On 11/8/2023 10:35 am, Noddy wrote:
> 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.

There you go again, using concepts you don't understand - like logic.
>
>>> 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 :)

Ah yes they do!
>
>>> 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.

And we are following the *American behaviour* here, the monster trucks
are just further proof of that.
>
>>> 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*.

Trevor bought a car that suited his needs, you bought your truck to
salve your ego. Big difference! Huge!
>
> 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.

You bought your *trucks* because you're a little man and your ego needed
propping up.
>
> 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.

Excuses, excuses, excuses! LOL

--
Xeno

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

On 11/08/2023 9:45 am, Xeno wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>

The monstrous things should ideally be outlawed everywhere but certainly
in urban areas. Confine the hulking heaps of shit to the boonies by
legislation I say.

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

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

>>> 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.

Indeed.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 11/8/2023 7:52 am, Noddy wrote:

>
> 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 :)
>
Toyotas aren't the best thing on the road but they are *reliable* and
they *hold their value* which makes them very good value to own. TCO and
all that - concepts of which you have very little understanding. It's
why I'm on my third Toyota and you got shed of the Nissan after a single
*bad* ownership experience. Your Nissan experience was sooooo bad you
would rather wait over a year for a replacement of another marque than
by a new Nissan *off the floor* with no wait time. Says it all Darren!
>
> It's as if I actively seek out opportunities to make a complete cunt
> out of myself....

You do indeed!

--
Xeno

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

On 11/08/2023 3:00 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 11/8/2023 7:52 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>
>> 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 :)
>>
> Toyotas aren't the best thing on the road but they are *reliable* and
> they *hold their value* which makes them very good value to own. TCO and
> all that - concepts of which you have very little understanding. It's
> why I'm on my third Toyota and you got shed of the Nissan after a single
> *bad* ownership experience.

what "single bad ownership experience" tommy? Noddy asked you
previously, and for once in your pox ridden lying life, you failed to
answer him and ran away as usual...

Your Nissan experience was sooooo bad you
> would rather wait over a year for a replacement of another marque than
> by a new Nissan *off the floor* with no wait time.

You've been shown the wait times for navara's, but you continue to lie
to attempt to prove a very sad point.

> Says it all Darren!

Says it all, shit-fer-brains.

>>
>> It's as if I actively seek out opportunities to make a complete cunt
>> out of myself....
>
> You do indeed!

childish... although expected when you have nothing...
>

On 11/08/2023 4:44 pm, lindsay wrote:
> On 11/08/2023 3:00 pm, Xeno wrote:

>> Toyotas aren't the best thing on the road but they are *reliable* and
>> they *hold their value* which makes them very good value to own. TCO
>> and all that - concepts of which you have very little understanding.
>> It's why I'm on my third Toyota and you got shed of the Nissan after a
>> single *bad* ownership experience.
>
> what "single bad ownership experience" tommy? Noddy asked you
> previously, and for once in your pox ridden lying life, you failed to
> answer him and ran away as usual...

He has no argument in the real world, so he has to invent a fantasy one
to whine about. For the record, and for the 17th time now, I had an
*excellent* Navara ownership experience, and if Nissan still made the V6
powered STX-550 I would have happily had another one.

> Your Nissan experience was sooooo bad you
>> would rather wait over a year for a replacement of another marque than
>> by a new Nissan *off the floor* with no wait time.
>
> You've been shown the wait times for navara's, but you continue to lie
> to attempt to prove a very sad point.
>
>
>> Says it all Darren!
>
> Says it all, shit-fer-brains.

The bloke's off in la-la land.

>>> It's as if I actively seek out opportunities to make a complete cunt
>>> out of myself....
>>
>> You do indeed!
>
> childish... although expected when you have nothing...

He is making a total fucking dick of himself here. It's beautiful to
watch :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 16:57:32 +1000, Noddy wrote:

> On 11/08/2023 4:44 pm, lindsay wrote:
>> On 11/08/2023 3:00 pm, Xeno wrote:
>
>>> Toyotas aren't the best thing on the road but they are *reliable* and
>>> they *hold their value* which makes them very good value to own. TCO
>>> and all that - concepts of which you have very little understanding.
>>> It's why I'm on my third Toyota and you got shed of the Nissan after a
>>> single *bad* ownership experience.
>>
>> what "single bad ownership experience" tommy? Noddy asked you
>> previously, and for once in your pox ridden lying life, you failed to
>> answer him and ran away as usual...
>
> He has no argument in the real world, so he has to invent a fantasy
one...

