Cycling UK Forum

beardy wrote:

but AIUI stats are improving, aren't they,

If they are, I think that for once we should be grateful to insurance companies!

...and car safety, don't forget.

Bonefishblues wrote:Since I mentioned the Q7 previously and that seems something of a totem let's take a look. Weight is c2000 kgs, so roughly 450kgs more than a family saloon like a Passat, but significantly reduced compared to the previous generation. Combined mpg (yes I know, but no car does, so it's a point of comparison) is mid to high 40s mpg, depending on wheel size for a 200+ bhp diesel. Not too dusty for something that will transport 7 plus their luggage. That's a viable choice right now, I'd say

It's still 2 tonnes, and still 25% heavier than an already overweight family car. As for viable - viable for whom? Are you suggesting that 4x4's are only bought by folk who want to carry 7 people? Because tbh I know a lot of 4x4 owners and none that I know of have more than 3 kids, most have just 1 or 2 and a fair number have none. Anecdotal I know, but then a quick survey of 4x4's on the road show most with either just the driver, perhaps 1 passenger and if you're lucky a couple of kids in the back. I'm pretty sure most folk don't need 7 seats.

Bonefishblues wrote:I'm not clear what these non-trivial effects are that you allude to, tbh.

Mass, pollution and an inexpert set of drivers that think that 4x4's somehow outperform ordinary cars in the ice (for example).
Hardly a year goes by without seeing one or more that's mounted the pavement, taken down a garden wall and ended up in someones garden (or in one case their living room).
When we have nox levels that are magnitudes higher than 'safe' limits and tens of thousands reckoned to die early each year from respiratory problems then I'm not sure that proudly proclaiming an oversized truck does 40 to a gallon is something folk should be bragging about.

If you accept most 4x4's are bought as vanity cars then their affects are most definitely non-trivial and can't be justified so that someone can big themselves up. If you think they're bought because they're practical then I suspect we're poles apart and can never agree.

kwackers wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:Since I mentioned the Q7 previously and that seems something of a totem let's take a look. Weight is c2000 kgs, so roughly 450kgs more than a family saloon like a Passat, but significantly reduced compared to the previous generation. Combined mpg (yes I know, but no car does, so it's a point of comparison) is mid to high 40s mpg, depending on wheel size for a 200+ bhp diesel. Not too dusty for something that will transport 7 plus their luggage. That's a viable choice right now, I'd say

It's still 2 tonnes, and still 25% heavier than an already overweight family car. As for viable - viable for whom? Are you suggesting that 4x4's are only bought by folk who want to carry 7 people? Because tbh I know a lot of 4x4 owners and none that I know of have more than 3 kids, most have just 1 or 2 and a fair number have none. Anecdotal I know, but then a quick survey of 4x4's on the road show most with either just the driver, perhaps 1 passenger and if you're lucky a couple of kids in the back. I'm pretty sure most folk don't need 7 seats.

Bonefishblues wrote:I'm not clear what these non-trivial effects are that you allude to, tbh.

Mass, pollution and an inexpert set of drivers that think that 4x4's somehow outperform ordinary cars in the ice (for example).
Hardly a year goes by without seeing one or more that's mounted the pavement, taken down a garden wall and ended up in someones garden (or in one case their living room).
When we have nox levels that are magnitudes higher than 'safe' limits and tens of thousands reckoned to die early each year from respiratory problems then I'm not sure that proudly proclaiming an oversized truck does 40 to a gallon is something folk should be bragging about.

If you accept most 4x4's are bought as vanity cars then their affects are most definitely non-trivial and can't be justified so that someone can big themselves up. If you think they're bought because they're practical then I suspect we're poles apart and can never agree.

Most cars on the road carry fewer passengers than their capacity most of the time - I know mine does, so I'm unsure where we've got to on this point. Most people don't need 7 seats most of the time.
It's a viable choice for someone who cares to buy one, though. Perhaps someone who wanted and could afford a large luxurious vehicle in the case of a Q7.

4x4s crash through walls every year as do other vehicles great and small. Are you saying they have a greater propensity to do that than other vehicles or are we talking about the size of the hole they make?

