Women, 4WDs and carparks....... a recipe for disaster!

[The Dan]

well hows this then, the cops gave me a random the other day, said to put my bull bar back on the truck it came off, told me my car was to low and that i need a permit for everything not standard, oops bye bye piglet, i got to go i'm in a hurry and left with all 178 decibles ringing in his ears, fckin cops!!! and for the whole anti 4x4 thing, they got their place just the same as anything else, we all have to live that little bit easier, comfortable, and secure

yeeee haaaa!!!

[The Dan]

What an incredibly well thought out post.

 The standards of grammar, spelling and the overall literacy skills of this country never ceases to amaze.

Isn't it funny how you read your reply 3 times to make sure the grammar you used was also correct?

[The Dan]

Yeah prolly true about people arguing against performance cars, though I still think 4wds are objectively worse for everyone involved in most driving situations.

This would be untrue if everybody owned them.

The fact is, people have a choice. Human's have that right in life. You will never change the fact that people are going to want to own 4WD's (and no-one was saying that you wanted to change it either).

I still think it comes down to driver training. Truck drivers have to undergo extensive training because of the large vehicles they drive and the responsibility involved in driving such a vehicle. 4WD's should be the same. They aren't going to restrict truck any more then they already have because people don't like the fact that they go slow, or because they take up all three lanes along kessels road so that traffic jams are constant. They should have a seperate licence for them so that people have to have special training to own one. Possibly even not be allowed to own one until they have owned an open licence for a set amount of years. With the seperate licence, they could charge an extra fee like land preservation or some other form of land regeneration. This would mean that people would be less likely to buy one unless they were actually going to use them appropriately.

One other thing, and I said it before.....4WD's aren't that bad...but women should not be allowed to drive them.

I if I were PM, the first thing I would outlaw would be issuing licences to women. Except you Erin coz I know you drive well. And all of my family members also. And my friends mothers. And the nice lady at the corner shop. But apart from that...no other women.

Ok, I'll say it so no-one else has to...:bs!:

[NismoGirl]

Isn't it funny how you read your reply 3 times to make sure the grammar you used was also correct?

Yes, hillarious.

[krawler]

Isn't it funny how you read your reply 3 times to make sure the grammar you used was also correct?

Yes, hillarious.

[racsov500]

ok here goes

of the many things i get really staemed up about, its 4wds in the city. ok, i wont lie, i have a 4wd. its a 86 hilux 4wd trayback(affectonately named henry), and yes, it has spotties, bullbar, lift, big tyres. but heres the difference. i live about an hour out of the city (near gatton), and yes, it isnt the 'outback', but we use henry for work, and carting things. we had a box trailer for a long time before that, and that wasnt satisfactry, so we got a cheap tray 4wd. just before you say you prob drive it around the city, it has never gone closed to bris than ipswich. it rarely leaves our area. we do go into the city (every day) and we have cars for that.

now, back to the other issue.

4wds in the city just goes to show how selfish the majorety of us are. now the small 'suvs' like crv ect arent so bad (even though they are rather stupid, claiming to have off road ability) but its the tanks like landcruisers. now, i like the proper 4wds that are actually used for offroading, and if you have one and actually go off road, thats fine. but what really pisses me off is the soccermums that own pajeros ect and rekon they are top shit, cause they have extra ride height they can go on the dirt car park behind the suburban petrol station. 2%of 4wds actaully go off road, ever (current model prados ect will be gold in ten years, as they will be cheap and old enough to use off road and are in perfect condition cause they were never properly used)

one of those flamboyant sensationalist current affair shows did a survey of 4wd owners (normally these shows are complete and utter bullshit(and i watch them for a laugh) but they were making a good point in this one, but they didnt really care, they just wanted to get viewers) and the majorety of soccermums buy them 'to protect their families in a crash'i dont know about you guys, but this just schows how f**king slfish these god danmed yupis really are. 'ill sacrifice some complete strangers to protect my own family, when they really probebly wouldnt be hurt anyway". adding of bullbars just enhances this more.

also, this just proves the spawning of the new type of car, the gayest, most pointless and pathetic genre ever though possible, the luxury 4wd. too big and bulky to fit in the tight cbd. too heavy and loaded with leather, metallic paint to risk damage to go off road. where does it belong? it the garages of rich, selfish barstards.

that feels better.

[racsov500]

oh, and by the way, was that repco indro? with jb and cash converters in it? that a stupid car park, ive had many close calls.

see attached picture to add to my last post. it was on sau before, and whoever posted it thanks.

[pentae]

Heres a hypothetical for you CSI freaks..

Soccer mum buys new prado with bull bar. Hits pedestrian with bullbar. Pedestrian dies instantly.

Soccer mum has never taken the car off road and has no reason to have a bull bar. Should the soccer mum be tried for manslaughter?

