 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Land Rover Cars / January 2008Anti 4x4
Any thoughts on the tripe on BBC1 2100 to 2200? Martin > Any thoughts on the tripe on BBC1 2100 to 2200? > > Martin Utter cock.. Id rather watch Hugh make a chicken run.  SignatureMark 1996 90 300tdi 1987 RR V8 EFI 2007 Golf GT http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/ - Firefox Rules! http://fireftp.mozdev.org/ - FTP Plugin for Firefox http://ietab.mozdev.org/ - IE tab. Get Windows updates in Firefox >> Any thoughts on the tripe on BBC1 2100 to 2200? >> Martin > > Utter cock.. > > Id rather watch Hugh make a chicken run. "here is a roundabout, there are no pedestrian crossings on it - here is the old geezer who insists on trying to cross and complains because the lights won't let him" - er no crossings for a reason tosspot! usual anti 4x4 claptrap - heres a question - which is larger - mondeo or discovery 1? which exerts more ground pressure - mondeo (1615kg) or disco 1 (300 tdi 5dr 2100kg) SignatureSi K http://www.kentmassive.com - virtual pub for 4x4 and horse types http://www.kmengineering.org - vehicle servicing in Kent > Any thoughts on the tripe on BBC1 2100 to 2200? What was the programme? Might be able to see it on iplayer. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > > Any thoughts on the tripe on BBC1 2100 to 2200? > > What was the programme? Might be able to see it on iplayer. I don't think you'd be impressed at all. Martin > I don't think you'd be impressed at all. I never am, hence the lack of telly! I doubt I'd bother watching it anyhow, might watch it if it mentioned me by name specifically but that's about it. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >> Any thoughts on the tripe on BBC1 2100 to 2200? > > What was the programme? Might be able to see it on iplayer. Just don't, utter f.cking crap. Mind you, the only motorist that escapes is bikers ;) SignatureNige, talking utter shite since 1967. Ducati 916 BMW K1100LT MT-03 Focus ST3 Land Rover Discovery Xtreme Range Rover 4.6 HSE NIGE#1 >> Any thoughts on the tripe on BBC1 2100 to 2200? > > What was the programme? Might be able to see it on iplayer. Some road rage guff. Probably had some saloon car driving inadequate foaming about another 4x4 driving inadequate. Both of them hate cyclists even more than they hate each other, probably. Chicken run was interesting, free range for me from now on. > Some road rage guff. I wonder if it was the same one that was on a year or so ago, certainly fits the description, if so then no I'm not missing anything ;-) > Probably had some saloon car driving inadequate foaming about another 4x4 > driving inadequate. Both of them hate cyclists even more than they hate > each other, probably. And then there's the truckers! And tractors! And old ladies at 30MPH in 60MPH zones etc etc... I'm not missing anything in that programme because it's all up here <taps forehead>.. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >>Some road rage guff. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > And old ladies at 30MPH in 60MPH zones etc etc... Or 10mph on a motorway http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7171154.stm Although to be fair, the M32 is just an extended slip road in to the city centre - more of a three lane dual carriageway than a "proper" motorway. Stuart (Bristolian who suffered that road too often) >Or 10mph on a motorway > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7171154.stm AA bloke talking through his arse, mind: "We know that there are lots of times when the weight of traffic, for example on a motorway, means that you can get nowhere near the proper speed limit, you may even have to stop, and obviously if there was a minimum speed limit there would be a lot of confusion when that happens." There's no "proper speed limit", there's a MAXIMUM speed, which it might well be neither safe nor possible to drive at. Just because the law allows you to do 70 doesn't mean you have to at all times. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! > There's no "proper speed limit", there's a MAXIMUM speed, which it might > well be neither safe nor possible to drive at. Just because the law allows > you to do 70 doesn't mean you have to at all times. That's exactly the point of the current road safety campaign here - "It's not a target". It absolutely bloody bucketed down yesterday (middle of summer LOL) to the point where 40kph was probably a safe open road speed which pretty much reinforces that idea. > Any thoughts on the tripe on BBC1 2100 to 2200? > > Martin Are we all so insecure in our love of Land Rovers that any programme that dares to suggest 4x4's are not the perfect vehicle for every occasion that we have to immediately deride it as anti-4x4 rubbish (or utter crap as one respondent put it)? This wasn't exclusively an anti-4x4 programme - it was far more critical of cyclists - but a relatively comprehensive look at the state of our road infrastructure and it's users - well as comprehensive as you can be in an hour. The big 4x4 is not the best car for the inner city. It takes up too much space, is difficult to manoeuvre in tight spaces, cuts down the visibility for other drivers, cyclists and pedestrians and is far from the safest vehicle to use for the school run. What the programme did show is that the majority of road users think they own the road and that no-one else has any right to be there. It highlighted the thoughtless, selfish, indeed callous, disregard that many people have towards their fellow man and the rule of law. Simply pooh-poohing programmes like this in public does nothing for our collective reputation and just gives the anti's more evidence to suggest we are mindless morons with no concern for anyone or anything but ourselves ... and if that's all we can do, then maybe they've got a point. Martin, this post was not aimed specifically at you but is a general response to the first four or five replies to your OP. Nothing personal :-) SignatureRegards Steve G > > Any thoughts on the tripe on BBC1 2100 to 2200? > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > response to the first four or five replies to your OP. Nothing personal :-) I didn't think for one minute that it was but you have some very valid points that I hadn't given much thought to. What pissed me off was the amount of cycles that were deliberately making it worse by illegally travelling more than two abreast, should have been done for it. It would be alright I suppose if most of the women driving their kids to school could expect their kids to be safe on the streets if left in someone else's care and, let's face it, how long does it take them to park and drop their kids off FFS? Thankfully I'm long past those duties but I always made sure my kids made it to school and bollocks to the parking problems. No big deal. :-) Martin >>> Any thoughts on the tripe on BBC1 2100 to 2200? >>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Martin I think the problem with 4WD's at school is you can't see kids walking because you and your view are so high. You get and your kids get there safe in your tank, but running over someone else's