Island Life: BP-Fuelled Rage
205 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last
-
Doesn't this also apply to trucks & buses?
Only because you ignored the second part of what I said - buses and trucks are necessarily the size and mass that they are, whereas you don't need to be as big and heavy as an SUV to perform the functions they're used for or to get the safety advantages they offer. Furthermore, as people have already pointed out, there are far fewer buses and trucks on the roads than SUVs and they're driven by professional drivers.
-
whereas you don't need to be as big and heavy as an SUV to perform the functions they're used for or to get the safety advantages they offer
Tell you what Josh, why don't I sketch out my needs & run them by you, then you can tell me what I should do or buy.
Maybe I don't deserve to drive a motorised vehicle at all?
How do you know what functions I use them for? Or anyone else for that matter? A lot easier to make some generalisations based on what appears to be prejudice.
Sound OK?
Personally, I believe buses and trucks are WAY bigger than they should be, and there are lots of them on the roads that I use.
-
What's wrong with wanting to be safe Stephen? Or wanting our families to be safe?
Nothing's wrong with that. I applaud it. It's what you do to try and achieve that safety which is the issue.
My argument wrt the SUV is that it's a false sense of safety.
The "screw you" part is that even the perceived safety - whether from height or mass - only comes at the expense of other drivers. If everybody tried to drive a taller, bigger vehicle we'd have an arms race that ended in tanks.
So to me it looks like an anti-social choice that doesn't even achieve its ostensible aim.
Note I'm thinking here about people (see A S, I am thinking about the driver not the vehicle) who mainly use them as car substitutes in the city. Who could object to a boat-towing, wood-hauling, sheep-herding SUV? Not me.
Notice that Volvo drivers, stereotypically safety-conscious, don't get the same animosity, for example. They don't obstruct the view, they're not noted for hitting other cars high up, and their drivers anecdotally are cautious and careful.
-
__There might be a perception problem around trucks/buses etc, but that's because when you get hit by a truck your car is going to end up a big mess. That doesn't mean they're more likely to be involved in accidents, or even that they cause them, just that it makes the news.__
Doesn't this also apply to SUVs?
I think up thread people provided some information about how this was a reality problem for SUVs, not just a perception problem.
-
A S,
whereas you don't need to be as big and heavy as an SUV to perform the functions they're used for or to get the safety advantages they offer.
Like the behemoths that are the Suzuki Samurai/Jimny, or the Honda CRV, or the Toyota RAV4, do you mean?
Let's face it, these are probably three of the more common SUV's around. The old work-horses, the Terrano, and the Surf aren't much bigger than a mid-size sedan. Even the biggies, the prados, bighorn, pajeros aren't much bigger than a large sedan.
Can we please stop implying that somehow 4wds are all bigger than the titanic, with the power to crush all in their path?
-
the Honda CRV,
Oh yeah, the 2 litre, 4 cylinder CRV, which had a big save the planet sticker stuck on it by a guy who hopped out of an old Ford Falcon station wagon.
-
A S,
Notice that Volvo drivers, stereotypically safety-conscious, don't get the same animosity, for example. They don't obstruct the view, they're not noted for hitting other cars high up, and their drivers anecdotally are cautious and careful.
Actually, quite a lot of motorcyclists used to consider volvo drivers the most dangerous things on the road. Their drivers were considered to be oblivious to their surroundings, and not aware of others around them.
-
I think up thread people provided some information about how this was a reality problem for SUVs, not just a perception problem.
Did they? I reasd some stuff about saintly minivan drivers & satanic soccer mums, but not much in the way of hard fact. A fait bit of unsubstantiated opinion.
A quick look at this is quite interesting though.
http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/NewPDFs/section2-casualties-and-crashes-2006.pdf
Probably a very good argument in there for banning trees & lettboxes. Not so much for outlawing SUVs.
-
Wow - 1 in 5 accidents causing death or injury involve trucks.
http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/NewPDFs/section3-trucks-2006.pdf
-
Andrew, I don't know you and I have no interest in telling you what you can and can't do. All I'm doing is responding to the arugments you've made. I believe I've done so clearly and politely. That is all.
