On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 16:48:13 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 02/14/2016 03:33 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

Y'all can keep on drivin' yer ****ty Merkin **** wiv yer 6 litre injuns
wat only put out ninety horses.

Actually, I drive a 1.5 liter Toyota. Back in the day, I drove an
Austin-Healey but those are history from the last century. Some of my
friends drove MGs. That marque lives on and I understand the Chinese
even sent the kits to Britain to be assembled for old times sake.

I do like some of the new Thairumph bikes though.

My first car was a Morris 850, and my current car is a 3 liter - my
truck is a 4 liter and the american 6 liters today put out in excess
of 600 horses

On 2/14/2016 8:43 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 16:47:40 -0700, Don Y
wrote:

On 2/14/2016 4:39 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:34:03 -0000, rbowman wrote:

On 02/14/2016 03:32 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:


Take two states. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. The
other one should follow suit.

Take two countries. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. I
conclude the UK should adopt the Ugandan legal system.

Uganda is a bit more backward than us. They should take ours.

Who's to make that decision??? On what basis???

(note the attributions)

I suggested we do it based on population.
Or, age of recorded civilized society.
In each case, China. Hence the reference to bowing... :
(there are apparently lots of rules/etiquette on the subject)

Maybe we should use population as an indication? Would you like
instructions on the how/when/why of *bowing*?

Positive law is not 'correct'; it is merely law.

Then it should be ignored.

On 02/14/2016 08:45 PM, wrote:
My first car was a Morris 850,

Is that the original Mini Cooper? The only Morris I recall in the US was
the rather ugly Morris Minor. I don't know if there was a Morris Major
but I think not.

On 2/14/2016 9:31 PM, wrote:

Unfortunately he was dead when he 'arrived' at Elizabeth City on or
about February 16th 1623. The first recorded spelling of the family
name is shown to be that of Richard de Clare, which was dated 1086,
The Domesday Book for County Suffolk, England, during the reign of
King William 1, 1066 - 1087. Surnames became necessary when
governments introduced personal taxation. In England this was known as
Poll Tax. Throughout the centuries, surnames in every country have
continued to "develop" often leading to astonishing variants of the
original spelling.




I like the name Clare. You said it was short for "Clarence", so that
makes sense.

--
Maggie

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 22:29:09 -0500, Micky
wrote:



How can anything dental be that much of an emergency? It's just sore, take a paracetamol.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol
"Paracetamol, also known as acetaminophen or APAP, is a medication
used to treat pain and fever."

Same active ingredient as Tylenol.

Acetaminaphin has very limited pain killing power.


Anyhow THAT'S WHAT 24 HOUR DENTISTS ARE FOR. Maybe in small cities,
including Baltimore where I live, you can't find someone between 10PM
and 8AM

It was silly of me to think I couldn't find a 24 hour dentist in
Baltimore, or cities much smaller. It's just that unlike the last
time, these days, no dentist will pay for a listing in the phone book
that says this, because a) phone books are out b) dentists who do this
change all the time, so now there are services.

There are at least 3 listed for Baltimore, with 800 numbers


but WHY YOU WOULD WANT TO SUFFER WHEN THERE ARE PEOPLE YOU
CAN PAY TO END YOUR SUFFERING, I DON'T KNOW

On 02/14/2016 08:36 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:04:04 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 03:29:09 -0000, Micky wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 23:47:05 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

I've never had a toothache, and until this past year, I'd never had
any other dental emergency, but if something happens on Friday
evening, I'm not going to wait until Monday.

That's what 24 hour dentists are for.
How can anything dental be that much of an emergency? It's just sore, take a paracetamol.
Acetaminaphin has very limited pain killing power.
Never heard of it. I use paracetamol and ibuprofen. Removes any pain for at least a few hours.

