red light cross?

Red Light Cameras are automated traffic safety devices that record video and/or take pictures when a vehicle has entered an intersection on a red light. The photos and video are then reviewed by a police officer and a citation is sent in the mail to the driver.

The penalty is $370 and a point on one's driving record. The monetary fine has been raised numerous times by the state since Red-Light Cameras became legal in California.

In order to be cited, one must cross the intersection's limit line while the signal is red. California law requires a clear picture of the driver and license plate in order to be fined. This photo must also match the picture on the driver's license of the vehicle's registered owner. Due to these facts, not every violation results in a citation. California's legislation requires a clear photo of the driver in order to issue a fine and add a point to your driving record as a moving violation. Red-light running is a very serious traffic violation because T-bone crashes are among the most dangerous types of crashes, occurring on the side of a vehicle with little protection for passengers during a crash.

There were over 50 warnings sent out in just the first two weeks of the grace period, all caught by only two (of the four that will be active) cameras. The city has entered a contract with Nestor Traffic Systems in which the city will pay no more than a flat fee or what the cameras actually collect, whichever is less.

The cameras on Russell and First went live around Dec. 13, and 30 days after will be a grace period, in which violators will only receive a photo in the mail and will not be fined for the violation. The cameras on Chiles and Pole Line went live in mid-January 2006.

Today's traffic cameras can detect vehicle speeds, but their use by Davis Public Works remains a mystery. Loop detectors buried in the ground can also be used to measure the speed of red-light runners. The traffic cameras installed in Davis are 100% directional, which means if you are going any other direction then the camera does not track you.

Bicyclists can not be cited using Red Light Cameras because there is no legislation permitting cities to do so as well as the fact that cameras can not easily see the registration stickers on a bike.

Apparently, violation video footage will be available on the Internet for review. The URL for the footage is not yet known.

Camaro or Mustang

ord and Chevy are waging an escalating horsepower war with their iconic pony cars, but this time around, things are different. While attention has historically surrounded the fire-breathing, high-performance V8 versions of the Mustang and Camaro, the realities of today’s market have shifted the focus to the base models, both powered by V6 engines.
Since Ford launched this entire category with the Mustang in 1964, the V6 versions of these cars have been mostly underwhelming, at best serving as cheap transportation for teen wannabes while earning the derisive moniker “secretary cars.” But that changed with GM’s “reboot” of the Camaro for the 2010 model year. The long-awaited new model hit the market in summer 2009, with its base V6 rated at 304 horsepower and 273 lb-ft of torque. All of a sudden, there was a $23,000 pony car with real power -- and it even managed 29 miles per gallon on the highway, according to the EPA .
To put the Camaro’s achievement in proper perspective, consider that the 2010 Mustang GT’s V8 is rated at 315 horsepower, just 11 more than Chevy’s V6. Heck, even the final V8 Camaro GM sold before putting the nameplate on hiatus, a 2002 model, managed only 310 horsepower. (The old V6 was downright pathetic, making just 200.) Most importantly, however, was that the 2010 Camaro V6 was rated at a whopping 94 horses more than the V6 Mustang. As you might imagine, this did not make Ford particularly pleased.
But the Blue Oval wasn’t down for the count, and in fact, was readying new engines for the 2011 Mustang, which goes on sale this month. While the big news for Mustang aficionados may have been the rebirth of the “5.0” V8, the 412-horsepower monster found in the flagship Mustang GT, an all-new V6 also debuted. Displacing 3.7 liters and producing 305 horsepower and 280 lb-ft of torque, Ford’s new V6 had tweaked the Camaro by a single horsepower.