-
It's my understanding that 90km/hour arises from towing a trailer, and applies to my car when I tow as much as a truck with a trailer. Doesn't have anything to do with weight at all?
And this is where your understanding points to a woeful ignorance on the part of the driving public - as if we needed any more proof that our licence testing is a joke.
Class 1 licences are for rigid vehicles with a maximum gross vehicle mass of 4,500kg (ignoring the special trade vehicle exception).
However, vehicles weighing greater than 3,500kg (the old class B licence limit) are subject to a speed limit of 90km/h on the open road.You can confirm the 90km/h assertion here, which is the Road Code page on speed limits. Finding it actually took me quite a long time, which probably says more about where I expected to find the information than anything. I figured I should provide a reference, rather than just saying "It is because I say it is."
-
Wow - 1 in 5 accidents causing death or injury involve trucks.
Gee, is that really surprising? Consider the forces involved. It's very ulikely that a crash between a truck and a car will be non-injury, unless it's a very, very minor nose-to-tail. I've had a car written off in a crash involving a van that, had it been between the car and a truck, could have been a "serious crash" (defined by the Police as one or more victims at status 2, which means "patient's condition is unstable" and is the step above "CPR in progress"), but was probably recorded in the police report as non-injury because none of us required treatment at the scene (as opposed to the physio one of my passengers required for his ribs a few weeks later).
Far more crashes occur between cars, but the lower mass of both involved vehicles reduces the chance of injury. A car running into a truck that weighs greater than 10T is roughly equivalent to running to a solid wall at the same speed. -
All I'm doing is responding to the arugments you've made. I believe I've done so clearly and politely. That is all.Z
Josh, y6ou're clearly & politely telling me you know better than me what I need.
-
However, vehicles weighing greater than 3,500kg (the old class B licence limit) are subject to a speed limit of 90km/h on the open road.
I didn't know that. It must be pretty much ignored I think.
-
And this is where your understanding points to a woeful ignorance on the part of the driving public - as if we needed any more proof that our licence testing is a joke.
Settle down I was just asking.
The information didn't come from the process of acquiring my drivers licence, it came from a traffic cop in early 1993. And it's the other half of the sentence you linked to.
Why would anyone learning to drive a car would need to learn about the speed of a completely different type of vehicle that they're not allowed to drive? So we can yell abuse at truckies when they speed?
-
<quote>So we can yell abuse at truckies when they speed?<quote>
Now that you mention it </cough>
-
Why would anyone learning to drive a car would need to learn about the speed of a completely different type of vehicle that they're not allowed to drive?
But you are allowed to drive them. Class 1==GVM below 4,501kg. 90km/h limit==GVM above 3,500kg. So on your car licence you are legally allowed to drive a non-combination vehicle that's subject to a 90km/h limit on the open road. If you hire a small truck, you're probably subject to a 90km/h limit. Certainly if you hire a 3-tonne truck you're subject to a 90km/h limit, but you're still allowed to drive it with your car licence (though probably only because the hire place has gained a weight exemption from the Director of Land Transport).
It's relevant, and it's the law. As Andrew observes it's probably mostly ignored, but it is what the law says. And as I said earlier in this discussion, I get somewhat bemused when the Police ask for new enforcement/punishment powers while they don't make use of the ones they've got. I also get frustrated when people demonstrate blithe ignorance of the limitations of their licence while there's still such resistance to imposing mandatory theory testing (with powers of revocation in the event of failure) at licence renewal. Driving's not a right!
-
As Andrew observes it's probably mostly ignored, but it is what the law says
I think that most people are ignorant of that law - although I presume the professional drivers that ferry the big trucks & buses up & down the length of the country should know of it at least.
But if so, then they do willfully ignore it. I mentioned somewhere back in this thread, the scary truck drivers on SH1 - just last week, I passed two articulated trucks (double lanes - there were actually 6 of these trucks in a line), to have one in front change lanes to block us (I was pretty assiduously doing almost exactly 100kph, there are a lot of police cars on that stretch.