[strutto]

Heres a hypothetical for you CSI freaks..

Soccer mum buys new prado with bull bar. Hits pedestrian with bullbar. Pedestrian dies instantly.

Soccer mum has never taken the car off road and has no reason to have a bull bar. Should the soccer mum be tried for manslaughter?

A definate maybe...

[krawler]

Heres a hypothetical for you CSI freaks..

Soccer mum buys new prado with bull bar. Hits pedestrian with bullbar. Pedestrian dies instantly.

Soccer mum has never taken the car off road and has no reason to have a bull bar. Should the soccer mum be tried for manslaughter?

They try hoons for manslaughter if they kill someone while racing/speeding/etc. AFAIK they also try drink drivers for manslaughter? I think its very similiar. Irresponsible actions causing the death of another individual.

For interests sake, watch the news again tonight. They are covering the Easter road toll fairly heavily and I was most amused (in a dark, twisted way) to see that of the 4 crashes they high lighted in QLD, 3 of them were 4x4s and all 3 were a fatility to the occupant of the other vehicle. One picture stuck in my mind of a green Mazda 323 (driven by two old ladies) that had been hit by a landcruiser with a bullbar. The top half of the 323 was destroyed into nothingness, no doubt by the bullbar. If the collision had of involved any normal cars, this wouldnt have happened due to crumple zones and no bullbar. The bottom half of the 323 was relatively unscathed (bar minor panel damage)......

Made me a bit cranky, a bit amused and I also felt a bit sexy.

[Silver'sR33]

Humans don't have a "right" to free choice, humans have whatever rights they choose to take for themselves or whatever rights the society they are within gives them. Humans in Australia have the right to vote for instance, that's not a universal human right though, just ask Cubans. People in OUR society have the limited right to choose from a limited number of things on offer at any one time. Like did we have a "right" to walk into our local Nissan dealer in 2000 and say "I'd like a brand new Nissan Skyline GTT coupe, with a warranty and I'd like to see an options list too"?

4wds aren't a right they're just available, and something being available doesn't necessarily make it morally vindicated by the way. Again, I could argue that I should have the right to choose to carry a gun on my hip, or the right to booby-trap my home, or the right to secede my house from the rest of the country and elect myself president-for-life of the newly-created Republic of Seanlandia, but in my free-to-choose society my government would emphatically tell me that I'm not free to choose these things (or many others). Anyway, my point here is that when I try to choose things that I may want to do but negatively affect my neighbours (like blasting heavy metal at 4am) I'm usually forced to desist. But apparently not if they "choose" to inconvenience, polllute, obstruct me by driving an SUV.

I agree about driver training.

As for manslaughter - as Krawler said, if you cause a death through negligence or irresponsible actions in any other way you're almost invariably charged with manslaughter, so why not bullbars?

Afterall, just last week - epileptic man jailed for causing a needless death by driving knowing he has epilepsy. So why not soccer mum jailed for causing a needless death by driving with a bullbar she doesn't need knowing full-well what they do to pedestrians? The only difference I can see is the man had epilepsy whether he wanted it or not, the woman didn't even need the bullbar....

[The Dan]

What you have said is correct, except that EVERYONE has a choice. Yes, you can choose to carry a gun around with you. Yes you can go into your Nissan dealer and ask that. Yes you can booby trap your home or create your own government if you CHOOSE to do so. The key to my earlier point, though, was that everyone has a choice, but with it carries a responsibility.

If you choose to carry a gun on your hip, accept that you will be arrested by police.

If you choose to booby trap your home, accept that the mailman might get pi55ed and you will be up late every night wondering if your wife made it to the fridge for a glass of water. Or that you may injure or kill an intruder and be prosecuted accordingly.

I stand firm in saying that everyone has a choice, but with it carries a responsibility.

4WD owners have a responsibility to be more careful and aware of others on the road. And yes, if they choose to have a bullbar fitted, knowing that they kill people and they never go off road, they should be prosecuted with manslaughter.

Think of it this way. You can carry your gun around and maybe no-one will catch you. But what if a normal person sees it and yells "gun!" and tries to remove it from you. There is a struggle and the man shoots himself. You will be charged with manslaughter. Not because you shot him, but because you brought the gun that did. If the gun was not there, he would not have been shot. Same with bullbars, if it wasn't fitted, the person MAY not have died. You could only take that so far in court though. It's the choice that makes the difference.

[The_Paladin]

i've said this before, but i think all it needs is a highly publicised case where someone sues and win's because of damage caused by a 4WD............if they went after the manufactures then all the better, Nissan, Toyota, Range Rover etc need the fear of God put into them. if a company made a car where, say, the seat belts failed the person could sue the company etc..............there needs to be something like that. though that would only enfore the American 'sue em' culture in Australia...........

the future of this topic will be very interesting.........

