From: Ian Dalziel on 24 Dec 2009 11:35
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:33:37 +0000, Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk>
>On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:02:42 +0000, Ian Dalziel
>>>Ah, a youngster. A quarter of a century *is* modern. My first car was an
>>>MG Midget, designed in 1960, and stopped manufacture exactly 30 years
>>>ago. But even that had rubber "5mph" bumpers, disc brakes and radial
>>>tyres by the end.
>>Modernity appeared in the space of five years?
>>Anyway, I was generalising. 24 to 37 years old, actually, and the
>>oldest is the most "modern", the newest the least.
>Do you believe that driving around in an old vehicle that lacks many
>of the modern safety features indicates that you are somehow a
No. I am not a superior driver, and I have never implied such a thing.
Do you have a point to make?
> *Anyone* who is capable of driving a modern car
>could get behind the wheel of an old banger and achieve an adequate,
>safe performance once they have explored its limitations. I very much
>doubt that I would have a great deal of difficulty driving a model T
>Ford, though I have no desire to do so except out of curiosity to see
>what it is like.
>When I used to skydive, I came across a few people who used to brag
>about jumping without a reserve chute. Apparently safety devices are
>for wimps, and deliberately placing yourself at unnecessary risk is
>the macho thing to do.
>I confess that I have never properly understood such a concept.
>Perhaps you could explain it to me?
No, I could not explain it to you. I do not think that. I do, however,
think you were talking shite about my relying on modern safety aids
when I have none to rely on.
How does any of this burble justify driving into a bridge?
From: Alex Potter on 24 Dec 2009 11:38
Cynic wrote on Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:20:51 +0000:
> My first car was an Austin A40 (van).
Mine was a Series II Moggie. It was older than my then wife, and cost £25.
From: Roland Perry on 24 Dec 2009 11:48
In message <br57j5p8jsmm9tdo1l4joecgp18ait8s3f(a)4ax.com>, at 16:35:27 on
Thu, 24 Dec 2009, Ian Dalziel <iandalziel(a)lineone.net> remarked:
>I do, however, think you were talking shite about my relying on modern
>safety aids when I have none to rely on.
So no disc brakes or radial tyres then?
From: Roland Perry on 24 Dec 2009 11:53
In message <lZWdnT650NaZHa7WnZ2dnUVZ8q-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, at 14:51:47
on Thu, 24 Dec 2009, Denis McMahon <denis.m.f.mcmahon(a)gmail.com>
>he overlooks the fact that the bridge in front of him isn't one that he
>normally drives under 8 times a day in his bus.
As he works for a company that hires out buses by the day,
I doubt there are any bridges he drives under that regularly.
From: Ian Dalziel on 24 Dec 2009 12:01
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 16:48:21 +0000, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk>
>In message <br57j5p8jsmm9tdo1l4joecgp18ait8s3f(a)4ax.com>, at 16:35:27 on
>Thu, 24 Dec 2009, Ian Dalziel <iandalziel(a)lineone.net> remarked:
>>I do, however, think you were talking shite about my relying on modern
>>safety aids when I have none to rely on.
>So no disc brakes or radial tyres then?
Disc brakes - 1902.
Radial tyres - 1946.