War on cars

[CmdrBiggles]

Through the torque converter in the automatic transmission and not the abs wheel speed sensors on each wheel? How so?

No wheel sensors in the SV6! ABS (part of the broader stability control suite) is controlled by ABS module (engine side).
L/R rear wheel movement and speed is monitored by the TC. Thresholds controlled by transmission, on signals from engine.
One can observe what is going on (dash info, engine tone, transmission) if driving on icy roads or on light snow. ABS, when it cuts in, is subtle and often pops up driving on the up and down gravel roads in the Otways.

[blizzard]

Through the torque converter in the automatic transmission and not the abs wheel speed sensors on each wheel? How so?

No wheel sensors in the SV6! ABS (part of the broader stability control suite) is controlled by ABS module (engine side).
L/R rear wheel movement and speed is monitored by the TC. Thresholds controlled by transmission, on signals from engine.
One can observe what is going on (dash info, engine tone, transmission) if driving on icy roads or on light snow. ABS, when it cuts in, is subtle and often pops up driving on the up and down gravel roads in the Otways.

The ABS module gets individual wheel speed from each wheel, the sv6 most definitely has wheel speed sensors.

[Arbuckle23]

The ABS module gets individual wheel speed from each wheel, the sv6 most definitely has wheel speed sensors.

Correct. Any car with ABS has wheel speed sensors. Without those, the ABS controller has no idea what each individual wheel is doing.
ABS is also rubbish on deepish gravel, to stop quickly on that surface, you need the wheels to lock and build up a bow wave so to speak.

[warthog1]

Through the torque converter in the automatic transmission and not the abs wheel speed sensors on each wheel? How so?

No wheel sensors in the SV6! ABS (part of the broader stability control suite) is controlled by ABS module (engine side).
L/R rear wheel movement and speed is monitored by the TC. Thresholds controlled by transmission, on signals from engine.
One can observe what is going on (dash info, engine tone, transmission) if driving on icy roads or on light snow. ABS, when it cuts in, is subtle and often pops up driving on the up and down gravel roads in the Otways.

The ABS module gets individual wheel speed from each wheel, the sv6 most definitely has wheel speed sensors.

Thanks Blizzard.

[warthog1]

Middle aged French driver charged with murder after appearing to deliberately drive over a 27 year old cyclist.

https://road.cc/content/news/france-sho ... ver-310841

[brumby33]

Middle aged French driver charged with murder after appearing to deliberately drive over a 27 year old cyclist.

https://road.cc/content/news/france-sho ... ver-310841

OMGosh.....that's terrible....and in a Country where millions of eyes around the world every year tune into the biggest Cycling festival in the world, it seems it's not just Australia and America having some of the world's most aggressive drivers.

There is no real difference in hitting another human on a bicycle or on foot by deliberate action than shoving a knife in his gut or shooting him with a gun, the result is the same but the former is swept under the carpet.

Motorists getting triggered by the vision of lycra is no excuse to wipe them out.....there should be murder charges or Manslaughter charges at the very least in our Country but there doesn't seem to be an appetite for that....." oh it was by car...that's alright then" seems to be the attitude here.

Just like the law on terrorism now is rather weak (in this Country at least) the law against car crime is just the way things are today....the law doesn't bat an eyelid, offenders get let off with a wrist slap.

there appears to be no hope!!

[zebee]

There is no real difference in hitting another human on a bicycle or on foot by deliberate action than shoving a knife in his gut or shooting him with a gun, the result is the same but the former is swept under the carpet.

They aren't the same because of intent. To be murder there must be a clear intent to kill. There's few reasons to draw a gun and fire it that don't involve intent to kill. There are a lot of reasons to drive a car that don't involve intent to kill.

Manslaughter is when you kill but you didn't seem to intend to. You did something monumentally stupid or aggressive and someone died but you didn't mean exactly that to happen.