kids is a real possibility. > I think the problem with 4WD's at school is you can't see kids walking > because you and your view are so high. You get and your kids get there > safe in your tank, but running over someone else's kids is a real > possibility. It's a real possibility in any car, and there's no reason why "you" can't see kids walking when you're in a 4x4, total nonsense. What car do you drive? SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >> I think the problem with 4WD's at school is you can't see kids walking >> because you and your view are so high. You get and your kids get there [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >can't see kids walking when you're in a 4x4, total nonsense. What car >do you drive? OK, sit in the driver's seat of more or less any 4x4 and tell me you can see a 5 year old kid standing behind it. Mind, the increasing trend for car-styling that has the back swept up at the back and has a ticthy rear window, this is also true of some modern hatchbacks. All cars have a blindspot behind them, but tall 4x4s have a bigger blind spot. Unless of course you have one of those fresnel lens things that look round corners. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! > OK, sit in the driver's seat of more or less any 4x4 and tell me you can see > a 5 year old kid standing behind it. Can in my truck cab defender.. All cars have their blind spots and one like that is far less of an issue when driving past something like a school than not being able to see past the parked cars. > All cars have a blindspot behind them, but tall 4x4s have a bigger blind > spot. Unless of course you have one of those fresnel lens things that look > round corners. Great, best thing to do then is avoid reversing at speed past schools ;-) Far safer to do that in a saloon car. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >> OK, sit in the driver's seat of more or less any 4x4 and tell me you can see >> a 5 year old kid standing behind it. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Great, best thing to do then is avoid reversing at speed past schools >;-) Far safer to do that in a saloon car. Get a Daf then you can go as fast in reverse as forwards. Signaturehugh Reply to address is valid at the time of posting >> OK, sit in the driver's seat of more or less any 4x4 and tell me you can see >> a 5 year old kid standing behind it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >issue when driving past something like a school than not being able to >see past the parked cars. it's fine if you're driving past, the argument is about people doing school runs and reversing outside school. I have the same problem with the minibus, but a) it's got a reverse beeper and b) I reverse in such places, if I have to, at very much sub walking pace. I alos try to avoid reversing anywhere near the school - and I wouldn't bet that hassled school-run-mum does any of those. You've only to watch the way some of them take off, it's like the old days at Le Mans. >> All cars have a blindspot behind them, but tall 4x4s have a bigger blind >> spot. Unless of course you have one of those fresnel lens things that look >> round corners. > >Great, best thing to do then is avoid reversing at speed past schools >;-) Far safer to do that in a saloon car. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! In a dim and distant universe <6459o39oct8e8knbm8irisjocu8bfcc25v@4ax.com>, Austin Shackles <austinDITCHTHISFORBETTERRESULTS@ddol-las.net> enlightened us thusly: > places, if I have to, at very much sub walking pace. I alos try to avoid > reversing anywhere near the school - and I wouldn't bet that hassled > school-run-mum does any of those. You've only to watch the way some of > them take off, it's like the old days at Le Mans. Exactly. It's got nothing to do with 4x4s but more to do with careless driving skills. I've reversed into a number of places with no rear visibility at all - stuff in the back obscuring the rear-view mirror etc - happens in a car too. However, if I'm reversing and I know I have limited visibility, I take extra care, do it *very* slowly, or get someone outside to keep an eye out for me. No real excuse for hitting anything, even with limited visibility! SignatureUsenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/ Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/ Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - forum.vigay.com/ Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/ > In a dim and distant universe <6459o39oct8e8knbm8irisjocu8bfcc25v@4ax.com>, > Austin Shackles <austinDITCHTHISFORBETTERRESULTS@ddol-las.net> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > No real excuse for hitting anything, even with limited visibility! don`t you have wing mirrors?? SignatureDon`t be sexist...........Broads hate that. Accompanied by the sound of a chisel on slate Austin Shackles,<austinDITCHTHISFORBETTERRESULTS@ddol-las.net> managed to produce the following words of wisdom >>> I think the problem with 4WD's at school is you can't see kids >>> walking because you and your view are so high. You get and your [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > OK, sit in the driver's seat of more or less any 4x4 and tell me you > can see a 5 year old kid standing behind it. Can see 'em in my Range Rover. Would be difficult in some of the newer hatchback cars though, or a Mk2 Astra GTE, for example. SignaturePete M - OMF#9 "Save your breath for cooling your porridge! W&P Range Rover V8 Turbo Scorpio Ultima 24v I have been in many a car whose rearward visibility is no better than my 109. It's hypocrisy to single out 4X4's what has the transmission got to do with visibility, it is the design. Besides not all 4X4 are obvious, what about subarus? SignatureLarry Series 3 Rust and Holes > OK, sit in the driver's seat of more or less any 4x4 and tell me you can > see [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > look > round corners. >>> I think the problem with 4WD's at school is you can't see kids walking >>> because you and your view are so high. You get and your kids get there [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > spot. Unless of course you have one of those fresnel lens things that look > round corners. It's not only visibility from the aspect of the 4x4 driver that is an issue here. If you drive a standard euro-box and are following a 4x4 then your forward visibility (and as a consequence your ability see what's happening further down the road) is almost zero. You can't see through the 4x4's windows because they're so much higher than you are. In town traffic, where vehicles travel much closer together, this problem is exacerbated because the back end of the 4x4 partially obscures your view along its sides. So you don't see the child stood between the two parked cars on the nearside until he darts into the road the second the 4x4 goes past. SignatureRegards Steve G Tough titty, you should never follow so close that you couldn't stop if the guy in front slams his anchors on. I have managed to drive any number of vehicles without running over any children yet as do I suppose has everyone else here. SignatureLarry