On Monday, 28 November 2016 00:34:20 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 26 November 2016 11:43:15 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

If you learn a bit more about cars you'll find there are lots of old
cars with no provision for a battery clamp. They tend to be prized
rather than called silly. I have no problem with having driven some
pieces of history, and far from your assertion that such is a
danger, classic cars in fact have a better safety record on the road
than modern ones. It appears that paradox and its explanation are
things you know nothing about.

Please give an actual example of a production car supplied with no
battery clamp. Should be very easy for you since they are so common in
your experience.

Lada Riva.

I find that even harder to believe - a car made specifically for pot holed
roads. Lead acid batteries don't take kindly to being bashed around.

they don't get bashed about, they sit in a tray and don't come out.

Commer walkthrough.

I did say production car.

I can't think of any reason to limit it to cars.

The first car I owned was a 1954 MG Magnette. Which had a battery
clamp. And all the many I've owned since have a method of securing the
battery too.

But older ones don't, and some post 54 ones don't.

I personally have never seen any car where the battery isn't secured. All
it would need is one accident where the car rolled over and the battery
started a fire to convince even the most stupid maker it was essential.

But luckily they wouldn't be on the road these days anyway because it
would never pass an MOT.

With respect historic cars are MOT exempt. If you're unhappy about an unclamped battery you'll wet yourself over the more serious issues such cars have. And yet their accident record is better, not worse, but you still object.


NT