Cyclist is killed in the morning, driver is charged in the afternoon.

[warthog1]

Actually it was an analogy of a dangerous tool that for 99% of owner is simply a toy and not intended to inflict harm. Guns in many places also perform utilitarian tasks as well as being a toy. Most gun owners in the US don't buy them with the intent to kill people. But you seemed to miss my point. Guns can clearly have fun uses, but should that be encouraged?

They are designed to fire a lethal projectile at beyond the speed of sound with the intent of injuring or killing prey or humans.
Not to convey people from one place to the other whilst towing or carrying goods. Hardly even remotely similar.

Sure there are many utilisation reasons there are also many fashion and power expression reasons. Are you naive or obtuse?

Stick to the argument without insults if possible.
I gave 8 examples of owners and the uses of said vehicles. Fashion and power were hardly purchasing points.

Agreed. But you have to be kidding yourself if you think the majority of these vehicles are for utilitarian use. Low wage factory workers driving shiny dual cab utes with baby seat in the back and an unused try is hardly a stealthy utilitarian vehicle.

I don't claim to know the uses of all that type of vehicle that is purchased.
I gave examples of those that I do.
They perform tasks your average sedan can't.
They are more expensive than your average sedan. It doesn't make alot of sense to spend more money if the extra ability isn't required. Yes some possibly do. It doesn't apply that it is all or even a majority.

Sorry where was this argument being made? That is a strawman if I ever heard one which renders the rest of your argument moot.

As a 4wd owner myself I have certainly had questions as to my need for ownership, multiple times. This is despite also owning a Suzuki Swift runabout. It becomes tiresome.

There is plenty of suggestion on here that people are subject to marketing and/or buying said type of vehicle due to its' size.
An assessment made without any understanding of the uses or reasons for purchase.
The inference is that people are ignorant and selfish as a result.
Plenty do need the characteristics the vehicle possesses.
If a suggestion is to be made they don't require them without an understanding of whether they do or not then perhaps don't drive anything yourself if you feel empowered to make an unsupported assessment.
Truly take the moral high ground.

All I am suggest is quit being in denial of reality and accept that the demand for these vehicles goes well beyond need. If your response was "yeah so what, people can buy what they want". Then that makes sense. But head in the sand denial is just being blind.

My experience is that these said vehicles are largely bought for the purposes they are able to perform.
They cost more to purchase own and run.
I am not in a position to make an assessment of the overall reasons a majority of owners buy them.
I have made my assessment based on my experience of those who do own them.

Yep these videos are all about utility and not about status and power! Size, power, unrealistic use scenarios and to top it all off emasculation all in 30seconds!

Chuck in a video of a large yank pickup that is far larger and looks more dramatic than a ford ranger.
Going off the screenshot anyway, not interested enough to watch it.
Too large for most 4wd trails anyway, too wide and long, going to be marked up badly and get stuck.
They do apparently have a higher towing capacity than most vehicles.
May be good for those with a large heavy caravan.
Not a fan personally.


Rather than discuss the actions of the driver who hit and killed the cyclist in a rural region here we are debating the uses of said vehicle largely in a city environment.
I didn't start the discussion but yes do find it tiresome and respond anyway

[brumby33]

And that's just the Baby RAM with the 5.7ltr V8 but then.....they bring in it's two bigger Brothers 2500 & 3500 the latter having a 6.7ltr Turbo Cummins Diesel....that can tow up to 8 Tonne and whilst there's nothing short of a 20 foot pig trailer weighing that, you wouldn't even know a 32ft caravan is behind you. This is one serious Ute/Pick-up.
But I've seen them bigger ones around to tow huge tri trailer boats that could be closer to 8 Tonne than they are 4.5 tonne.
They also use these to tow some of the bigger Caravans from shows so it's a Business investment.
But to buy one of those big boys you're looking at prices more than double than what you'd pay in the States, possibly on the road for not much less than $250K.

brumby33

[Prydey]

And that's just the Baby RAM with the 5.7ltr V8 but then.....they bring in it's two bigger Brothers 2500 & 3500 the latter having a 6.7ltr Turbo Cummins Diesel....that can tow up to 8 Tonne and whilst there's nothing short of a 20 foot pig trailer weighing that, you wouldn't even know a 32ft caravan is behind you. This is one serious Ute/Pick-up.
But I've seen them bigger ones around to tow huge tri trailer boats that could be closer to 8 Tonne than they are 4.5 tonne.
They also use these to tow some of the bigger Caravans from shows so it's a Business investment.
But to buy one of those big boys you're looking at prices more than double than what you'd pay in the States, possibly on the road for not much less than $250K.

brumby33

I don't get why some are honing in on these products. Small and mid sized trucks sell in far greater numbers. Maybe they should be lambasted too

[human909]

They are designed to fire a lethal projectile at beyond the speed of sound with the intent of injuring or killing prey or humans.
Not to convey people from one place to the other whilst towing or carrying goods. Hardly even remotely similar.