[Keegs]

The courts are one place that detest opening themselves up to the "floodgate" effect and whilst it may sound heroic to place ppl on trial for having a bullbar im afraid it just wont happen. If someone were to be sucessful in a case like the ones mentioned above just imagine the implications it would bring. HOW could u prove that person has never been off road??? HOW many times do they have to go off road? Is once enough, twice, twenty times? What about ppl with rollcages in their cars or strengthened chassis, should they be charged because their car didnt crumple enough to let the other person "live" and another question..How do you actually acertain that the bullbar was the cause of death or even a contributing factor?...I mean honestly the list could go on forever, the simple fact is that the only way is to make the problem slow or stop is to enhance the view that it's publicly disliked.

Regardless of this, I agree with most of what has been said in this thread about 4wd's and their drivers and I can relate to much of it. However legally I just don't see it going very far.

[Silver'sR33]

3lit3 Fors3 ok, I agree if people take responsibility for their actions then they have the "right" (liberty would be a better word) to do whatever they like. The problem I have I guess is that if the law doesn't force them, many people won't take responsibility for their actions. Like if the soccer mum kills someone with the bullbar, unless she is held liable then she will consider herself free of blame - "if it's not against the law why shouldn't I do it" or "I wasn't charged so obviously it wasn't my fault, it was the pedestrian's" etc. Make 4wd owners take responsibility for themselves and their vehicles and YES it will be much better for everyone - for we who don't drive them AND for the responsible ones who do, because really it's the other ones giving them a bad name huh - just like us and hoons.

HOW could u prove that person has never been off road??? HOW many times do they have to go off road? Is once enough, twice, twenty times? What about ppl with rollcages in their cars or strengthened chassis, should they be charged because their car didnt crumple enough to let the other person "live" and another question..How do you actually acertain that the bullbar was the cause of death or even a contributing factor.

Well the easiest and most obvious way you could do it is to introduce a licensing system specifically for 4wds much like with guns. For instance, unless you have a legitimate reason (ie you're a farmer and you need to shoot roos on your farm) you or I cannot go out and have a licensed semi-automatic rifle. This was instituted after Port Arthur. Basically the view was taken that unless you give a good reason why you need it you can't have it. A buy-back scheme was introduced. For those who go off-road every weekend etc - you don't need the biggest 4wd out there to do that, just like duckhunters don't need M16s. Restrict certain size/weight 4wds, or restrict their access to urban areas. Give them concessional special registration only valid in certain rural or semi-rural areas, or on legitimate travel to and from such areas (ie on weekends for recreational users). Oh and bullbars - I was out in the country this weekend and heaps of cars and some SUVs don't have bullbars. If people don't always need them in the country why would anyone need them in the city? You can't tell me those leather-clad prados or range-rovers are expecting to collide with a water buffalo anytime soon...

As for whether or not people are likely to die from a particular crash - that's the easy part. Studies are run constantly on crash-test data, using every vehicle type on the market in virtually every conceivable situation. If you gave those scientists the type of vehicle (and whether bullbar etc) along with speed of impact and where the pedestrian was they could tell you with a reasonable degree of accuracy whether a particular vehicle would have proved fatal etc. Anyway, we're not talking about border-line cases where they're not sure, but cases where you could say "well this bullbar (or 2.5 ton SUV for that matter) was clearly the difference between life and death for the victim.

[Bekkyboop]

I agree with the whole concesus here... Women and 4wd dont mix... I got taken around a roundabout in my car by a Truckie who tried to do a runner from it. When i asked him if he saw me he said 'i saw the p plates and asumed you would have taken off'. I couldnt see around the freakin semi and it was peak hour traffic - so instead me and my poor ol' girl got dragged around in the tiny bit of space that was left in my lane...

[Bobjones]

Geezuz, can we let sleeping dogs lie...

People build a bridge...ASAP

[The_Paladin]

oh bugger off, this is a good topic. it's very releviant.........

good points again silversr33. it would take a court (sue) case for something to happen. as we all know by import victimisation and the aboloshment of the 15yo rule the government is very pro-local manufactures and i dont reckon they'd have the balls to stick up to them. there's no financial gain to be made..........it could only take a militant public to change that.

[strutto]

oh bugger off, this is a good topic.  it's very releviant.........

I agree... One of the more interesting threads I've seen in the QLD section...

[Silver'sR33]

How about we just change it to "women and carparks ...a recipe for disaster". (Except women in Skylines of course who are well known for being excellent drivers). I just saw a woman in a liberty backing into a parking space so slowly and then adjusting about 3 or 4 times to straighten up will cars banked up behind her so far that they blocked an entire lane of traffic on the road. Inconsiderate bitch, she could at least attempt to hurry but noooo she looked like she was doing everything as slowly as possible.

Edit: Actually the liberty is a 4wd huh