Even if it does get rid of the pain but it doesn't get rid of the
problem. Infections should not be allowed to stay in the body. AIUI
there are recent studies that correlate dental problems (meaning
infections) with heart diseases and death. If the pain is only
physical, and not accompanied by infection, maybe it's okay to wait,
but I don't think I can judge.
Yes, but a few days isn't long for a bad tooth.
If the sepsis gets into the bload you could be dead in 12 hours.
If an antibiotic will stop the infection when a day or two won't, that
might be all that's necessry, but if there's a physical problem in the
teeth that is promoting the infection, that should be taken care of by
the the dentist.
Never used an antibiotic for teeth. I use painkillers until get to the dentist, who drills away the bad bit and puts in a filling.

And in my case it was a sharp edge cutting into my lip and no pain
killer was going to make it stop hurting unless it made me
unconscious.
Then be more careful with your mouth! Surely you're capable of not rubbing a certain part on another certain part?

Anyhow THAT'S WHAT 24 HOUR DENTISTS ARE FOR. Maybe in small cities,
including Baltimore where I live, you can't find someone between 10PM
and 8AM but WHY YOU WOULD WANT TO SUFFER WHEN THERE ARE PEOPLE YOU
CAN PAY TO END YOUR SUFFERING, I DON'T KNOW.
It's hardly suffering. Toothache doesn't appear just like that, it's gradual. It won't get really bad over a weekend.

You want to bet on that???
When I lived in NY, on a Sunday afternoon, I went with my girlfriend
to the apt. of a friend of hers, and his girlfriend had had a
toothache since Friday or Saturday, getting worse and worse. She
couldn't eat, could barely talk. I said, Why don't you go to the
dentist! They said, Monday. I said, Why don't you go now? It's
Sunday. I said, That's what 24 hour dentists are for.
I've put off visiting a dentist for toothache for 2 weeks, at which point I was getting fed up of taking so many painkillers. Two days is not a problem.

So NYC has over 2 million people, not counting the other boros (and
why count them?)
What is a boro?
Usually spelled borough. NYC has five of them.
NYC is better than everyone else? Got a big ego?

and in the yellow pages were about 20 24-hour
dentists. One of us called them one by one and learned that the first
seven didnt' do that anymore. Because they only do that until they
get enough patients to keep busy. No one wants to be bothered on
weekends or the middle of the night. But the 8th guy said come on
over. It took less than 30 minutes for her and her boyfriend to get
there, less than 30 minutes for the dentist to fix her. and she was
back in less than 90 minutes. And he didnt' charge any more than her
regular dentist would have charged, or maybe 10% more.

And I assumed he did. I assumed that any decent dentist has that*** and
later I saw that he had an emergency number on his webpage. But the
number was, I guess, his number, not some service that would find the
dentist on call.

**For example my brother is a radiologist, and even though it was
known when he started that he would take vacations, iiuc when he went
out of town, it was his responsibility to arrange with another
radiologist to work for him. Fortunately there was one who didn't
work full time because she had a young child, and she would work two
weeks for him or two days, as she did sometimes for other radiologists
in town. But not 50 weeks a year.
People should employ receptionists and not take calls themselves.
He does have a receptionist during office hours.
My vet has a 24/7 number, a pet could be in danger of dying. You don't die of toothache.
Most dentists have emergency numbers. This one did too. It's just
that HE was the only dentist reachable at the emergency number and he
wasnt' always reachable.

***which implies he's not a decent dentist, and he's not.
......
The switch is on all the time, and the lights go on when the engine
goes on. The photocell on the dash determines which lights go on. But
maybe if I turn the switch off and back on again, the lights really
will go on even if the engine's not running. I'll try it. I had
this all settled two or three years ago, but then I forgot how it
works. This plan doens't ring a bell, but maybe.
Are you saying your car won't allow headlights if the engine is off, or it won't allow them if it's light?
Only that I don't know how to do it.
If it's when the engine is off, go in the fusebox and change the incoming wore to the headlight fuse from IGN to BATT.
Change the wire to the fuse? Do you know how much effort that is?
Virtually none. Takes about as long as changing a wheel.