See more pictures of the 2011 Ford Mustang GT by clicking the above photo. Ford
When Dave Pericak, chief engineer of the Mustang, was asked if his $23,000 V6 pony car was tuned just to beat Chevy, he replied, “I’m not going to lie to you, that’s exactly why.”
Now this is where things get really interesting. Not long after Ford announced the numbers for the new Mustang V6, GM informed the world that its V6 was actually producing 312 horsepower and 278 lb-ft of torque -- and that from the 2011 model year forward, that would be the Camaro’s official power rating. Advantage: Chevy.
So what actually happened? How could the General pull eight extra horses out of its hat, just when it appeared FoMoCo was about to claim the title?
As it turns out, the answer is quite simple: All it did was actually test the Camaro V6 according to the Society of Automotive Engineers standard that manufacturers use to certify their engines.
But wait, hadn’t GM already tested and certified the Camaro V6 and got the 304 horsepower result? Yes, and no. The Camaro uses the same V6 drivetrain that debuted in the 2008 Cadillac CTS, and according to spokesman Tom Read, initially GM did not re-certify the V6 for the Camaro. So Chevy was using the CTS test results to determine the Camaro’s official rating, this despite knowing that the 3.6-liter V6 would achieve slightly better performance in the Camaro due to a more efficient intake and exhaust system. No parts were changed in the Camaro engine and the engine control software was not reprogrammed, meaning the 2011 Camaro offers exactly the same performance as the 2010 model. The only difference is its official rating.
“The competitive landscape changed,” said Read, “So we said, ‘Wait a minute here, maybe there’s reason we should go through the procedure.’ We did it for obvious competitive reasons. I don’t know if Ford pushed us to do it, as much as we pushed them to improve their engines. GM got Ford to step it up a bit.”

See more pictures of the 2010 Chevy Camaro by clicking the above photo. General Motors
Clearly, the motivation behind all this one-upsmanship is the belief that trumping your rival in horsepower translates into sales. So can we expect to see Ford eke a few more ponies out of their steed for 2012? Ford is not saying, but it seems likely that this is one battle they will be content to lose -- in favor of waging a broader war.
“We’re not going to comment on the Camaro. We’ve made the best V6 Mustang ever, and we’re not going to concentrate on someone else’s horsepower number,” said Ford spokesman Richard Truett.
There are other numbers to consider, numbers that Ford thinks are in its favor. Even if GM’s new rating for the Camaro gives it an apparent advantage, Ford says its V6 Mustang manages 31 mpg’s on the highway when equipped with a six-speed automatic. (The six-speed manual matches the Camaro at 29 mpg.) How do you do the math on GM’s two-percent horsepower advantage against Ford’s seven percent better fuel economy?
Another thing to think about is curb weight. The lightest V6 Camaro weighs in at a hefty 3,719 pounds, while Ford’s estimate for the Mustang is 3,473. Thus my calculator tells me that the Mustang has the better power to weight ratio, at 1:11.4 versus 1:11.9 for the Camaro. While there are a multitude of issues involved in determining overall performance, from torque and gearing to tires and handling, the raw data suggests that the Mustang will outperform the Camaro, at least in a 0-60 mph sprint. Testing by car magazines seems to confirm this.
Regardless of who ultimately wins bragging rights, the fact is that the automakers are clearly paying close attention to the V6 models. Ford says it is seeing an even split in the orders for the new V6 against the V8, compared to past launches where V6 models only accounted for 30 percent. Chevy says its projections show V6 models -- currently making up about half the mix -- will eventually account for the majority of sales.
It’s no wonder, either. Turn the clock back a decade and I would have told you an inexpensive, six-cylinder pony car that returns nearly 30 miles per gallon on the highway while generating 300-plus horsepower was crazy talk. But that’s today’s reality.

damage to your car other than the obvious seeable damages?

