Toyota Kluger - Rolls during Wheels COTY

[B-Series]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

The facts of the rollover are irrelevant, you said you've never heard of one ever rolling, giving the impression that you assume they are un-rollable.

Yes, you're right. My post was a little ambiguous and did give the impression that the Kluger is un-rollable. I should have rephrased my initial post to reflect what I really meant. I agree, I wouldn't be suprised if several owners have rolled their Klugers given the cirumstances (serious accidents etc.). However, given the circumstances just about any 4WD/SUV or any car for that matter will roll over. My point being that I'm yet to hear of a Toyota Kluger being rolled when driven in a normal everday manner (in the way it was meant to be driven). If so, I'm sure there would be complaints from Kluger owners and we would be aware of them right now.

[B-Series]

Originally Posted by Steffo

You talk about about credability yet you compare cars from 1989 and 1998 to a car from 2008?

Good one, genius. : :

Still don't get it do you? I'm assuming that you haven't had the benefit of a decent tertiary education. I'm going to explain it to you as simply as possible so that you can comprehend.

As I said before, I was not trying to compare the safety of a 1997 car to the safety of a 2008 car. Technology has vastly improved in the past 10 years so the outcome is already obvious from the start. Comparing a brand new car to an old one would be stating the obvious.

If you remember correctly, you said that the Lancer crash test video was not impressive

The lancer crash test video and its 5 star rating are bloody impressive for a car in that class.

Despite this, you still insisted that the Lancer crash test was unimpressive. I was a little shocked that you couldn't recognise a good result when you saw one so I decided to post the 1997 Clio crash test video to show you the clear difference between a good result and a bad result. I could have used any unsafe example (e.g. that new Chinese car) to make my point; but I chose to use an old renault which would also illustrate my point clearly enough.

If I wanted to make a proper comparison between the Lancer and Clio I would have used the current Clio as an example. As far as I am aware the new clio has a 5 star rating so it is right up there with the new lancer. The lancer is the larger and heavier car though. As I have already mentioned, I did not wish to make a direct comparison between the two cars. I merely wanted to illustrate the difference between a bad result and a good result so that you can appreciate how safe the new lancer is.

Basically, you said that the new lancer has the structural integrity of a paper cup. I have provided factual and convincing evidence to the contrary. This just goes to show that a lot of what you say is crap which is not backed up by the facts. :

You say that Toyotas are unsafe. New Corolla - 5 stars. The rest of the range (as far as I'm aware) - at least 4 stars. The facts speak for themselves.

[B-Series]

Originally Posted by Steffo

PS - Its also extremley funny how you completley ignore the video posted of how much worse the 1992 Corolla and Civic are in comparison with the 1989-1997 Renault Clio I. Oh wait, perhaps because that completley destroys your argument, not that you really had one in the first place! :togo: :

I chose to ignore the video of the video of the 1992 corolla because it had nothing to do with my argument. As I have already mentioned; it was never my intention to compare the safety of the new Clio to the safety of the new Lancer. I was merely trying to illustrate the difference between a safe car (intact cabin) and a dangerous one (deformed cabin).

I could have used any unsafe car to illustrate this point - if I had wanted to.

But since you have raised the issue, I will reply to your previous post.

[B-Series]

Originally Posted by Steffo

The Renault Clio I (1989 release year) cabin does deform.

The Renault Clio II (1998 release year) cabin doesn't. It doesn't score 4.5/5 in EuroNCAP without reason.

Yes, I'll agree with you on this point. The NCAP ratings speak for themselves. Just like the new corolla and new lancer's 5 star safety rating I suppose.

[B-Series]

Originally Posted by Steffo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIcRVL_pBZM

Like this one. Oooh yeah, gotta love those buckling rooves. :

That's actually a newer model car then a Clio I, those were released around 1992!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coWbbT0HaKA

More Corolla cabin/roof deformation...

Those corolla crash tests are not bad for 16 plus years ago. They are actually quite normal for a small car of that era.

In fact, these cars look far worse:

death trap 1

death trap 2

death trap 3

Hmm... I see a lot of renault cabin/roof deformation...

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by B-Series

Those corolla crash tests are not bad for 16 plus years ago. They are actually quite normal for a small car of that era.

