Reply With QuoteNicely put.
Wizard
SupporterInteresting topic this has turned into, aside from a few side-steps into tree houses and motorcycles
In the Netherlands, one of the most difficult countries in the EU to get vehicles engineered, a bar on the front of a work vehicle is not allowed unless it has a EU certificate. To be precise about the term work vehicle: this is a category of vehicles that has to conform to certain parameters like cargo space, entry size to said space etc. So anything from a 18 wheeler truck down to a van is considered a work vehicle. What is allowed is a "device" to protect whatever item you have mounted to perform work on the front of your vehicle. This is often used to explain the bar, to protect the winch.
This however is where it gets interesting: certain vehicles comply with the parameters set for a work vehicle, ie the cargo space of a station wagen and the door accessing it can be large enough to re engineer the vehicle from what we would consider to just be a car to a van effectively. This is done a lot with 4x4's since they are big and heavy and are often used by people with a profession that requires them to lug big stuff around, a carpenter for example. Also they are capable of pulling a 3500kg trailer which is useful. So, when I buy a defender and keep it as a people mover, I can bolt pretty much anything to the front as long as it has no sharp parts etc. but if I put that same vehicle on the road as a work vehicle the rules of the game change instantly.
On note: road tax in the Netherlands is based on the weight and fuel type of the vehicle and if you run a work car the road tax is A LOT less, hence the re-engineering.
Having said all that, I do firmly believe the nanny state exists because it had to at some point. Manufacturers always have but one thing in mind: money. And probably rightfully so. If they can do something on the cheap they will. ABS, SRS and a bunch of other useful options have existed for a very long time. Even adaptive cruise control was already in development in at mercedes at least since the very early eighties, maybe late seventies. We did'nt see those options come in until the naughties because they were expensive and people spoke with their wallets. Governments need to sometimes motivate both people and companies to make an option mandatory because if left to their own devices, they will not choose to do so. I am also convinced though that governments do interfere with our daily lives to much, let policies be decided by popular opinion and lobbyists.
Let me be clear: I am NOT against pedestrians, the environment, etc. but we DO pay a very hefty price for all these developments. Modern petrol engines are forced to run so lean and clean that the engine itself is paying the price. air intake valves coke up for instance and let's not even talk about diesels! These things choke up like it's nobody's business. It used to be that a proper engine could run 100's of k's, diesels even millions of k's and these days they are pretty much worn out at 100k, maybe 150 if you are lucky. Also pedestrian safety has made vehicles so soft up front that a minor accident will break pretty much everything in front of the windshield. Have we ever thought about the costs of all that? casting a new aluminium engine is a terribly expensive business in terms of the environment. I think a bit more pollution from the exhaust would offset the enormous pollution of building and recycling vehicles
Conclusion (mine) I do take care of what I do to my vehicle, I do think about my fellow humans and nature alike but there is a point where I feel it is all going a bit overboard. I guess though that if our governments have lost their common sense, it is reasonable to assume that at least some part of the population has also lost theirsand thus rules are a necessity for them and perhaps a hindrance to the rest of us.
Cheers,
-P
Nicely put.
Wizard
Interesting points well made. Especially in terms of what is regulated and what isn’t. It’s similar to the supermarket plastic bags debate, whereby the quantity of plastics used in all the packaging is ignored as long as they’re carried home in a furry hemp bag!Originally Posted by prelude
...Let me be clear: I am NOT against pedestrians, the environment, etc. but we DO pay a very hefty price for all these developments. Modern petrol engines are forced to run so lean and clean that the engine itself is paying the price. air intake valves coke up for instance and let's not even talk about diesels! These things choke up like it's nobody's business. It used to be that a proper engine could run 100's of k's, diesels even millions of k's and these days they are pretty much worn out at 100k, maybe 150 if you are lucky. Also pedestrian safety has made vehicles so soft up front that a minor accident will break pretty much everything in front of the windshield. Have we ever thought about the costs of all that? casting a new aluminium engine is a terribly expensive business in terms of the environment. I think a bit more pollution from the exhaust would offset the enormous pollution of building and recycling vehicles
Conclusion (mine) I do take care of what I do to my vehicle, I do think about my fellow humans and nature alike but there is a point where I feel it is all going a bit overboard. I guess though that if our governments have lost their common sense, it is reasonable to assume that at least some part of the population has also lost theirs
Cheers,
-P
The move to hybrid vehicles will surely improve reliability of engines as well as reduce emissions, while full electric cars don’t make sense unless they are plugged into 100% wind, hydro or solar power. But we seem to be gradually heading that way, albeit slowly as there seems to be a constant supply of oil. ...hopefully recent fuel price rises are a sign that investment in renewables will increase.
The crumple zone vs bullbar debate will continue to be biased towards City centric priorities. Weirdly our cities are growing despite the fact that they are part of the environmental problem. Country areas are less desirable as technology takes over our lives (which makes them more desireable to me!).