You can only shake your head in disbelief.

alvey
Wondering if Death Caps aren't the only dangerous mushrooms in the
Victorian backblocks.

On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 22:19:56 +1000, 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.

Yet more hypocrisy from The Fraudster.

You and your Looney mate are always farting on about Xeno claiming expert
knowledge on any subject and yet here you are pretending to be a
physicist! And I'd just lovvve to read your missing explanation of how
anyone would be "better off" being hit by B when it has twice the mass of
A. Buffoon.

alvey

On 11/8/2023 4:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> Toyotas aren't the best thing on the road but they are *reliable* and
>>> they *hold their value* which makes them very good value to own. TCO
>>> and all that - concepts of which you have very little understanding.
>>> It's why I'm on my third Toyota and you got shed of the Nissan after
>>> a single *bad* ownership experience.
>
> He has no argument in the real world, so he has to invent a fantasy one
> to whine about. For the record, and for the 17th time now, I had an
> *excellent* Navara ownership experience, and if Nissan still made the V6
> powered STX-550 I would have happily had another one.

Yeah, yeah, Darren, excuses, excuses! At the end of the day your
*experience* was so good you bought a Ford.
>
>> Your Nissan experience was sooooo bad you
>>> would rather wait over a year for a replacement of another marque
>>> than by a new Nissan *off the floor* with no wait time.
>>

> I'm off in la-la land.

But you made one wise move - you avoided a Nissan.
>
>>>> It's as if I actively seek out opportunities to make a complete cunt
>>>> out of myself....
>>>
>>> You do indeed!
>
> I am making a total fucking dick of myself here. It's beautiful to
> experience :)
>
Well, you are always on about experience. Pity you've never experienced
an apprenticeship.

--
Xeno

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

On 11/08/2023 7:32 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 11/8/2023 4:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> Toyotas aren't the best thing on the road but they are *reliable*
>>>> and they *hold their value* which makes them very good value to own.
>>>> TCO and all that - concepts of which you have very little
>>>> understanding. It's why I'm on my third Toyota and you got shed of
>>>> the Nissan after a single *bad* ownership experience.
>>
>> He has no argument in the real world, so he has to invent a fantasy
>> one to whine about. For the record, and for the 17th time now, I had
>> an *excellent* Navara ownership experience, and if Nissan still made
>> the V6 powered STX-550 I would have happily had another one.
>
> Yeah, yeah, Darren, excuses, excuses!

Where's the "excuses", shit-fer-brains? Where's your *answer*? Seems
it's *you* fabricating , and then running away again... as usual. Gold FLC.

At the end of the day your
> *experience* was so good you bought a Ford.

Yeah, yeah, shit-fer-brains; excuses and run-aways.... Answer the
question! . 3 times you've been asked now, and it's not like you to NOT
shoot your pox ridden mouth of about stuff you know nothing
about......This is like the "deleted posts debarcle" and the coroners
report. And the "bern". :-D

Over to you, spineless childish cunt...

As *everyone* can see, Tomas Clasener is quite happy to tell lies, and
make shit up to suit his story, but when questioned about it, well, look
above. Credible? Great character? A "teacher" of sorts? Predictable.

It's a roll of dodgy toilet paper. Full of shit.

On 11/08/2023 7:47 pm, lindsay wrote:
> On 11/08/2023 7:32 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 11/8/2023 4:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Toyotas aren't the best thing on the road but they are *reliable*
>>>>> and they *hold their value* which makes them very good value to
>>>>> own. TCO and all that - concepts of which you have very little
>>>>> understanding. It's why I'm on my third Toyota and you got shed of
>>>>> the Nissan after a single *bad* ownership experience.
>>>
>>> He has no argument in the real world, so he has to invent a fantasy
>>> one to whine about. For the record, and for the 17th time now, I had
>>> an *excellent* Navara ownership experience, and if Nissan still made
>>> the V6 powered STX-550 I would have happily had another one.
>>
>> Yeah, yeah, Darren, excuses, excuses!
>
> Where's the "excuses", shit-fer-brains?  Where's your *answer*? Seems
> it's *you* fabricating , and then running away again... as usual. Gold FLC.

He's out of his fucking head. Not *one word* of what he's claimed here
is even *remotely* true. He's invented this entire scenario in order to
have something to scream about, and boy isn't he making himself look
good doing so?