Series 3 Rust and Holes > It's not only visibility from the aspect of the 4x4 driver that is an > issue here. If you drive a standard euro-box and are following a 4x4 then [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > parked cars on the nearside until he darts into the road the second the > 4x4 goes past. > Tough titty, you should never follow so close that you couldn't stop if the > guy in front slams his anchors on. SG: I wasn't talking about not being able to stop if the guy in front stopped suddenly, so that comment is pointless. > I have managed to drive any number of vehicles without running over any > children yet as do I suppose has everyone else here. SG: Bully for you! There is a point at which all drivers can say they've never had an accident. Some of those have gone on to kill and main both themselves and other road users, whilst the majority have not .... yet. SignatureRegards Steve G >> I think the problem with 4WD's at school is you can't see kids walking >> because you and your view are so high. You get and your kids get there [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > can't see kids walking when you're in a 4x4, total nonsense. What car > do you drive? Recently bought '87 range rover 3.5 in really good nick although the brakes aren't what I'm used to. Visibility is excellent, except for little kids who don't come up to the door handles. Other drivers have difficulty seeing round a 4WD or van, if you don't realise that about your 4x4 you might be one of those giving us a bad name. > Recently bought '87 range rover 3.5 in really good nick although the > brakes aren't what I'm used to. Visibility is excellent, except for > little kids who don't come up to the door handles. Other drivers have > difficulty seeing round a 4WD or van, if you don't realise that about > your 4x4 you might be one of those giving us a bad name. You can see more from a 4x4 *other than* when the little buggers are creeping round the back and refusing to move when you are reversing. Depends on how often that happens compared to you driving forwards I suppose.. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >> Recently bought '87 range rover 3.5 in really good nick although the >> brakes aren't what I'm used to. Visibility is excellent, except for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Depends on how often that happens compared to you driving forwards I > suppose.. That's right, it's the drop off / car park area where the school complaints come from, not driving down the road. Similarly (though worse) with buses when the kids appear from around the corner and cars don't see them until it's too late - that's a well recognised problem. You didn't cause it, you might even avoid it better than a car, but it can happen because of the high vehicle. > You didn't cause it, you might even avoid it better than a car, but it > can happen because of the high vehicle. Not much sense condemning a vehicle type because it's worse when it comes to the exception but better when it comes to the everyday. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >> You didn't cause it, you might even avoid it better than a car, but it >> can happen because of the high vehicle. > > Not much sense condemning a vehicle type because it's worse when it > comes to the exception but better when it comes to the everyday. Was it condemned - I thought it was just about suitability for driving kids to school? My range rover wouldn't be much good for driving to work either because it uses too much fuel specially in traffic. I really enjoy driving it, but I understand (big) 4WD's are not the most appropriate vehicle for some of the reasons people use them. > Was it condemned - I thought it was just about suitability for driving > kids to school? You'll get better visibility both from your point of view and that of others (the car's easier to see) other than in the isolated and rare case of you reversing when some dope kid of just the right height is standing right behind you in a blind spot without the sense to move. Concentrating on a car's deficiency in an exceptional circumstance while ignoring its advantages in the everyday situation isn't a good idea IMHO, I personally don't think there's anything significant in it, i.e. saloon cars and 4x4s aren't significantly better or worse on the school run, too much is made of all this. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >>> I think the problem with 4WD's at school is you can't see kids >>>walking because you and your view are so high. You get and your kids [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >difficulty seeing round a 4WD or van, if you don't realise that about >your 4x4 you might be one of those giving us a bad name. We haven't got a bad name - we have bigots attacking 4x4s out of prejudice, ignorance and inverted snobbery. Signaturehugh Reply to address is valid at the time of posting >>>> I think the problem with 4WD's at school is you can't see kids >>>> walking because you and your view are so high. You get and your [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > We haven't got a bad name - we have bigots attacking 4x4s out of > prejudice, ignorance and inverted snobbery. I beg to differ on your fist statement. As drivers of large 4x4's we do have a bad name and whether we deserve it, or not, is irrelevant. Over the past few years I've noticed a marked increase in the disapproving looks and comments from clients when they ask what car I drive. Now I just say it's an estate car. Where we do agree is that the people who attack us for driving our gas guzzlers are bigots. Unfortunately those bigots are vociferous and have the ear of a large number of influential and often misguided individuals .. such as politicians and local councillors who jump on the band wagon for their own reasons. SignatureRegards Steve G In a dim and distant universe <F6Jgj.730$421.421@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, jg <jg@nospam.com> enlightened us thusly: [Snippety snip] > I think the problem with 4WD's at school is you can't see kids walking > because you and your view are so high. You get and your kids get there > safe in your tank, but running over someone else's kids is a real > possibility. Eh? I've got better visibility in the Disco than in the ordinary car (Mondeo). Certainly when driving round town I can see pedestrians a lot easier because I can see over the tops of parked cars, in case someone is stupid enough to walk into the road without looking. When I'm in the car, most pedestrians are obscured by the parked cars because they're all the same height. SignatureUsenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/ Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/ Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - forum.vigay.com/ Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/ > In a dim and distant universe > <F6Jgj.730$421.421@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > When I'm in the car, most pedestrians are obscured by the parked cars > because they're all the same height. How about kids beside the car who don't reach the windows? When in the car I bet pedestrians