Of if you mean run a wire from the hot end of one fuse to the cold end of
the other fuse, that's a lot of effort too.
No, just change the hot end of the fuse to the other input. There's 2 inputs to a fusebox, one is only on with the ignition, the other comes straight from the battery. There will be unused fuse containers, use one of those if it's easier.

I'm looking for a way
to turn the lights on when the engine is off, just like all cars
worked until 1995. Not a whole project.
AFAIK all Vauxhalls do that anyway. Bloody annoying as you can more easily run the battery flat. Plus when I park the car for two minutes and don't turn the lights off, I've got a parked car dazzling people unnecessarily. I already removed the bleeping thing in anger that warns me I dared to open the door and left the lights on.

If it's when it's daylight, I don't know why you need that,
To see how well the lights are working, to see if changing a bulb
really fixed it, etc.
Just turn on the ignition?
If you really think that is the right answer, why did you just spend
several lines explaining your much too difficult way to turn the
lights on without the engine.
Because I thought you wanted to do it regularly.

but just cover the light sensor up, then you can use them as if it weren't automatic.
There are two sensors and I've forgotten which is which. I suspect
if your method, turning the switch off and on, works, it will work day
and night.
If I ever got a car that decided itself when it was dark, I'd disable it immediately, or at least adjust it to when I think it's dark.
I like it. And while I've thought about making the intermittent
wiper wipe less often, I've been fully satisfied with the light
sensor.
Is it anything like half the drivers who turn lights on when it's not even dark enough for me to be able to tell it's got darker? A camera could, but not my eyes.
If it did something wrong, I'd probably notice. I had a list of 30
things I didn't like about this 2000 Solara convertible, 15 because it
was a convertible and 15 because it was a Toyota. Previous cars have
never had more than 2 or 3 things wrong. So I'm not easy to please
but the photocell is fine afaict.
I've never moaned about more than 2 things with one car.

--
My car is a hybrid. It burns petrol AND oil.
LOL
My "random" sig generator seems to pay a lot of attention to the discussion in hand
I've never had a toothache, and until this past year, I'd never had
any other dental emergency, but if something happens on Friday
evening, I'm not going to wait until Monday.

That's what 24 hour dentists are for.
How can anything dental be that much of an emergency? It's just sore, take a paracetamol.
Acetaminaphin has very limited pain killing power.
Never heard of it. I use paracetamol and ibuprofen. Removes any pain for at least a few hours.

Even if it does get rid of the pain but it doesn't get rid of the
problem. Infections should not be allowed to stay in the body. AIUI
there are recent studies that correlate dental problems (meaning
infections) with heart diseases and death. If the pain is only
physical, and not accompanied by infection, maybe it's okay to wait,
but I don't think I can judge.
Yes, but a few days isn't long for a bad tooth.
If the sepsis gets into the bload you could be dead in 12 hours.
If an antibiotic will stop the infection when a day or two won't, that
might be all that's necessry, but if there's a physical problem in the
teeth that is promoting the infection, that should be taken care of by
the the dentist.
Never used an antibiotic for teeth. I use painkillers until get to the dentist, who drills away the bad bit and puts in a filling.

And in my case it was a sharp edge cutting into my lip and no pain
killer was going to make it stop hurting unless it made me
unconscious.
Then be more careful with your mouth! Surely you're capable of not rubbing a certain part on another certain part?

Anyhow THAT'S WHAT 24 HOUR DENTISTS ARE FOR. Maybe in small cities,
including Baltimore where I live, you can't find someone between 10PM
and 8AM but WHY YOU WOULD WANT TO SUFFER WHEN THERE ARE PEOPLE YOU
CAN PAY TO END YOUR SUFFERING, I DON'T KNOW.
It's hardly suffering. Toothache doesn't appear just like that, it's gradual. It won't get really bad over a weekend.
You want to bet on that???
When I lived in NY, on a Sunday afternoon, I went with my girlfriend
to the apt. of a friend of hers, and his girlfriend had had a
toothache since Friday or Saturday, getting worse and worse. She
couldn't eat, could barely talk. I said, Why don't you go to the
dentist! They said, Monday. I said, Why don't you go now? It's
Sunday. I said, That's what 24 hour dentists are for.
I've put off visiting a dentist for toothache for 2 weeks, at which point I was getting fed up of taking so many painkillers. Two days is not a problem.

