh wrote:

A diahatsu charade has a rear blind spot of a few metres when a
two year old is standing behind it.

For a 4WD its over 15 metres.

According to the ABC last night, 3 metres for the Charade, large 4WD 20
metres, Commodore 17 metres.

Theo

Was that using an Australian standard height person?

Rainbow Warrior wrote:
"Theo Bekkers" wrote

According to the ABC last night, 3 metres for the Charade, large 4WD
20 metres, Commodore 17 metres.

Was that using an Australian standard height person?

I have no idea. It was on whatever followed the ABC News, I was reading the
manual for my new phone at the time. How high is an Australian standard
person and what is their leg/torso ratio? Presumably using the same person.
Either way 17 metres is a long way, probably longer than most peoples'
driveways.

You'll all be pleased to know that the new phone comes with a hands-free
kit. :-)

Theo

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
Terry Collins wrote:

So I decided when I acquired my
first motor vehicles that it was far, far wiser to reverse my motor
vehicle into my driveway as I had a clear view of driveway,
footpath
and road way when I arrived home. Reversing out to me seemed like
playing russian roulette.

I used to live in a street which had 27,000 cars a day pass my house.
The
afternoon peak traffic flowed on my side of the street. Backing in
would
have been way too dangerous.
I disagree. You stop, put your car in to reverse indicating right. Cars
behind you can see what you're doing. You can see them. When it's safe
to do so, you swing in and reverse in.

Reversing out of the driveway you have to expose a portion of your car
before you even get to see the road. How is that safer than reversing
when you're aware of your conditions?

I think what you mean to say is that it's less convenient and more
time consuming. No argement there.


--
EuanB

TimC wrote:
On 2005-10-24, fasgnadh (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Brash wrote:
Nineteen-month-old Andie Kearns remains on a respirator in a critical but
stable condition in The Children's Hospital, Randwick, after she was
accidentally run over by her father in the driveway of the family home on
Saturday.


"According to Bradsher, internal industry market research concluded
that SUVs tend to be bought by people who are insecure, vain,
self-centred and self-absorbed, who are frequently nervous about their
marriages, and who lack confidence in their driving skills."

I.e, exactly the people you *don't* want driving 4WDs, think that
they should be driving them. And it turns out it is no safer for them
to drive 4WDs, than a normal car, and is is *hugely* unsafe for the
rest of us, for them to be driving said.

Ofcourse the people who buy an SUV like my sister wanted the following:
1 Seating for 7: 5 adults and foldout seats for 2 teenagers or small
adults in the back.
2 10 airbags to protect the side of the head of everyone including the
2 children.
3 The abillity to fjord a flooded weir when the local road overflows
(yearly event)
4 The abillity to take the family skiing around the Mt Hotham area when
visiting her husbands family without mucking around with snow chains
(both dangerous, costly and damaging to roads)
5 The visibillity. Easy to be seen and easy for kids to get a good
view as well as see what the up ahead traffic is doing.

Pretty hard to beat an Mercedes Benz ML 270 CDI turbo diesel. It even
beats most 2L cars for fuel efficiency and goes like a rocket. It's
supurb for shopping and also takes much of the discomfort out of speed
humps.

Kev wrote:
Of the last 4 vehicles I have come into contact with, 3 were 4WDs (the
other was a stolen vehicle, where the drivers deliberately rammed me,
and one of the 4WDs was being controlled by a road rager who
fortunately chose to get out of his ego-cage in order to assault me).

what is wrong with your riding skills that you keep coming into contact
with cars?


It's probably BS. In anycase most of the 4WDs I see are full of women
and children.


in thye 20 years of driving trucks past bicycles on both city streets
and highways I have never hit one(although the dickhead who granbbed the
back of one truck for a free tow up hill was almost flung into a light
pole when I had to take evasive action to avoid a car that pulled out of
a driveway in front of me)

The one altercation we had with a cyclist was when we stopped at lights
and he rear ended us. He actually got 'bicycle rage' and blamed us and
started thumping the car. Bicylcists can become as morally arrogant as
anyone. I say that as a frequent cyclist.