Again it is a hell of a lot harder to prove (and remember, innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt) that someone doing something in a car knew the stupid thing would kill and did it anyway.

Cars are a couple of ton of lethal weapon being swung about. It's what they are, it's what they do. Hundreds of thousands of them on the roads in Australia every single day. Swinging knives or guns is not the same. If someone has a knife or gun then it is reasonable to assume they intend harm. Driving a car, no.

ALso, every story we see in the news is, if you are lucky, a couple of hundred words. What is said in the courtroom is orders of magnitude more. We can't know from the news what the reality is. But as it is our ox being gored we are upset about it!

I do think we need more legislation and guidance about driving. You know where the sun is, if it is in your eyes you slow down and asssume there's something in the way so if you can't see you don't proceed. It shouldn't be allowed as an excuse. Driving towards the sun is common, doing it correctly needs to be the assumption on the part of the court just as driving on the correct side of the road is. Sun in your eyes should be no more of an excuse than "I wanted to pass so I just pulled out, didn't care if there was a car coming the other way" would be.

The way we get change is via parliament not the courts because the courts go by what was done before and the only thing that changes that is leglislation. You want change be a pain in the arse to your local member and every senator in your state.

[g-boaf]

Middle aged French driver charged with murder after appearing to deliberately drive over a 27 year old cyclist.

https://road.cc/content/news/france-sho ... ver-310841

OMGosh.....that's terrible....and in a Country where millions of eyes around the world every year tune into the biggest Cycling festival in the world, it seems it's not just Australia and America having some of the world's most aggressive drivers.

There is no real difference in hitting another human on a bicycle or on foot by deliberate action than shoving a knife in his gut or shooting him with a gun, the result is the same but the former is swept under the carpet.

Motorists getting triggered by the vision of lycra is no excuse to wipe them out.....there should be murder charges or Manslaughter charges at the very least in our Country but there doesn't seem to be an appetite for that....." oh it was by car...that's alright then" seems to be the attitude here.

Just like the law on terrorism now is rather weak (in this Country at least) the law against car crime is just the way things are today....the law doesn't bat an eyelid, offenders get let off with a wrist slap.

there appears to be no hope!!

Unfortunately there are monsters everywhere in the world, like the French guy who brutally abused his wife.

[brumby33]

There is no real difference in hitting another human on a bicycle or on foot by deliberate action than shoving a knife in his gut or shooting him with a gun, the result is the same but the former is swept under the carpet.

They aren't the same because of intent. To be murder there must be a clear intent to kill. There's few reasons to draw a gun and fire it that don't involve intent to kill. There are a lot of reasons to drive a car that don't involve intent to kill.

Manslaughter is when you kill but you didn't seem to intend to. You did something monumentally stupid or aggressive and someone died but you didn't mean exactly that to happen.

Again it is a hell of a lot harder to prove (and remember, innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt) that someone doing something in a car knew the stupid thing would kill and did it anyway.

Cars are a couple of ton of lethal weapon being swung about. It's what they are, it's what they do. Hundreds of thousands of them on the roads in Australia every single day. Swinging knives or guns is not the same. If someone has a knife or gun then it is reasonable to assume they intend harm. Driving a car, no.

ALso, every story we see in the news is, if you are lucky, a couple of hundred words. What is said in the courtroom is orders of magnitude more. We can't know from the news what the reality is. But as it is our ox being gored we are upset about it!

I do think we need more legislation and guidance about driving. You know where the sun is, if it is in your eyes you slow down and asssume there's something in the way so if you can't see you don't proceed. It shouldn't be allowed as an excuse. Driving towards the sun is common, doing it correctly needs to be the assumption on the part of the court just as driving on the correct side of the road is. Sun in your eyes should be no more of an excuse than "I wanted to pass so I just pulled out, didn't care if there was a car coming the other way" would be.

The way we get change is via parliament not the courts because the courts go by what was done before and the only thing that changes that is leglislation. You want change be a pain in the arse to your local member and every senator in your state.