are most obscured by 4x4's - their safety and visibility are to some extent at the expense of smaller cars. Having owned a van has made me aware of the problems big vehicles pose for smaller ones. Look I drive a range rover, I don't have an axe to grind. I suspect my visibility is better than some other 4WD's, there must be a reason beyond jealousy that the question of 4WD's around schools is often raised. > How about kids beside the car who don't reach the windows? When in the > car I bet pedestrians are most obscured by 4x4's - their safety and > visibility are to some extent at the expense of smaller cars. Having > owned a van has made me aware of the problems big vehicles pose for > smaller ones. Spot on, jg :-) Driving a normal car behind a large 4x4 or Sprinter type van severely reduces driver visibility both directly forwards and just off to the side of dead ahead. These are the very areas that pedestrians, particularly the young, appear from; so whilst you may not hit them in your big vehicle you do nothing to assist the drivers of smaller cars following you. SignatureRegards Steve G > your big vehicle you do nothing to assist the drivers of smaller cars > following you. So smaller cars are more dangerous then? Or are drivers of smaller cars not responsible for keeping a safe distance from the car in front be it a small car, large car or lorry? SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >> your big vehicle you do nothing to assist the drivers of smaller cars >> following you. > > So smaller cars are more dangerous then? SG: That's a radical sideways leap in extrapolation from what I wrote :-) Or are drivers of smaller > cars not responsible for keeping a safe distance from the car in front > be it a small car, large car or lorry? SG: Of course they are, but in crowded city streets there are inevitably times when vehicles become bunched together (e.g. at pedestrian crossings, traffic lights and when oncoming traffic forces you to move into and out of gaps between parked cars on your side of the road). It is in these situations where the driver following a larger vehicle has reduced visibility and it just happens to coincide with situations where pedestrians are likely to chance their luck dodging between the cars. SignatureRegards Steve G >> So smaller cars are more dangerous then? > > SG: That's a radical sideways leap in extrapolation from what I wrote :-) It's not much of a leap, after all if small cars can't see past larger cars and can't see over parked small cars so well then they're more dangerous when moving forwards, even if they are less dangerous when moving backwards... Somewhat over-simplistic arguments, but then they all are in this particular subject area. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >>> your big vehicle you do nothing to assist the drivers of smaller >>>cars following you. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >with situations where pedestrians are likely to chance their luck >dodging between the cars. Well this must apply equally to buses, vans people carriers. So if all the 4x4s which might be deemed to be non-essential suddenly disappeared what difference would it make? SFA Signaturehugh Reply to address is valid at the time of posting >>>> your big vehicle you do nothing to assist the drivers of smaller >>>> cars following you. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the 4x4s which might be deemed to be non-essential suddenly disappeared > what difference would it make? SFA I give up. If you can't see the woods then maybe the trees are in the way. SignatureRegards Steve G >> How about kids beside the car who don't reach the windows? When in the >> car I bet pedestrians are most obscured by 4x4's - their safety and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > your big vehicle you do nothing to assist the drivers of smaller cars > following you. Then one should keep the obligatory "two seconds" behind the vehicle ahead. I get seriously pissed off by tailgaters, and those who hassle me to close up on the vehicle ahead. When I learned to drive, my instructor was *very* strong on keeping at least one metre gap *visible* between the bonnet of my car and the vehicle ahead when stopping. How many people follow that rule? In my experience, Land-Rover drivers are better than the general population - an opinion backed up by the examiner who tested me for my School Minibus test in Derby, who, when I had passed with flying colours, remarked "all the Land-Rover owners I have driven with handle vehicles very well". The fact is, (and I've said this before), most drivers pass their test too easily. There should be a more stringent test, drivers should have to drive a two wheeler before they move to a four wheeler, and the test should be re-taken every five years. Only then would we see a reduction in road deaths, and a general improvement in driving standards. Stuart Stuart >>> How about kids beside the car who don't reach the windows? When in >>> the car I bet pedestrians are most obscured by 4x4's - their safety [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > between the bonnet of my car and the vehicle ahead when stopping. How > many people follow that rule? SG: As an advanced driving skills trainer I tell my "pupils" that they should be able to see the bottom of the rear tyres of the car in front plus a bit of tarmac when we pull up behind another vehicle. Probably not a metre but enough room to allow us to negotiate past the vehicle in the event it stalls or breaks down. Maintaining a 2 second gap in free flowing city traffic is okay but in start-stop situations it extends the length of traffic flows and can be the cause of frustration for other drivers - leading them to make inappropriate decisions and maybe endangering lives. > In my experience, Land-Rover drivers are better than the general > population - an opinion backed up by the examiner who tested me for my > School Minibus test in Derby, who, when I had passed with flying > colours, remarked "all the Land-Rover owners I have driven with handle > vehicles very well". SG: Whilst I'd like to support that claim I can't. I've seen plenty of Land Rovers being driven badly as any other make. The vehicle you drive doesn't make you a better or worse driver - it's the way you were taught and your mindset that does that. > The fact is, (and I've said this before), most drivers pass their test > too easily. There should be a more stringent test, drivers should have > to drive a two wheeler before they move to a four wheeler, and the test > should be re-taken every five years. Only then would we see a reduction > in road deaths, and a general improvement in driving standards. SG: Now here we have some common ground but rather than re-passing the same old low-level L-test every five years why not make passing an advanced driving test compulsory for all new drivers within 5 years of passing the L-test? Drivers who take an advanced driving course and pass the test seldom go back to their old bad habits afterwards. SignatureRegards Steve G >>>> How about kids beside the car who don't reach the windows? When in >>>>the car I bet pedestrians are most