but what about enormous EVs

https://tinyurl.com/2y7pyzvz

On 10/08/2023 5:13 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> but what about enormous EVs
>
> https://tinyurl.com/2y7pyzvz

I'm not sure I understand the fascination some people have with what
*others* choose to own. I mean, I get that you don't like them, but why
would you give a fuck about someone *else* wanting to own one?

It has zero impact on you, and it just seems remarkably petty....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:31:28 PM UTC+10, Noddy wrote:
> On 10/08/2023 5:13 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> > but what about enormous EVs
> >
> > https://tinyurl.com/2y7pyzvz
> I'm not sure I understand the fascination some people have with what
> *others* choose to own. I mean, I get that you don't like them, but why
> would you give a fuck about someone *else* wanting to own one?
>
> It has zero impact on you, and it just seems remarkably petty....
>
>
> --
> --
> --
> Regards,
> Noddy.
I'm quite happy with my kia carnival and big trailer. I have several cars now and having my practical rig works well.

Noddy wrote:
> On 10/08/2023 5:13 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> but what about enormous EVs
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/2y7pyzvz
>
> I'm not sure I understand the fascination some people have with what
> *others* choose to own. I mean, I get that you don't like them, but
> why would you give a fuck about someone *else* wanting to own one?
>
> It has zero impact on you, and it just seems remarkably petty....
>
>

these monstrosities impact all road users, and affect all vehicular
infrastructure

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!
https://imgur.com/gallery/v4u4c15

On 10/8/2023 6:31 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 10/08/2023 5:13 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> but what about enormous EVs
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/2y7pyzvz
>
> I'm not sure I understand the fascination some people have with what
> *others* choose to own. I mean, I get that you don't like them, but why
> would you give a fuck about someone *else* wanting to own one?

Says the bloke who hangs shit on owners of Toyotas. What a hypocrite!
>
> It has zero impact on you,
>Toyotas have zero impact on you and it just seems remarkably petty....

LOL

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 10/8/2023 6:49 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 10/08/2023 5:13 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> but what about enormous EVs
>>>
>>> https://tinyurl.com/2y7pyzvz
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand the fascination some people have with what
>> *others* choose to own. I mean, I get that you don't like them, but
>> why would you give a fuck about someone *else* wanting to own one?
>>
>> It has zero impact on you, and it just seems remarkably petty....
>>
>>
>
> these monstrosities impact all road users, and affect all vehicular
> infrastructure
>
But my Toyota hardly affects other road users and has minimal affect on
vehicular infrastructure.

Hey, Darren's a hypocrite!

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 10/8/2023 5:13 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> but what about enormous EVs
>
> https://tinyurl.com/2y7pyzvz

Wonder how much it weighs?
"Cars" are getting so heavy people will soon need a light truck license
to drive them.

--
Daryl

On 10/8/2023 8:30 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 10/8/2023 5:13 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> but what about enormous EVs
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/2y7pyzvz
>
> Wonder how much it weighs?
> "Cars" are getting so heavy people will soon need a light truck license
> to drive them.
>
They aren't giving weight specs but estimates put it at 9000 lbs so
it'll be north of 4 tonnes.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 10/08/2023 6:31 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 10/08/2023 5:13 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> but what about enormous EVs
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/2y7pyzvz
>
> I'm not sure I understand the fascination some people have with what
> *others* choose to own. I mean, I get that you don't like them, but why
> would you give a fuck about someone *else* wanting to own one?
>
> It has zero impact on you, and it just seems remarkably petty....
>
>
Unfortunately, whoever or whatever it does impact is going to receive
one hell of an impact.

On 10/8/2023 9:15 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 10/08/2023 6:31 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 10/08/2023 5:13 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> but what about enormous EVs
>>>
>>> https://tinyurl.com/2y7pyzvz
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand the fascination some people have with what
>> *others* choose to own. I mean, I get that you don't like them, but
>> why would you give a fuck about someone *else* wanting to own one?
>>
>> It has zero impact on you, and it just seems remarkably petty....
>>
>>
> Unfortunately, whoever or whatever it does impact is going to receive
> one hell of an impact.

Certainly won't be a light weight impact.
Very unlikely we will see those things in Australia so not our problem.