The driver and or the owner of the vehicle being driven is responsible for the damage caused. Since it was a hit and run, I assume no coverge on their part. If you have Full coverage Insurance or at least uninsured motorists, then your policy will cover the loss. A police report is recommended.
This is a good question, particularly since it's such a frustrating thing. The best way to look at it is this: Your deductible has nothing to do with liability. Rather, your deductible relates to the rates you pay for insurance, and how much of the damages you are willing to absorb out-of-pocket. Your insurance carrier considers your deductible the amount you agreed to pay in any accident, regardless of fault and assuming your carrier is paying for damages to your vehicle. For instance, say you're sitting at a red light, and a drunk driver comes up behind you and rear ends your vehicle. Obviously, you're not at-fault for that; however, if you choose to go through your own insurance, you'll still be required to pay your deductible when you have your vehicle repaired. Unfortunately, unlike an accident in which the other driver is known, your insurance company can't go after a hit-and-run driver (this is called "subrogation," which most insurance companies are happy to pursue when they can because they want their money back, too). So, unless your insurance policy waives deductibles for hit-and-run accidents (which is rare), you'll be paying.
Be careful about reporting this if the damage is minimal. Someone dented my truck overnight in a parking lot. I reported it to my insurance company, the repair was $526. I paid the $500 deductable, and they paid the $26. About 4.5 years later, I'm shopping for new insurance, and the insurance companies are adding about $130/6-months because of that 'accident'.
EXACTLY.. (referring to the last post).. I was in a hit and run, my car was totaled. My own insurance company paid me $5,196 for my dead Honda Civic (RIP). But the pay out was from my collision insurance. SO... that claims record shows up when I try to shop around to other insurance companies... even though my carrier (GEICO) coded the accident as me being NOT at fault... the other companies don't care! They see your claims history, and their risk algorhithms return higher rates! It's crap!
If you have uninsured motorist coverage, it should cover this damage. It could depend upon on policy language and state law, but only to the extent that crafty adjusters use such reasons, falsely, to convince their trusting insureds not to pursue coverage for the deductible. While there is not a deductible, per se, for this coverage, an insured is usually required to pay 'the first $250' in damages. This is an important distinction; while you can choose varying amounts for your deductible, which will influence your premium amount, the amount you pay toward your damages due to an uninsured motorist does NOT change, allowing you to influence your premium amount. Additionally, because it was paid under Uninsured Motorist coverage, it will be clear to any potential NEW carrier, that this was NOT an at fault accident. And to further complicate matters, with some insurance carriers, you could possibly be required to identify the hit-run driver in order to trigger the UM coverage. (license plate, year/make/model/color, etc. You may not have to have name, rank, & serial number.).
Again, this is inevitably an insurance adjuster ploy. The only legitimate reason for which an adjuster may ask for such information is when an insured damages their own car and claims that the cause was another car which forced them off the road but did not actually strike their vehicle. (known in the trade as a "phantom" driver claim).
In the UK - the driver of the vehicle which causes the hit and run and in turn his motor insurance. If however the driver cannot be found or is uninsured when found the Motor Insurer Bureau will meet your claims for vehicle damage and injury compensation. see the related link entitled "hit and run accident" for more details on how to recover compensation in the UK.

The question is, 'who's responsible for hit and run damage?', The 'runner' would be responsible of course, but if they 'ran' chances are they may not be caught and thus made responsible for their actions. Hopefully the victim got a license plate (if that were possible and not just hit while parked and no one around to witness this accident) and this can be traced either thru their local law enforcement agency or their states DMV.

If you have collision coverage you can file the claim, and have your vehicle repaired (subject to your deductible) your company will attempt to subrogate the guilty party, recouping your deductible and their payout (if information on fleeing vehicle is available).

You do not say which state you are in, so I couldn't check that states requirements or coverage definitions directly, however I think it needs to be clarified that uninsured motorist coverage (in all but very few states that mandate UM also includes UMPD), will ONLY cover injuries and costs associated with the injury caused by a negligent uninsured driver. Uninsured motorist property damage coverage, is NOT a required, but rather optional coverage that (unfortunately), most people neither know about or have. Will cover the physcial damage to your vehicle caused by a negligent uninsured driver subject to the deductible. Most people however would not see the necessity of carrying UMPD if they have collision coverage. There is no deductible for uninsured motorist coverage.

