Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Dangerous 4WD drivers - TheAge blog

Discussion in 'Multimedia' at netrider.net.au started by undii, Jul 10, 2006.

  1. At theAge "Your Say", there is a blog entry with "Dangerous 4WD drivers" located at here



    Feel free to make comments? :)
     
     Top
  2. All I know is I hate being behind vehicles that I can't see over the top of or around the side of. Trucks and vans are their size because they need to be, but 4WDs are a joke. Every argument I've heard in their favour thus far has been so easily shot down, yet the person making the point remains adamant that they're in the right. Tell that to the young girl who got driven over by a 4WD driver who didn't even notice.
     
     Top
  3. here we go.

    I have a 4WD for two main reasons.

    1. It carries 7 peolpe. An option is a Tarago or similar, however they have the same outside dimensions (height etc) so if you complain about not being able to see around a 4WD, then a tarago is no better.

    2. It is able to tow our horse float or car trailer without stretching the body, while remaining legal due to the all up trailer weight compared to the towing vehicle. The loaded trailer often weights over 2 tonnes. Try that with a gutless people mover, or nowadays even your faithfull falcon or commodore.

    An extra benefit is being able to get aroung our property (where we live) and having actual 4WD capabilty to reduce the liklihood of getting bogged.

    I know of no other vehicle that can do these tasks sucessfully.

    Many people shouldn't have (don't need) a 4WD. Its a shame that narrow minded people tar evryone with the same brush making sweeping ill informed statements.

    As for running over kids, did you see the a current affair article showing that the blind spot behind a camry and commodore was just as bad as the average 4WD? ALL drivers need to take care. There is no excuse no matter what car you drive.

    And yes mine is always dirty as it is "off road" at least once a week and on dirt roads every day.
     
     Top
  4. You're definitely not one of the idiots with a 4WD. Shame that (many) others are, around the city. Living in Richmond and seeing many 4WD owners around here which are spick/shiny because they spend 100% of their time in the inner city, I notice these kind of people are the ones to change lanes without indicators, 'intimidise' people because their car is bigger than someone elses.

    I wish only people like you were the ones to drive big 4WDs :)
     
     Top
  5. if i want to imtimidate, i do that in the Kenworth! It has much more effect
     
     Top
  6. The Ssangyong Stavic is a 7-seater with a 2.5 tonne towing capacity (better than many 4wds) and can be bought brand new for less than many 2nd hand 4wds. Yet still people will always come up with some excuse as to why they "need" their Prado/Pajero/Patrol/whatever - even if they never go offroad. :roll:
     
     Top
  7. Yeah, and it's also a crime against humanity. "Aesthetically challenged" doesn't go anywhere near covering it.

    [img:400:254:70be09045a]http://img.drive.com.au/drive_images/Editorial/2005/08/01/1ssang_leadimage.jpg[/img:70be09045a]

    Nearby road users have been known to drive into power poles out of sheer disbelief... :LOL:

    Oh, and it's not exactly smaller than a 4wd:

    Stavic:

    length - 5125mm

    width - 1925 mm

    height - 1820mm

    Nissan Pathfinder:

    length - 4740mm

    width - 1850mm

    height - 1783mm

    And of course the Stavic would be bloody useless at getting across a muddy paddock.
     
     Top
  8. Yeah the Stavic is an ugly thing and probably no good offroad (even though AWD is an option), but of course most soft-roaders are just as useless at getting across a muddy paddock :p. Just pointing out that there are alternatives to a 4wd if towing and seating capacity are the only concern - and of course it's onroad handling would probably be far better especially compared to a 4wd that's been raised and/or running on chunky offroad pattern tyres like so many of the ones I see.
     
     Top
  9. yeah gromit, uuuugggglllyyy[/quote]
     
     Top
  10. If the Stavic runs Korean tyres as standard I wouldn't be so sure!

    I'll declare my interest in this discussion - I drive a Nissan X-Trail. It's actually brilliant in the mud, the main limitation being ground clearance rather than traction.

    I've fitted a set of Cooper ATR tyres, and they're infinitely better than the standard Toyo street tyres, both offroad and on. And the X-Trail's genuinely more fun to drive on twisty roads than the stable-but-boring handling of the Vectra I had before.

    Why get an X-Trail? Because I want a wagon for all the reasons any family needs one. Kids, dog, sporting equipment, camping gear...

    I've 2 sons who're going to be taller than me soon, and who need plenty of rear seat legroom. The Nissan has heaps.

    But I don't want a car that occupies as much roadspace as a Commodore or Falcon, and a 4-cylinder is fine.

    4wd is handy in the wet, if you go to the snow, or on dirt roads (and yes, I do drive on the dirt - you'd be surprised where the X-Trail can go).

    So it's the best compromise vehicle for our needs. Would I prefer a LandCruiser/Range Rover/Patrol because they're big, safe and "prestigious"? You've got to be joking!
     
     Top
  11. You'd be surprised where any car can go if the driver knows what they're doing. I remember reading an article in a 4wd mag where they tested a range of the new models - on one test the only vehicle that didn't get stuck was the stock standard Falcon Ute they were using as a support vehicle. I've driven an X-trail and they're okay, but like all soft-roaders they're a compromise - off-road they don't even come close to something like a Landcruiser and on-road handling is simply not as good as a similar sized sedan/hatch. The real problem is lack of choice from the manufacturers, most are going for soft-roaders rather than small wagons and even though the Stavic shows that it is possible to build a people-mover with a high towing capacity it's far more tempting for manufacturers to exploit the loophole in Australian and US regs that allows "4wds" to be built to a lower standard when it comes to emissions, fuel consumption and crash safety.
     