obscured by 4x4's - their safety [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >passing the L-test? Drivers who take an advanced driving course and >pass the test seldom go back to their old bad habits afterwards. Ah now we have it. He want more regulations to drum up more business. Signaturehugh Reply to address is valid at the time of posting >>>>> How about kids beside the car who don't reach the windows? When in >>>>> the car I bet pedestrians are most obscured by 4x4's - their safety [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >> > Ah now we have it. He want more regulations to drum up more business. I do this as an unpaid volunteer. No money (or other form of payment) passes between myself and my pupil. I do it because I have the knowledge, skills, time and desire to do so. SignatureRegards Steve G On Tuesday, in article <F6Jgj.730$421.421@news-server.bigpond.net.au> jg@nospam.com > I think the problem with 4WD's at school is you can't see kids walking > because you and your view are so high. You get and your kids get there > safe in your tank, but running over someone else's kids is a real > possibility. How often does this sort of accident happen? All vehicles, not just 4x4s. SignatureDavid G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger. On the horizon, a carrier task force of the Salvation Navy was turning into the wind, preparing to launch Zeppelins. > On Tuesday, in article > <F6Jgj.730$421.421@news-server.bigpond.net.au> jg@nospam.com [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > How often does this sort of accident happen? All vehicles, not just > 4x4s. It's quite common in home driveways as accidents go. I don't know the proportion involving 4WD's. The common accident at schools is kids stepping out from the obscurity of one vehicle (specially big ones) into the path of traffic - buses and ice cream vans are required to have caution signs. I've seen it happen, don't know often it does, but it's widely regarded as a danger. > It's quite common in home driveways as accidents go. It's "quite common" for people to be fatally electrocuted while changing lightbulbs, people are very careful when doing so and some people refuse to even do it because of the danger. In reality, in this country there is apparently only one documented case of it ever having happened and the rest of the world isn't much different. Beware of "common sense" especially where politics, moral grandstanding and class envy are thrown into the mix! > The common accident at schools is kids stepping out from the > obscurity of one vehicle (specially big ones) into the path of > traffic - buses and ice cream vans are required to have caution > signs. I've seen it happen, don't know often it does, but it's > widely regarded as a danger. Yes and on one hand a 4x4 can potentially do more damage if it hits someone, but at the same time the driver is more likely to see the person stepping out in the first place. I don't see there's any significant difference between the types of vehicle overall and none of us can do anything other than idly speculate, which seems rather pointless when you're talking about fine detail, small differences and a tiny number of cases, all based on speculation. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >> It's quite common in home driveways as accidents go. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Beware of "common sense" especially where politics, moral > grandstanding and class envy are thrown into the mix! http://www.gtp.com.au/kidsafeqld/inewsfiles/inews.96748.1.pdf "Tragically one child, often a toddler, is run over in the driveway of their own home every week in Australia. In Queensland, four children under five die each year as a result of a low-speed run-over and 81 children present at hospital emergency departments with injuries, usually serious, with 60% requiring admission." http://www.qisu.org.au/modcore/PreviousBulliten/backend/upload_file/issue076.pdf "Q 28 children younger than five years died as a result of a lowspeed, non-traffic pedestrian impact in Queensland in the seven year period, 1994-2000 Q Low-speed run-over is the third most frequent cause of injury death for toddlers (1-4 years) in Queensland Q 60% of the vehicles involved in the deaths were reversing at the time Q 41% of the vehicles involved in the deaths were 4WDs" >> The common accident at schools is kids stepping out from the >> obscurity of one vehicle (specially big ones) into the path of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > pointless when you're talking about fine detail, small differences and > a tiny number of cases, all based on speculation. You think it's some kind of class envy that requires buses to have a "beware of children" sign on the back? You think your big car can't pose a hazard similar to a bus, for kids in a school car park / drop off without you even in it? I've had all kinds of cars, and kids, your fixed image of driving down the road with a superb view suggests you have never driven kids to school. Either that or you haven't noticed how many drivers have no concept of their presence except from their own view, often with no adjustment for the type and size of car. >>> It's quite common in home driveways as accidents go. >> It's "quite common" for people to be fatally electrocuted while [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >http://www.qisu.org.au/modcore/PreviousBulliten/backend/upload_file/issu >e076.pdf From the same source "The over representation of 4WD vehicles is somewhat paradoxical in that studies of rearward visibility have found their high driving position means that they have rearward visibility no worse than some smaller vehicles3." & "Prevention Low-speed run-overs are often the predictable consequence of a child following a parent into the driveway area without their knowledge. These circumstances are similar to those surrounding the most common cause of death due to injury at this age, drowning in domestic swimming pools. Strategies for the prevention of driveway run-overs may require a similar approach. In the case of domestic pools passive changes to the environment have been found to be the most effective measure to reduce toddler drownings7 while behaviour modification and education campaigns are only effective if used in combination with passive measures >"Q 28 children younger than five >years died as a result of a lowspeed, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >concept of their presence except from their own view, often with no >adjustment for the type and size of car. So again as in the Queensland study you quote the biggest problem is parental drivers. Well, under the proposed changes announced today if they cause a death by careless driving they can be sent to prison. And what can be more careless than driving over your own child in your driveway. Signaturehugh Reply to address is valid at the time of posting > http://www.gtp.com.au/kidsafeqld/inewsfiles/inews.96748.1.pdf > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > at hospital emergency departments with injuries, > usually serious, with 60% requiring admission." OK, if there's evidence to back