Cycles in Sydney are BS as they are in any CBD (including Amsterdam).
You see them all over the place in small European cities and villages.
Not major metropols.

On 2005-10-25, Eunometic (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Ofcourse the people who buy an SUV like my sister wanted the following:
1 Seating for 7: 5 adults and foldout seats for 2 teenagers or small
adults in the back.

Minivan.

2 10 airbags to protect the side of the head of everyone including the
2 children.
3 The abillity to fjord a flooded weir when the local road overflows
(yearly event)

I don't think I would add $10,000 onto the price of a vehicle for a
once yearly event.

4 The abillity to take the family skiing around the Mt Hotham area when
visiting her husbands family without mucking around with snow chains
(both dangerous, costly and damaging to roads)
5 The visibillity. Easy to be seen and easy for kids to get a good
view as well as see what the up ahead traffic is doing.

I love point 5. Lets becomes part of the arms race!

Have you ever put thought into the scenario where everyone gets the
4WD for your reason given, and then you no longer have a good view of
the traffic?

Pretty hard to beat an Mercedes Benz ML 270 CDI turbo diesel. It even
beats most 2L cars for fuel efficiency and goes like a rocket. It's
supurb for shopping and also takes much of the discomfort out of speed
humps.

Goes like a rocket in the shopping centre car park, I take it?

Speed bumps aren't meant to be uncomfortable. If they are, then you
are going too fast. If, however, you can't feel them, then they
aren't serving their purpose to slow you down.

You aren't one of those 4WDers who think "ooh, that gutter looks to be
placed slightly inconvenient, I'll just drive over it"? "Oooh, my
parking skills aren't very good, and I can't complete this parallel
parking in 3 steps, so I'll just drive on and off the gutter a couple
of times until I get it right"?

--
TimC
A new verb was accidently created during a discussion about KDE 3 and Debian.
It was said that KDE 3 will sid soon. -- Debian Weekly News Jan 14,2003

On 2005-10-25, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Rainbow Warrior wrote:
"Theo Bekkers" wrote

According to the ABC last night, 3 metres for the Charade, large 4WD
20 metres, Commodore 17 metres.

Was that using an Australian standard height person?

I have no idea. It was on whatever followed the ABC News, I was reading the
manual for my new phone at the time. How high is an Australian standard
person and what is their leg/torso ratio? Presumably using the same person.
Either way 17 metres is a long way, probably longer than most peoples'
driveways.

You'll all be pleased to know that the new phone comes with a hands-free
kit. :-)

I wish the ever rigorous Mythbusters tested the driving skill of
handsfree users lastnight. It seems natural to me that *any* use of a
phone is going to lead to decreased driving ability -- especially any
conversation that requires thought or emotion, rather than just
smalltalk.

Just turn it off. It can't be *that* painful, can it? And the lusers
without handsfree, who pull over violently and unsafely, and park
illegally in order to answer their mobile aren't do anyone a favour.

--
TimC
Obviously, "Mother Nature" disagrees with your assessment that money
equates with success. I wonder who will win the argument? -- someone on /.

Eunometic wrote:

Pretty hard to beat an Mercedes Benz ML 270 CDI turbo diesel.

Easy to beat that. My son got his ML320 CDI last week. First one registered
in WA. Those parking sensors, front and rear, are really cool. He was able
to detect me standing behind him and back up to within a foot of me on his
first use of it.

Theo

TimC wrote:

I wish the ever rigorous Mythbusters tested the driving skill of
handsfree users lastnight. It seems natural to me that *any* use of a
phone is going to lead to decreased driving ability -- especially any
conversation that requires thought or emotion, rather than just
smalltalk.

I agree. I never initiate a call from a moving vehicle, unless I'm the
passenger. But then there are other distracting things people do in cars
that are not illegal. Like changing the CD, eating, drinking, changing the
radio station, etc, etc.

Just turn it off. It can't be *that* painful, can it? And the lusers
without handsfree, who pull over violently and unsafely, and park
illegally in order to answer their mobile aren't do anyone a favour.

Totally agree. It's probably less dangerous to just answer the phone. I just
let it ring in the past.

Theo