So NYC has over 2 million people, not counting the other boros (and
why count them?)
What is a boro?
Usually spelled borough. NYC has five of them.
NYC is better than everyone else? Got a big ego?

and in the yellow pages were about 20 24-hour
dentists. One of us called them one by one and learned that the first
seven didnt' do that anymore. Because they only do that until they
get enough patients to keep busy. No one wants to be bothered on
weekends or the middle of the night. But the 8th guy said come on
over. It took less than 30 minutes for her and her boyfriend to get
there, less than 30 minutes for the dentist to fix her. and she was
back in less than 90 minutes. And he didnt' charge any more than her
regular dentist would have charged, or maybe 10% more.

And I assumed he did. I assumed that any decent dentist has that*** and
later I saw that he had an emergency number on his webpage. But the
number was, I guess, his number, not some service that would find the
dentist on call.

**For example my brother is a radiologist, and even though it was
known when he started that he would take vacations, iiuc when he went
out of town, it was his responsibility to arrange with another
radiologist to work for him. Fortunately there was one who didn't
work full time because she had a young child, and she would work two
weeks for him or two days, as she did sometimes for other radiologists
in town. But not 50 weeks a year.
People should employ receptionists and not take calls themselves.
He does have a receptionist during office hours.
My vet has a 24/7 number, a pet could be in danger of dying. You don't die of toothache.
Most dentists have emergency numbers. This one did too. It's just
that HE was the only dentist reachable at the emergency number and he
wasnt' always reachable.

***which implies he's not a decent dentist, and he's not.
......
The switch is on all the time, and the lights go on when the engine
goes on. The photocell on the dash determines which lights go on. But
maybe if I turn the switch off and back on again, the lights really
will go on even if the engine's not running. I'll try it. I had
this all settled two or three years ago, but then I forgot how it
works. This plan doens't ring a bell, but maybe.
Are you saying your car won't allow headlights if the engine is off, or it won't allow them if it's light?
Only that I don't know how to do it.
If it's when the engine is off, go in the fusebox and change the incoming wore to the headlight fuse from IGN to BATT.
Change the wire to the fuse? Do you know how much effort that is?
Virtually none. Takes about as long as changing a wheel.

Of if you mean run a wire from the hot end of one fuse to the cold end of
the other fuse, that's a lot of effort too.
No, just change the hot end of the fuse to the other input. There's 2 inputs to a fusebox, one is only on with the ignition, the other comes straight from the battery. There will be unused fuse containers, use one of those if it's easier.

I'm looking for a way
to turn the lights on when the engine is off, just like all cars
worked until 1995. Not a whole project.
AFAIK all Vauxhalls do that anyway. Bloody annoying as you can more easily run the battery flat. Plus when I park the car for two minutes and don't turn the lights off, I've got a parked car dazzling people unnecessarily. I already removed the bleeping thing in anger that warns me I dared to open the door and left the lights on.