that one up then perhaps my cynicism meter needs tweaking in this situation ;-) > http://www.qisu.org.au/modcore/PreviousBulliten/backend/upload_file/issue076.pdf > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > a hazard similar to a bus, for kids in a school car park / drop off > without you even in it? No, and I can't see why you think I think that. > I've had all kinds of cars, and kids, your fixed image of driving down > the road with a superb view suggests you have never driven kids to > school. What fixed image would that be? If you're going to engage in a discussion, it helps if you don't run off and answer points that the other person didn't make! I live outside a school and reverse my landy, pinzgauer and audi through two driveways out onto a blind road and have been for 6 years without even the slightest hint of an issue re blind spots. Good mirror-work does the job for me even though the pinz in particular has a whopping great big blind spot and no rear-view mirror, only the "wing" mirrors. If you use them right then you can minimise issues by keeping a check on what's moving around the edges of blind spots to make sure no-one moves into it. Starting off not knowing what's in the blind spot is the real danger. I've also not found the pinz or landy to be significantly any harder than the audi, if anything the landy is the easiest due to the truck cab and rear pick-up bed plus the high driving position. Again though, idle speculation about which type of vehicle is the most dangerous isn't really worth it, given that danger situations depend on so many factors and each vehicle has plusses and minuses in their favour. You don't for example find people walking out behind a reversing pinzgauer and they're damned hard not to notice when they're moving! SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! ........... >> You think it's some kind of class envy that requires buses to have a >> "beware of children" sign on the back? You think your big car can't pose [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > landy is the easiest due to the truck cab and rear pick-up bed plus > the high driving position. ..... All your comments are about you driving past or reversing, nothing about the problems a big car might cause for others. No consideration that they might be more likely to cause an accident for someone else than be in one. Ever tried to reverse a little car from between a van and a Nissan Patrol? Hey I drive a "rangie", I don't want 4WD's off the road. Cars all have better and worse features, you must realise that with your collection. Blocking others' visibility is a feature of high, square vehicles. This 4WD/school issue is raised everywhere, so ubiquitous there is likely more to it than jealousy. I see the ignorance on both sides and the good driver is not the problem. People who only consider their own viewpoint are the problem. > ........... > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > driver is not the problem. People who only consider their own viewpoint > are the problem. Well, I use my wing mirrors most of the time, along with my rear view mirror - most of the drivers I observe use neither. The problem (IMO) is that most drivers are not skilled, and the driving test is too easy. If it were made harder, and needed to be taken every five years, it would stop most of the "I'm sorry, I didn't see you" type accidents (you can tell I'm also a biker, huh?). Frankly, there are too many bad drivers on the road, and too many lax parents how don't want to teach their children the right way to behave. Stuart > Frankly, there are too many bad drivers on the road, and too many lax > parents how don't want to teach their children the right way to behave. > > Stuart Finally, someone's said it .... well done Stuart. This is a two way thing - it's not all a matter of large vehicles, restricted visibility, 4x4s being unsuitable etc.. Pedestrians and others have their part to play, too. Why do many parents no longer instill some sort of awareness of the danger of vehicles into their little darlings and/or adequately supervise and control them. Kids need to learn that vehicles are dangerous and can move without warning. They need to to learn that any vehicle with a running engine is a hazard. Parents, too, need to get their act together. We've already discussed tragedies occurring in domestic driveways. That's avoidable with a little common sense. Is it all about this idea of removing risk to that point that no learning takes place? How do you find out that flame is hot until you get burnt? I'm not suggesting that we put children under car wheels but you get the idea. A large proportion of the discussion has been about accidents involving children - others occur, too. As a whole we are not careful enough around vehicles and that needs to change. > > ........... > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > would stop most of the "I'm sorry, I didn't see you" type accidents (you > can tell I'm also a biker, huh?). Yebbut, in my experience I can see the car driver look straight at me and then pull out, the "It's only a bike, that can't hurt me" attitude. Oh yes, they've definitely seen you. > Frankly, there are too many bad drivers on the road, and too many lax > parents how don't want to teach their children the right way to behave. > > Stuart Absolutely. Martin And a bus or truck will do even more damage than a 4X4 but who complains about that? I have noticed the way refuse trucks have increased dramatically in size over the years and they block the roads with absolute abandon caring not a jot that they are holding the bendybus up. As for fire engines, what sort of MPG do you get out of a fully laden tender, and what is kinetic energy if you hit by one of them running the red lights. SignatureLarry Series 3 Rust and Holes > Yes and on one hand a 4x4 can potentially do more damage if it hits > someone, but at the same time the driver is more likely to see the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > pointless when you're talking about fine detail, small differences and > a tiny number of cases, all based on speculation. > And a bus or truck will do even more damage than a 4X4 but who complains > about that? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > tender, and what is kinetic energy if you hit by one of them running the red > lights. I wouldn't think you would worry about kinetic energy if flattened by a fire engine. :-) Martin > And a bus or truck will do even more damage than a 4X4 but who complains > about that? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > tender, and what is kinetic energy if you hit by one of them running the red > lights. They do complain or are aware. Trucks are often kept out of cities. Most are required to have "beware children" or "keep clear while turning", "hazchem" etc. You need a better license to drive one. It's not ideal to have rubbish trucks, but is there something different you can do with your rubbish? Do you have a better answer to a fire than a fire? Because we use them doesn't mean we can't see their problems. >> And a bus or truck will do even more damage than a 4X4 but who >> complains about that? