No love for 4WDs
March 6, 2008 by Alborz Fallah
A recent survey of 2380 drivers across Australia by Sweeney Research (for AAMI) has found two rather obvious facts. One, the majority of drivers believe 4WDs are dangerous and should not be allowed in the city and two, all 4WDs need a rear camera as standard.
The problem is our ADR (Australian Design Rules) for vehicles. A brief look through would show a growing list of out-dated or inefficient regulations that hardly have any relevance in today’s automotive world.
Two important rules that many motoring organisation have been asking for – mandatory Electronic Stability Program (ESP) for all new cars and a rear camera for all SUV and 4WD vehicles – are still not finalised. .
The research found that 75 per cent of Australians agree that it should be compulsory for four-wheel drive vehicles to be fitted with a rear camera.
But even without the research, the growing number of small children that have either been killed or seriously injured by their own parents reversing over them should be enough to force the Federal Government’s hand.
Then there is the ESP debate, although everyone now agrees that ESP saves lives, the Federal Government is still some years away from making the technology compulsory on all cars (note that ESP has been around since the mid 90s).
At the moment many 4WDs are available with rear cameras, either as standard (Toyota Kluger) or as an option. Of course the bigger question still lingers, if you live in the city, why exactly do you need a 4WD?
The majority of respondents resent the presence of four-wheel drives on the roads, with 60 per cent agreeing that they don’t belong in the city.
Other interesting findings from the research:
- 66 per cent of drivers think four-wheel drives are dangerous for other road users;
- 56 per cent of drivers support four-wheel drives being subjected to higher registration fees;
- 33 per cent of drivers think four-wheel drives are socially unacceptable because of their contribution to the greenhouse effect.
What do you think? Is it time for mandatory rear cameras and ESP?
Print it: 
You people look at isolated areas as proof its cooler which is a laugh….ADELAIDE HAS RECORDED THE HOTTEST CONSECUTIVE DAYS FOR LAST 5DAYS IN A ROW AND IS EXPECTED TO BE SAME FOR ANOTHER 5DAYS!
EVER RECORDED!
Ever recorded?
Yes NO NAME….listen to others and tend to agree around Brisbane and underneath has been cooler.
It astounds me the attack back at me and it has been lame to say the least! No drivel from “anybody” can deny the facts on core samples taken from the ice. I read in the paper on the weekend that they are taking a 4kms coresample as these truly always preserve a snapshot over time on the atmosphere.
CO2 is the most important of the six “greenhouse” gases blamed for driving changes to the world’s delicate climate system.
These gases hang like an invisible shroud in the atmosphere, trapping the sun’s heat and inflicting what many scientists predict will be serious changes to icecaps, glaciers and weather patterns.
In the earth’s distant past, climate change has occurred naturally, by emissions of CO2 disgorged by volcanoes and other phenomena.
But the “overwhelming majority of climate experts and scientists” (ANDREW M, ETC ALL FOLLOW THE MINORITY OF SCIENTISTS. THESE DOUBTERS BELIEVE THE WORLD IS FLAT, FORD IS A CHASM IN A NORWEGIAN MOUNTAIN GORGE, STAR TREK IS REAL AND STAR WARS IS BETWEEN THE USA AND RUSSIA….LOL) say CO2 levels are rising fast today because of the unbridled burning of oil, gas and coal.
Opinions differ, though, as to how fast the effects will occur and how bad they will be……IT WILL HAPPEN!
Yep: Adelaide March maximum temps (deg Celcius) – so far
1 Sa 25.7
2 Su 31.1
3 Mo 35.4
4 Tu 35.7
5 We 37.9
6 Th 38.5
7 Fr 39.0
8 Sa 39.8
9 Su 40.2
10 Mo 40.0
I totally 100% agree with you Naughty M. Our weather conditions are getting more unpredictable buy the month. Summers are wetter, Winters are stormier. I just wish the an8l critics would here the words and act. Excuses like “if Chinas still polluting then why bother” are just pathetic. If we need to sort the China problems out then do it with economic constraints and assistance. After all its us buying their good, no demand no sales.
NO NAME….may I add that Adelaide has now recorded the hottest 11 consecutive days “ever on record”…..looks like continuing too! Perth was the last city to have it in 1988.