Hahahahahahahaha :)

>  At the end of the day your
>> *experience* was so good you bought a Ford.
>
> Yeah, yeah, shit-fer-brains; excuses and run-aways.... Answer the
> question! . 3 times you've been asked now, and it's not like you to NOT
> shoot your pox ridden mouth of about stuff you know nothing
> about......This is like the "deleted posts debarcle" and the coroners
> report. And the "bern". :-D

He's lobbed himself neck deep in shit with this, and any money bet that
not a single one of his FLC mates come running to his aid. They're all
keeping quiet to avoid getting Clasener's shit all over their own shoes :)

> Over to you, spineless childish cunt...
>
> As *everyone* can see, Tomas Clasener is quite happy to tell lies, and
> make shit up to suit his story, but when questioned about it, well, look
> above. Credible? Great character? A "teacher" of sorts? Predictable.

That's all he's ever done around here. Made false claims so he can argue
against them, and all he ever does is land *himself* in the shit.

He's a fucking *imbecile*.

> It's a roll of dodgy toilet paper. Full of shit.

That's putting it mildly. He has no grasp on reality whatsoever and is
completely delusional.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 19:47:30 +1000, lindsay wrote:

> On 11/08/2023 7:32 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 11/8/2023 4:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Toyotas aren't the best thing on the road but they are *reliable*
>>>>> and they *hold their value* which makes them very good value to own.
>>>>> TCO and all that - concepts of which you have very little
>>>>> understanding. It's why I'm on my third Toyota and you got shed of
>>>>> the Nissan after a single *bad* ownership experience.
>>>
>>> He has no argument in the real world, so he has to invent a fantasy
>>> one to whine about. For the record, and for the 17th time now, I had
>>> an *excellent* Navara ownership experience, and if Nissan still made
>>> the V6 powered STX-550 I would have happily had another one.
>>
>> Yeah, yeah, Darren, excuses, excuses!
>
> Where's the "excuses", shit-fer-brains? Where's your *answer*? Seems
> it's *you* fabricating , and then running away again... as usual. Gold
> FLC.

As Fraudster & the Enablers have a monopoly on "running away", your little
mate, he of the overflowing kf (snigger) in particular, then what you've
got yourself is Fool's Gold.

hth

alvey

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 22:16:37 +1000, Noddy wrote:

> On 11/08/2023 7:47 pm, lindsay wrote:
>> On 11/08/2023 7:32 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> On 11/8/2023 4:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Toyotas aren't the best thing on the road but they are *reliable*
>>>>>> and they *hold their value* which makes them very good value to
>>>>>> own. TCO and all that - concepts of which you have very little
>>>>>> understanding. It's why I'm on my third Toyota and you got shed of
>>>>>> the Nissan after a single *bad* ownership experience.
>>>>
>>>> He has no argument in the real world, so he has to invent a fantasy
>>>> one to whine about. For the record, and for the 17th time now, I had
>>>> an *excellent* Navara ownership experience, and if Nissan still made
>>>> the V6 powered STX-550 I would have happily had another one.
>>>
>>> Yeah, yeah, Darren, excuses, excuses!
>>
>> Where's the "excuses", shit-fer-brains?  Where's your *answer*? Seems
>> it's *you* fabricating , and then running away again... as usual. Gold
>> FLC.
>
> He's out of his fucking head. Not *one word* of what he's claimed here
> is even *remotely* true. He's invented this entire scenario in order to
> have something to scream about, and boy isn't he making himself look
> good doing so?
>
> Hahahahahahahaha :)
>
>>  At the end of the day your
>>> *experience* was so good you bought a Ford.
>>
>> Yeah, yeah, shit-fer-brains; excuses and run-aways.... Answer the
>> question! . 3 times you've been asked now, and it's not like you to NOT
>> shoot your pox ridden mouth of about stuff you know nothing
>> about......This is like the "deleted posts debarcle" and the coroners
>> report. And the "bern". :-D
>
> He's lobbed himself neck deep in shit with this, and any money bet that
> not a single one of his FLC mates come running to his aid.

Big lol!
How would you know Fraudster? Remember? You have all those who believe
that you're massive fraud exiled to your fabled killfile. Well played
Buffo.

alvey

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 11:12:09 +1000, Noddy wrote:

> On 11/08/2023 8:55 am, Keithr0 wrote:

>>
>> 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.

I hope those straws you're clutching at are recycleable.

> 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/

Strangely, the "steady decline" shows an increase from 2021 to 2022. I'd
also point out that the reference period of the Statista bar chart is
centered on the Covid lockdowns.

> Thirdly, and as I mentioned previously,

Which of course has zero... errrr 'impact'.

> the mass of a vehicle is not the overall deciding factor in any >
accident...

No one is saying that it is. It is however *indisputably* the major factor.

> particularly when it comes to
> pedestrians. Take a look at these ANCAP test results here:

Why?

