Athol wrote: > Scotty <scot...@warmmail.com> wrote: >> "Athol" <athol_SPIT_S...@idl.net.au> wrote in message
>> : LOL. Why wouldn't Toyota want a part of the action? The vehicle >> : manufacturer and dealer make their money from the sale, and they >> : saved on warranty costs on that vehicle. :-p
>> I wonder what they did with the one in the video. Id love to take it to the dealer and explain that >> "It feels a little flat this one...."
> > > I've had six offs involving cars... in the early days. I had collisions > > > with the > > > big 3.
> > I don't think there'd be too many bike riders who haven't kissed the ground > > on the odd occasion, or the odd altercation with a car or three. I can't > > remember the number of off's I've had with cars, but it'd be a few. My worst > > was the last one I mentioned, but my most comical involved a bird.
> > I was riding down the road minding my own business when a seagull the size > > of a fucking Doberman flew across in front of me just in time to strike me > > right in the visor, and that knocked me off the back of the bike and I slid > > into a parked van and broke my leg on one of it's back wheels.
> Remins me of an amusing one with flying objects where I didn't come off. This > fuck*ng sheet of newspaper flew up and followed me wherever I tried to avoid it > and you guessed it, wrapped around my helmet.
> Al
Stop it! I was still visualising Noddy lying on the ground coming to, while the concerned Seagull from Beached Whale stood there saying "Chup Bro?"
> Stop it! I was still visualising Noddy lying on the ground coming to, > while the concerned Seagull from Beached Whale stood there saying "Chup > Bro?"
> > > > I've had six offs involving cars... in the early days. I had collisions > > > > with the > > > > big 3.
> > > I don't think there'd be too many bike riders who haven't kissed the > ground > > > on the odd occasion, or the odd altercation with a car or three. I can't > > > remember the number of off's I've had with cars, but it'd be a few. My > worst > > > was the last one I mentioned, but my most comical involved a bird.
> > > I was riding down the road minding my own business when a seagull the size > > > of a fucking Doberman flew across in front of me just in time to strike me > > > right in the visor, and that knocked me off the back of the bike and I > slid > > > into a parked van and broke my leg on one of it's back wheels.
> > Remins me of an amusing one with flying objects where I didn't come off. > This > > fuck*ng sheet of newspaper flew up and followed me wherever I tried to avoid > it > > and you guessed it, wrapped around my helmet.
> > Al
> Stop it! I was still visualising Noddy lying on the ground coming to, > while the concerned Seagull from Beached Whale stood there saying "Chup > Bro?"
Some religious nutcase (probably a priest) ran up to where I laid on the road with broken bones and asked if he could do some weird ritual blessing shit. Musta thought I was gonna die. IIRC.. due to fading misty melty 70s memories, I gave him the WTF look and politely told him I needed an ambulance.
Lars Chance wrote: > D Walford wrote: >> Lars Chance wrote: >>> D Walford wrote: >>>> ... I >>>> wouldn't drive something so badly designed/built that it crumpled >>>> like a beer can when it hits anything.
>>> [shrug] You wouldn't drive an E-Type Jag, a Ferrari Daytona or a >>> Datsun Fairlady?
>> I certainly wouldn't mind an E type.
>>> A Mercedes Gull-Wing, an Austin Healey Sprite,
>> Drove an AH Sprite for 4 yrs.
>> a Karmann Ghia or an old >>> Mini Cooper S (they WERE death-traps!) >>> I reckon the Great-Wall would shit all over any of them for >>> crash-safety!
>> Possibly but the difference is this is 2009 and when the cars you >> mention were built crash safety hadn't been thought of. >> Cars need to be built to a reasonable safety standard and at this >> point in time Chinese vehicles are still a long way from that. >> In 2009 the road toll in Vic is about one quarter of what it was 30 or >> so yrs ago despite a huge increase in traffic volumes and part of that >> is due to much safer cars.
> Irrelevant; you're just being a snob!
Bullshit, no one can dispute the fact that better made cars have saved lots of lives.
You're quite happy to drive a
> less-safe car in the right circumstances and, surprise surprise, so am I.
Risk involved with a "Sunday" car is significantly less than with a daily driver, if I did own something like an E type it would be lucky to do more than 5000klms per year unlike my Hilux which will do about 50,000 this year.
> You just go to a whole lot more trouble trying to justify it to yourself > than I do.
>>> Not that I care either-way though; I don't intend to crash any of them.