Ford Ranger

2012 FORD RANGER REVIEW

What’s hot: Bigger, stronger, quieter, car-like refinement with big ute payload
What’s not: Wheel that only adjusts for rake (not reach), more expensive than HiLux
X-Factor: Looks tough, is tough; but it’s not only tradies who are gonna love this truck

Price: $55,390 (XLT auto), $43,890 (XL manual)

Fuel Consumption (claimed): 9.2 l/100km (auto)
Fuel consumption (on test): 9.9 l/100km (auto)

OVERVIEW

This is the one. Ford's new 2012 PX Ranger is the benchmark: the one to take the battle to Toyota's dominant HiLux.

Of all the pretenders to the HiLux throne - the Amarok, Mitsubishi's Triton, Navara, Colorado, Isuzu's D-Max - none have the armoury of the Ranger.

Strong, tough, refined, and quieter than all, the Ford Australia-designed and engineered new Ranger is a generation ahead of each.

And with optional six-speed auto, 470Nm of torque and a 3.35 tonne braked towing capacity for the 3.2 litre diesel tested here, it is perhaps two generations ahead of the HiLux (its recent update notwithstanding).

But will it outsell the HiLux? Only the brave would make that call. As we commented in reviewing the updated HiLux, its reputation as a tough, reliable work-companion is deserved. That's why it has ruled the segment for 14 years.

We put the new Ranger XLT and XL twin-cab 4x4s through their paces on the highway around the Adelaide Hills, and off-road into some challenging tracks and trails through the Flinders Rangers.

It was impossible not to be impressed. We were expecting the Ranger to be good, but few could have expected how good. For engineering, for practical work-horse capability and refinement, Ford has leap-frogged every other contender in the sector. Bar none.

INTERIOR

Quality: The XLT Ranger's interior is both well-designed and well put-together. But while it's good, it doesn't kill the opposition. I would give the nod to the Amarok over the Ranger for interior feel.

The new Ranger does however beat the HiLux, Triton and Navara for trim quality and for the clean lines and shapes of the interior: from the stippled sloping dash to the brushed metal centre stack, instrument bezels, and satin metal highlights to the doors.

It’s a pretty nice place to be, whether in XLT or XL configuration.

Comfort: With wide-opening doors, well-padded seats and appealing tactile surfaces - like 'cold-feel' door handles, appealing seat fabrics, padded door-rests – the Ranger XLT feels more like a modern sedan than a ‘fourby’ ute, both for the snug ambience of the interior, and for its isolation and refinement.

And, front and back, it’s roomy. The B-pillars have been moved forward in the twin-cab to create larger rear-door openings and larger rear glass. The doors open ‘square’, at close to 90-degrees, to make getting in and out easier.

And, in the back, there’s ample room for Lenny, Dags and Gino (we put a 6'2" guinea-pig in there for a knee and headroom check), and oodles of room for the young family.

A debit is that the steering-wheel adjusts for rake only, and not reach, and the carpets are commercial fare (for those who care about carpet).

Features: Besides the obvious like bigger tyres, alloy wheels, three-bar chrome grille and stepped rear bumper, the XLT carries a higher grade of trim, metal garnishes to the interior and doors, and a much longer feature list.

The XLT comes with steering wheel mounted audio and cruise control and Bluetooth with voice-control. There is a 4.2-inch colour screen, rain-sensing wipers, a clever ‘joy-stick’ control in the centre-stack, iPod and MP3 CD audio system, and automatic locking doors on driveaway.

There are other smart touches like regenerative charging when decelerating (common to all models) and alarm with motion sensors (to keep the tools better secured).

Storage: The double-cab tub is 1549mm long, 1560mm wide, 1139 between the wheel-arches and 511mm deep. This makes it one of the biggest in its class for cubic capacity and capable of taking a payload of 1148kg.

For trade buyers, or those looking to tow something seriously big, the new Ranger comes with a 3.35 tonne braked towing capacity which monsters most of its nearest competitors.

Lift up the rear seats and you'll find storage compartments (to keep valuables out of sight), fold the backs forward and you'll find more stowage space. The glovebox is designed to take a lap-top computer and the centre-console is vented to the air-con to keep drinks cool.