In fact, these cars look far worse:

death trap 1

death trap 2

death trap 3

Hmm... I see a lot of renault cabin/roof deformation...

Still harping on the Clio I (1989-1997) I see.

Then a first generation (1993) Twingo.

And a first generation (1993-2000) Laguna.

And if you think the crushed to pieces '92 Civic or the roof-buckling '92 Corolla are safe in comparison, you're.. well... I'll be nice and won't say anything.

Its also worth noting that the first gen Renault Twingo you linked as a EuroNCAP rating of 3/5 stars.

The Clio I (89-97) has 2/5 stars, the Clio II (98-04) 4.5/5 and the Clio III (05-present) 5/5.

The first gen Laguna is rated 2.5/5 stars on EuroNCAP and every single since has been 5/5.

That old Twingo though... I wonder how it would fare against some of its Japanese competitors from its day... like the awesome Suzuki Alto, Daihatsu Mira and other various super-small tin-cans like that.

First you try to prove that you're right somehow by comparing a 19 year old car to a brand new car, and that fails.

Now you try to go on a vandetta against the make of vehicle I drive by showing all these 15-20 year old cars, including one 3430mm long super-light supermini but without actually really comparing them to anything from marques you seem to go orgasmic over (Toyota, Mitsu etc).

You say I have no credibility? You're not doing so well there yourself either.

I do hope you continue trying to tell me that my opinion is wrong and I'm wrong for speaking it or even thinking something outside the robotic norm programmed into mindless drones by ad campagins though. Because so far your argument has done nothing other then "defeat," itself, so to speak.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by B-Series

Yes, I'll agree with you on this point. The NCAP ratings speak for themselves. Just like the new corolla and new lancer's 5 star safety rating I suppose.

This discussion has deviated from primary (active) safety to secondary (passive) safety. Primary safety is about the car's ability to avoid having an accident in the first place. The NCAP ratings are about secondary safety - how well the car protects you during the accident. The issue with the Kluger (and Toyotas generally) is about primary safety. The current Kluger's secondary safety is probably quite good given the absence of cabin crush after the roll (the Wheels editor actually mentioned how well the cabin protected him). The previous model was obviously lacking a bit in this area, judging by the US photos above. Toyota has lifted its game in the secondary safety area but lags behind in primary safety. By comparison those of you driving current model Fords be grateful.

BTW the Kluger in the Wheels accident rolled due to hitting a spoon drain next to the bitumen road. If you study the photo it slid off the dirt road on its wheels, probably backwards, hit the drain on the RH side, knocked its tyres off and did a 3/4 roll finishing on its LH side. To its credit it didn't roll on the flat due to COG transferring itself to outside of front wheels as Prados and other higher FWDs are prone to do (why do you think the Territory was designed so low slung?). The issue is that its electronic aids apparently didn't work and Bulmer was too far outside manual recoverability to correct it himself. Lets get back on track (so to speak!).

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by Steffo

I do hope you continue trying to tell me that my opinion is wrong and I'm wrong for speaking it or even thinking something outside the robotic norm programmed into mindless drones by ad campagins though. Because so far your argument has done nothing other then "defeat," itself, so to speak.

You were the one that said "Toyotas are an unsafe car maker", people said otherwise. There is proof of toyotas having 4-5star accross the range, with faverable comments from the professionals. Yet, you tried to say that toyotas were still unsafe, ignoring the NCAP, gone of on complete tangents and still think that your right. :

And there is the fact of the Accident that caused the mess, a roll over that cannont be atributed to one single event, let alone the ESP...

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by Nikked

You were the one that said "Toyotas are an unsafe car maker", people said otherwise. There is proof of toyotas having 4-5star accross the range, with faverable comments from the professionals. Yet, you tried to say that toyotas were still unsafe, ignoring the NCAP, gone of on complete tangents and still think that your right. :

And there is the fact of the Accident that caused the mess, a roll over that cannont be atributed to one single event, let alone the ESP...

They are unsafe. That is my opinion. Nothing will ever change that opinion. The NCAP videos are available to be viewed by everybody, and rather then have somebody else tell me what to think, I think what I choose to. And if you watch, for example, the VW Golf V NCAP video and compare it to every single Toyota production car, in my opinion, it fares better then all of them.