Or just to shoot targets which is what most gun owners do. People buy toys. Many of us choose to highly expensive and multiple bikes.

You dissmissal of these items, be it a bicycle, car or gun having a role beyond utilitiarian IS again obtuse.

Stick to the argument without insults if possible.

I am. Im still wondering if you are being obtuse or deliberately or not. Given you have yet to recognise a stark reality I'm still not sure.

I gave 8 examples of owners and the uses of said vehicles. Fashion and power were hardly purchasing points.

You have got to be kidding us. Cars are amoung the most prominent status symbols in our society. Again stop ignoring the elephant in the room.

They are more expensive than your average sedan. It doesn't make alot of sense to spend more money if the extra ability isn't required. Yes some possibly do. It doesn't apply that it is all or even a majority.

Ha! If that logic applied the bicycle companies wouldn't be making nearly as much money of people buying more than we need.

[Prydey]

More name calling because someone has a different view

Unsubscribed.

[warthog1]

Or just to shoot targets which is what most gun owners do. People buy toys. Many of us choose to highly expensive and multiple bikes.

You dissmissal of these items, be it a bicycle, car or gun having a role beyond utilitiarian IS again obtuse.

You used the "analogy" because of the danger guns represent.
They were designed as a weapon.
It aint me being obtuse

You have got to be kidding us. Cars are amoung the most prominent status symbols in our society. Again stop ignoring the elephant in the room.

Apparently you are now suggesting Ford Ranger and other 4wd ownership is a status symbol
Not a Mercedes, Porsche, Ferrari etc. A Ford Ranger.
I'll need to hold my nose in the air next time I get in the ol nissan patrol even if it is 22 years old now.

Ha! If that logic applied the bicycle companies wouldn't be making nearly as much money of people buying more than we need.

Perhaps people buy expensive bicycles for what they can do.
A tt bike with disc rear wheel, deep carbon front.
A duallie mtb that doesn't weigh a tonne and rides nicely.
A carbon or ti roadie that climbs well and may have deep wheels for speed on the flat.
As with cars there may be reasons people buy different bikes.

[brumby33]

And that's just the Baby RAM with the 5.7ltr V8 but then.....they bring in it's two bigger Brothers 2500 & 3500 the latter having a 6.7ltr Turbo Cummins Diesel....that can tow up to 8 Tonne and whilst there's nothing short of a 20 foot pig trailer weighing that, you wouldn't even know a 32ft caravan is behind you. This is one serious Ute/Pick-up.
But I've seen them bigger ones around to tow huge tri trailer boats that could be closer to 8 Tonne than they are 4.5 tonne.
They also use these to tow some of the bigger Caravans from shows so it's a Business investment.
But to buy one of those big boys you're looking at prices more than double than what you'd pay in the States, possibly on the road for not much less than $250K.

brumby33

I don't get why some are honing in on these products. Small and mid sized trucks sell in far greater numbers. Maybe they should be lambasted too

Perhaps something has to do with the Australian love affair with the Aussie Holden and Falcon Ute they had relative good towing capacity, optioned up powerful V8's and they could be tricked up.....only gotta look at the Deneliquin Ute Muster to see how popular these vehicles are...then because they are no longer made and Australians are forced to buy Diesel Japanese utes or 4WD Wagons...then the Yanks thought ok...you want Utes....getta load of these bad boys....instant market created for themselves...Both Dodge, Chevrolet and Ford and building RHD Versions of their trucks and make a killing.....not to mention other people these vehicles are/will kill when they become plenty in Numbers.....and there'll be versions down the track that will eventually pull a Caravan more than 1000kms between charges, but these brute utes are not going to reduce in size anytime soon as you can see how much larger the Asian variants are getting much bigger to appease those who can't quite afford a Bad Ass Yanky pick-up truck.

[fat and old]

I've too have done many "adventure sports" over the years, and true, very few absolutely required a 4wd. I've also towed the Jayco around with the family. Would a Subaru do that? (seriously, would it? I have no idea.)