There are drinks holders in the console, bottle holders in the doors, and drinks holders in a folding arm-rest for rear-seat passengers.

ON THE ROAD

Driveability: Here, on road, at the wheel, this is where the Ranger crushes the opposition. Its 3.2 litre I5 diesel is simply a cracking unit.

With 147kW and 470Nm, it's strong, strongest of its natural enemies – only the Navara 3.0DT V6 2WD diesel gives it any heat – but it's far and away the quietest and smoothest of all.

Mated to the six-speed auto, it pulls like a train on the tarmac. We did a looping run with 800kg in the rear tub; quite simply we forgot about it.

The Ranger barely knew it was there, it still pulled effortlessly, retained its on-road compliance, and only on tight corners was it apparent there was “something in the back”.

The 6R80 six-speed transmission has both Sport and Normal modes. It is simply a matter of flicking the lever and, if left in Sport, upshifts occur later, or you can paddle it up and down through the gears manually.

It also comes with ‘grade logic control’ which automatically downshifts on descents or into corners (making towing a safer proposition).

Refinement: Is this the most refined diesel in the commercial 4X4 class? We'd reckon it is. Clatter, that diesel thing, is all-but absent. Away from idle, at highway speeds, or grinding up a steep incline, it rarely sounds stretched or harsh and is more refined than what you'll find under the bonnet of a lot of up-market, expensive family sedans.

On-road, the interior is well isolated not only from road shocks and mechanical harshness (fluid-filled body mounts at work here) but also from road-roar and wind noise.

And, thanks to the tub design, even when travelling at well-above normal highway speeds, whistling or wind-shear that can occasionally be generated between the tub and the passenger compartment has been engineered out.

Suspension: With coil-over shocks double wishbone front suspension, rack and pinion steering, the Ranger drives more like a car than a commercial ute.

The turning circle is reasonable tight, and, while there is not a lot of feedback through the wheel on the highway, it's about right off-road.

Braking: That three-plus tonne braked towing capacity not only demands a strong chassis, but strong braking performance. While the pedal is more commercial underfoot than car-like, it's not heavy and has a progressive feel.

We found the braking fade free and, even when clearly working overtime on the longer looser descents (rattling on and off with the traction control), on no occasion were we left with a wooden pedal feel at the bottom.

Off-Road: You can flick between 2H and 4H at up to 110km/h. Great when belting along a gravel road, and the additional traction and control is felt instantly.

For 4L, it’s a matter of coming to a stop, slipping to neutral then engaging the transfer case via a switchable button on the console. Sure beats fiddling about with a lever.

Off-road, in four-low, diff-lock engaged, with those 470 Newton-metres all working quietly at your disposal, a rigid chassis and with long wheel articulation, you can pick your way up and over almost anything.

It’s so capable, it takes the challenge – and consequently some of the fun – out of it. But you’re gonna love it if you’re dragging a heavy boat up a slippery boat ramp or hauling a Bobcat out of a sodden building site.

Transfer-case, drivetrain, oil pan and fuel tank are tucked inside the side rails for better off-road protection. Minimum ground clearance is 230mm with 16-inch wheels fitted, more of course in the XLT with its 17-inch rims.

We found the bump-stops only once, and had no trouble stepping up and over some pretty steep, rock-strewn pinches.

Also, while we didn’t have the opportunity to test it out, with an 800mm wading line, the Ranger comes with the deepest water fording capability in its class.

SAFETY RATING

ANCAP RATING: Not yet rated.

Safety features: The Ranger comes loaded with all the expected safety features, and some unexpected.

The expected include front, side and curtain airbags, pretensioning seat-belts and child restraint anchorages. Also expected is electronic stability control, ABS, EBD and traction control.

Less expected is the adaptive load control, trailer sway control (using the ABS and ESC to stabilise and prevent jack-knifing when towing – a potential life-saver for those towing large caravans and boats) with roll-over mitigation control, and rear park assist and rear-view camera system.