[B-Series]

Originally Posted by Steffo

Still harping on the Clio I (1989-1997) I see.

Then a first generation (1993) Twingo.

And a first generation (1993-2000) Laguna.

And if you think the crushed to pieces '92 Civic or the roof-buckling '92 Corolla are safe in comparison, you're.. well... I'll be nice and won't say anything.

I don't know how Honda came into this debate???

You don't need an IQ of over 65 to see that the Corolla is a much safer car than most Renaults of that era. The crash test videos make it quite obvious.

[LUXO_8]

i'd rather my cars roof crumbled than my dashboard smashing me in the chest...
cars can still be very safe even with roof deformation...

[B-Series]

Originally Posted by Steffo

First you try to prove that you're right somehow by comparing a 19 year old car to a brand new car, and that fails.

I know you're a little slow, so I'll try to be patient with you. It's so much harder when you have to deal an an ignorant and uneducated person... sigh.

As I have said time and time again...

When I posted up the lancer crash test video - you called it 'unimpressive'. It was quite obvious that you were unable to recognise a good crash test result when you saw one. In the Lancer video, you'll notice that the cabin stays intact and the driver stays protected. You can even open the driver's door after the crash. Not to mention the 5 star safety rating...

I decided to post up the 1997 clio video as an example of a bad result so that you can appreciate the difference between a good result and a bad result.

[B-Series]

Originally Posted by Steffo

You say I have no credibility? You're not doing so well there yourself either.

You've already seen how safe the new lancer is by viewing the crash test video . You already know of its 5 star rating. You already know that all the current model Toyotas have 4-5 star NCAP ratings. All these are cold hard facts that do not lie.

Even after all this evidence you still insist that the new lancer has the structural integrity of a paper cup and that all toyotas are death traps. You can argue all you like but that doesn't change fact. You can have your own opinion but that doesn't change fact either.

It is already quite obvious to anyone viewing this thread that you have no credibility whatsoever. We'll let the other forum members be the judge... :

[Swordsman88]

Guys, lets get back to the issue at hand, the ESP on the toyota kluger! This deals with primary (active) safety, not passive safety which crash test assess. For the record i don't have a big problem with toyota's passive safety. They usually have plenty of airbags and structurally usually hold up fine. They are 4-5 star cars as noted.

I saw that the recent ANCAP test limited the camry (with side airbags from memory) to 4 stars, which i thought was a little low for a brand new car. Toyota didn't supply an extra aurion for the side impact test needed for 5 stars, but did supply a camry with side airbags for the test (this makes sense, basically same car). It didn't do well enough anyway so it didn't get 5 stars. I could be wrong here so feel free to correct me those people in the know.

Point is, safety is a complex issue (including passive safety) and even the relatively thorough scientific ANCAP tests have been successfully disputed by car companies. I think a volvo was retested at their urging recently and the original test was shown to be flawed. Even so, they are a pretty good standard test. Orion Falcon may very well be a 5 star car, who knows.

Interesting for those that think it is all about side/curtain airbags for 5 stars, the new VE commodore got 4 stars, the holden fanboys noted that if the curtain airbag equipped car was tested it would have got 5 stars. Upon inspection of the detailed results, that is actually not accurate. The score for lower leg injury for the driver was actually no better than a VZ, and not enough to get 5 stars. This makes it ineligible for a 5 star result even with the optional side test.

My point is that we should all focus on avoiding accidents, via active safety, not focussing just on passive safety. Toyotas don't weight alot because they save weight in suspensions design (and FWD versus RWD). This doesn't affect passive safety much, but as is shown here, DOES AFFECT ACTIVE SAFETY! Suspenion wise a Kluger and Aurion are very similar, given the aurion isnt particularly good at handling, and has poor ESP on gravel, what makes people think a Kluger that weighs 300+kg more will suddenly be ok beats me! : As i said, back to the topic at hand!

[Poetic Justice]

Hooray for another thread over by Steffo and B-Series!

No offence but B-Series, you're a smart bloke. How is it you're not smart enough to realise at this point in time that taking him on is only killing more of your brain cells. Keep your smarts and move along, eh?

