Ride an SUB not an SUV

donquijote1954 wrote:
On Mar 23, 2:58 pm, Bill wrote:
Situational awareness!
Something Americans lack. My granddaughter (by way of stepdaughter) has
wrecked 3 cars, all by rear ending another and all while yapping on her
cell phone. Now her mom wants to buy her a bigger car or pickup truck.
Why? She'll wind up killing someone in a smaller car.
It seems to be an American thing.
Me, I like sticks and the lost art of double clutching down shifts,
whilst my wife thinks I don't know what I'm doing.
Some know and enjoy, some will never have a clue.
Bill Baka-

I think you have become a sort of black sheep. Usually people don't
try to get better but get bigger. But if you kill someone as a
consequence, hey, it's their own damned fault for driving something
small!


Around town I prefer the stick and 4 cylinder and try to keep to the
lower speed roads, just like on the bike. On the highway or moving
something big I prefer my 1966 Chrysler because it is in it's element
and just loafing along, unlike my 4 banger which is buzzing and
vibrating down the road. Once I get my old boat up to speed it is a much
nicer ride than any small car and I can milk it for up to 15 MPG or go
past 140 MPH with ease (scratch the mileage). I only use the big car for
long mostly highway trips over 100 miles and going into a real city area
where I don't want to be the smaller car. Other than that the gas
guzzler stays parked unless I need to haul a big trailer or something
out of the ordinary. For me it's the bike unless a car is absolutely
needed for something.
Bill Baka

Eeyore wrote:

nash wrote:

"George Conklin" wrote
But anti-skid brakes changed nothing, unfortunately, in the real world.
In Europe are they allowed to use cellulars and drive?

No. The fine for doing so in the UK has just increased to £60 ($120) and 3
penalty points on your licence (same as the minimum for speeding). 12 points =
licence suspension btw. The 'points' expire after 5 yrs IIRC - I'm not quite
sure, I've never had any.


Anti skid should work on ice.

Mine does. Saab recommend in the owner's manual that you should test it in such
conditions in fact (obviously in a safe place to do so). It simply 'pumps' the
brakes as it's supposed to.


Graham

That sounds like pump, slide, pump, slide...repeat. Not the most
efficient way to slow down. I practiced on a frozen lake bed once in
about 1973 and the best way I found was to just barely apply the brakes
to the almost skid point and stay straight. Locking the brakes and
letting loose over and over did nothing useful in terms of stopping.
Just to be clear, it was about a 5 mile diameter dead flat dry lake bed
that had frozen over with a few inches of ice, simulating a giant ice
skating rink, but great to try out emergency stopping and turning
techniques. My conclusion was that if you hit that kind of ice (black
ice) you are going the way inertia takes you and there is very little to
be done. Top speed was 42 MPH when the driving wheels lost traction and
at one point I was going backwards at that speed, doing a full 360.
Sometimes tech won't save you, no matter what.
Retro-rockets?
Bill Baka

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


George Conklin wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
George Conklin wrote:

Ok, I'll post from a friend from UK who states to us, "American
drivers are much better behaved than at home."

I can quite believe you'd make that up too.

Her name is Mary Hooper. She was my wife's roommate out in India.
Very
British.

Do you know where she currently lives ?

Indian driving is something else again. I've been there a few times.

Graham



Well, yes, but do you want a date or something?

"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...
Eeyore wrote:

nash wrote:


I especially do not like the fact they never tell anyone that air bags
can
cause serious damage to the person they are saving.


Really ? Over here we know they can kill you. As a result kids are now
not
allowed to ride in the front. Same even for adults below 5' tall or
somesuch too
! And that's even with our smaller than US-size airbags.



My sister got into an accident thinking the opposing driver was
acknowledging
to stop.


Never "assume" anything especially when your life may depend on it.

Graham


I believe that we in the US are now allowed to use lower power and
adaptive airbags, but it took a while for NHTSA to get around to it (as
is the case with most things that make sense.)

nate

Yes, and the new ones can even sense a rollover, and inflate for 5-6 seconds
and stay that way to protect you. You should not put a child in a front
seat unless the key is used to turn off the airbag as it is in pickkup
trucks.

"Doc O'Leary" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Jack May" wrote:

Transit has inherent problems that prevent efficient planning of routes.
You
have to get several people to go between destination on a route. The
flexibility does not exist to let people go anywhere they want to go.
Inherently transit must stop and go to pick up and let off riders.

It is telling that you don't realize that cars carry the exact same
burdens, with the addition of also having to *park* the damn things the
90% of the time they are not in use.

A car does not have to stop and pick up people ever mile or so. That causes
long delays. You also have to get from your work or home to transit and
wait for the transit to come. That also increase total door to door time.

Obviously neither of these conditions is like parking a car and walking a
very short distance to you office or home door. Parking is not even
remotely like the long delay that are inherently caused by the operation of
transit. The differences between transit and cars is why transit on
average takes three times longer for a commute than using a car

A car not running when it is not needed is a major advantage for cars in
reducing fuel consumption and increasing the life span of the car.

