NASA to test Toyotas.

On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 15:37:24 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Derek C wrote:
On 1 Apr, 09:47, Silk wrote:
On 01/04/2010 07:57, Doug wrote:

On 31 Mar, 19:05, wrote:
wrote in message

...

On 31 Mar, 08:33, wrote:
40 per cent of the shuttle fleet have crashed, that is not a
good record

But incredibly more complex and risky than a car.

And you think that excuses poor engineering?

Its not 'poor' its groundbreaking and therefore very risky. Its the
car technology which is poor since they have had more than enough
time to perfect it.

It's almost unheard of for someone to get killed in a modern car due
to mechanical failure if the car is maintained to and driven within
manufacturers specifications. That's why most of the investment these
days in in safety devices to mitigate the effects of poor driving and
improvements in efficiency.

I'd say inherent safety is extremely good in a modern car and the
very fact than manufacturers are prepared to put their reputation on
the line by recalling any vehicles with the slightest hint of a
problem speaks volumes about how the industry and the bodies that
regulate it view safety.

Guess what. I travelled through the road works on the M25 yesterday
evening with one Toyota Prius alongside me and another one following
me. Neither of them ran away or did anything unexpected, and I was not
'rammed' from behind!

Derek C

a friend has owned three prius including the very latest model, none have
exhibited any strange behaviours.

I own 3 bikes & I've never seen one of them jump a red light.

Peter Grange wrote:
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 15:37:24 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Derek C wrote:
On 1 Apr, 09:47, Silk wrote:
On 01/04/2010 07:57, Doug wrote:

On 31 Mar, 19:05, wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 31 Mar, 08:33, wrote:
40 per cent of the shuttle fleet have crashed, that is not a
good record
But incredibly more complex and risky than a car.
And you think that excuses poor engineering?
Its not 'poor' its groundbreaking and therefore very risky. Its the
car technology which is poor since they have had more than enough
time to perfect it.
It's almost unheard of for someone to get killed in a modern car due
to mechanical failure if the car is maintained to and driven within
manufacturers specifications. That's why most of the investment these
days in in safety devices to mitigate the effects of poor driving and
improvements in efficiency.

I'd say inherent safety is extremely good in a modern car and the
very fact than manufacturers are prepared to put their reputation on
the line by recalling any vehicles with the slightest hint of a
problem speaks volumes about how the industry and the bodies that
regulate it view safety.
Guess what. I travelled through the road works on the M25 yesterday
evening with one Toyota Prius alongside me and another one following
me. Neither of them ran away or did anything unexpected, and I was not
'rammed' from behind!

Derek C
a friend has owned three prius including the very latest model, none have
exhibited any strange behaviours.

I own 3 bikes & I've never seen one of them jump a red light.
Of course not, as a cyclist you would have been riding the bike when it
jumped the red light, so you would not have seen it happen. ;-)

--
Tony Dragon

On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:35:52 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote:

Peter Grange wrote:
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 15:37:24 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Derek C wrote:
On 1 Apr, 09:47, Silk wrote:
On 01/04/2010 07:57, Doug wrote:

On 31 Mar, 19:05, wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 31 Mar, 08:33, wrote:
40 per cent of the shuttle fleet have crashed, that is not a
good record
But incredibly more complex and risky than a car.
And you think that excuses poor engineering?
Its not 'poor' its groundbreaking and therefore very risky. Its the
car technology which is poor since they have had more than enough
time to perfect it.
It's almost unheard of for someone to get killed in a modern car due
to mechanical failure if the car is maintained to and driven within
manufacturers specifications. That's why most of the investment these
days in in safety devices to mitigate the effects of poor driving and
improvements in efficiency.

I'd say inherent safety is extremely good in a modern car and the
very fact than manufacturers are prepared to put their reputation on
the line by recalling any vehicles with the slightest hint of a
problem speaks volumes about how the industry and the bodies that
regulate it view safety.
Guess what. I travelled through the road works on the M25 yesterday
evening with one Toyota Prius alongside me and another one following
me. Neither of them ran away or did anything unexpected, and I was not
'rammed' from behind!

Derek C
a friend has owned three prius including the very latest model, none have
exhibited any strange behaviours.

I own 3 bikes & I've never seen one of them jump a red light.
Of course not, as a cyclist you would have been riding the bike when it
jumped the red light, so you would not have seen it happen. ;-)

I can see the front third ;-)

On 01/04/2010 15:37, Mrcheerful wrote:

a friend has owned three prius including the very latest model, none have
exhibited any strange behaviours.



You could say the only strange behaviour associated with a Prius is
buying one.

Silk wrote:
On 01/04/2010 15:37, Mrcheerful wrote:

a friend has owned three prius including the very latest model, none
have exhibited any strange behaviours.



You could say the only strange behaviour associated with a Prius is
buying one.

He is very into technical gadgets and so it was a natural choice for him and
he likes them, thank goodness for freedom of choice. one of their best
tricks is totally silent approach, great for scaring or ramming cyclists.

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
Silk wrote:
On 01/04/2010 15:37, Mrcheerful wrote:

a friend has owned three prius including the very latest model, none
have exhibited any strange behaviours.