--
Daryl

On 10/08/2023 9:15 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 10/08/2023 6:31 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 10/08/2023 5:13 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> but what about enormous EVs
>>>
>>> https://tinyurl.com/2y7pyzvz
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand the fascination some people have with what
>> *others* choose to own. I mean, I get that you don't like them, but
>> why would you give a fuck about someone *else* wanting to own one?
>>
>> It has zero impact on you, and it just seems remarkably petty....
>>
>>
> Unfortunately, whoever or whatever it does impact is going to receive
> one hell of an impact.

It depends entirely on how well it's designed to deal with an accident.
I wouldn't want to be in your MX-5 and be hit by one, but then that's
more a fault of your MX-5 being a 30 odd year old car with pretty
average levels of passive and active safety. On the other hand, you'd
probably be *far* better off being hit by one of these big electric
wagons than you would my old F-100, even though the F-100 would probably
be around half the weight.

It's not always about the mass.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 10/08/2023 6:31 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 10/08/2023 5:13 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> but what about enormous EVs
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/2y7pyzvz
>
> I'm not sure I understand the fascination some people have with what
> *others* choose to own. I mean, I get that you don't like them, but why
> would you give a fuck about someone *else* wanting to own one?
>
> It has zero impact on you, and it just seems remarkably petty....
>
>

**I'm guessing that the monstrosity weighs in at about 3 Tonnes. When
that hits almost any passenger vehicle currently on the road, it will
not have zero impact on the occupants. And, if it hits a wayward (or not
wayward) cyclist or pedestrian, the results will likely be deadly. There
appears to be zero concern for other road users in the design of this thing.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 10/08/2023 7:48 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 10/8/2023 6:31 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 10/08/2023 5:13 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> but what about enormous EVs
>>>
>>> https://tinyurl.com/2y7pyzvz
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand the fascination some people have with what
>> *others* choose to own. I mean, I get that you don't like them, but
>> why would you give a fuck about someone *else* wanting to own one?
>
> Says the bloke who hangs shit on owners of Toyotas. What a hypocrite!

Says the failure who hangs shit on owners of Nissans. What a hypocrite!

Too easy, shit-fer-brains.. :-D

On 11/08/2023 6:32 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 10/08/2023 6:31 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 10/08/2023 5:13 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> but what about enormous EVs
>>>
>>> https://tinyurl.com/2y7pyzvz
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand the fascination some people have with what
>> *others* choose to own. I mean, I get that you don't like them, but
>> why would you give a fuck about someone *else* wanting to own one?
>>
>> It has zero impact on you, and it just seems remarkably petty....
>>
>>
>
> **I'm guessing that the monstrosity weighs in at about 3 Tonnes.

I think that would be fairly conservative. A 200 series Land Cruiser is
nudging three tonnes, and they're a bit smaller than one of these things
and aren't full of batteries.

> When that hits almost any passenger vehicle currently on the road,
it will
> not have zero impact on the occupants.

*Any* vehicle that hits you will do damage Trevor. You can be killed in
your car being hit by someone on a motorcycle.

> And, if it hits a wayward (or not wayward) cyclist or pedestrian, the results will likely be deadly.

Fucking rubbish :)

The lethality of this vehicle in such a scenario would depend entirely
on how well it's been designed to deal with such a situation
irrespective of it's physical size or mass.

> There appears to be zero concern for other road users in the design
of this
> thing.

What, like every other vehicle on the road?

You know, if we were all driving around in ultra safe vehicles and no
one was placed in any position of risk as a result of their existence
and this vehicle came along and changed the landscape completely and
suddenly made the roads a horrendously unsafe place to be for everyone
else, *then* you would have a valid argument.

But that's not the case, right?

In reality what we have is a landscape where hundreds of people die
every year in this country as a direct result of vehicles being on our
roads, and despite them all getting bigger and fatter every year the
annual road toll is on a steady decline as a result of vehicles becoming
safer both for their occupants and everyone else around them.

In summary, you can't point to *anything* about this vehicle which will
categorically show that it represents an increased risk to anyone, yet
you think it will and the only obvious reason for that seems to be that
you "don't like it".