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > you can do with your rubbish? Do you have a better answer to a fire than > a fire? Because we use them doesn't mean we can't see their problems. I'm sorry, on which planet do you live? Trucks are *not* kept out of cities, most do not have any warning signs beyond indications of what they carry. A close friend of mine was run over by a rubbish truck - that driver was "licensed better" than me, but I've not run over anyone in my Land-Rover. The problem comes in drivers thinking that they are invulnerable, and so (on the whole) reducing their awareness, couples with more comfortable and "safer" cars. Stuart >>> And a bus or truck will do even more damage than a 4X4 but who >>> complains about that? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > (on the whole) reducing their awareness, couples with more comfortable > and "safer" cars. I live in Perth in Western Australia and "road trains" are kept out of the city. Truck routes are a constant subject of public complaint/debate. Trucks and buses here do carry warnings as I mentioned. Everyone knows they are a hazard. So do you, why do you say no one acknowledges it? The higher class of license requirement acknowledges the extra danger. Most drivers have never run over anyone and I can't see how a feeling of invulnerability would lead one to run over a pedestrian. You are right about one thing - very many traffic problems stem from poor attitudes and inattention rather than from "driver training" or the type of vehicle, but this thread is about the relative safety of certain vehicles in particular situations. Around schools that often means when they are not even being driven. If we were talking about driving around the bush, the arguments would be reversed. <snip> > I live in Perth in Western Australia and "road trains" are kept out of > the city. Truck routes are a constant subject of public [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > If we were talking about driving around the bush, the arguments would be > reversed. Come on, road trains are a whole different issue (and unique to Oz). Trucks and buses in Europe rarely carry warnings. Yes, higher class licenses acknowledge higher risk, but people are people. Drivers of bigger vehicle are usually more cavalier. Use google to look up "risk compensation" - the safer people feel in their vehicle, the more dangerously they behave until they reach their own "danger threshold". It's a recognised phenomenon, and one which seriously damages more vulnerable road users. Stuart > <snip> >> I live in Perth in Western Australia and "road trains" are kept out of [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Stuart You seem to be saying bigger vehicles ought to be restricted (or not?) because of the way people drive them? That's a separate issue from the vehicle itself in situations even where it doesn't matter who is driving. I agree driver attitudes are the biggest problem. > You seem to be saying bigger vehicles ought to be restricted (or not?) > because of the way people drive them? That's a separate issue from the > vehicle itself in situations even where it doesn't matter who is > driving. I agree driver attitudes are the biggest problem. A quote from "Roadcraft" - the police driving bible: "Most drivers think they are both safer and more skilful than the average driver - but we cannot all be right. In more than 90% of traffic accidents, human error is the cause; accidents do not just happen by chance, they are the consequence of unsafe driving practices. Driving safely cannot be thought of as an add-on extra; it has to be built into the way you drive" SignatureRegards Steve G >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > vehicle itself in situations even where it doesn't matter who is > driving. I agree driver attitudes are the biggest problem. I am saying exactly that. For the most part, the size and type of vehicle is irrelevant - a good driver will drive any size vehicle well, a bad driver could fail to spot someone no matter what. Stuart >>> <snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >Stuart And it's got nothing to do with the transmission system Signaturehugh Reply to address is valid at the time of posting >>> <snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Stuart Didn't someone propose that the vehicle does affect the driver? This is more about the car itself, mainly assuming there will be good and bad drivers in any vehicle type. Most attitudes here are from the myopic point of view of the author driving along the road or crossing intersections. Little about the way their car itself affects conditions for others or pedestrians in other situations like car parks and what might be done to compensate. They are too big for suburban roads which were never designed for them. The fact that buses have gradually increased in width from when I was a lad has something to do with it to. You can't blame 4wd's for being oversized, everything else is getting bigger too (well smart cars and super minis excepted) SignatureLarry Series 3 Rust and Holes >> <snip> > You seem to be saying bigger vehicles ought to be restricted (or not?) > because of the way people drive them? That's a separate issue from the > vehicle itself in situations even where it doesn't matter who is driving. > I agree driver attitudes are the biggest problem. ><snip> >> I live in Perth in Western Australia and "road trains" are kept out [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Stuart The standard of truck driving in the UK is now appalling. Just listen to the traffic reports on the radio and you will hear that nine times out of ten accidents are due to lorries shedding their load. Signaturehugh Reply to address is valid at the time of posting > The standard of truck driving in the UK is now appalling. Just listen to > the traffic reports on the radio and you will hear that nine times out > of ten accidents are due to lorries shedding their load. Caused by the truck driver having to take evasive action to avoid some numpty in a car? Only joking above, but having passed both C and C+E tests in 2007 I'd venture to say that if the level of driving skill of truck drivers is falling it's not due to the training or testing they get. Passing both tests was very hard. SignatureRegards Steve G >> The standard of truck driving in the UK is now appalling. Just listen >>to the traffic reports on the radio and you will hear that nine times [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >falling it's not due to the training or testing they get. Passing both >tests was very hard. Personally I think it's more to do with cruise control and reluctance to override it until the last minute plus pressure on drivers to get as far as possible during their permitted hours etc. Signaturehugh Reply to address is valid at the time of posting Smaller vehicles and more frequent collections, that's the way it used to be. Anyway it is not just the refuse trucks, but these days every local store seems to have an artic delivering to them instead of a van. Ok larger vehicles are in the long run more economical on fuel, but