Bridge 1:0 Bus
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Accident update
Next: Motorists above the law.
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> wrote: >On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:02:42 +0000, Ian Dalziel ><iandalziel(a)lineone.net> wrote: > >>>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 >superior driver? 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? -- Ian D
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. -- Regards Alex
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? -- Roland Perry
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> remarked: >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. -- Roland Perry
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> wrote: >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. Modern? -- Ian D |