Yeah you're right Zebee but the results are the same and as for the courts, they are a law amongst themselves, no matter what State Parliament puts through, at the end of the day it's the Magistrates that determine the outcome.

[warthog1]

There is no real difference in hitting another human on a bicycle or on foot by deliberate action than shoving a knife in his gut or shooting him with a gun, the result is the same but the former is swept under the carpet.

They aren't the same because of intent. To be murder there must be a clear intent to kill. There's few reasons to draw a gun and fire it that don't involve intent to kill. There are a lot of reasons to drive a car that don't involve intent to kill.

Manslaughter is when you kill but you didn't seem to intend to. You did something monumentally stupid or aggressive and someone died but you didn't mean exactly that to happen.

Again it is a hell of a lot harder to prove (and remember, innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt) that someone doing something in a car knew the stupid thing would kill and did it anyway.

Cars are a couple of ton of lethal weapon being swung about. It's what they are, it's what they do. Hundreds of thousands of them on the roads in Australia every single day. Swinging knives or guns is not the same. If someone has a knife or gun then it is reasonable to assume they intend harm. Driving a car, no.

ALso, every story we see in the news is, if you are lucky, a couple of hundred words. What is said in the courtroom is orders of magnitude more. We can't know from the news what the reality is. But as it is our ox being gored we are upset about it!

I do think we need more legislation and guidance about driving. You know where the sun is, if it is in your eyes you slow down and asssume there's something in the way so if you can't see you don't proceed. It shouldn't be allowed as an excuse. Driving towards the sun is common, doing it correctly needs to be the assumption on the part of the court just as driving on the correct side of the road is. Sun in your eyes should be no more of an excuse than "I wanted to pass so I just pulled out, didn't care if there was a car coming the other way" would be.

The way we get change is via parliament not the courts because the courts go by what was done before and the only thing that changes that is leglislation. You want change be a pain in the arse to your local member and every senator in your state.

Good post.
I don't see much hope for change then if it is coming via our elected representatives.
They are elected by the popular vote.

Not convinced that driver, if he did the same here, would be charged with murder. I have no legal history or expertise to base that on. Just what is seen as reasonable treatment toward cyclists in the eyes of many here is pretty harsh. Killing not so much, but deliberate endangerment, then yes. Manslaughter maybe, murder unconvinced. Hopefully find_ bruce or somebody else who knows better will correct me. Happy to be wrong.

[g-boaf]

I bet this would be wildly popular if it was offered for sale here:

https://www.drive.com.au/news/armoured- ... treatment/

Just the thing for the dangerous and rugged trip to the local private school, or to the pub car park.

Definitely allow people to live out their Rambo SUV fantasies.

[redsonic]

I bet this would be wildly popular if it was offered for sale here:

https://www.drive.com.au/news/armoured- ... treatment/

Just the thing for the dangerous and rugged trip to the local private school, or to the pub car park.

Definitely allow people to live out their Rambo SUV fantasies.

All they need to complete the picture is a machine gun turret in the tray

[warthog1]

Stupid thing is too long. Terrible ramp over angle. The old Patrol has pretty easily traversed stuff that would not manage.

[Thoglette]

More to the point, it's not going to survive an antipersonal mine, nevermind a proper mine.
And I don't like it's chances against a .50 AP round. Maybe it'll stop splinters and 5.56. Which is better than a stock Silverado

[g-boaf]

More to the point, it's not going to survive an antipersonal mine, nevermind a proper mine.
And I don't like it's chances against a .50 AP round. Maybe it'll stop splinters and 5.56. Which is better than a stock Silverado

I assume you've been to the USA and have seen the thing in person and know exactly what they've done with it and wouldn't mind explaining it all here?

I mean, half the US Army probably hasn't seen it yet and there are few details so far about it from what I can see, so I won't judge it.