As I said in another post. Complaining about what *other* people drive
makes you look petty.....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 11/08/2023 7:44 am, lindsay wrote:
> On 10/08/2023 7:48 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 10/8/2023 6:31 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 10/08/2023 5:13 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>> but what about enormous EVs
>>>>
>>>> https://tinyurl.com/2y7pyzvz
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I understand the fascination some people have with what
>>> *others* choose to own. I mean, I get that you don't like them, but
>>> why would you give a fuck about someone *else* wanting to own one?
>>
>> Says the bloke who hangs shit on owners of Toyotas. What a hypocrite!
>
> Says the failure who hangs shit on owners of Nissans. What a hypocrite!

I actually don't hang shit on Toyotas. I hang it on the morons who drive
them who think they're the best thing on the road. Apparently some
people are too fucking stupid to appreciate the distinction :)

> Too easy, shit-fer-brains.. :-D

It's as if he actively seeks out opportunities to make a complete cunt
out of himself....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 11/08/2023 7:48 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 11/08/2023 6:32 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 10/08/2023 6:31 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 10/08/2023 5:13 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>> but what about enormous EVs
>>>>
>>>> https://tinyurl.com/2y7pyzvz
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I understand the fascination some people have with what
>>> *others* choose to own. I mean, I get that you don't like them, but
>>> why would you give a fuck about someone *else* wanting to own one?
>>>
>>> It has zero impact on you, and it just seems remarkably petty....
>>>
>>>
>>
>> **I'm guessing that the monstrosity weighs in at about 3 Tonnes.
>
> I think that would be fairly conservative. A 200 series Land Cruiser is
> nudging three tonnes, and they're a bit smaller than one of these things
> and aren't full of batteries.

**Quite so. 4 Tonnes+ seems more likely.

>
>  > When that hits almost any passenger vehicle currently on the road,
> it will
>> not have zero impact on the occupants.
>
> *Any* vehicle that hits you will do damage Trevor. You can be killed in
> your car being hit by someone on a motorcycle.

**Indeed. However, most regular passenger vehicles (excluding utes and
large SUVs) are designed to do as little harm to pedestrians as
possible. Some vehicles even have active pedestrian protection systems
(aka: air bags). Things like this:

https://www.ramtrucks.com.au/

Are extremely deadly to pretty much any unprotected human. I'd rather
take my chances with this:

https://www.toyota.com.au/camry

>
>> And, if it hits a wayward (or not wayward) cyclist or pedestrian, the
>> results will likely be deadly.
>
> Fucking rubbish :)
>
> The lethality of this vehicle in such a scenario would depend entirely
> on how well it's been designed to deal with such a situation
> irrespective of it's physical size or mass.

**The frontal area is a major part of the problem. Most properly
designed vehicles pay attention to reducing death and injury to pedestrians.

>
>  > There appears to be zero concern for other road users in the design
> of this
>> thing.
>
> What, like every other vehicle on the road?

**No. Many vehicles are less likely to kill or maim pedestrians:

https://www.greenslips.com.au/blog/is-it-becoming-more-dangerous-to-be-a-pedestrian.html

>
> You know, if we were all driving around in ultra safe vehicles and no
> one was placed in any position of risk as a result of their existence
> and this vehicle came along and changed the landscape completely and
> suddenly made the roads a horrendously unsafe place to be for everyone
> else, *then* you would have a valid argument.
>
> But that's not the case, right?

**It is the case that pedestrians deaths are FAR more often associated
with SUVs and large utes.

>
> In reality what we have is a landscape where hundreds of people die
> every year in this country as a direct result of vehicles being on our
> roads, and despite them all getting bigger and fatter every year the
> annual road toll is on a steady decline as a result of vehicles becoming
> safer both for their occupants and everyone else around them.

**Except SUVs and utes. They kill WAY more pedestrians than proper cars.

>
> In summary, you can't point to *anything* about this vehicle which will
> categorically show that it represents an increased risk to anyone, yet
> you think it will and the only obvious reason for that seems to be that
> you "don't like it".

**Not only are you wrong, but I presented data to prove you wrong.

>
> As I said in another post. Complaining about what *other* people drive
> makes you look petty.....

**Or more concerned about the numbers of pedestrians killed by such
vehicles.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 18:31:25 +1000, Noddy wrote:

> On 10/08/2023 5:13 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> but what about enormous EVs
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/2y7pyzvz
>
> I'm not sure I understand the fascination some people have with what
> *others* choose to own.