To fix the problem means total revamping where the world is heading and mainly the serious one of truly reversing the global population as “anything” else is meek….extreme short term….drinking lattes and ignorant….vague at best! Trouble is 99.9% is like this as they are ignorant of this chief problem and dont want to address it. My philosophy is blunt…….once you have a maximum 2kids one must get medically fixed up as the stupid ALP and previous shower of s*it being the Coalition are in “vote buy mode” and pay big $ for people to willy nilly have kids. Call me Hitler or whatever – sorry but no education or anything else will truly work to stop the tide of an increasing humanity!
population wont go down NM,
do you know why the “baby bonus” was implemented?
to boost the population as birth rates were/are dropping.
they forecast that the ageing population would bee too heavy for the younger employed population to support
ANDREW M….humour me mate>>> If what Iam saying is wrong and population keeps increasing and we all ignore forced reduction on it; what will happen and where do we go collectively on Earth? Do we listen to George Bush and colonise Mars…….LOL?
If you weren’t so ignorant and believed everything the pessimists told you NM, you would realise that we have sh*t all to worry about. The world is not about to end. Even your precious ice cores show that there was a CO2 build up before the last ice age occured! But more CO2 means hotter temps! Or does it? There is also plenty of evidence to conuteract what you are throwing around here.
So you want to limit the population? You do realise that Australia has serious population issues? Because we DON’T have enough kids???? If Australia limited population, and only kept the current immigration rate, our economy would grind to a halt.
Thats right JBOT,
enter the baby bonus.
thats why it was brought in. not because the government thought it would be nice to help out those with new littlies, but rather because the population forecast spelt an “out of balance” economy in the foreseeable future
i do see what you are saying though NM,
but populaton reduction just wont happen.
we would be better off inventing a machine that converts co2 into oxygen or just nip down to your local nursery and pick up a couple of $2 natives
So cool to throw in your $100,000 in Jbot.
If you were not so ignorant an Engineer you would look at facts on past C02 emissions contained therein! My comments has “nothing” to do with doom and gloom…..rather an impact that mankind is placing on it. So Jbot….does it just sort itself out if the population increases at the rapid rate that is predicted. Be a realist and paint me a picture if we go down the road where we are going! The answer is not out of a theory book as never before has the problem increased til after the Industrial Age and it goes solely hand in hand with the population increase!
“we would be better off inventing a machine that converts co2 into oxygen or just nip down to your local nursery and pick up a couple of $2 natives”
We already have them, and you even mentioned them! Trees/plants, etc. Thats if CO2 really is the problem its made out to be by some.
Better go back and have a look at your ice core samples NM, because there was a significant increase in the CO2 levels prior to the last ice age.
HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORAY…..phew. Andrew M’s last comment would paragraph would help! Either that or a huge machine to suck the pollution out into outer space?
Look at history……facts. What you are saying is “related” to volcanoes! So till you shake that rats maze under your hair, you contradict the “majority” of scientists Bot!
TYPO……..Andrew M’s last paragraph comment would help!
Do us all a favour then NM. Stop typing away on your PC which is producing loads of CO2, go and live in a cave, grow your own food, just like back in the day before the population took off. You’ll reduce your CO2 emissions by heaps man! Groovy! Let me know if you enjoy it, but either way I’ll be much happier producing more CO2 with a much higher standard of living.
BOT…………..did they teach you anything at Uni or you base your views on what? So we plant trees and remove rainforests at Brazil at alarming rates to change the weather pattern? You sit back and “simplistically” think planting trees which agree is a good thing helps when destruction is in other areas!
LOL!
Jbot…………wake up. Your the complete clown just like your naive green as claim “$100,000per annum job as an Engineer first year out of university”
BOT……………maybe with your massive wisdom you can enlighten us what will occur say in 50yrs when population will be much more bigger! Lets put you to the test!
Lets all plant trees and look at satelitte imagery of other areas like PNG………….once was there is shrinking less! Yeah trees will help I do admit – but shivers massive amounts worldwide need to grow!
Depends how many people follow your lead and go and live in a cave :)
You disappoint with your shallow view Bot….lacking AGAIN! The cave is irrelevant; so please get some depth to you and let us know what your plan is for an increased population! Shock me BOT and answer this with clarity and reality…..this is really the $100,000 question that mankind is stuggling with!
Ok, my prediction for 50yrs time. Your poor, sorry arse will be long gone. I will retired, trying desperately to spend the $50 billion dollars I’ve earnt, laughing at your kid who thinks builders are the wealthiest men in the world, and CO2 levels are about to destroy the earth. LOL.