You could say the only strange behaviour associated with a Prius is
buying one.

He is very into technical gadgets and so it was a natural choice for him
and he likes them, thank goodness for freedom of choice. one of their
best tricks is totally silent approach, great for scaring or ramming
cyclists.
Many in Catford?

Mrcheerful wrote:
Silk wrote:
On 01/04/2010 15:37, Mrcheerful wrote:

a friend has owned three prius including the very latest model,
none have exhibited any strange behaviours.



You could say the only strange behaviour associated with a Prius is
buying one.

He is very into technical gadgets and so it was a natural choice for
him and he likes them, thank goodness for freedom of choice. one of
their best tricks is totally silent approach, great for scaring or
ramming cyclists.

Not all bad then?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

On 1 Apr, 09:47, Silk wrote:
On 01/04/2010 07:57, Doug wrote:

On 31 Mar, 19:05, *wrote:
*wrote in message

....

On 31 Mar, 08:33, *wrote:
40 per cent of the shuttle fleet have crashed, that is not a good record

But incredibly more complex and risky than a car.

And you think that excuses poor engineering?

Its not 'poor' its groundbreaking and therefore very risky. Its the
car technology which is poor since they have had more than enough time
to perfect it.

It's almost unheard of for someone to get killed in a modern car due to
mechanical failure if the car is maintained to and driven within
manufacturers specifications. That's why most of the investment these
days in in safety devices to mitigate the effects of poor driving and
improvements in efficiency.

I'd say inherent safety is extremely good in a modern car and the very
fact than manufacturers are prepared to put their reputation on the line
by recalling any vehicles with the slightest hint of a problem speaks
volumes about how the industry and the bodies that regulate it view safety.

I would hardly call killing people 'the slightest hint of a problem'.
Also car occupants may well be protected but their vulnerable road
victims are not when something goes wrong. When are they going to take
these dangerous cars off our roads?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On 1 Apr, 15:37, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Derek C wrote:
On 1 Apr, 09:47, Silk wrote:
On 01/04/2010 07:57, Doug wrote:

On 31 Mar, 19:05, wrote:
wrote in message

...

On 31 Mar, 08:33, wrote:
40 per cent of the shuttle fleet have crashed, that is not a
good record

But incredibly more complex and risky than a car.

And you think that excuses poor engineering?

Its not 'poor' its groundbreaking and therefore very risky. Its the
car technology which is poor since they have had more than enough
time to perfect it.

It's almost unheard of for someone to get killed in a modern car due
to mechanical failure if the car is maintained to and driven within
manufacturers specifications. That's why most of the investment these
days in in safety devices to mitigate the effects of poor driving and
improvements in efficiency.

I'd say inherent safety is extremely good in a modern car and the
very fact than manufacturers are prepared to put their reputation on
the line by recalling any vehicles with the slightest hint of a
problem speaks volumes about how the industry and the bodies that
regulate it view safety.

Guess what. I travelled through the road works on the M25 yesterday
evening with one Toyota Prius alongside me and another one following
me. Neither of them ran away or did anything unexpected, and I was not
'rammed' from behind!

Derek C

*a friend has owned three prius including the very latest model, *none have
exhibited any strange behaviours.

Oh that must be OK then. Panic over! The anecdotal proves it.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:
On 1 Apr, 09:47, Silk wrote:
On 01/04/2010 07:57, Doug wrote:

On 31 Mar, 19:05, wrote:
wrote in message

...

On 31 Mar, 08:33, wrote:
40 per cent of the shuttle fleet have crashed, that is not a
good record

But incredibly more complex and risky than a car.

And you think that excuses poor engineering?

Its not 'poor' its groundbreaking and therefore very risky. Its the
car technology which is poor since they have had more than enough
time to perfect it.

It's almost unheard of for someone to get killed in a modern car due
to mechanical failure if the car is maintained to and driven within
manufacturers specifications. That's why most of the investment these
days in in safety devices to mitigate the effects of poor driving and
improvements in efficiency.

I'd say inherent safety is extremely good in a modern car and the
very fact than manufacturers are prepared to put their reputation on
the line by recalling any vehicles with the slightest hint of a
problem speaks volumes about how the industry and the bodies that
regulate it view safety.

I would hardly call killing people 'the slightest hint of a problem'.
Also car occupants may well be protected but their vulnerable road
victims are not when something goes wrong. When are they going to take
these dangerous cars off our roads?

toyotas outnumber bikes on our roads by a lot, yet cause hardly any deaths
due to faults (can you point to one death in the UK caused and proven by a
faulty toyota?).

Surely it would be better for the general public if cycles were to be taken
off the roads? after all their riders are very vulnerable, often too young
or old to be sensible, untrained, unlicenced, uninsured, there are no safety
checks on the machines which frequently have no brakes, no lights, no
reflectors, bald tyres, no audible means of approach, no means of
identification, are easy to steal and often used in crimes, often ridden by
drunks, easily put off their course by minor road defects (causing accidents
and deaths), often cycles are involved in road rage incidents, have no
weather protection, cause traffic hold-ups, etc. etc.