We ended up sandwiched between two when the double lane ended, the one at the rear tailgating & sounding his horn. There was nowhere to go, not even forward any faster, we were getting upwards of 120kph by then.
We sneaked past them at the paraparumu lights.
Maybe they were SUV haters?
-
If I should ever choose to own an incandescent lightbulb, it is my call. I pay for it, I pay to run it, I determine how I wish to use it. If you want to tell me how I should light my house, perhaps I should come around to your houses and tell you what to read, or what music to listen to, or what causes you can support.
</heh>
-
I presume the professional drivers that ferry the big trucks & buses up & down
I hadn't thought of it in this context before, but it occurs to me that the fastest trucks on the road are actually govt run. Shame on NZ Post?
-
Shame on NZ Post?
Freighting airmail letters up country - they have to go fast.
-
I think that most people are ignorant of that law - although I presume the professional drivers that ferry the big trucks & buses up & down the length of the country should know of it at least.
But if so, then they do willfully ignore it.
They seem to treat speed limits in general as advisory once they're out of the 'burbs. I've been passed by B-trains while doing 110 on the motorway.
In this context, though, when I talk of ignorance I'm talking about people who have car licences but don't know that the weight of the vehicle they're legally entitled to drive actually matters in regard to how fast they're allowed to go. People with licences for classes 2-5 know that their limit is 90, because it's blanket for any vehicle those classes are permitted to drive and it's in the class-specific theory questions. Class 1 is unique in having a split speed restriction for non-towing vehicles based on weight.
-
Late to the discussion, about to make an utter fool of myself etc, but,
That and the 20 or so airbags, since we travel notorious parts of SH1 at least once a week.
"I want to be SAFE (and screw the consequences for you)" angle to the urban SUV that gets me.
<quote<"Being in larger, taller vehicles, SUV drivers believe they are safer and possess a lower level of perceived risk than car drivers,"</quote>
Duh.
Has no-one who drives an SUV heard of Isaac Newton?
High centres of gravity, inertia, proprotionally less rubber against mass in contact with the road, less traction as a result. You might want to look those things up - and you may as well carry around a large, flashing neon sign saying "I am a complete fucking idiot" if you feel safer in one of those things. Ye cannae change the laws of physics, no matter how many acronymed gadgets are built into the suspension.
Or aerodynamics.
Oh well, in the long run, Darwin will have his way.
it seems that driving a SUV will make you no safer yet will make all other road users be at higher risk!
selfish wankers!!!!!
[oops, there I was, trying to be polite]Oh, then there is a voice of reason. Sorry, I'll stick with "fucking idiot."
Re Toyota Pious - yep, mining the ores to make the batteries is hardly green.
The car gets used in the weekends, for moving dogs, family, wood & the occasional sheep over long distances.
So why an SUV and not a station wagon?
Most of the comments thus far come down to a perception that SUV drivers are nasty people. That has bugger all to do with the vehicle itself.
Well, a doctor looks for the symptoms of disease first. If you've got the symptoms, it's a pretty sure sign that you're sick (or thick).
Meanwhile, look up Colin Chapman too: "Simplificate, then add lightness."
I wouldn't mind if SUVs (all cars actually) were banned from the city.
Hoorah! Speaking as an ineffectual, pedestrian, architectural academic, cars and design for cars (you hear that Prenderghastly?!) have fucked cities.
-
I will add too that the inherent proportions of the monstrosities means that there has never been a beautiful SUV and that the neon sign can be footnoted "I also have irredeemably vulgar taste."
-
A S,
I will add too that the inherent proportions of the monstrosities means that there has never been a beautiful SUV and that the neon sign can be footnoted "I also have irredeemably vulgar taste."
I don't know about beautiful, but the original Willys jeep was a pretty iconic design, so was the original series 1 landrover. The Mercedes G-wagen (especially the AMG spec one) is fantastic, and the original suzuki sj410 was a great little design too.
None of them are beautiful in the way that say, a Ferrari 250 California, or a Lamborghini Miura, or even the original alfa spyder could be described as beautiful. You're definitely right there. Mind you, it's pretty hard to find much beauty in the majority of vehicles that currently ply the roads.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.