On topic: I'm not sure who'd be driving a Kluger in such situations, but I'd say from my own perspective (which is purely my own perspective, working in the motor industry means I get to experience a fair few different cars.) As far as SUV's go, there are two cars I've felt safe in in that segment. The first was the Nissan Murano, for it felt like I was sitting in a sedan and not experiencing mammoth amounts of body roll. The second car was the NG Kluger, experiencing similar feelings. Rav4 I dislike because my knee hits the dash. Prado I hate because it feels top heavy and has a fair bit of body roll. Landcruiser... too big, hah. (But that's just for what I would use it for.)

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by B-Series

I know you're a little slow, so I'll try to be patient with you. It's so much harder when you have to deal an an ignorant and uneducated person... sigh.

As I have said time and time again...

When I posted up the lancer crash test video - you called it 'unimpressive'. It was quite obvious that you were unable to recognise a good crash test result when you saw one. In the Lancer video, you'll notice that the cabin stays intact and the driver stays protected. You can even open the driver's door after the crash. Not to mention the 5 star safety rating...

I decided to post up the 1997 clio video as an example of a bad result so that you can appreciate the difference between a good result and a bad result.

And it begins. You've run out of intelligible argument so you've started with the commentary (first sentance).

Just as I have "ignored," so to speak, the Lancer and Toyota results, you also refuse to acknowledge the performance of the Renault Clio III (current model) or even Renault Clio II in the NCAP tests, persisting on using a car released in 1989 as an example. Why not be fair and post up an AE92 Corolla (1989) and 1989 Lancer test?

You're trying to back out of an unrealistic comparison now...

Originally Posted by B-Series

You've already seen how safe the new lancer is by viewing the crash test video . You already know of its 5 star rating. You already know that all the current model Toyotas have 4-5 star NCAP ratings. All these are cold hard facts that do not lie.

Even after all this evidence you still insist that the new lancer has the structural integrity of a paper cup and that all toyotas are death traps. You can argue all you like but that doesn't change fact. You can have your own opinion but that doesn't change fact either.

It is already quite obvious to anyone viewing this thread that you have no credibility whatsoever. We'll let the other forum members be the judge... :

One thing... 5-Star rating by who? I'm on the EuroNCAP website right now, and they don't even have a new model Mitsubishi Lancer test.

http://www.euroncap.com/carsearch.as...0-776f93376f0a

Do you see one?

EuroNCAP only has the 1.5/5 star '98 Lancer

ANCAP only has the 3/5 star '03 Lancer http://www.ancap.com.au/results/105/

So where does your mythical 5-Star Rating come from? B-Series-Mitsubishi-lover-rating?

Speakind of that 3/5 star Lancer... here's a competitor from the same time... from that company you've been oh-so trying to show up...

http://www.ancap.com.au/results/121/

If you say that I "can have my own opinion," then why do you persist, in many threads, not just this one, to try to prove to me that my opinion is wrong. You will never be able to do so. Every thread I've encountered you in so far has boiled down to the same thing... B-Series the Toyota & Mitsubishi sack-rider goes on a mission to prove that nobody's opinion about the cars but his own (which he admits is dictated by what other people tell him) and won't relent until the thread somehow ends, or like the last thread, is forced to. You must have some kind of device that beeps at you every time somebody disagrees with your opinion of Toyota and Mitsubishi and then you suit up in camo gear and go after them, hey?

Originally Posted by blackout

No offence but B-Series, you're a smart bloke. How is it you're not smart enough to realise at this point in time that taking him on is only killing more of your brain cells. Keep your smarts and move along, eh?

How you possibly come to this conclusion is beyond me? In fact, the question you ask in that sentance answers itself! If there were any "smarts," coming from his side to begin with, none of this thread or other threads would have happened. Remember, each started the same way... I stated opinion and then he set out to prove to me that his opinion that's told to him by other people is right, I am wrong and have to submit to him for some reason?

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by Steffo

One thing... 5-Star rating by who? I'm on the EuroNCAP website right now, and they don't even have a new model Mitsubishi Lancer test.

http://www.euroncap.com/carsearch.as...0-776f93376f0a

Do you see one?

So where does your mythical 5-Star Rating come from? B-Series-Mitsubishi-lover-rating?