If it's when it's daylight, I don't know why you need that,
To see how well the lights are working, to see if changing a bulb
really fixed it, etc.
Just turn on the ignition?
If you really think that is the right answer, why did you just spend
several lines explaining your much too difficult way to turn the
lights on without the engine.
Because I thought you wanted to do it regularly.

but just cover the light sensor up, then you can use them as if it weren't automatic.
There are two sensors and I've forgotten which is which. I suspect
if your method, turning the switch off and on, works, it will work day
and night.
If I ever got a car that decided itself when it was dark, I'd disable it immediately, or at least adjust it to when I think it's dark.
I like it. And while I've thought about making the intermittent
wiper wipe less often, I've been fully satisfied with the light
sensor.
Is it anything like half the drivers who turn lights on when it's not even dark enough for me to be able to tell it's got darker? A camera could, but not my eyes.
If it did something wrong, I'd probably notice. I had a list of 30
things I didn't like about this 2000 Solara convertible, 15 because it
was a convertible and 15 because it was a Toyota. Previous cars have
never had more than 2 or 3 things wrong. So I'm not easy to please
but the photocell is fine afaict.
I've never moaned about more than 2 things with one car.

--
My car is a hybrid. It burns petrol AND oil.
LOL
My "random" sig generator seems to pay a lot of attention to the discussion in hand.

This post needs to be trimmed.

On 02/15/2016 12:13 AM, rbowman wrote:

My first car was a Morris 850,

Is that the original Mini Cooper? The only Morris I recall in the US was
the rather ugly Morris Minor. I don't know if there was a Morris Major
but I think not.

There were, at various times, among others:

Morris Minor
Morris Oxford
Morris Major (an Australian 6-cyl. version of the Oxford)
Morris Mini Minor (first with an 850cc engine, later with a 1000cc
engine) -- the forerunner of the Cooper Mini.

Some of these had "badge-engineered" counterparts under the Austin and
Wolsely brands. MG and Rover were part of the same group for many years.

Perce

Per Mr Macaw:
Yes, and that language is English. And it's already happening courtesy of the internet.

"The USA and The United Kingdom: Two great countries divided by a common
language."
--
Pete Cresswell

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 22:13:50 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 02/14/2016 08:45 PM, wrote:
My first car was a Morris 850,

Is that the original Mini Cooper? The only Morris I recall in the US was
the rather ugly Morris Minor. I don't know if there was a Morris Major
but I think not.
The Morris Mini was the same as the Austin Se7en - both of which
were later known as "Mini"s. The Cooper was the first souped up
version - with a 998? cc engine - then the Cooper S came out with the
1275.

There was the Morris Oxford, the Morris Minor, and the Morris Mini
Minor here in Canada - with a lot more different Austin models - the
A40 Devon 4 door and Dorset 2 door, The A40 Somerset that followed,
and then the Austin A40,,A50,A55 and A60 Cambridge, and a later A4-
Farina. Then came the Mini, the 1100, the 1300 America, and the 1800
Maxi.

We also got a few A90,A95 or A105 Westminsters (with 6 cyl engines)

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 04:22:41 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:32:25 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:29:37 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/13/2016 3:49 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

Again, why do you want the front of cars lit up but not the back?
Pretty obvious to anyone who actually drives. The front of the car
is comming towards you

On the other side of the road, it's far easier to hit the back of
another car than one going the other way on the wrong side.

at the combined speed of the car approaching
and your car. He's doing 100kph and you are doing 90, the closing
speed is 190kph.,

Oh no, you don't actually believe that do you? Answer this simple
question:

Situation 1: You drive at 50mph into a brick wall.
Situation 2: You drive at 50mph into another identical car going at
50mph the other way.

WTF does that have to do with closing speed? He never said anything
about damage, but closing speed has a lot to do with time to evade an
accident. I thought you were smarter than that Harry.

She wasn't clear what she meant by it. But most people use closing speed when talking about damage.
I think "harry" Macaw is taking the crazy position he is taking
figuring he can out- mart or out argue or whatever a "woman".....

Nobody can out-mart a woman. Women are brilliant at shopping.

And closing speed, past a certain very limited point, and damage,
become pretty well irrelevant as dead is dead - and totally destroyed
is totally destroyed.

So why did you bring up the fact that cars coming the other way have more closing speed if you think it's irrelevant?

