The idiots are at it again.

Bunch of know nothing inner city Dick Heads. They had it on the radio today claiming it was a survey of Canberra.
They need to get their facts right. If they ban 4WD from the city then they should follow that logic by banning non 4wd's from out of the city's:twisted:.

Have you seen those little tiny yuppy cars looks like if you farted in one you would blow the windows out, think merc make them, what about the other stuff that conjest our roads like bloody great trucks, busses, back hoes and the like, why do they always pick on the poor old 4wd owner, we must be seen as the scape goats I expect, its really is enough to give you the sh1ts and think about moving to New Zealand or something, who dreams up this ****!

At a guess, they surveyed their customers (Probably not the ones with 4x4's!) during renewal phone calls....

Personally, I think safety has less to do with the type of car and more to do with the complete lack of general driving ability I see on the roads. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by graceysdad

Have you seen those little tiny yuppy cars looks like if you farted in one you would blow the windows out, think merc make them, what about the other stuff that conjest our roads like bloody great trucks, busses, back hoes and the like, why do they always pick on the poor old 4wd owner, we must be seen as the scape goats I expect, its really is enough to give you the sh1ts and think about moving to New Zealand or something, who dreams up this ****!

---

Nah not that extreem. Just run em over as they have already told us we can't see out of our monsterous death machines and are agressive:twisted:. plus we are the cause of all the things that are bad in the world.

I'm sure this is the same drivel they wrote about last year...
Story line seems familiar.... :angel:
'A recent survey.... Blah, Blah, Blah.... we hate 4x4's... Blah, Blah, Blah' :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Did they just go through their archived stories and re-hash the words again???
Lazy, biased journalism!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jik22

At a guess, they surveyed their customers (Probably not the ones with 4x4's!) during renewal phone calls....

Personally, I think safety has less to do with the type of car and more to do with the complete lack of general driving ability I see on the roads. :(

---

totally agree round here mate... driving standards are only just up from what could be managed witha blindfold on... you only have to look at the number of accidents and signs knocked down on those nice straight dry roads that we have...

anyway landys are smaller than patrols and cruisers and the toynissan mob reckon that landrovers arent 4wd's so that excludes us from the survey :D

Thanks

Steve

You know what also gets on my nerve is when they use the term "over-represented" relating the 4WD in the whatever research subject is about.

How they calculate "representation" of a particular class of of vehicles, is based on the sales/registrations of new vehicles in that class of vehicles in the most recent completed year (where the data are available).

The big problem with that is that the average life of small cars is something around 10 years where with larger vehicles the average life is closer to 20 years. This results in the proportion of "large vehicles" within population being potentially 2 or three times greater than the proportion based upon new registrations.

A second aspect often overlooked in these types of surveys, is that "large vehicles" including vans and trucks are mostly commercially registered, and therefore on the roads more days per week and doing larger distances than the private car which usually transit to work or only get used on weekends. Therefore of the proportion of large vehicles on the road per hour, available to be involved in crashes is quite a lot greater than any analysis based on new registrations.

Hence the category 4WD (which we now know includes B doubles and white vans) have greater representation on the road than any of the simple statistics suggest.

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.

Diana

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Actually, it has always been my understanding that reversing out of a driveway is actually illegal!

---

This has been covered before..

go deep enough into the leglease of it all and not only is it illegal to back out of your driveway its illegal to back into it.

the purpose of most laws is to give laywers something to do to make money

the purpose of statistics is to allow someone to prove a point no matter how wrong it actually is... Dont believe me? using statistical analysis I can prove that a pig can fly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inside

An audible alert should be better than looking in a camera while reversing?

---

That's what amazes me about scruby's latest rant, he reckon's camera should be mandatory, and while they are good, you have to be constantly looking at the monitor, while sensors allow you to use more than just sight and peripheral vision as an aid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tommy K

If anything is 'socially unacceptable' on our roads....this is it.


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...008/03/591.jpg

---

Not to mention morally unacceptable.:o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moose

That's what amazes me about scruby's latest rant, he reckon's camera should be mandatory, and while they are good, you have to be constantly looking at the monitor, while sensors allow you to use more than just sight and peripheral vision as an aid.

---

Absolutely correct - a camera only has a field of view in front of the lens.

Sensors, depending on placement, can give coverage even around the side of the vehicle.

But when has Scruby ever hit the nail on the head?