Nice off topic rant Steffo. Hate to be the bringer of bad news, but here's a preliminary NCAP for the new lancer: http://www.safercar.gov/Cars/4141.html

[B-Series]

Originally Posted by Steffo

Why not be fair and post up an AE92 Corolla (1989) and 1989 Lancer test?

You want to know why? I've covered this many times already. Feel free to re-read all my previous posts and maybe the answer will finally register in your thick head. :

[B-Series]

Originally Posted by Steffo

Just as I have "ignored," so to speak, the Lancer and Toyota results, you also refuse to acknowledge the performance of the Renault Clio III (current model) or even Renault Clio II in the NCAP tests, persisting on using a car released in 1989 as an example.

All modern Renaults are death traps with paper cup structural integrity. I don't give a rats a$$ that they all have 5 star ratings from the NCAP. The people running the NCAP know nothing! The entire Renault model range are death traps! That is my opinion so I must be right! :

Note: this a parody of how steffo keeps on insisting that Toyotas and Lancers are death traps even though they have 4-5 star NCAP ratings. It's as if he thinks his opinion counts for more than the NCAP!

This just goes to show how stupid steffo really is.

[B-Series]

Originally Posted by Steffo

Remember, each started the same way... I stated opinion and then he set out to prove to me that his opinion that's told to him by other people is right, I am wrong and have to submit to him for some reason?

Steffo's argument: "Corolla and Lancer = death trap with paper cup structural integrity. I am a qualified expert and have conducted extensive tests on both cars. Therefore, I know that I am right".

NCAP's argument: Corolla and Lancer = 5 star NCAP rating.

So what are you trying to say Steffo? Are you trying to say that the NCAP is wrong and that you are right?

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by B-Series

All modern Renaults are death traps with paper cup structural integrity. I don't give a rats a$$ that they all have 5 star ratings from the NCAP. The people running the NCAP know nothing! The entire Renault model range are death traps! That is my opinion so I must be right! :

Note: this a parody of how steffo keeps on insisting that Toyotas and Lancers are death traps even though they have 4-5 star NCAP ratings. It's as if he thinks his opinion counts for more than the NCAP!

This just goes to show how stupid steffo really is.

See the thing is, you can believe that if you really want to. My opinion counts more to me then the NCAP does. For you on the other hand, it seems, what somebody else says goes, if they're any sort of "expert." I watched the NCAP videos of the current Toyota range, and apart from the Lexus models, the big ones (Camry) and the newest of the new Corolla's (2007), I don't like what I see.

Based on that, as an example, I would never buy one. That is my opinion. You seem to have this problem with people disagreeing with what an "expert," says... you seem like one of those people who reads something and believes it to be true instantly. You aren't by any chance an avid ACA viewer are you?

As for that last line, I try my best not to make such comments in any debate or argument with anybody on the forum, but sometimes I wonder why. Perhaps I should just say what I really think... the mods don't seem to care much...

Originally Posted by B-Series

You want to know why? I've covered this many times already. Feel free to re-read all my previous posts and maybe the answer will finally register in your thick head. :

All I saw as a cop-out after a very unrealistic comparison was made between two current generation cars and a 20 year old one...

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by B-Series

Steffo's argument: "Corolla and Lancer = death trap with paper cup structural integrity. I am a qualified expert and have conducted extensive tests on both cars. Therefore, I know that I am right".

NCAP's argument: Corolla and Lancer = 5 star NCAP rating.

So what are you trying to say Steffo? Are you trying to say that the NCAP is wrong and that you are right?

You're making a fool of yourself. You don't have to be a "qualified expert," to have an opinion on something or to state it on a public discussion forum.

You should read something on your ANCAP site that your beloved experts do that I disagree with...

http://www.ancap.com.au/results/164/

Originally Posted by ANCAP Website

Default 16 points awarded for side impact test.

The side impact test normally used by ANCAP simulates a small car striking the driver's door of the vehicle under test. It is based on a regulation test but the regulation does not apply to vehicles with a high seat height like the Kluger. Such vehicles can be expected to perform well in this particular side impact test so ANCAP has decided to award full score for these vehicles instead of conducting a crash test.