It also comes with hill-descent control and hillstart assist.

In the manual, we tried the hill-descent control in ‘angel’. That is, we pushed it out of gear on a steep – like really steep – rock-strewn descent and took the foot off the brake. This messes with the head big-time: no trouble, gravity, traction control and ABS simply conveyed us to the floor of the valley. All we did was steer.

WARRANTY AND SERVICING

Warranty: TBA

Servicing: Capped-price servicing across the range, service intervals 15,000km.

HOW IT COMPARES: VALUE FOR MONEY

The update to the HiLux saw Toyota revise its pricing down across the range. Nissan and Mitsubishi also have some very attractive price discounts at the moment for the Triton and Navara.

The new Ranger is more expensive than most – it's priced more in line with the Amarok – but packages a lot more car into the money, and a lot more appeal.

VERDICT: OVERALL

Ford is building terrific cars at the moment. Can you find a dud in the range? I can’t. And Ford Australia engineers have dropped two absolutely stand-out cars into our laps this year: The Territory, and now the Ranger.

Of those two, the Ranger is the greater achievement. Starting from a clean sheet of paper, and seven years in the making, this is one exceptional dual-cab ute - in both XLT and XL configuration.

Unless Holden has something absolutely magical up its sleeve with the new Colorado, Ford’s Ranger will remain head and shoulders above everything in the sector.

Everywhere you care to look, on every objective measure, where HiLux is good, Ranger is better. Ditto for Triton, ditto for Amarok and ditto for Navara. It’s that good.

HiLux deserves its four-star rating. It has pounded its usurpers mercilessly for nearly two decades. But Ford’s new Ranger is a game-changer.

This is the best dual-cab diesel 4X4 ute you can buy at the moment. But don’t believe a word of this review; when it hits Ford showrooms, go and have a look for yourself.

SMALL CAR SYNDROME' IS MOST PREVALENT AMONG YOUNG WOMEN

You've heard of small man syndrome, but do drivers of small cars suffer from a similar need to overcompensate for their vehicle's diminutive dimensions? According to a study commissioned by local insurer AAMI, the answer is yes.

A survey of 3740 drivers conducted by Newspoll found drivers of small cars are more likely to drive after taking illegal drugs and use their phone to read or send emails or text messages while behind the wheel.

Three quarters of all small-car owners surveyed admitted to "sometimes driving dangerously", more than any other driver category.

Forty-six per cent of small-car drivers admitted to gesturing rudely at other motorists compared with 36 per cent of large-car drivers, while 23 per cent said they tailgated versus 18 per cent of large-car drivers.

But unlike small man syndrome, it appears 'small car syndrome' is most prevalent among young women, with females aged 18 to 24 who own small cars the most likely to engage in aggressive or reckless driving.

AUSTRALIAN DRIVERS FACE SMALL CAR SYNDROME REVEALS STUDY

Traffic in Australia has to drive safely on the country roads now because research is pointing those smaller car drivers, who are commonly being seen following gestures rudely than the drivers of other cars.In context to same, one of the country's major insurers has also said that Australia is noticing a wide spread of Small Car Syndrome.

The above confirmations have come from research of AAMI, findings of which have pointed that the smaller cars drivers have commonly started using aggressive or reckless tactics while their driving on the country roads.Explaining the rife in so-called Smaller Car Syndrome, AAMI spokesman Mr. David Skapinker said in his statement that like other costs, motoring costs have also increased to a new high following which, people have majorly started opting smaller cars than the bigger ones.

Along the same line, a recently concluded research, which was carried out by a team of experts from AAMI, has revealed that drivers in Australia, especially those driving smaller vehicles, are more expected to make use of reckless or aggressive tactics while on the roads.While expressing his opinion in this regard, along with mentioning what all consequences can come into play due to the increasing number of cases being confirmed for the Small Car Syndrome, a spokesman of AAMI, David Skapinker, said: “Because of the rising cost of motoring we’re seeing a trend toward smaller cars becoming popular, so it’s worrying if people feel the need to overcompensate for their smaller assets by displaying risky driving behaviours”.