Ha! "Jayco", adventure! Sounds like you have a different definition to me. But yes a Subura can tow some large Jaycos, but not the largest.

I don’t get it? I try to be conciliatory, agree with your point yet you still feel the need to belittle me? Seriously, what’s up with that? Why do the antifa’s always have to get personal?

post_id=1563558 time=1645082281 user_id=45913]Also, what are the 'US pick up trucks' you refer to that have replaced these work vans??

As above, what US pick up trucks are so ubiquitous now?

The Ford Ranger is now the second biggest selling motor vehicle in Australia. Followed by a Japanese pickup truck the Hilux.

Ford Ranger. A US pick up truck. OK, you’re never wrong so I believe you. Thousands wouldn’t but I do, such is the measure of my esteem for you.

[fat and old]

Hey, as the OP, don’t I get to ask that this thread be split up or sumthin (little bit of 4wd drongo talk there. It means “something”.)? Can that be done? Put all of the anti SUV, or truck or 4wd stuff in another thread? You can call it Morons that refuse to accept their social betters POV. Or Who cares who killed you. It was the SUV’s fault. Or maybe The SUVs that ate Australia?

[human909]

You used the "analogy" because of the danger guns represent. Likewise when I fired automatics weapons, pistols and other fun toys. It was fun.
They were designed as a weapon.
It aint me being obtuse

Most guns in western nations are designed and sold as boys toys. I've met plenty of gun owners in the US. They don't own 10+ because they expect to use them as a weapon. They go to shooting ranges because they enjoy it. To make is crystal clear there analogy was that many toys are dangerous. I too enjoy dangerous toys including 4WDs and guns. Most people don't NEED these toys.

Apparently you are now suggesting Ford Ranger and other 4wd ownership is a status symbol
Not a Mercedes, Porsche, Ferrari etc. A Ford Ranger.

I'm not suggesting it, I'm outright saying it. Why don't you watch the advertisement that you previously refused to watch it is 30s and directly plays on the status and image of the vehicle.

I'll need to hold my nose in the air next time I get in the ol nissan patrol even if it is 22 years old now.

Status goes beyond high nose types. Bogans/rednecks/hippies all play the status game. Cyclists too.

Perhaps people buy expensive bicycles for what they can do.

Yep of course. But there is a reason why people pay more money for some brands than other that goes well beyond performance.

Why do the antifa’s always have to get personal?

First time anybody has implied I'm anti facist. But yes, I do think fascism is a bad thing. So I guess that makes me anti facist.

[warthog1]

Most guns in western nations are designed and sold as boys toys. I've met plenty of gun owners in the US. They don't own 10+ because they expect to use them as a weapon. They go to shooting ranges because they enjoy it. To make is crystal clear there analogy was that many toys are dangerous. I too enjoy dangerous toys including 4WDs and guns. Most people don't NEED these toys.

They were not designed as toys, they were specifically designed to kill. They do so in the thousands in the US. They are used as an "analogy" with something that was designed as transportation.
Again you are saying people don't need 4wds without any clue as to what they use them for. The cleanliness of the vehicle appeared indication enough.

I'm not suggesting it, I'm outright saying it. Why don't you watch the advertisement that you previously refused to watch it is 30s and directly plays on the status and image of the vehicle

I didn't bother watching it as it was irrelevant. You have selected a much larger vehicle that is not sold in large numbers at all and are now using advertising for said vehicle to inform us why people buy all twin cab utes and 4wds.

Status goes beyond high nose types. Bogans/rednecks/hippies all play the status game. Cyclists too.

Had to be given a few labels too hey. No idea what the vehicles are used for but clearly it is status people are willing to spend that extra cash on.
Apparently there are 750,000 caravans registered on Australian roads. That is just one reason people may own a larger vehicle with towing capacity.
"Status" sounds far more likely a reason.

[fat and old]

You know, with all this angst over 4wd’s being displayed, it’s kind of funny that not a single shred of evidence to show that they actually are responsible for more ped and cyclist deaths has been produced. Beating people with your own POV counts for zip.

[fat and old]

Why do the antifa’s always have to get personal?

First time anybody has implied I'm anti facist. But yes, I do think fascism is a bad thing. So I guess that makes me anti facist.

I wouldn’t have thought you were fascist at all. Nor anyone else here tbh. Then I consulted good old wiki, and whaddya know?

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy that rose to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

Forcible suppression of opposition? Strong regimentation of society? Folks, we have a thread full of winners!