> 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.

He's a jenios that Fraudster.
> Another thing thing they have in common is that they *all* represent a
> greater risk to pedestrians than a Ford Ranger does.

Of course they do! *You* (cherry) picked them! What a fraud you are.
*And* over half of your mixed bag of selections are bloody SUVs. The
Hulksters' little brother.
> 2023 Ranger test results:
>> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/ford/ranger/58f98d

74% for "Vulnerable Road User Protection" eh? And what exactly does that
mean? And what does a "head impact" score of 16.33 mean? Like, I'd suggest
that you'd have to be about 2.6m tall to get the fulcrum high enough for
your head to hit the bonnet. And why isn't there an Abdomen Impact score?
It's where the shitheaps are most likely to hit people.

And whatever "74%" represents, I'm confident that my Merk A class rating
of 92% is better.

> And 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,

"irrefutable". lol!

Few things are as "irrefutable" as you being a fool and a fraud.

> simply assuming that
> something represents a greater risk to pedestrians simply because it's
> bigger and heavier is a fallacy.

"Several studies have shown that LTVs are incompatible with cars in LTV-to-
car collisions (Summers et al., 2001, Gabler and Hollowell, 1998, Gabler
and Hollowell, 2000, Joksch, 2000, IIHS, 1998). In fatal LTV-to-car
collisions, estimates are that 81% of the fatally injured occupants are in
the car".

alvey

alvey wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 11:12:09 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>
>> On 11/08/2023 8:55 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> 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.
> I hope those straws you're clutching at are recycleable.
>
>> 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/
>
> Strangely, the "steady decline" shows an increase from 2021 to 2022. I'd
> also point out that the reference period of the Statista bar chart is
> centered on the Covid lockdowns.
>
>> Thirdly, and as I mentioned previously,
> Which of course has zero... errrr 'impact'.
>
>> the mass of a vehicle is not the overall deciding factor in any >
> accident...
>
> No one is saying that it is. It is however *indisputably* the major factor.
>
>> particularly when it comes to
>> pedestrians. Take a look at these ANCAP test results here:
> Why?
>
>> 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.
> He's a jenios that Fraudster.
>
>> Another thing thing they have in common is that they *all* represent a
>> greater risk to pedestrians than a Ford Ranger does.
> Of course they do! *You* (cherry) picked them! What a fraud you are.
> *And* over half of your mixed bag of selections are bloody SUVs. The
> Hulksters' little brother.
>
>> 2023 Ranger test results:
>>> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/ford/ranger/58f98d
> 74% for "Vulnerable Road User Protection" eh? And what exactly does that
> mean? And what does a "head impact" score of 16.33 mean? Like, I'd suggest
> that you'd have to be about 2.6m tall to get the fulcrum high enough for
> your head to hit the bonnet. And why isn't there an Abdomen Impact score?
> It's where the shitheaps are most likely to hit people.
>
> And whatever "74%" represents, I'm confident that my Merk A class rating
> of 92% is better.
>
>> And 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,
> "irrefutable". lol!
>
> Few things are as "irrefutable" as you being a fool and a fraud.
>
>> simply assuming that
>> something represents a greater risk to pedestrians simply because it's
>> bigger and heavier is a fallacy.
> "Several studies have shown that LTVs are incompatible with cars in LTV-to-
> car collisions (Summers et al., 2001, Gabler and Hollowell, 1998, Gabler
> and Hollowell, 2000, Joksch, 2000, IIHS, 1998). In fatal LTV-to-car
> collisions, estimates are that 81% of the fatally injured occupants are in
> the car".
>
>
> alvey

in noddyworld it's irrelevant regards injury or death whether you get
hit by a Mack truck or an escooter

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

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

On 11/08/2023 3:21 pm, alvey wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 16:57:32 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>
>> On 11/08/2023 4:44 pm, lindsay wrote:
>>> On 11/08/2023 3:00 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>
>>>> Toyotas aren't the best thing on the road but they are *reliable* and
>>>> they *hold their value* which makes them very good value to own. TCO
>>>> and all that - concepts of which you have very little understanding.
>>>> It's why I'm on my third Toyota and you got shed of the Nissan after a
>>>> single *bad* ownership experience.
>>>
>>> what "single bad ownership experience" tommy? Noddy asked you
>>> previously, and for once in your pox ridden lying life, you failed to
>>> answer him and ran away as usual...
>>
>> He has no argument in the real world, so he has to invent a fantasy
> one...
>
> You can only shake your head in disbelief.
>
>

His toxic personalities seem unaware of what the others are posting.