     Top
  12. Sure. For this type of vehicle, "compromise" is a positive rather than a negative, though.

    They'll do a hell of a lot of things, albeit not as well as a more specialised vehicle.

    You're right about where a well-driven 2wd car can get to, though. I remember a magazine article when the Commodore first came out (1979?), in which Evan Green and another journo drove one up to the top of Cape York and back.

    Having said that, I've had my X-Trail places where I really wouldn't want to be in a Commodore. Probably says a lot about my driving ability, or lack thereof! :LOL:
     
     Top
  13. I would separate "handling" from "road-holding".

    I've no doubt my old Vectra had better dry-road grip than my X-Trail does. But its handling was inferior.

    Why? Because it was set up for straight-line stability. Great if you're doing 200 klicks down the autobahn, not much good over the Black Spur. Back off the throttle in a corner, and the car wouldn't adjust its attitude at all.

    The X-Trail definitely has less grip, but it's more fun because you can change its line using the throttle. Lift and it tucks in. And it's still stable in other situations.

    So I'd say its handling is better than the Vectra's - even though the Vectra carried less mass and had a lower CoG.
     
     Top
  14. Your right about the ability to change direction but that can sometimes be a downside - I used to drive an early model Patrol for work which was good offroad but so unstable at high speeds that I honestly don't know how people who own them can drive at anything more than 80kph. A classic example of this was the test run by one of the UK mags where they tested the ability of different cars to swerve around an object at different speeds. One of the vehicles was a large Jaguar which took a lot of effort to get to move and once the speed was high enough would lose traction at the rear and spin. The Range Rover they tested turned much quicker but rolled over on the very first test (only something like 40-50mph). Personally I wasn't that impressed with the handling of the rental X-trail I drove but then I was probably unfairly comparing it with the Alfa Romeo I was driving at the time.
     
     Top
  15. I tell you I get sick of the anti 4wd brigade, christ there are people that validly use them for what there intended to. I have 2 vechiles one a 4wd and the other a motorcycle. It's only the ladida type 4wd's that I can see as being annoying as there use to take the kids to school at a private college and that about it. But there are others like me that actually use the 4wd part of there vechile. 4wd are at the height for a valid reason ground clearance, which is needed for offroad.

    Tell you what a motorcycle can kill a pedestrian aswell, it was only the last week or before that a motorcyclist had and accident with a pedestrian whom tragically was killed.

    Any vechile has its pro's and con's that majority of other vechiles call use the argument motorcycles are too hard to see why don't we get them off the roads, not that I would want to see that at all. Point is all registable vechiles have a right to use our roads, and other road users should tolerate all vechiles.
     
     Top
  16. Hmmm 4WD bashing must be in fashion.
     
     Top
  17. I confess!
    I love my truck!
    I do go camping and off-road, but mostly I drive it around suburbia.


    And yes! I pushed in front of that lady in the Subaru Liberty.
    I used my 4WD as a "lethal weapon".

    "Ktulu you mean bastid! How could you do such a thing to that poor, innocent, responsible lady?!?!"
    I did it for a couple of reasons:
    I indicated for over a kilometre and she didn't let me in + she was tailgaiting the guy in front so I didn't have room to simply speed up and merge + my turn off was coming up quite soon.

    But hey, it's probably her letter in the local rag screaming for my blood.

    Even if I'm not on the bike and in my truck instead though, it's good for motorcyclists.

    Like the time I pushed in front of that guy in the Commodore who was tail-gaiting my buddy just learning to ride his 250 [I'm serious, this guy was close close. Frickin' dangerous.].
    I pushed in and put some safe distance there.

    Or the time I was able to drive up the high medium strip (go mud tyres) to get out of the way so the 2 leather-clad guys on Suzuki's could get through on the stinking hot 36 degree Wednesday - so they could cut straight up to the lights and avoid waiting the extra 15 minutes between them and cold beers at home (I got a 'thumbs-up' and everything!).

    Or that one time, at band camp...
     
     Top
  18. . :WStupid:

    I agree 100%, I had a renter X-Trail last year and drove it around a roundabout near home which has a railway crossing going through it and even at 20km/h slower than Commodore speeds it changed lanes on me as it hit the bumps at the tracks (yes it was in AWD at the time & I tried using the throttle to steer it around but it just didn't have the grip to negotiate a simple roundabout).
     
     Top
  19. the answer to the orignal question 'do 4x4 cause more damage?' is yes.

    japan and australia have researched this by crash tests and found that 4x4s are a poor choice when it comes to city traffic.

    a motorcyclist can get killed by a car and by the same comparison a car occupant can get killed by a 4x4.

    a pedestrian getting hit [while crossing the road] by a sedan, is pushed onto the bonnet and into the windscreen. if the sedan has bull bars the pedestrian is pushed under the car with broken hip and pelvis.

    if the pedestrian is hit by a 4x4, extensive head injuries or death.

    4x4s did very poorly in every test. the head on with a car showed the 4x4 cleared the cars bonnet and went straight into the windscreen. when it comes to t-bones the car had no real side protection from 4x4s and occupants were killed. the car had enough protection from a car to car t bone because the impact was lower.

    we all know 4x4s are nice and roomy. we know they're fun but there's a reason why so many people want them off our city roads. with motorcycles, it's the person who made the 'dangerous choice' that is the person who will come off second best.

    but when it comes to making choices that will effect other peoples lives, how do you expect those other people to react?
     
     Top
  20. The stock tyres they fitted to my car were absolute crap. Upgrading them made a vast difference.

    And in a renter, no-one's probably checked the pressures in yonks anyway.

    I'm not silly enough to say the X-Trail is any sort of performance vehicle. Just that you can enjoy driving it.
     
     Top