That's because 100% of your very limited imagination is dedicated to
writing fairy tales Fraudster. Jaysus! Just how stupid do you have to be
to *not* want this monstrosity blocking out the sky.

Oh, and yet more laughable hypocrisy from you Fraudster. You are the
biggest bagger of other peoples' vehicle choices in the place. Daylight
second.

snip loonspeak.

alvey

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 07:48:18 +1000, Noddy wrote:

snip loony
>
> As I said in another post. Complaining about what *other* people drive
> makes you look petty.....

Congratulations Fraudster!

With your huge back catalogue of sniping, bagging and ridiculing others
vehicles you've just added 'Pettiest' to your already impressive list of
class leading character flaws! Buffoon.

alvey

On 10/08/2023 10:19 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 10/08/2023 9:15 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 10/08/2023 6:31 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 10/08/2023 5:13 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>> but what about enormous EVs
>>>>
>>>> https://tinyurl.com/2y7pyzvz
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I understand the fascination some people have with what
>>> *others* choose to own. I mean, I get that you don't like them, but
>>> why would you give a fuck about someone *else* wanting to own one?
>>>
>>> It has zero impact on you, and it just seems remarkably petty....
>>>
>>>
>> Unfortunately, whoever or whatever it does impact is going to receive
>> one hell of an impact.
>
> It depends entirely on how well it's designed to deal with an accident.
> I wouldn't want to be in your MX-5 and be hit by one, but then that's
> more a fault of your MX-5 being a 30 odd year old car with pretty
> average levels of passive and active safety. On the other hand, you'd
> probably be *far* better off being hit by one of these big electric
> wagons than you would my old F-100, even though the F-100 would probably
>  be around half the weight.
>
> It's not always about the mass.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/08/how-cities-can-stem-the-tide-of-pedestrian-deaths-from-large-cars-and-suvs/

On 11/08/2023 8:13 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 11/08/2023 7:48 am, Noddy wrote:

>>> **I'm guessing that the monstrosity weighs in at about 3 Tonnes.
>>
>> I think that would be fairly conservative. A 200 series Land Cruiser
>> is nudging three tonnes, and they're a bit smaller than one of these
>> things and aren't full of batteries.
>
> **Quite so. 4 Tonnes+ seems more likely.

Who knows? I couldn't tell you, and as I'm highly unlikely to ever want
to own one I couldn't care less.

>> *Any* vehicle that hits you will do damage Trevor. You can be killed
>> in your car being hit by someone on a motorcycle.
>
> **Indeed. However, most regular passenger vehicles (excluding utes and
> large SUVs) are designed to do as little harm to pedestrians as
> possible. Some vehicles even have active pedestrian protection systems
> (aka: air bags). Things like this:
>
> https://www.ramtrucks.com.au/
>
> Are extremely deadly to pretty much any unprotected human. I'd rather
> take my chances with this:
>
> https://www.toyota.com.au/camry

Hate to burst your bubble here Trev, but the country we live in now is
one where the landscape is dominated by utes and SUV's, which for the
sake of this somewhat ridiculous argument I'm happy to lump into the
same single category. In any case where you'd be unlucky enough to be
hit by a vehicle, it's likely to be one of those.

And if we're playing the blame game here, can I just take a moment to
point out that in the overwhelming majority of cases where pedestrians
are hit by cars, it's the pedestrian's own actions that led to the
collision? It's been a long time since I could be bothered looking for
the stats, but the last time I did I seem to recall that over 90% of all
cases of pedestrians struck by road vehicles (which includes
motorcycles, cars, trucks and buses) occurred within 20 metres of a
crossing.

A crossing which, if they *hadn't* been too lazy to walk that short
extra distance to use, would see most of them still alive today which is
the *real* tragedy in this case.

>>> And, if it hits a wayward (or not wayward) cyclist or pedestrian, the
>>> results will likely be deadly.
>>
>> Fucking rubbish :)
>>
>> The lethality of this vehicle in such a scenario would depend entirely
>> on how well it's been designed to deal with such a situation
>> irrespective of it's physical size or mass.
>
> **The frontal area is a major part of the problem. Most properly
> designed vehicles pay attention to reducing death and injury to
> pedestrians.