In addition, it has been said that drivers driving small cars are more and more expected to gesture impolitely and they also tend to give a mouthful of abusive words to another drivers.

Also, it can be seen that they’re generally more expected to tailgate as compared to drivers driving larger vehicles. During the course of the research carried out by a team of researchers from AAMI, it was spotted that drivers with small cars are more inclined towards participating in reckless and rash driving, which are almost always accompanied by strange and not up-to-the-code behaviours like mixing driving with the use of illegal and dangerous drugs, making use of cell phones for checking emails and reading or sending texts while driving.

He added, "Drivers of small cars are significantly more likely to gesture rudely and deliver a mouthful of verbal abuse towards another driver, and they're also significantly more likely to tailgate than drivers of larger cars".

These have become very common issues on roads when people driving the little hatch or small sedan darts in and out of traffic or gets in to conflict with another driver for driving at the speed limit thereby restricting his speed as well etc.Thus, with the new research, the authority aims to make people learn that road rules have to be followed by all no matter the driver is driving what size or kind of car.The research of AAMI also cleared that the drivers of smaller cars have majority of population among the ones, who are caught for following reckless driving behaviors like under the influence of illegal drugs, accessing their mobiles while driving etc.

SMALL-CAR DRIVERS HAVE BIGGEST MOUTHS - FACT

A News poll study of nearly 4000 Aussie drivers has found that drivers of small cars are more prone to getting aggressive on the road, and of those - the biggest culprits are women.

"We found that drivers of small cars are most likely to display rude or aggressive driving techniques," said David Skapinker, director of corporate affairs at insurer AAMI.

"Things like tailgating or screaming abuse at other drivers or even giving them the old two-finger salute."

Mr Skapinker said young female drivers of small cars were more likely to display aggressive driving behavior than men.

"Now that doesn't mean that they (women) are any worse drivers than men," he said,

Top 50 Tech Rec Coverage

mall car syndrome" is rife on Victorian roads, according to a study by car insurer AAMI.

Spokesman David Skapinker said drivers of two or three-door hatches and sedans were more likely to be aggressive on the road.

"Drivers of small cars are significantly more likely to gesture rudely and deliver a mouthful of verbal abuse towards another driver, and they're also significantly more likely to tailgate than drivers of larger cars," Mr Skapinker said.

"We've all seen them on the road, the little hatch or small sedan, darting in and out of traffic and getting upset when another driver either takes them to task on their conduct or for simply driving at the speed limit."

The worst offenders were women aged 18-24, as they were more likely to own a small car, the study found.

Drivers of small cars were also more likely to drive after taking illegal drugs and check emails and text messages while driving.

Nine per cent of vehicles on Victorian roads are small cars. Of their drivers, 35 per cent have made rude gestures to other drivers, 49 per cent have yelled and sworn and 20 per cent have become so angry they have tailgated another driver.

Student Shannen De La Motte, 19, of Bundoora, who drives a Mazda 323 Astina hatch, admitted it was tough to keep her temper under control.

"I get particularly annoyed with slow drivers, and those not paying attention at lights," she said. "I think small car drivers can be more aggressive because they can weave in and out of traffic."

"But demographically they're also the most likely to purchase these cars."

The study, backed by AAMI, suggests drivers of smaller cars are more likely to use reckless tactics or display rude gestures, perhaps to compensate for the size of the car.But Mr Skapinker says there is likely to be a more demographic-based theory to explain the phenomenon - young people are more likely to buy smaller cars because they are cheaper.

"Young people obviously have less experience on the road and don't necessarily understand the consequences of their actions," he said.

The research, based on a survey of 3740 drivers over the age of 18, found that 46 per cent of drivers of small cars admit to gesturing rudely compared to about a third of large car drivers.Almost 60 per cent of small-car drivers said they had verbally abused other drivers, but only 47 per cent of large-car drivers said they had succumbed to verbal abuse on the roads.