Inexpert drivers who overestimate their cars' capabilities - might it be that that's endemic, and pretty much agnostic of car type?

I don't think anyone is bragging. All vehicles pollute to a greater or lesser extent, what I was illustrating was that a 2 tonne leviathan isn't necessarily as consumptive as one might expect of a vehicle which can carry 7 plus luggage, that was all.

As to peoples motives for purchasing, I don't really care tbh - it only seemed to be car salesmen who ever took an interest in mine!

kwackers wrote:...
Mass, pollution and an inexpert set of drivers that think that 4x4's somehow outperform ordinary cars in the ice (for example).
Hardly a year goes by without seeing one or more that's mounted the pavement, taken down a garden wall and ended up in someones garden (or in one case their living room).
When we have nox levels that are magnitudes higher than 'safe' limits and tens of thousands reckoned to die early each year from respiratory problems then I'm not sure that proudly proclaiming an oversized truck does 40 to a gallon is something folk should be bragging about.

If you accept most 4x4's are bought as vanity cars then their affects are most definitely non-trivial and can't be justified so that someone can big themselves up. If you think they're bought because they're practical then I suspect we're poles apart and can never agree.

Whilst I can see a very few possible justifications for such vehicles (reasons that would account for so few as to make them commercially not worthwhile products) I would agree that the majority are vanity purchases.

I often feel quiet amusement when I see people driving into supermarket car parks in their 4x4/SUVs - thinking that we both travel same speed, quite comfortably, get the same job done but their trip costs them vastly more. But in practice they also do massively more damage to our environment; and all so they can ... well I don't quite understand what they are playing at. Do they really think people drive past them in their cars and "admire" ?

Ian

Bonefishblues wrote:

Audax67 wrote:Like to see:
Mother ==> clink + huge fine (driving an Audi 4x4 she's not short of money) + lifetime ban + obligatory psychiatric oversight on release
Kids ==> into care unless papa (he still around?) can handle them
Car ==> scrapyard

Really? Honestly? You think that would be helpful or in any way appropriate?

Yes. Or into a foster home or off to grandparents or whatever. Just not with that cow. Actions have consequences, and hers implies that being unfit to bring up children she should lose them.

Audax67 wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:

Audax67 wrote:Like to see:
Mother ==> clink + huge fine (driving an Audi 4x4 she's not short of money) + lifetime ban + obligatory psychiatric oversight on release
Kids ==> into care unless papa (he still around?) can handle them
Car ==> scrapyard

Really? Honestly? You think that would be helpful or in any way appropriate?

Yes. Or into a foster home or off to grandparents or whatever. Just not with that cow. Actions have consequences, and hers implies that being unfit to bring up children she should lose them.

It might, it might not, but please don't conflate punishing someone guilty of a serious crime with punishing the criminal's children.

A member of my family was killed by a large 4x4. Had she been hit by a saloon with a low sloping bonnet she might have survived by ending up going up the bonnet. As the 4x4 was high and flat fronted she ended up being pushed under the wheels and being run over. The driver hadn't been breaking a speed limit, he just didn't see her, and he had to live with her death as well as us. (he was just commuting home from work - an office job- in it)
They are more dangerous on the roads than 'normal' cars and therefore there is simply no excuse for using these vehicles when a low-fronted sloping saloon would do all the jobs the driver needs.
I do know people who have to use them, such as farmers - they are experienced in driving heavy vehicles, though.
High fronted vehicles should, at the very least, require have extra driver training and testing - even if a driver has done nothing wrong, in an accident they are more likely to kill, and need to be driven differently because of that.

Bonefishblues wrote:

Audax67 wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:Really? Honestly? You think that would be helpful or in any way appropriate?

Yes. Or into a foster home or off to grandparents or whatever. Just not with that cow. Actions have consequences, and hers implies that being unfit to bring up children she should lose them.

It might, it might not, but please don't conflate punishing someone guilty of a serious crime with punishing the criminal's children.

Does it really imply she is unfit to raise children? We don't know if she just lost it and did something she will forever regret, or if she is rotten to the core, but it doesn't necessarily make her unfit to raise children. And if she learns something from this, it may well be a lesson for the children, as well. Frankly, I don't think the criminal justice system does enough to help people, as in counselling, anger management, etc., but that's another thread. I'm glad no one was seriously injured, and I hope this doesn't just make her more angry.