They do indeed, and fortunately the impacts of such designs are not
limited by size or shape. For example, you may be surprised to see the
results of these tests, which are from a fairly reputable source :)

This is the ANCAP test results from a current Ford Ranger:
> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/ford/ranger/58f98d

And this is the ANCAP test results for a current BMW i4:
> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/bmw/i4/c43ce7

Now, without looking at these test results you'd be no different to most
people in that you would automatically assume that the Ranger was far
worse than the Beemer because it's a big ugly truck and the BMW is a
regular car.

Bzzzzzzzzzzt.

As the results show, the BMW is actually *worse* than the Ranger when it
comes to "Vulnerable Road User Protection", and in fact apart from a
slight advantage in terms of Adult Occupant Protection it is worse right
across the board. Hence the reason why the Ranger gets a 5 star rating
and the BMW doesn't which in 2023 is a fucking appalling outcome from
someone like BMW.

Moral of the story here Trev is that judging a book by it's cover makes
you look foolish.

>> What, like every other vehicle on the road?
>
> **No. Many vehicles are less likely to kill or maim pedestrians:

Yeah, I agree. Most them in fact.

> https://www.greenslips.com.au/blog/is-it-becoming-more-dangerous-to-be-a-pedestrian.html
>
>>
>> You know, if we were all driving around in ultra safe vehicles and no
>> one was placed in any position of risk as a result of their existence
>> and this vehicle came along and changed the landscape completely and
>> suddenly made the roads a horrendously unsafe place to be for everyone
>> else, *then* you would have a valid argument.
>>
>> But that's not the case, right?
>
> **It is the case that pedestrians deaths are FAR more often associated
> with SUVs and large utes.

It is actually the case that far more vehicles on the roads these days
are in fact suvs and utes, which would logically give them a higher
representation in any statistical analysis.

>> In reality what we have is a landscape where hundreds of people die
>> every year in this country as a direct result of vehicles being on our
>> roads, and despite them all getting bigger and fatter every year the
>> annual road toll is on a steady decline as a result of vehicles
>> becoming safer both for their occupants and everyone else around them.
>
> **Except SUVs and utes. They kill WAY more pedestrians than proper cars.

Ah, no they don't :)

>> In summary, you can't point to *anything* about this vehicle which
>> will categorically show that it represents an increased risk to
>> anyone, yet you think it will and the only obvious reason for that
>> seems to be that you "don't like it".
>
> **Not only are you wrong, but I presented data to prove you wrong.

Um, no, you did not. Not even close in fact.

What you showed was than an increasing number of Americans have some
difficulty in seeing where they're going and as a result are more likely
to run over people.

What you *also* showed is that pattern of American behaviour is *not*
repeated here in Australia which, more than anything else, seems to
prove little other than most Americans are complete morons.

>> As I said in another post. Complaining about what *other* people drive
>> makes you look petty.....
>
> **Or more concerned about the numbers of pedestrians killed by such
> vehicles.

Trevor, I'd be happy to bet a significant amount that when you bought
your Levorg you may have considered the risk it represented to
pedestrians, but that consideration was only a very minor part of the
decision making process that wouldn't have stopped you buying the car.
That's not a criticism. It's just an acknowledgement of you being no
different to the overwhelming majority of other car buyers in that you
buy what suits *you*.

Oddly enough, that's the *exact* same selection criteria that everyone
*else* uses in buying a ute, or a SUV, or a truck, or whatever the frig
*they* want. Like you, they don't have to justify their choice to
anyone. They buy what they want because they *want* it, and in that
sense it's no different to buying anything else.