Seriously though, 50 years time Australia will still be a great place to live, Asia gets very powerful, and population will indeed be a problem, but I seriously doubt nothing would have been done to limit popuations (Asian nations in particular) before then.
sorry NM,
but im with Jbot on this topic.
i can honestly see your point but its no where near as bad as you are making out.
also there is no evidence that if something is happening then humans are responsible.
perhaps just punch a hole in the ozone layer to let the extra co2 out????????ha ha ha ha
hang on………
ozone layer hole shrinking, co2 levels increasing……..
i know whats happening, the ozone is mending itself and hence the co2 isnt escaping like it use to be able to.
which brings me back to punching another hole in it
Jbot,
i can see him now,
just like tom hanks in that movie where he is stranded on the island with only a netball with a face drawn on to talk to.
dont take it personally NM im just having a bit of fun.
hey bot boy,
just curious, what kind of an engineer are you?
(genuinely interested)
Will leave you to shock us on the answer? Or more to the point…………….an empty reply!
PROVIDE PROOF THAT CORE SAMPLES SPIKED MUCH GREATER THEN IS CURRENT SINCE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND LENGTH IT OCCURED…..Andrew M and Bot>>>>>>>>>>>>>challenge me and put the info on the table and then lets compare your claims over a long time and lets see which is on the upward trend!
My case is closed as you have proven – WAFFLE AND GUT FEELING AND WORDS LOOSELY DRAWN ONTO WORLD WIDE WEB!
Iam waiting…..still!
Ciao
R
My degree is in Civil, minor in mining
NM, you do realise you too have provided no proof…
I’m off for the night, will check back tomorrow to check the “facts” you give us NM.
NM,
i have showed you that the earths temperatures over 150yrs have not increased 1 little bit.
you on the other hand have yet to show some real effects of global warming. temperatures havent risen, hence no global warming.
for the record i have always agreed that co2 levels have increased. but in that, it has not been showed/proved that the co2 levels are increasing temperatures as you claim
HA HA….netball. Iam agreeing with you guys in principle. But Iam a realist as fastfowarding the result to around 50yrs when Jbot will be a real wheeler and dealer with monoploy money!
Google search what I have and dont just get some sentences spasmodically as there is a lot of crap on it and one must look at in depth to grasp it. Hey Iam like you guys….show me the facts, hell I stayed up one night as didnt believe in UFO’s and low and behold – bang two moved at astonishing speeds and stopped instanteous. And dont pluck at straws….I cant personally give you readings as “nobody” has access to them! It is acknowledged there has been spikes or upturns in CO2 emissions – but it aint an upward trend over a steeper rise then now!
LOL you two are funny buggers! This time – ciao R!
Q:How does warming cause a rise in atmospheric CO2?
A:As the oceans warm, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999).
Q:The greenhouse effect – how increased CO2 causes temperature rise?
A:When there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth absorbs more heat. Shortwave radiation from the sun passes straight through our atmosphere and is absorbed by the earth. The earth reemits it as longwave (infrared) radiation which is partially absorbed by atmospheric CO2. This is the greenhouse effect. CO2 lets energy in, doesn’t let as much get out. CO2 warming explains how the relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles can bring the planet out of an ice age. It begins with the high southern latitudes (eg – Antarctica) warming and releasing CO2 from the oceans. The CO2 mixes through the atmosphere, amplifying and spreading the warming to northern latitudes (Cuffey 2001). This is why warming in the southern hemisphere precedes warming in the northern hemisphere (Caillon 2003). This is confirmed by marine cores that show tropical temperatures lag southern warming by ~ 1000 years (Stott 2007).
Q:Climate sensitivity – how CO2 amplifies temperature increase?
A:Climate sensitivity is defined as how much global temperature increase if we doubled CO2. Studies of past CO2 and temperature records have helped quantify exactly how sensitive our climate is to changes in CO2. Temperature and various forcings (including CO2) over the past few centuries shows a climate sensitivity between 1.5 to 6.2°C (Hegerl 2006). One study combines the results from various paleontological studies to narrow climate sensitivity to around 2.5 to 3.5°C (Annan 2006). Basically, multiple studies covering many different periods of earth’s history confirm that when CO2 is doubled, global temperatures go up around 3°C.
Q:So what does the CO2 lag tell us?
