Social(ist) engineers and 4x4s

[Geckko]

For those of you who missed it, there was a thread on a new campaign from Greenpeace dishing dirt on 4x4s, or more accurately those people "obnoxious" enough to own one. As it turned out, that ad seems to have backfired and has not been given wider release beyond the internet due to adverse publis reaction.

Now I came across the following article:
Sydney Morning Herald

The background appears to be a bicycle lobby group wanting a surcharge placed on 4x4 ownership via the mandatory public third party insurance system. Their "claim" was that 4x4s are inherently dangerous.

Well, what did a study of the claim system reveal? 4x4s are involved in fewer claims than other vehicle types and less than would be expected given the proportion on the road.

I just see this as evidence of yet more attempted social engineering by the same people who wanted sociialist economies before 90% of the world's socialist economies failed.

In this instance they seem to have failed, but maybe not for long. Look at the response from one of the researchers. A claim that the figures may not be valid because "most 4x4s are driven by older more conservative drivers". OK, but again an unsubstantiated assertion and more importatently, not a reason why 4x4s are dangerous, just that irresponsible drivers are dangerous.

End of libertarian rant.

 

[Bikewer]

In many areas of the country, there are very bitter arguments indeed over the "usage" of public lands. As far as "trails" go, you have the horse enthusiasts, the bicyclists, the hikers, the motorcyclists, and the 4WD guys.

Generally the horsie folks and the hikers get along, but they both believe the rest should be flogged and driven from the trails.
The mountain-bike guys see the horses as doing more damage to trails than they do, and all of these types tend to hate anything with a motor...

State officials are faced with trying to make peace with these disparate groups, all of whom have some claim to "fair use" of the public lands.

We had a big to-do here in Missouri with the Black River. Seems this particular (and very nice) waterway had been designated as a "clean stream". This annoyed the 4WD crowd, who liked to splash through shallow-water crossings, and also use the river to wash mud from their crusted jeeps. (This usually meant a fair bit of oil and gasoline going into the river as well.)
This was dragged out in the courts for a couple of years...

There was a recent news item about a small community complaining about 4WD usage near the town, but it had nothing to do with "danger"; it was more about the annoying noise.

 

[Hagrok]

Generally the horsie folks and the hikers get along, but they both believe the rest should be flogged and driven from the trails.
The mountain-bike guys see the horses as doing more damage to trails than they do, and all of these types tend to hate anything with a motor...

I'd submit that hikers and horsie types don't really get along either; Horses, sadly, do a rediculous amount of damage to hiking trails. There are frequently separate stock trails that attempt to avoid this problem.

It's a very complex issue, to be sure; in the winter, you have snow-mobilers vs nordic skiiers vs snow shoers.

 

[Earthborn]

From the article:

Dr Newstead also cautioned that the study looked only at two-vehicle crashes

So the study does not rule out the possibility that 4WDs are more dangerous to cyclists. The bicycle lobbyists (who apparently are all Socialists if we believe the OP) might still be right.

 

[Geckko]

From the article:
So the study does not rule out the possibility that 4WDs are more dangerous to cyclists. The bicycle lobbyists (who apparently are all Socialists if we believe the OP) might still be right.

And you have just proved my point.

Dr Newstead also cautioned that the study looked only at two-vehicle crashes

So the study did not rule out that 4x4s are not more dangerous to cyclists.

 

[Bikewer]

As an avid cyclist, I would venture to say that a collision between myself and a 4WD vehicle would end up with me on the loosing side. (though perhaps not in the subsequent lawsuit...)

 

[Geckko]

As an avid cyclist, I would venture to say that a collision between myself and a 4WD vehicle would end up with me on the loosing side. (though perhaps not in the subsequent lawsuit...)

Just one question, for example, to illustrate the complexity of this issue.

As a cyclist, which would you be more likely to spot from your periferal vision?