Arguing that people who buy large cars are "selfish" because their
personal choice represents an increased risk to others is ridiculous,
and for a number of reasons. Firstly, as I've demonstrated with the
ANCAP results, smaller "sedan" type vehicles are *not* automatically
better in and of themselves, and secondly there is no such thing as a
"safe car". There are just varying degrees of "less safe", and on any
given day the results of *any* accident can surprise you.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 11/8/2023 6:32 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 10/08/2023 6:31 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 10/08/2023 5:13 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> but what about enormous EVs
>>>
>>> https://tinyurl.com/2y7pyzvz
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand the fascination some people have with what
>> *others* choose to own. I mean, I get that you don't like them, but
>> why would you give a fuck about someone *else* wanting to own one?
>>
>> It has zero impact on you, and it just seems remarkably petty....
>>
>>
>
> **I'm guessing that the monstrosity weighs in at about 3 Tonnes. When
> that hits almost any passenger vehicle currently on the road, it will
> not have zero impact on the occupants. And, if it hits a wayward (or not
> wayward) cyclist or pedestrian, the results will likely be deadly. There
> appears to be zero concern for other road users in the design of this
> thing.
>
The weight of a vehicle isn't necessarily a factor in how much injury
they could cause if they hit a pedestrian or cyclist, both could be
equally as dead if hit by a small car.
AFAIK the shape of the front of the vehicle is more of an issue, some
shapes push who is hit to side or away lessening the damage, others
aren't so good, some cars even have pedestrian friendly designs that pop
up the rear or the bonnet on impact to stop a pedestrian being thrown
over the top.
How much the panels crumple absorbing the impact also makes a big
difference.

--
Daryl

On 11/8/2023 8:13 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 11/08/2023 7:48 am, Noddy wrote:
>> On 11/08/2023 6:32 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 10/08/2023 6:31 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 10/08/2023 5:13 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> but what about enormous EVs
>>>>>
>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/2y7pyzvz
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I understand the fascination some people have with what
>>>> *others* choose to own. I mean, I get that you don't like them, but
>>>> why would you give a fuck about someone *else* wanting to own one?
>>>>
>>>> It has zero impact on you, and it just seems remarkably petty....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> **I'm guessing that the monstrosity weighs in at about 3 Tonnes.
>>
>> I think that would be fairly conservative. A 200 series Land Cruiser
>> is nudging three tonnes, and they're a bit smaller than one of these
>> things and aren't full of batteries.
>
> **Quite so. 4 Tonnes+ seems more likely.
>
>>
>>   > When that hits almost any passenger vehicle currently on the road,
>> it will
>>> not have zero impact on the occupants.
>>
>> *Any* vehicle that hits you will do damage Trevor. You can be killed
>> in your car being hit by someone on a motorcycle.
>
> **Indeed. However, most regular passenger vehicles (excluding utes and
> large SUVs) are designed to do as little harm to pedestrians as
> possible. Some vehicles even have active pedestrian protection systems
> (aka: air bags). Things like this:
>
> https://www.ramtrucks.com.au/
>
> Are extremely deadly to pretty much any unprotected human. I'd rather
> take my chances with this:
>
> https://www.toyota.com.au/camry
>
>>
>>> And, if it hits a wayward (or not wayward) cyclist or pedestrian, the
>>> results will likely be deadly.
>>
>> Fucking rubbish :)
>>
>> The lethality of this vehicle in such a scenario would depend entirely
>> on how well it's been designed to deal with such a situation
>> irrespective of it's physical size or mass.
>
> **The frontal area is a major part of the problem. Most properly
> designed vehicles pay attention to reducing death and injury to
> pedestrians.
>
>>
>>   > There appears to be zero concern for other road users in the
>> design of this
>>> thing.
>>
>> What, like every other vehicle on the road?
>
> **No. Many vehicles are less likely to kill or maim pedestrians:
>
> https://www.greenslips.com.au/blog/is-it-becoming-more-dangerous-to-be-a-pedestrian.html

Typical in today's world where apparently people are no longer
responsible for their own actions.
People walk around with their eyes glued to their phones then complain
when the walk into things or get hit by a vehicle, the stupid fucks
should put their phones away and look the fuck where they are going
instead of blaming someone else for their own fuck ups.

>
>>
>> You know, if we were all driving around in ultra safe vehicles and no
>> one was placed in any position of risk as a result of their existence
>> and this vehicle came along and changed the landscape completely and
>> suddenly made the roads a horrendously unsafe place to be for everyone
>> else, *then* you would have a valid argument.
>>
>> But that's not the case, right?
>
> **It is the case that pedestrians deaths are FAR more often associated
> with SUVs and large utes.
>
>>
>> In reality what we have is a landscape where hundreds of people die
>> every year in this country as a direct result of vehicles being on our
>> roads, and despite them all getting bigger and fatter every year the
>> annual road toll is on a steady decline as a result of vehicles
>> becoming safer both for their occupants and everyone else around them.
>
> **Except SUVs and utes. They kill WAY more pedestrians than proper cars.
>
>>
>> In summary, you can't point to *anything* about this vehicle which
>> will categorically show that it represents an increased risk to
>> anyone, yet you think it will and the only obvious reason for that
>> seems to be that you "don't like it".
>
> **Not only are you wrong, but I presented data to prove you wrong.
>
>>
>> As I said in another post. Complaining about what *other* people drive
>> makes you look petty.....
>
> **Or more concerned about the numbers of pedestrians killed by such
> vehicles.
>

Which would be dramatically reduced if the pedestrians took
responsibility for their own safety.