[DavidS]

What I wonder in terms of 4WDs and the oversized utes is why they are suddenly the best selling cars these days. I don't know the numbers, but I do remember a couple of years ago the Hilux was the best selling car in Australia. Compare that to a couple of decades ago and sedans/ station wagons were the best selling cars.

I don't think the proportion of tradies or 4WD enthusiasts in the general community has increased, but the proportion of those cars on the roads certainly has.

Which is why so many people get the firm impression that many of these vehicles are effectively replacements for the sedans and wagons of yesteryear and not used for the purpose for which they were designed.

DS

[piledhigher]

What I wonder in terms of 4WDs and the oversized utes is why they are suddenly the best selling cars these days. I don't know the numbers, but I do remember a couple of years ago the Hilux was the best selling car in Australia. Compare that to a couple of decades ago and sedans/ station wagons were the best selling cars.

There is a sell for a premium 'value' that they manage to sell, Subaru's Impreza and a VX are essentially the same vehicle, the 10 cm higher chassis clearance and 200kg of bloat of the XV costs a $6000 premium.

[am50em]

200kg bloat??? Exactly which models of each are you comparing?

From Subaru website
XV 2.0i-L AWD Tare mass (kg) 1429
XV Hybrid L AWD Tare mass (kg) 1536
Impreza 2.0i-L AWD Sedan Tare mass (kg) 1373
Impreza 2.0i-L AWD Hatch Tare mass (kg) 1383

[Mr Purple]

What I wonder in terms of 4WDs and the oversized utes is why they are suddenly the best selling cars these days. I don't know the numbers, but I do remember a couple of years ago the Hilux was the best selling car in Australia. Compare that to a couple of decades ago and sedans/ station wagons were the best selling cars.

There is a sell for a premium 'value' that they manage to sell, Subaru's Impreza and a VX are essentially the same vehicle, the 10 cm higher chassis clearance and 200kg of bloat of the XV costs a $6000 premium.

Many of the others, yes, but not that one.

XV is all of 20kg to 90kg heavier than an Impreza, based on spec. Having said that it's pretty much literally the same car with slightly taller suspension and a few plastic bits attached. A completely pointless waste of time and money and yet another faux-SUV.

[am50em]

The extra 90mm of clearance is not pointless if you drive on any firetrails or even some back roads. At 196cm tall, getting in and out of SUVs is much preferred.

[human909]

I don't think the proportion of tradies or 4WD enthusiasts in the general community has increased, but the proportion of those cars on the roads certainly has.

Which is why so many people get the firm impression that many of these vehicles are effectively replacements for the sedans and wagons of yesteryear and not used for the purpose for which they were designed.

If people here could recognise this then maybe we could have some sensible discussion. But while others live in a world of alternative facts sensible discussion can't be had. While people refuse to recognise that fashion/status/image plays and incredibly important part in consumer decision making then I don't know where the discussion can head.

[redsonic]

If people here could recognise this then maybe we could have some sensible discussion. But while others live in a world of alternative facts sensible discussion can't be had. While people refuse to recognise that fashion/status/image plays and incredibly important part in consumer decision making then I don't know where the discussion can head.

This is very true. Huge amounts of money are spent on marketing of consumption goods that plays to our ego/image/vanity, yet as individuals we all believe we are immune to such emotional decisions, and purchase purely based on functionality/utility. Why would companies pay many thousands for emotive marketing if it didn't work?

[fat and old]

I don't think the proportion of tradies or 4WD enthusiasts in the general community has increased, but the proportion of those cars on the roads certainly has.

Which is why so many people get the firm impression that many of these vehicles are effectively replacements for the sedans and wagons of yesteryear and not used for the purpose for which they were designed.

If people here could recognise this then maybe we could have some sensible discussion. But while others live in a world of alternative facts sensible discussion can't be had. While people refuse to recognise that fashion/status/image plays and incredibly important part in consumer decision making then I don't know where the discussion can head.

You cannot have sensible discussion. You present your argument, and woe betide anyone who doesn't agree with you. It's as simple as that.

You want to try sensible discussion? Start with outlining what we are discussing. I tried that, it was about a bloke who was killed by a motorist. That obviously isn't as important as what the driver was using. OK. So we're at the point where all sorts of vehicles are being lumped into the SUV category. Problem is that the vehicles being "discussed" are not all SUV's. You cannot post about "monster 4wd's" and the threats they pose (which they do) and supply opinion pieces or research on "SUV's" to back that up without at least making sure which "SUV's" they are using in said piece. I've pointed out the problem with that previously, asked to be shown evidence that I'm wrong and got nothing back. You want to prove that large (or any for that matter) 4WD's are killing MORE people, do so. Show us the evidence. Quantify that statement. Show us what "more" is.

