On Oct 8, 8:10*am, harry wrote:
On Oct 8, 1:06*am, Jules Richardson



wrote:
On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 20:40:07 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 11:41:52 -0700 (PDT), NT wrote:

That's something I dislike about modern cars. With oldies one can
always use the handbrake if the main brake fails.

Depends on the "oldie" some have transmission brakes rather than a brake
that acts on the wheels. One has to be very cautious how one applies it
if moving, same applies to modern cars that also have transmission
brakes.

It's quite common on vehicles over here for there to be no handbrake;
instead they have a ratcheting foot-pedal to operate the parking brake
mechanism, with a handle (typically on the dash just above the pedal)
that then has to be pulled to disengage again. My elderly Ford has one,
so the design's been around for over 40 years.

I'm not sure how unique to the US that setup is, or - more importantly -
what the logic is for it vs. a normal handbrake between the front seats*,
but I've never risked trying to operate it whilst moving. I suspect it'd
all get ugly pretty easily :-)

* except that the Ford has a bench seat, so there's no "between"; perhaps
it's just left over from days when such seats in vehicles were common,
but handbrakes became common on vehicles elsewhere in the world?

cheers

Jules

In the UK, handbrakes have always had to be indepenednt which would
preclude such things.

relying on hydraulics to stay totally airtight for extended periods,
or else vehicles can set off down a hill, sounds an inherently risky
approach.


NT