--
Daryl

On 11/08/2023 8:55 am, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 10/08/2023 10:19 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 10/08/2023 9:15 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 10/08/2023 6:31 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 10/08/2023 5:13 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> but what about enormous EVs
>>>>>
>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/2y7pyzvz
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I understand the fascination some people have with what
>>>> *others* choose to own. I mean, I get that you don't like them, but
>>>> why would you give a fuck about someone *else* wanting to own one?
>>>>
>>>> It has zero impact on you, and it just seems remarkably petty....
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Unfortunately, whoever or whatever it does impact is going to receive
>>> one hell of an impact.
>>
>> It depends entirely on how well it's designed to deal with an
>> accident. I wouldn't want to be in your MX-5 and be hit by one, but
>> then that's more a fault of your MX-5 being a 30 odd year old car with
>> pretty average levels of passive and active safety. On the other hand,
>> you'd probably be *far* better off being hit by one of these big
>> electric wagons than you would my old F-100, even though the F-100
>> would probably   be around half the weight.
>>
>> It's not always about the mass.
>
> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/08/how-cities-can-stem-the-tide-of-pedestrian-deaths-from-large-cars-and-suvs/

Three things in reply if I may:

Firstly, data from the US isn't relative to here. We have different
rules and regulations, and different standards applied to our vehicles.

Secondly, despite large Utes and SUV's being the popular family choice
and dominating the new car market for the last decade or more,
statistics show pedestrian deaths in this country have been on a steady
decline which is completely at odds to the trends in the US.

> https://www.statista.com/statistics/992074/total-number-pedestrian-deaths-australia/

Thirdly, and as I mentioned previously, the mass of a vehicle is not the
overall deciding factor in any accident, particularly when it comes to
pedestrians. Take a look at these ANCAP test results here:

Kia EV6:
> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/kia/ev6/1d4e4f

Hyundai Ioniq 6:
> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/hyundai/ioniq-6/7c2065

Volvo C40 Recharge:
> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/volvo/c40-recharge/fcf71f

Citroen C4:
> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/citroen/c4/44b203

BMW i4:
> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/bmw/i4/c43ce7

Cherry Omoda 5:
> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/chery/omoda-5/b8a56a

Alfa Romeo Tonale:
> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/alfa-romeo/tonale/440690

Honda HR-V:
> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/honda/hr-v/f61c1c

These are all current model cars available on the Australian market that
have all been subject to an identical ANCAP testing procedure. There's a
bit of variation amongst them in terms of style and type, but the thing
they all have in common is that compared to something like a Ford Ranger
they are all physically smaller and lighter.

Another thing thing they have in common is that they *all* represent a
greater risk to pedestrians than a Ford Ranger does.

2023 Ranger test results:
> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/ford/ranger/58f98d

Just for shits and giggles, the Ranger gets the exact same score in
Vulnerable Road User Protection results as the Tesla Model 3, which is
currently the 3rd most popular vehicle on the Australian market today.

Tesla Model 3:
> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/tesla/model-3/70118a

