ol_bob, What do you mean by that comment ??
ol_bob, What do you mean by that comment ??
i mean is obviously they are pretty hard up for a story hows about takling the real issues like starving children and child molesters and the taxman for a start. there not gettin my 4x4..... and besides as kev said they just do it for a shit stir.... i have my views on 4x4 in the city to a point there right....but not all of us can afford 6 cars and take the kids to the snow fields of scandanavia every six months..... hope this clarifys my statement a bit
The problem in a lot of peoples minds is they are "raw data orientated" when it comes to statistics about these things. There are more 4wds on the roads so of course there will be more problems involving them. It doesn't necessarly mean the rate of 4wd accidents is increasing.
I hate it how shows like TT, ACA and others use numbers to prove a point, without actually telling the whole truth.
I have recently passed my license and one of the first things i noticed driving to and from school was the soccer mums in big landcruisers oblivious to other drivers. They park where ever they want (ie no parking zones) obstructing the vision of other road users. What we need to focus on is how many children will be hit due to other road users not seeing them for this reason. 4wd's will always end up better off in low speed accidents and for this reason they are purchased by people in suburbia. Drivers with this knowledge hold a certain arrogance. 4wd's are also more prone to rolling in high speed manuevers and due to extra weight often take longer to stop. My point is if you live in the bush then 4wds are fine, if you live in suburbia and you go camping or need them to tow and need 4wd's thats fine. but if your just driving kids to school and back in them then your causing a problem.
Your right to a point Jeremy, rolling depends on the centre of gravity some small cars will roll before some 4WDs because their c/g is higher than the 4WD. 4WDs coming off better depends on their construction and mass. A small 4WD with car type body will possibly come off worse when hitting a big sedan. The Land cruiser will come of better than most cars at high or low speeds even though the safety rating is better on the small car. The mums choose these vehicles to protect their children from idiots driving smaller cars. Not all mums are bad drivers and you still get the idiot mums in small cars. The problem comes when some idiot is driving to fast or talking on their mobile instead of watching the road and they run into another idiot doing some thing wrong or some inocent by stander.
Stopping distance is another issue, again you can not say 4WDs take longer to stop than small cars, this has been proved time and time again by the idiot small car drivers who have ran into the backs of 4WDs. Granted the fouby again comes off best which proves the mums trying to protect their kids are right in choosing fourbies. The answer here is obvious every one should drive a big fourby for safety but lots of people are intimidated by the thoughts of driving these monsters. Here is the crux of the matter; they are also intimidated by other people driving them so attack fourbies verbaly.
Idiots drive small cars and 4WDs they both kill people it is not the type of vehicle that makes the difference it is the driver.
Current affairs shows use only FFF stories...Fast Bucks, Fats & Freaks..this comes under the Freaks category...Freaks that whinge about everything...no point worrying about it cos it will never eventuate into anything.
Whats more dangerous ?
Soccermum driving the landcruiser to and from school/shops or 18-19 year old girl driving a hyundi excel ?? Spend a bit of time driving around and just watch these young girls speeding and their aggressive driving carry on.
Its the drivers that are the problem not the cars.
I agree this is a load of B/S, if 4x4s are to be banned that means all other larger transport should be banned as well cargo vans, minibuses, tow trucks the list goes on & on why not also ban any car that can go faster than the speed limit (speed kills more people than 4x4s) sounds like just another revenue raiser for the govt, RTA, Ins companies...
Harold Scrubey, is the head of the Pedestrian Council of Australia.
He beats this stuff along all the time to give justification to his minority faction.
He quotes figures from other countries to give his arguement basis.
He always fails to mention that in only around 5 percent of pedestrian incidents is the driver found to be at fault. And the percentage of that being 4x4 related is even smaller.
Pedestrians that are involved do not have to be tested for alcohol only the driver of the vehicle.
Noone wants to see anyone get hurt by being hit by a car, but it seems money would be better spent on education programs and walkways for pedestrians.
I'm sure speed does, but that's a whole new story. The bullsh*t over SPEED being the root of all evil is another sensationalist story pushed by the government and police alike as an excuse for a variety of things: speeding fines, poor condition of roads, road signage, etc...speed kills more people than 4x4s
Sure we;ve got to keep getting chasing answers to people dying, but at some stage we've just got to except that PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE.
The road is a dangerous place - cars kill very easily - if you choose to drive on the road - be aware of the risks - drive defensively - be aware of your surroundings - look ahead...etc, etc
It's pretty simple that excessive speed occassionally kills - so do people going too slow - so do kangaroos. ???
you are probably a rational, clear thinking, likeable person cooky - what happened with that piece of crap.Originally Posted by cooky
The laws of physics defy your comments. Without momentum, a car, signage or a kangaroo WILL NOT KILL YOU - unless you swallow them.
What gives a car momentum - the guy behind the wheel.
Remove the guy - the car stands still.
Simple.
I was passed doing 75km/h in yesterdays storm by a grey falcon, with no lights on sitting two cars length behind the car in front, & then weaving through the traffic doing at least 90km/h with visibility below 50m.
I do not have to accept that. I do not regard the risk that fool put my family at as acceptable - DO YOU!
I am aware of it & I drive slower, more cautiously - is your arguement that this is causing accidents?
chris.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote