Prev: Accident update
Next: Motorists above the law.
From: Cynic on 26 Dec 2009 06:23 On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 16:22:26 GMT, James Martin(a)hgvu.com wrote: >Presumably stupid idiots going out in their cars in the kind weather >that is prevalent to day instead of taking the bus ! ,my car hasn't >moved for a week thanks to the weather . And how are the bus drivers supposed to get to work? You want the entire country to grind to a halt because of a bit of snow? -- Cynic
From: Cynic on 26 Dec 2009 06:29 On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:23:41 +0000, AlanG <invalid(a)invalid.net> wrote: >>> 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? *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. >> >>There's a company in California that hires them out to tourists, I saw a >>few in Yosemite National Park last time I was there, but didn't have >>time to try it myself. Apparently the control configuration is totally >>different from modern cars, so it might not be as easy as you think..! >> >>Ivor > >The pedal controls are different as are the hand controls. Startup is >not a very straightforward procedure either. There was a demo on one >of the top gear shows. Gets repeated on Dave so it should be coming up >again soon. >Or >http://www.modelt.ca/drive-fs.html Yes, I was aware that the Model-T controls are completely different to those in a modern car, which is why I used it as an example. Obviously it would take a bit of practise to get used to. -- Cynic
From: Cynic on 26 Dec 2009 06:35 On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 16:43:25 +0000, Ian Dalziel <iandalziel(a)lineone.net> wrote: >>If you are driving a car, you have no *need* to detect bridges. You >>can safely assume that they will pose no obstacle to you so long as >>you remain on the carriageway as usual. Consequently, you would have >>absolutely no idea whether you have ever failed to detect the presence >>of a bridge or not. >Bollocks. Driving into solid objects is a bad idea, however modern >your "safety equipment". What a completely irrelevant reply to the point I was making. -- Cynic
From: Roland Perry on 26 Dec 2009 06:37 In message <4B35D72A.30EA4FFE(a)siz82442582548524542efitter.com>, at 09:28:10 on Sat, 26 Dec 2009, johannes <johs(a)siz82442582548524542efitter.com> remarked: >I've been fooled in Cambridge many times. Always take the wrong >turn. But now I just dump the car in the multi-story and walk. That's a good plan if walking the last part is OK - but not an option for many deliveries. Although if able to walk through a city centre the last half mile, I'll probably have arrived by train, anyway. -- Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on 26 Dec 2009 06:38
In message <sorbj514rceqeqe7li65topkp66nbbc9k9(a)4ax.com>, at 11:11:58 on Sat, 26 Dec 2009, JamesMartin(a)hgvu.com.invalid remarked: >>I've been fooled in Cambridge many times. Always take the wrong >>turn. But now I just dump the car in the multi-story and walk. >Cambridge isn't the only place where you can see the place you want >and it is far easier to walk than drive . Yes there are many. First you have to find somewhere to park the car, though! -- Roland Perry |