Bonefishblues wrote:Since I mentioned the Q7 previously and that seems something of a totem let's take a look. Weight is c2000 kgs, so roughly 450kgs more than a family saloon like a Passat, but significantly reduced compared to the previous generation. Combined mpg (yes I know, but no car does, so it's a point of comparison) is mid to high 40s mpg, depending on wheel size for a 200+ bhp diesel. Not too dusty for something that will transport 7 plus their luggage. That's a viable choice right now, I'd say.

It's a toxic fraudwagen, they do more like 27mpg, gassing us in the process

thelawnet wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:Since I mentioned the Q7 previously and that seems something of a totem let's take a look. Weight is c2000 kgs, so roughly 450kgs more than a family saloon like a Passat, but significantly reduced compared to the previous generation. Combined mpg (yes I know, but no car does, so it's a point of comparison) is mid to high 40s mpg, depending on wheel size for a 200+ bhp diesel. Not too dusty for something that will transport 7 plus their luggage. That's a viable choice right now, I'd say.

It's a toxic fraudwagen, they do more like 27mpg, gassing us in the process

Refers

Tonyf33 wrote:Q: On what grounds can you be charged/found guilty of murder if you didn't intend to kill them?

On the grounds that the law states that intent to kill is not required. Only intent to cause serious injury. Attempted murder is different.

karlt wrote:

Tonyf33 wrote:Q: On what grounds can you be charged/found guilty of murder if you didn't intend to kill them?

On the grounds that the law states that intent to kill is not required. Only intent to cause serious injury. Attempted murder is different.

Okay, where is the proof of intent to seriously injure? Second guessing what a persons intent was given the circumstances I think will be impossible to prove, there is reasonable doubt given what happened IMHO, so as I said what grounds would they be able to charge AND find them guilty of murder because I'm not seeing that in this case?
I also don't think the guy behind the wheel will get a fair trial, the amount of media coverage, the pushing forward of the murder charge, all the news stories reporting that he deliberately drove at the officer. Blood has being spilt and one of a police officer in the line of duty, there's no way there can be a fair even handed trial now.

Tonyf33 wrote:

karlt wrote:

Tonyf33 wrote:Q: On what grounds can you be charged/found guilty of murder if you didn't intend to kill them?

On the grounds that the law states that intent to kill is not required. Only intent to cause serious injury. Attempted murder is different.

Okay, where is the proof of intent to seriously injure? Second guessing what a persons intent was given the circumstances I think will be impossible to prove, there is reasonable doubt given what happened IMHO, so as I said what grounds would they be able to charge AND find them guilty of murder because I'm not seeing that in this case?
I also don't think the guy behind the wheel will get a fair trial, the amount of media coverage, the pushing forward of the murder charge, all the news stories reporting that he deliberately drove at the officer. Blood has being spilt and one of a police officer in the line of duty, there's no way there can be a fair even handed trial now.

Actually I agree a fair trial is going to be difficult here. IANAL, so I don't know the precedent of what has been held to prove intent to cause GBH. The case which opened this thread is one such, so I suppose you'd have to look at what prosecution evidence was offered there.

FWIW, my expectation is that this will end up in not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. But, as I said, IANAL.

Bonefishblues wrote:

Audax67 wrote:Like to see:
Mother ==> clink + huge fine (driving an Audi 4x4 she's not short of money) + lifetime ban + obligatory psychiatric oversight on release
Kids ==> into care unless papa (he still around?) can handle them
Car ==> scrapyard

Really? Honestly? You think that would be helpful or in any way appropriate?

I do.

If you wanted to adopt a child and the council checked you out and found you had a criminal record for such a serious crime you would be rejected instantly as unfit to have a child.

So why should children be allowed to stay with seriously criminal natural parents?

So why should children be allowed to stay with seriously criminal natural parents?

Because it is an essential part of being a free country.
and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

That doesnt mean the she cant be banged up and the kids left for the father(s) to care for in the meantime.