The lack of autonomy of humans is the real discussion here IMO. The more reliance on digital and mechanical automation, the less freedom we have to make our own physical and mechanical mods. ...out of interest, is anyone making their own digital / ecu remapping mods? How does the legality of these compare to homemade bullbars?
Treehouses and side tracks are often the unexpected pathways to new solutions, unless they’re just rants, so I’ll stop now 😎 cheers 🍻
Lord Jock
Yep,
in the event of sudden deceleration or a head n crash, everything that is not secured becomes a missile and attempts to exit via the front windscreen and whizzes past the head of anyone sitting in the vehicle's as it does so.
Something as small as a pair of pliers can cause a life changing event for someone.
Cheers, Mick.
1974 S3 88 Holden 186.
1971 S2A 88
1971 S2A 109 6 cyl. tray back.
1964 S2A 88 "Starfire Four" engine!
1972 S3 88 x 2
1959 S2 88 ARN 111-014
1959 S2 88 ARN 111-556
1988 Perentie 110 FFR ARN 48-728 steering now KLR PAS!
REMLR 88
1969 BSA Bantam B175
Swaggie
Just interested, how many car accidents have you attended in which an occupant had a pair of pliers embedded in their skull from flying from the rear parcel shelf.
Yes, I am a little concerned about a roll over as I drive along with an Engel sitting on the front passenger seat, however, I remember The Mythbusters proved the killer box of tissues to be wrong.
RoverLord
One of the issues that needs thinking about is the concept of risk.
Nothing is completely risk free. Rules need to consider when regulating something just how high is the risk involved versus the cost of the regulation. This applies in all sorts of areas, of course. Related to this is the question of enforcing rules - if the level of enforcement is not enough to prevent rule breaking, you need to consider the cost of enforcement as part of the cost of regulation.
A good example of this is perhaps the question of house owners making wiring changes to their houses - in NZ, which shares the same wiring standards, this is allowed, but is not here. But the accident statistics do not show a difference attributable to this. Clearly, either the rule against it here is either unnecessary or ineffective. In either case, it seems difficult to justify the cost that the rule imposes on at least the law abiding citizens.
As a society, we tend to not be very good at assessing risk, usually tending to make assessments based on the latest headlines. For example, a recent child death resulting from an elderly driver resulted in all sorts of proposals to further restrict older drivers - ignoring the simple fact that statistically they are the safest age group - way better than under twenty-fives.
John
JDNSW
1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol
Wizard
SubscriberAbsolutely. But really one must also add to that risk element assessment- an assessment of the consequences associated with the risk, should the risk/event happen.
i.e. the risk of something happening may be high or low. Adding consequences to the mix - Compare these two situations:
- Risk of an event happening is high but the consequence is a stubbed toe
- Risk is low, but the consequence of the event happening is a life snuffed out
To my way of thinking the cost benefit analysis will say that the high risk, low consequence, event gets very little funding or attention. But the low risk, high consequence event gets funding that far outweighs the low risk assessment.
No rocket science in the above - its basically how society operates. Just highlighting you cannot take the consequence element out of the equation and say that risk is low so its not worth the costs associated with regulation and enforcement.
Neil
(Really shouldn't be a...) Grumpy old fart!
MY2013 2.2l TDCi Dual Cab Ute
Nulla tenaci invia est via
RoverLord
Absolutely. And society recognises this, for example in that higher standards apply to buses than to cars, or commercial aircraft as opposed to private aircraft. But, we still tend to have very poor estimates of risks, particularly for events that have a low probability. This makes it very difficult to make the cost/risk assessment realistic. Good example of this in the news this mornning - somewhere, I think in Victoria, they have turned off all the public drinking fountains in the city, because the water from them is above the allowable limit for lead, probably leached from the plumbing. But as one commentator points out, nobody gets a large proportion of their water from these - much more of a risk from home plumbing that is almost certainly just as bad. And turning them off inconveniences the residents and visitors, and undoubtedly leads to increased sales of bottles water with all the negative impacts of that. (The levels measured are not substantially above the allowable limits)
John
JDNSW
1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol
Swaggie
Subscribereasily fixed with a swiss bank account and a cayman islands business name.
Current Cars:
2013 E3 Maloo, 350kw
2008 RRS, TDV8
1995 VS Clubsport
Previous Cars:
2008 ML63, V8
2002 VY SS Ute, 300kw
2002 Disco 2, LS1 conversion
Master
SupporterI for one am interested in the legalities of "tweaked" ECU's. Has anyone on this forum researched this enough to give an educated opinion of whether an insurance company would look for this sort of thing is a vehicle was involved in an accident that may have been attributable to the modification? - or even if its legal?
Cheers - Matti
| Search AULRO.com ONLY! |
Search All the Web! |
|---|
|
|
|
Bookmarks