> alvey
> Wondering if Death Caps aren't the only dangerous mushrooms in the
> Victorian backblocks.
>

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 12/8/2023 10:41 am, Clocky wrote:
> On 11/08/2023 3:21 pm, alvey wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 16:57:32 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/08/2023 4:44 pm, lindsay wrote:
>>>> On 11/08/2023 3:00 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Toyotas aren't the best thing on the road but they are *reliable* and
>>>>> they *hold their value* which makes them very good value to own. TCO
>>>>> and all that - concepts of which you have very little understanding.
>>>>> It's why I'm on my third Toyota and you got shed of the Nissan after a
>>>>> single *bad* ownership experience.
>>>>
>>>> what "single bad ownership experience" tommy? Noddy asked you
>>>> previously, and for once in your pox ridden lying life, you failed to
>>>> answer him and ran away as usual...
>>>
>>> He has no argument in the real world, so he has to invent a fantasy
>> one...
>>
>> You can only shake your head in disbelief.
>>
>>
>
> His toxic personalities seem unaware of what the others are posting.
>
>
>> alvey
>> Wondering if Death Caps aren't the only dangerous mushrooms in the
>> Victorian backblocks.
>>
It's way worse than that! Even at a simplistic level, his reading
comprehension lets him down every-single-time! My cited post above says
it all - good experience, buy the same, bad experience, buy different.
It's black and white.

As for inventing fantasies, well, Darren has *almost* perfected that
art. He would have got away with his tradesman claims had he not
overdone it - his ego let him down there. His claim to have done a motor
mechanic apprenticeship was let down by his lack of knowledge of basics
of motor mechanics, you know, stuff you would learn in 2nd year of an
apprenticeship. Those slips created doubt and further claims from Darren
reinforced that doubt - like the test he did that his kid sister could
pass. Now that showed he was well out of his depth in the bullshit
stakes. From then on it was all downhill for the bullshitter! Turned out
*every claim he made* was all lies and bullshit!

There's an article in The Age today entitled;

Fakes and Liars: The changing face of personality disorders

It's him!

--
Xeno

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

On 12/8/2023 6:15 am, alvey wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 19:47:30 +1000, lindsay wrote:
>
>> On 11/08/2023 7:32 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> On 11/8/2023 4:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Toyotas aren't the best thing on the road but they are *reliable*
>>>>>> and they *hold their value* which makes them very good value to own.
>>>>>> TCO and all that - concepts of which you have very little
>>>>>> understanding. It's why I'm on my third Toyota and you got shed of
>>>>>> the Nissan after a single *bad* ownership experience.
>>>>
>>>> He has no argument in the real world, so he has to invent a fantasy
>>>> one to whine about. For the record, and for the 17th time now, I had
>>>> an *excellent* Navara ownership experience, and if Nissan still made
>>>> the V6 powered STX-550 I would have happily had another one.
>>>
>>> Yeah, yeah, Darren, excuses, excuses!
>>
>> Where's the "excuses", shit-fer-brains? Where's your *answer*? Seems
>> it's *you* fabricating , and then running away again... as usual. Gold
>> FLC.
>
> As Fraudster & the Enablers have a monopoly on "running away", your little
> mate, he of the overflowing kf (snigger) in particular, then what you've
> got yourself is Fool's Gold.
>
> hth
>
> alvey

Fraudster Darren definitely has a monopoly on *fabricating*. He's been
fabricating an entire career in automotive and, what's more, fabricated
entirely from *hot air*.

--
Xeno

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

On 11/8/2023 10:16 pm, Noddy wrote:

>
> That's all he's ever done around here. Made false claims so he can argue
> against them, and all he ever does is land *himself* in the shit.

Ah Darren, such a magnificent piece of *projection*! You've made 20+
years worth of false claims, some real whoppers too! Then there are
those *fraudulent claims* where you operate as a mechanic under *false
pretences*, IOW, committing *fraud* by claiming qualifications you don't
have.
>
> I'm a fucking *imbecile*.
>
Couldn't agree more Darren. Only an imbecile would claim trade
qualifications they don't have, since it is fraudulent to do so,
especially when each tradie has a *unique registration number* that is
linked to a *name*, a *trade*, and can be *verified*. Your claim cannot
be verified Darren since there is no record *anywhere* of you ever
having signed onto an apprenticeship nor having any form of trade
qualification.
>
> That's putting it mildly. I have no grasp on reality whatsoever and I'm
> completely delusional.

100% agreement Darren, I doubt if you've ever had a grasp on reality.

--
Xeno

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