A:The behaviour of CO2 in the past is well understood by climatologists and confirms the amplifying effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Also, sharp temperature rises in the past (from volcanoes, etc) indicate how sensitive climate is to change. Our past history shows how our climate is prone to “tipping points” where warming can lead to positive feedbacks sparking a runaway warming effect.
Gone as early one…..zzz zzz zzz
NM,
ah good to see you still see a funny side to my little image of you on the island with “Wilson”
mate,
all the theory sounds well and good but the bottom line is that there has been no rise in average temperatures whilst the co2 levels have had a notable increase.
Wow NM.
That was amazing! If i had submitted essays like that in college i might be driving a Beamer now instead of a Hyundai!
Eyma Teapot……gee thanx, dont let TP see your comment as Hyundai and not Toyota. LOL
Footnote to CO2 emissions: bear in mind scientists look at past history only and it is a proven fact that since the Industrial Revolution that CO2 emissions have “always” increased with direct human intervention to supply the population! This is a major concern as it never will be a shrinking population and resources and goods will always be required…..to give you an example to put this in perspective Mining currently contributes around 12% towards CO2 emissions.
To state that CO2 emissions have always occured in the past is fairly weak as man’s intervention was significantly less…..so therefore any doubters (i.e: ANDREW M, Jbot, etc) are essentially clutching at straws, and just maintain that “Oh thats a negative comment and is not true” based on some hairy fairy comment by some renegade minor group or person that truly is not factual. I would like to think you are right cause Iam like you guys…..i.e. “I need to see this reality”
Planting trees are a part of the answer. The major problem with this flaw is that once the trees are cut down for usage for human resources, major stockpiles of CO2 that the trees absorbed is released. This has been proven by scientists recently. If everything is growing really fast as currently is the case then it there is not enough phosphorus or nutrients in the soil – THIS IS CURRENTLY BEING RESEARCHED BY SCIENTISTS. When the trees are cut down (from all the trees that are planted like Jbot espouses) CO2 gases are released straightway! How do I know this Jbot…currently being researched as confirmed to me! You see Bot…..Iam on your side and Andrew’s side, but this problem exists and wont go away!
ANDREW AND JBOT….go do some checking for me in your backyard. Go plant some vegetables and just let nature take its course and watch it sooner or later get to its end cycle! The leaves will fall off and then CO2 gases will be released.
On the other flipside, if we plant trees and we have a forward marching worldwide population and these trees are planted everywhere….where do we get resources such as timber.
Waaahey Maxi dude, been swatting lately.
Sorry folks i’ve not been around to add to the discussion, had to drive to London, in my polluting car, 400K’s each way for work.
All interesting stuff, Whilst i’m totally in agreement about the human intervention in global warming there was an interesting programme on telly a year or so ago basically saying that earth was a carbon snyc and levels of carbon released in the atmosphere would eventually be absorped and things may settle down. All educated scientific guessing though.
Quote NM: “major stockpiles of CO2 that the trees absorbed is released (when cut down)”
You do realise plants continuously convert CO2 to O2 in the same way we convert O2 to CO2 when we breathe?? CO2 isn’t just sucked up and stored in the plant like your implying!
JBOT QUOTE: “You do realise plants continuously convert CO2 to O2 in the same way we convert O2 to CO2 when we breathe?? CO2 isn’t just sucked up and stored in the plant like your implying!”
NM RESPONSE: Trees shed leaves and branches, etc and during this debris decay or the burning of the tree or when it is cut down for usage the decomposition process commences immediately when the CO2 is released (and more is released). Maybe you think that as the population gets out of hand and bigger and ground becomes more scarce that all of a sudden there will be trees everywhere on this limited land. And all this shrubbery will pull out the nutrients and will cause a phosphorus problem with the soil structure making it more unattractive for plants and trees. The flaw with your “very lacklustre” nothing answer is that you are relying on scientists digging up and go over the past…..and you like them forget from when all this has taken off since Industrial Revolution! This is an unknown quantity much like your non-ability to give me evidence to the contrary!
Like I said, show me your facts as you have none of merit and lack massively!
FOOTNOTE: Did you answer questions at university as you have “not” clearly here! LOL! Come on JBOT and ANDREW M…..like Iam seriously like you but one has to look at nature to know what is occuring. Maybe you two penned the song…”THE SOUNDS OF SILENCE”! HA HA HA HA!
You still haven’t answered Amdrew M’s question as to why the temperature of the earth hasn’t changed in the last 150 (?) years, despite CO2 increasing…
NM,
dont make me keep repeatingmyself……….