What you are saying seems to indicate that you do not understand the
fundamental properties of transit. You just want to defend transit by
denying what is obvious.

Forgive me if I don't take cues on what is obvious from you.

You are not forgiven because either trying to play a game with your really
stupid posts, or you are incapable of understanding what you are saying.

Eeyore writes:
nash wrote:
"George Conklin" wrote

But anti-skid brakes changed nothing, unfortunately, in the
real world.

In Europe are they allowed to use cellulars and drive?

No. The fine for doing so in the UK has just increased to £60
($120) and 3 penalty points on your licence (same as the minimum
for speeding). 12 points = licence suspension btw. The 'points'
expire after 5 yrs IIRC - I'm not quite sure, I've never had any.

Although they didn't actually need any specific laws for it; the
matter being covered in other aspects as it is/was in Germany. In
the latter, people get booked for eating and drinking (anything)
while driving. driving being any time while the vehicle is in
traffic, so even when stopped at the lights.

Anti skid should work on ice.

Mine does. Saab recommend in the owner's manual that you should
test it in such conditions in fact (obviously in a safe place to do
so). It simply 'pumps' the brakes as it's supposed to.

Well you're in the (probably) 5% of car owners who read the manual
at least once. Perhaps you're also in the 0.5% who try out the jack
and other tools before you need them.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us,
X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.

Bill wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
nash wrote:
"George Conklin" wrote
But anti-skid brakes changed nothing, unfortunately, in the real world.
In Europe are they allowed to use cellulars and drive?

No. The fine for doing so in the UK has just increased to £60 ($120) and 3
penalty points on your licence (same as the minimum for speeding). 12 points =
licence suspension btw. The 'points' expire after 5 yrs IIRC - I'm not quite
sure, I've never had any.

Anti skid should work on ice.

Mine does. Saab recommend in the owner's manual that you should test it in such
conditions in fact (obviously in a safe place to do so). It simply 'pumps' the
brakes as it's supposed to.

That sounds like pump, slide, pump, slide...repeat. Not the most
efficient way to slow down.

It does it very fast. It's more like a bzzzztttt !

It *does* work too. It 'scrabbles' a bit but pulls up sharp on very snowy roads. It's
a curious effect but quite safe. I've never had it on sheet ice since I've never come
across any since I've owned it.

Think for a second where Saabs are made !

Graham

George Conklin wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message

Do you know where she currently lives ?

Indian driving is something else again. I've been there a few times.

Well, yes, but do you want a date or something?

I just gone one actually about 3 hours ago for Wednesday. She asked me out too
and said she'd treat me ! How much better can it get.

Graham

In article ,
"Jack May" wrote:

"Doc O'Leary" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Jack May" wrote:

Transit has inherent problems that prevent efficient planning of routes.
You
have to get several people to go between destination on a route. The
flexibility does not exist to let people go anywhere they want to go.
Inherently transit must stop and go to pick up and let off riders.

It is telling that you don't realize that cars carry the exact same
burdens, with the addition of also having to *park* the damn things the
90% of the time they are not in use.

A car does not have to stop and pick up people ever mile or so.

Neither does mass transit. Again, you're getting caught up in the
current model of car-centric, bad transit planning. Stop bothering me
with things we all know are done wrong and lets move on to thinking how
they can be done right.

That causes
long delays.

Prove it. Demonstrate that moving just the people *must* take more time
than moving the people *and* their cars. Show me how rush hour results
in an improved flow of traffic. Give me some computed average travel
times on the same route for a few managed transit vehicles compared to
many more unmanaged single-occupant vehicles.

You also have to get from your work or home to transit and
wait for the transit to come.

No, you don't *have* to do it that way. I see your kind of
short-sighted "planning" every day, so please spare me here.

That also increase total door to door time.

You provide no evidence. I've asked for this before, but the very
minimum you can do is figure out your own door-to-door commute time and
distance. I think you will be very fortunate if you find your average
speed ends up exceeding a whopping 25mph. Are you really suggesting
that no other form of travel could possibly beat that?

You are not forgiven because either trying to play a game with your really
stupid posts, or you are incapable of understanding what you are saying.

One of us definitely seems incapable of understanding what I am saying.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

"Doc O'Leary" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Jack May" wrote:

"Doc O'Leary" wrote in message

...
In article ,
"Jack May" wrote:

Transit has inherent problems that prevent efficient planning of
routes.
You
have to get several people to go between destination on a route.
The
flexibility does not exist to let people go anywhere they want to go.
Inherently transit must stop and go to pick up and let off riders.

It is telling that you don't realize that cars carry the exact same
burdens, with the addition of also having to *park* the damn things
the
90% of the time they are not in use.

A car does not have to stop and pick up people ever mile or so.

Neither does mass transit.

Ok, it has to stop every 2 blocks or maybe even 3 to pick up and drop off
people. You forget I grew up on mass transit and you can't lie to me.