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
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..!
>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
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.
From: Cynic on 26 Dec 2009 06:35
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 16:43:25 +0000, Ian Dalziel
>>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.
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
>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.
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,