REPEAT…………..
the bottom line is that there has been no rise in average temperatures whilst the co2 levels have had a notable increase.
im not debating the extra co2 content but rather the claims you make on its affects to temperature and now apparently killing trees.
maybe you penned “i wanna be a punk rocker with flowers in my hair” ha ha ha ha ha
1. Are you illiterate…….read my comment March 13th, 2008 at 9:04 pm . This highlights temperature rise and other research I have looked at is a higher figure temperature wise! Obviously you two are as blind as bats to my response!
2. Lets not move away from core of issue here….focus and maintain decorum….! I have asked you where do you get your evidence as there is none of merit………….still!
3. I go off what was reported at meeting other half went to concerning tree planting as clearly its not the help that is perceived! This was admitted readily by scientific evidence and is being researched right now.
Obviously you two are lacking any evidence, decency to provide your supporting evidence and I have provided proof of what year and by whom findings were assumed to have been scientifically provided…..what have you two done and were is your evidence as you two should be born agains as all about gut feeling! LOL this is your best attack back…………….LAUGHING MY ARSE OFF massive!
Provide me with comments by scientists (name and year) on how they see the ozone layer healing itself with an expanding far bigger population……ignore personal comments and lets go toe for toe as you arent putting anything of merit or supporting evidence of
PUPPET TWOSOME…PULL THE CHORD ON THERE BACKS AND JUST REPEAT THERE HARPING AND NOT PROVIDING THERE EVIDENCE FOR THERE SIDE. LOL YOU TWO ARE LIKE TOO FUNNY TO TAKE SERIOUS!
NM,
as i said earlier,
only 17 % of scientists who study the specific field of global warming believe it is happening. and of those that believe it is, only 11% believe it is us humans that are responsible
now if you dont want to take on my evidence i provided with direct quotes then it is pointless arguing the subject as we have a “stale mate”
oh and just for you…….
i bought an 8.6kw split system airconditioner a few weeks back and am just waiting for my mate to pull his finger out and hook it up for me.
hey but dont cry because as i type my grey water re use system is in full song watering the lawn
One of the many articles around, this one is by Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“Most of the literate world today regards “global warming” as both real and dangerous. Indeed, the diplomatic activity concerning warming might lead one to believe that it is the major crisis confronting mankind. The June 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, focused on international agreements to deal with that threat, and the heads of state from dozens of countries attended. I must state at the outset, that, as a scientist, I can find no substantive basis for the warming scenarios being popularly described. Moreover, according to many studies I have read by economists, agronomists, and hydrologists, there would be little difficulty adapting to such warming if it were to occur. Such was also the conclusion of the recent National Research Council’s report on adapting to global change. Many aspects of the catastrophic scenario have already been largely discounted by the scientific community. For example, fears of massive sea-level increases accompanied many of the early discussions of global warming, but those estimates have been steadily reduced by orders of magnitude, and now it is widely agreed that even the potential contribution of warming to sea-level rise would be swamped by other more important factors.”
ANDREW – your 17% is flawed a wee dram….are you “aware” of this??????
No, it’s not the old comment that global warming stopped in 1998. The new contention is that global warming stopped in January 2007. The argument originated from Anthony Watts who plotted data from 4 sources (HadCRUT, GISS, RSS and UAH), all of which show sharp cooling of around 0.6°C from January 2007 to January 2008. The most common interpretation around the blogosphere is that the long term global warming trend has reversed. Daily Tech goes so far as to say 2007 “wipes out a century of warming”. Clearly the flaw in this interpretation is in drawing conclusions about long term climate change over a relatively “MINISCULE” short period of 13 months. Particularly when a large portion of that cooling occured over one month (January 2008). Only over a period of years to decades can you confidently discern climate trends. Otherwise, you run the danger of mistaking weather for climate…..and then believing the 17% ANDREW M REFERS TO! Sunspots ANDREW M….that might help as this
So sunspots reveal a lot. First. The effect from the sun controlling the temperature according to the number of sunspots is cooling when many sunspots. That’s the effect which for example IPCC AR4 gives a few tenth of a degree cooling when there is many sunspots in the 11 years cycle. This is only the TSI effect, not involving a cosmic ray connection. (This description I guess also quite well fits in to the “reversed” covariance that Locwood/Frohlish noticed, but I think they conveniently missed a delay factor.) According to this TSI effect only we shall have a warmer world now, not a cooler one.