>> Neither does anyone else and IMO well trained drivers can avoid most >> crashes but you can't 100% control the actions of other drivers and >> even the very best drivers have the occasional crash. >> Like I said before I don't care all that much for electronic safety >> but no thanks to a car whose structure is sub standard.
> But why spend all that money to "protect" yourself from such an > infinitessimally unlikely event when even something as crappy as the > Great-Wall has more protection than you've ever needed before? > Are that bad a driver? Fuck, wear a helmet and you'll increase your > survivability manifold if you're that worried !
Like I've said previously I'm not all that interested in electronic gadgetry but anyone who buys a vehicle that is very obviously built with sub standard structure when significantly better made vehicles are available for not a huge amount more has got shit for brains.
> I had one fairly major crash 30-odd years ago and I got a few bruises > and a cut face (in a '60s 4cyl Jap car) so I'd have to be an idiot > wasting money "protecting" myself. > (I've probably got a statistically higher chance of getting arse-raped!)
My cousin had a major crash in a small 4cyl Jap car and she's dead, fact is if her crash was yesterday and she was driving a late model car its very possible she would have survived.
Lars Chance wrote: > Clocky wrote: >> "Lars Chance" <lars.cha...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> ... I was just saying that "crashability" is a very minor >>> consideration. >>> Some people here seem to believe that it's a major consideration but >>> I reckon they're bullshitting.
>> It's not a question of major consideration, but if it's the choice >> between two vehicles and it's the only difference, it will be the >> clincher. > Very different to what we were discussing (unless you know of a 5-star > ANCAP 4WD dual-cab for $23k)
Lars Chance wrote: > D Walford wrote: >> I don't give much thought to the ratings either but did you watch the >> video clip of the Great Wall crash test posted earlier in the thread? >> The drivers area was severely damaged and a driver would be unlikely >> to have survived unlike a similar crash in a better built vehicle >> without relying on airbags etc. >> I'm sure in a well engineered vehicle like a MB the driver and >> passengers would walk away without any serious injuries but in the >> Great Wall the only place they would be going would be to a morgue.
>> Daryl
>> Daryl
> So what Daryl Daryl?
Smartarse.
I'm sure if you rode a motorbike into that that
> crash-test you'd probably die,
WTF.
same as if you drove a 60s Mini, Healey
> etc etc.
How many people drive 60's cars as daily drivers these days? I would happily own an old car but no way would I drive it every day so the risk is significantly less.
> You buy a vehicle to do a job.
One of the "jobs" most people expect a vehicle to do is to protect the occupants in a crash.
If it does the job at 2/3rds the price
> who gives a rats how it fares in areas you'll most-likely never use?
In article <0086c5ef$0$26862$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>, dwalf...@internode.on.net says...
> Like I've said previously I'm not all that interested in electronic > gadgetry but anyone who buys a vehicle that is very obviously built with > sub standard structure when significantly better made vehicles are > available for not a huge amount more has got shit for brains.
Hey you're talking about my little sister here :-)
>> So what Daryl Daryl? I'm sure if you rode a motorbike into that that >> crash-test you'd probably die, same as if you drove a 60s Mini, Healey >> etc etc. >> You buy a vehicle to do a job. If it does the job at 2/3rds the price >> who gives a rats how it fares in areas you'll most-likely never use?
> exactly, this is a cheap work vehicle, don't give a stuff if doesn't > have ABS, airbags whatever, it would be used by the local tradies for > carrying their tools, lawn mowing gear etc, as long as it does the job > and is reliable.
Sounds like it fails on all counts then as the chances of them being reliable are very slim. Cheap to buy can often turn out to be not so cheap to own, ask anyone who bought Eastern European tractors because they were cheap, they became worthless very quickly making their overall cost very much higher than tractors that cost more than double the price.
Albm&ctd wrote: > In article <0086c5ef$0$26862$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>, > dwalf...@internode.on.net says... >> Like I've said previously I'm not all that interested in electronic >> gadgetry but anyone who buys a vehicle that is very obviously built with >> sub standard structure when significantly better made vehicles are >> available for not a huge amount more has got shit for brains.
> Hey you're talking about my little sister here :-)
> LOL, that's the funniest thing I've seen or heard all day!
> Especially since there's currently a heap of those dump trucks for > sale throughout the mining areas in CQ. Haven't yet asked about the > prices, since I hadn't previously thought of a use for one. :))
Goes with the line "well dear you always wanted a compact". ;-).
|