I accept your assertion

fashion/status/image plays and incredibly important part in consumer decision making

First, accept that not everyone is swayed by the marketers. Accept that fit for purpose is the most important part of the decision process for a great many people.

Second. Show me something that proves these things kill more people than if that same driver was using a 2wd sedan, coupe, station wagon or convertible.

[trailgumby]

What I wonder in terms of 4WDs and the oversized utes is why they are suddenly the best selling cars these days. I don't know the numbers, but I do remember a couple of years ago the Hilux was the best selling car in Australia.

'
It's become an arms race. The psychology is interesting. A personal anecdote illustrates the phenomenon, which has been widely commented on by urbanists and road safety advocates elsewhere.

I remember asking my neighbour why she bought one. "They're safer" was her answer. My response was "For whom?"

Objectively, SUVs are far less safe, both for the occupant and for everyone else on the road (as shown by the study in that link I posted above). They brake worse, corner worse, and are more prone to tripping and rolling because of the higher centre of gravity. In a single-vehicle crash they are more likely to seriously injure their occupants.

They are only safer in a collision with a smaller vehicle, and then only for the occupants in the SUV. For everyone else the outcomes are worse. My neighbour gave me an uncomprehending look, stopped talking and moved on to talking to someone else.

I believe this is what most people are focussing on when they buy these oversized vehicles. They're looking out for #1. Being outgunned for mass in a smaller vehicle makes them feel vulnerable. Being in a bigger, taller vehicle with more road "presence" makes them feel more powerful.

In a further twist, a few months later Mrs SUV had an affair and left her husband, who didn't see it coming and was devastated.

[warthog1]

There have been large tax incentives to purchase them for many.
https://www.finder.com.au/best-utes-bus ... -write-off

Have you seen the size of many of todays caravans?
There are many fairly heavy caravans getting around.
Load your vehicle up, add the ball weight and you are pretty well up at the legal weight limit for the vehicle.
That is without considering the gcm with the caravan on behind.
How many sedans or wagons have a large towing capacity like the 3500kg tow weight and 6000kg gcm your typical ford ranger or other twin cab ute has? Btw the xlt and wildtrack come standard with tow bars fitted.
The old commodore and falcon are gone. Many used to tow with them, including my parents, but they were never ideal and would never tow as much or that safely tbh.

[warthog1]

Yep. Nothing unique about racism. Humans can readily be bigots. This has been the case for longer than human history. Racism is just one form of bigotry.

A slightly more nuanced analysis puts 4wd owners as part of an outgroup on our forum. And they receive all the contempt and bias that many/most outgroups face.

In sociology and social psychology, an in-group is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an out-group is a social group with which an individual does not identify.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_and_out-group

Yeah largely fits

[human909]

You cannot have sensible discussion. You present your argument, and woe betide anyone who doesn't agree with you. It's as simple as that.

I welcome intelligent discussion. But when discussion refuses to accept the existence clear facts we can't really have the beginnings of a discussion.

EG if I said image/status/fashion plays a large role in consumer choices and somebody else said I am overestimating that role then that is the start of a discussion. When people are head in the sand about key factor and don't believe they exist at all there is little further to be had with the discussion.

Likewise the refusal to accept that people are using these as toys and recreation vehicles yet dismiss other analogies to other toys then what further discussion can be had. Life is about greys. I'm talking in greys. Some people here believe only in black.

This is very true. Huge amounts of money are spent on marketing of consumption goods that plays to our ego/image/vanity, yet as individuals we all believe we are immune to such emotional decisions, and purchase purely based on functionality/utility. Why would companies pay many thousands for emotive marketing if it didn't work?

Exactly.

You just have to listen to chatter in the smoko hut about their pickup truck or the cafe about their road bike. Image/ego/vanity/status driver our decisions. None of us are immune, though some are certainly more affected than others.

And it isn't exactly like I'm in a bubble. I spend a fair bit of fly on the wall time in smoko huts on construction site. In the tea room in factories and at campsites among 4WDers and adventurer sport enthusiasts. I financed a mate's dual cab Amarok as he was a foreign national who could get a car loan. It isn't like I'm in an closed bubble.

I can't say I'm well tapped into the Toorak tractor soccer mum scene though.