As you can see from this irrefutable data, simply assuming that
something represents a greater risk to pedestrians simply because it's
bigger and heavier is a fallacy.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 11/8/2023 7:48 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 11/08/2023 6:32 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 10/08/2023 6:31 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 10/08/2023 5:13 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>> but what about enormous EVs
>>>>
>>>> https://tinyurl.com/2y7pyzvz
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I understand the fascination some people have with what
>>> *others* choose to own. I mean, I get that you don't like them, but
>>> why would you give a fuck about someone *else* wanting to own one?
>>>
>>> It has zero impact on you, and it just seems remarkably petty....
>>>
>>>
>>
>> **I'm guessing that the monstrosity weighs in at about 3 Tonnes.
>
> I think that would be fairly conservative. A 200 series Land Cruiser is
> nudging three tonnes, and they're a bit smaller than one of these things
> and aren't full of batteries.
>
>  > When that hits almost any passenger vehicle currently on the road,
> it will
>> not have zero impact on the occupants.
>
> *Any* vehicle that hits you will do damage Trevor. You can be killed in
> your car being hit by someone on a motorcycle.
>
>> And, if it hits a wayward (or not wayward) cyclist or pedestrian, the
>> results will likely be deadly.
>
> Fucking rubbish :)
>
> The lethality of this vehicle in such a scenario would depend entirely
> on how well it's been designed to deal with such a situation
> irrespective of it's physical size or mass.
>
>  > There appears to be zero concern for other road users in the design
> of this
>> thing.
>
> What, like every other vehicle on the road?

Bullshit Darren. Vehicles in this country have to comply with the ADRs
and there are specific ones dealing with pedestrian safety.
>
> You know, if we were all driving around in ultra safe vehicles and no
> one was placed in any position of risk as a result of their existence
> and this vehicle came along and changed the landscape completely and
> suddenly made the roads a horrendously unsafe place to be for everyone
> else, *then* you would have a valid argument.
>
> But that's not the case, right?

No because no matter how safe you make a vehicle, it's idiots like you
driving them in an unsafe manner that causes the accidents. Like your
motorcycle smash that crippled you. Had you been driving at a *safe and
appropriate speed*, your injuries would have been way less severe.
>
> In reality what we have is a landscape where hundreds of people die
> every year in this country as a direct result of vehicles being on our
> roads, and despite them all getting bigger and fatter every year the
> annual road toll is on a steady decline as a result of vehicles becoming
> safer both for their occupants and everyone else around them.

Except where larger vehicles, like SUVs, are involved.
>
> In summary, you can't point to *anything* about this vehicle which will
> categorically show that it represents an increased risk to anyone, yet

Blind spots. And that is only one, there are many more.

> you think it will and the only obvious reason for that seems to be that
> you "don't like it".

The roads, in this country at least, aren't really designed around large
vehicles like the fat SUVs available in the US and now available here.
>
> As I said in another post. Complaining about what *other* people drive
> makes you look petty.....
>
You trying to justify your own recent purchase certainly makes *you*
look rather petty.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 11/8/2023 8:55 am, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 10/08/2023 10:19 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 10/08/2023 9:15 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 10/08/2023 6:31 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 10/08/2023 5:13 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> but what about enormous EVs
>>>>>
>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/2y7pyzvz
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I understand the fascination some people have with what
>>>> *others* choose to own. I mean, I get that you don't like them, but
>>>> why would you give a fuck about someone *else* wanting to own one?
>>>>
>>>> It has zero impact on you, and it just seems remarkably petty....
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Unfortunately, whoever or whatever it does impact is going to receive
>>> one hell of an impact.
>>
>> It depends entirely on how well it's designed to deal with an
>> accident. I wouldn't want to be in your MX-5 and be hit by one, but
>> then that's more a fault of your MX-5 being a 30 odd year old car with
>> pretty average levels of passive and active safety. On the other hand,
>> you'd probably be *far* better off being hit by one of these big
>> electric wagons than you would my old F-100, even though the F-100
>> would probably   be around half the weight.
>>
>> It's not always about the mass.
>
> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/08/how-cities-can-stem-the-tide-of-pedestrian-deaths-from-large-cars-and-suvs/
>
Makes Darren's claim that road deaths are on the decline a bit like his
typical bullshit.

>> ... despite them all getting bigger and fatter every year the
>> annual road toll is on a steady decline as a result of vehicles
>> becoming safer both for their occupants and everyone else
>> around them.

This bit in your link really shoots him down in flames;

Those large vehicles create severe safety hazards on
neighborhood city streets for children or adults who
might be walking or cycling. Because these vehicles
are taller, they are more likely to strike people at
higher points and produce head or neck injuries rather
than leg injuries. Their larger frames worsen visibility
for drivers, especially when a vehicle is turning.

As a result, transport agencies, journalists, and public
safety advocates are increasingly identifying large
vehicles as a significant impediment to creating
communities with safer streets.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)