The best way to survive a collision is to avoid it.
The best way to avoid it is to see and be seen.
The BE SEEN is the part very effectively affected by "daylighting". As
a rallye driver in the past, "daylighting" was one of the safety
precautions we ALL took - long before DRLs became mandatory, or even
common.

To be seen you do NOT require as much light as to see. Bright lights to illuminate your surroundings, dim lights to mark the position of your vehicle for others to notice you. A bright light means they can no longer see your vehicle, just lights, this makes it harder to judge your speed, width, and distance. And no lights are necessary if the surrounding daylight is reasonable - if your eyes cannot pick up an object using the light reflected off it, you should seek immediate help from an optician.

--
If you eat a judge's uniform you might contract a lawsuit.

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 04:48:38 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:54:16 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:47:15 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:38:48 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:30:55 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:25:14 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 00:41:44 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/12/2016 6:30 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:


Those stupid things should be banned, they're a distraction. Lights are
to inform you of.... someone making a turn, an ambulance, etc, etc. If
everybody has lights, you no longer notice things you should, you don't
see unlit things like pedestrians, etc. In countries like Austria where
they did proper surveys, they found that they INCREASE accidents by 12%.

Austria is not mentioned, but overall, accidents are reduced.

I smell bull****. Just like global warming.

No wonder, for as much as you've posted.

Do grow up.
You seem to to have an opinion that everything done by the auto
companies in Canada and the USA, and the laws controlling what is done
are stupid, just because it's different than what is done in the UK.
You have strong opinions not supportable by facts.

You are entitled to your opinions - but you have to be ready to be
called on them when you keep spouting them off. You say you smell BS -
I tell you where it is coming from.

You don't like it? Too bad...

I wasn't referring to Canada and the USA, I was referring to the so called statistics about DRLs increasing safety, when it's bloody obvious they don't.
Obvious to your small mind perhaps.
The insurance companies definitely feel differently about it than you
do. And so do many other motoring safety groups In 5 minutes I could
likely find 10 or more studies showing there is a safety advantage to
counter every one of yours stating there is not.

http://www.dadrl.org.uk

--
Create instant designer stubble by sucking a magnet and dipping your chin in a bowl of iron fillings.

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 04:52:09 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:54:44 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:48:44 -0000, rbowman wrote:

On 02/13/2016 08:25 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:

How absurd. Don't the Canadians trust the Americans? If it was ok in
one country, it's ok in another one.

How absurd is it that I have two motorcycles that are only legal in 49
states? That doesn't mean I can't ride through California but I couldn't
register them in the state.

Very absurd. All states should have the same laws.

And why is that??? Differing conditions in differing states may make
what is sensible in one state totally unsensible in another. Road
conditions, weather conditions, social sensibilities, etc.

For example "road trains" can make perfect sense in Nevada, where
allowing them in California or Oregon would be total lunacy. - and the
highway laws reflect that.

Agreed, but a lot of the laws that are different are not to do with differing conditions. They're things which are equal everywhere, like age of consent, smoking weed, etc.

--
Confucius say: "Foolish man give wife grand piano. Wise man give wife upright organ."

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 04:56:41 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 22:01:20 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:52:09 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:39:52 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:33:18 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:28:38 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:55:24 -0000, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:28:37 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:14:13 -0000, philo wrote:

On 02/12/2016 11:06 AM, KenK wrote:
Just about pulled out in front of a car with lights out early this morning.
Not even parking lights. A few seconds earlier...

Why do these people drive with lights out? Save gas - engine runs easier
without generating electricity for lights? Seems I've seen many more of
them in the past year for some reason.

Breeding more of them in your area too?

Sorry to bother you all. Had to vent somewhere.





My car is set to automatic and the lights go on and off as needed.