surely local deliveries are a case in point for electric vehicles. Mind you the co-op used to maintain one (not seen it for a while), and that was as slow as a milk float. SignatureLarry Series 3 Rust and Holes > They do complain or are aware. Trucks are often kept out of cities. Most > are required to have "beware children" or "keep clear while turning", > "hazchem" etc. You need a better license to drive one. > It's not ideal to have rubbish trucks, but is there something different > you can do with your rubbish? Do you have a better answer to a fire than a > fire? Because we use them doesn't mean we can't see their problems. In article <fm5fa9$5kh$1@aioe.org>, Larry <oz@ym.andius> writes [stuff that's hard to follow] Please follow-up at the bottom, otherwise your sig separator means earlier postings are not properly visible. Cheers, Simonm. Signaturesimonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com/ GT250A'76 R80/RT'86 110CSW TDi'88 www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/ I'm a top poster always have been since I joined usenet in 99, not going to change now. SignatureLarry Series 3 Rust and Holes > In article <fm5fa9$5kh$1@aioe.org>, Larry <oz@ym.andius> writes > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Simonm. Larry wibbled > I'm a top posting twat, always have been since I joined usenet in 99, not > going to change now. Speelung corrected. SignaturePaul - xxx > I'm a top poster always have been since I joined usenet in 99, not going > to change now. Then don't complain if people don't bother reading your posts! SignatureUsenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/ Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/ Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - forum.vigay.com/ Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/ I don't :) You obviously did. SignatureLarry Series 3 Rust and Holes > In a dim and distant universe <fm5l0u$nnm$1@aioe.org>, > Then don't complain if people don't bother reading your posts! In article <fm5l0u$nnm$1@aioe.org>, Larry <oz@ym.andius> writes >I'm a top poster always have been since I joined usenet in 99, not going to >change now. Ah, one of _those_. Duly noted. Regards, Simonm. Signaturesimonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com/ GT250A'76 R80/RT'86 110CSW TDi'88 www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/ |In article <fm5l0u$nnm$1@aioe.org>, Larry <oz@ym.andius> writes |>I'm a top poster always have been since I joined usenet in 99, not going to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | |Duly noted. .. and duly kill-filed. >The big 4x4 is not the best car for the inner city. It takes up too much >space, is difficult to manoeuvre in tight spaces, cuts down the >visibility for other drivers, cyclists and pedestrians and is far from >the safest vehicle to use for the school run. I agree with all that, but would add that there shouldn't be school runs. It's a modern phenomenon and not a good one. Kids close to the school should walk, those further away should use a bus, provided by the LEA in cases where there isn't any suitable public service. for example... if the children I take on my minibus were to be taken by car, there'd be 3 or 4 cars instead of 1 minibus. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! > I agree with all that, but would add that there shouldn't be school runs. > It's a modern phenomenon and not a good one. Kids close to the school > should walk, those further away should use a bus, provided by the LEA in > cases where there isn't any suitable public service. The ONLY reason our two get dropped at school is that it is directly on the way to work. If Steve has to be in work early the boys and I walk in. If Steve has the car away on business ditto. For us the school run is also pull up near to school, let boys out, see them safely across the road & onto school grounds, drive off to work. None of this occupy all the spaces nearest school and then hang around in the supervised playground for half an hour gossiping. Mind you there are a fair few parents round here who stay to make sure their offspring have actually entered the building, not just been seen to the school - maybe they don't trust them to stay there..... And don't get me started on the taxi drivers that pull up on the yellow zigzags thus blocking the road 'cos of the parents all legally parked down the other side of a not terribly wide road while they are in the playground. Lizzy > The ONLY reason our two get dropped at school is that it is directly on > the way to work. Ditto for my lad. However taking a bright yellow SIIa with extended shackles, largish tyres, rock sliders and a generally battered appearance is so popular with all the kids that they all know me by name and their parents seem to approve of the amusement and interest value. Over the last few years I reckon about half the kids in the school have been for a ride in it, and a few of them (and several parents) have ventured offroad with me at some time. >> The ONLY reason our two get dropped at school is that it is directly >> on the way to work. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > been for a ride in it, and a few of them (and several parents) have > ventured offroad with me at some time. Agreed. Picking up or dropping off using the 101 is always a popular option with the kids :) Lizzy >> I agree with all that, but would add that there shouldn't be school runs. >> It's a modern phenomenon and not a good one. Kids close to the school [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >down the other side of a not terribly wide road while they are in the >playground. But if the parents didn't stay there, but moved off again promptly like you do... They ought to have taxi or bus spaces marked and not obstructed. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >> And don't get me started on the taxi drivers that pull up on the yellow >> zigzags thus blocking the road 'cos of the parents all legally parked [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > They ought to have taxi or bus spaces marked and not obstructed. A drop off zone would be very welcome. I don't think that bus spaces are a priority as this is an urban school (at least 8 other primary schools in the town) and the majority of pupils live within 15 mins walk. In fact I would be very surprised if any live far enough away to get council provided transport. Lizzy >> The big 4x4 is not the best car for the inner city. It takes up too much >> space, is difficult to manoeuvre in tight spaces, cuts down the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > for example... if the children I take on my minibus were to be taken by car, > there'd be 3 or 4 cars instead of 1 minibus. I absolutely agree with you, Austin, school runs should be banned except in exceptional circumstances and the car involved could then be issued with a permit. I was fortunate enough to grow up in an age when parents weren't unjustifiably paranoid about the safety of their children and either walked or rode my bike to school every day. SignatureRegards Steve G |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message