So they don't conduct a side-impact crash test on SUV's? That seems to be what it says. But hey, wait a second, aren't SUV's very likely to roll-over if they are T-Boned by another car? Yet they don't test them and award default maximum scores for side impact accidents? Great expert work there...

You may like being told what colour the sky is by "experts," but some people actually do this thing known as "thinking," its a wonderful thing that allows people to be individual, have their own ideas and free will. Perhaps this is all new to you, since no expert has told you about it...

[B-Series]

Originally Posted by Steffo

If you say that I "can have my own opinion," then why do you persist, in many threads, not just this one, to try to prove to me that my opinion is wrong. You will never be able to do so. Every thread I've encountered you in so far has boiled down to the same thing... B-Series the Toyota & Mitsubishi sack-rider goes on a mission to prove that nobody's opinion about the cars but his own (which he admits is dictated by what other people tell him) and won't relent until the thread somehow ends, or like the last thread, is forced to.

If it was my opinion that all renaults are ugly, unreliable and unsafe you would be the one trying to prove to me that my opinion is wrong. The thing is, I don't go around stirring things up like you do. I merely respond...

Regarding your post: the exact same can be said of you.

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by B-Series

If it was my opinion that all renaults are ugly, unreliable and unsafe you would be the one trying to prove to me that my opinion is wrong. The thing is, I don't go around stirring things up like you do. I merely respond...

Regarding your post: the exact same can be said of you.

Right, you respond with your forcing of "fact," that you believe to be right, and clear disdain for other's thoughts or even the fact they think something to be different, in an aggressive manner which starts the big argument. One post left alone is just that... a post.

And you're right, I never back down. Bad habit.

You know what... do you have msn messenger? I have my addy thing visible under my avatar, I invite you to add me and have a proper conversation. Perhaps then you might change your mind slightly about me and what I say...

[B-Series]

Originally Posted by Steffo

You must have some kind of device that beeps at you every time somebody disagrees with your opinion of Toyota and Mitsubishi and then you suit up in camo gear and go after them, hey?

The same thing can be said of you. Everytime somebody disagrees with your negative opinion of Toyota and Mitsubishi - you put on your e-warrior outfit and go after them, hey?

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by B-Series

The same thing can be said of you. Everytime somebody disagrees with your negative opinion of Toyota and Mitsubishi - you put on your e-warrior outfit and go after them, hey?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. It's definitley neither one of us!

[B-Series]

Originally Posted by Steffo

Right, you respond with your forcing of "fact," that you believe to be right, and clear disdain for other's thoughts or even the fact they think something to be different, in an aggressive manner which starts the big argument. One post left alone is just that... a post.

A lot of what you say is true about yourself. You post in an aggressive manner about Toyotas being unsafe but you completely ignore the NCAP results. When somebody disagrees with you, you completely disregard their opinion and shut them down as if your opinion is the only one that matters.

A lot of my opinion (but not all) is based on fact. When I say that Toyotas are fairly safe I have reasonable grounds for saying so. NCAP test results are fact and not opinion.

You're right about looks and sound being a matter of opinion though. I'll concede that.

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by B-Series

A lot of what you say is true about yourself. You post in an aggressive manner about Toyotas being unsafe but you completely ignore the NCAP results. When somebody disagrees with you, you completely disregard their opinion and shut them down as if your opinion is the only one that matters.

A lot of my opinion (but not all) is based on fact. When I say that Toyotas are fairly safe I have reasonable grounds for saying so. NCAP test results are fact and not opinion.

You're right about looks and sound being a matter of opinion though. I'll concede that.

So basically what you're saying then... is we're very much alike? :

[B-Series]

Originally Posted by Steffo

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. It's definitley neither one of us!

Agreed. It seems that we have both carried on a bit too much once again. We have both made our points and disagree, so there is little point in us trying to uphold our egos. How about a truce?

But next time you make a negative post about toyota, I'll be there defending it to death . I'll respect your opinion if you respect mine and I'll keep it civil if you do the same.

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by B-Series

Agreed. It seems that we have both carried on a bit too much once again. We have both made our points and disagree, so there is little point in us trying to uphold our egos. How about a truce?

But next time you make a negative post about toyota, I'll be there defending it to death . I'll respect your opinion if you respect mine and I'll keep it civil if you do the same.

Agreed. Truce it is.