That said, if it's very dark, it's odd they don't notice that they can't
see anything

Not everybody has brand new fancy cars.
As I just said in another message - mine is 20 years old (and
believe it or not MOST of the lamps are still original - along with
the rear brakes, exhaust, alternator, starter, ball joints and
steering parts, etc at 340,000+ Km)

I guess you don't drive with your lights on all the time then?
Yes I do. The truck has DRLs, and a large portion of the miles driven
on the truck were driven with full lighting (early morning and
evening)

What kind of bulbs? At 20 years old they'd be incandescent, not LED surely?
They are hollogen bulbs, same as have been standard equipment on
North American automobiles for over 30 years.

We have halogen for the headlights, but not for brakes, tails, indicators, etc.

In the last 4 years and 33000km I have changed ONE tail light bulb on
this vehicle..
In the 7 years we owned my wife's Mystique we never changed a
headlight In the 12 years we owned the Chrysler before that I changed
most of the sealed beam lamps once...

I've had good luck with headlights.

I changed a headlight when I hit a deer with it.
Would you have hit the dear deer if it had had it's lights on? Or do
you routinely hit things you can see entering the roadway??

I saw 5 females entering the roadway, watched them leave the other side, then hit the stupid stag that was chasing them. It actually amused me. The thing bounced off my headlight, then hit the sharp end of the canoe strapped to my roof, then split in two. The canoe was fine.

Lights on the deer would not have helped, it ran out through a hedge.

--
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history--with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila."

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 05:13:04 -0000, Don Y wrote:

On 2/13/2016 2:54 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:48:44 -0000, rbowman wrote:

On 02/13/2016 08:25 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:

How absurd. Don't the Canadians trust the Americans? If it was ok in
one country, it's ok in another one.

How absurd is it that I have two motorcycles that are only legal in 49
states? That doesn't mean I can't ride through California but I couldn't
register them in the state.

Very absurd. All states should have the same laws.

Well, given that most of our states are bigger than your *country*, I guess
it would be comparable to saying Brits, French, Danes, Swedes, Germans,
Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Austrians,... (you get the picture;
I think I've named less than half the land area of the USA) should
have the same laws, same language, same currency, same *leader*, etc.?

Since the leaders are different, it's reasonable to have different laws. But you only have one president. By all means have different laws, but have different governments too.

Given that Europe had a long headstart on these things (vs our ~300 years),
you'd figure you'd already have ALL of that down pat, eh?

So you're admitting you're just young uns?

Good luck convincing the rest of the Continent!

Unfortunately we are beginning to go your way with the EU ****. They impose stupid laws which all the member countries have to abide by, although some seem to get away with ignoring them.

--
We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked, but not compromised. We are associated, but not absorbed.
And should a European statesman address us and say "Shall we speak for thee?", we should reply "nay sir, for we dwell among our own people".
-- Winston Churchill 1953

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 04:30:35 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:38:51 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:32:33 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:12:00 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:08:10 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 15:25:03 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 04:01:43 -0000, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:32:46 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 22:52:32 -0000, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

On 02/12/2016 04:27 PM, wrote:

Yes, even with my lights in the "off" position there are still "running
lights". I don't know if there is anyway to turn them off completely

What about tail lights? There are still many older cars/trucks on the
road yet.


My car is more than ten years old, but yes, there are cars out there
much older. At one time cars did not last very long
My 20 year old pickup had DRL

I see you have .ca email address. AFAIK, DRLs were required in Canada
long ago, but on our Canadian-built '02 Chrysler 300M DRLs weren't even
a factory-fitted option; I bought the module and plugged it in, and they
work.

They were not an option in "export" vehicles in 02 because some idiot
states still had laws on the books making them illegal, apparently.

At least on an Canadian built US market vehicle all you need to do is
plug in a module to make them work and make them legal for importation
into canada.
Many US built "domestic market" vehicles require a real bodge job to
get DRLs working to make them legal to import into Canada (along with
things like having to replace the inferior-spec bumpers etc).It used
to be quite a few US vehicles could not be imported into canada at all
because they could not be brought up to Canadian spec, but most of
them are now over 15 years old and allowed in. There are still some
that cannot be brought in - like 2005 2wd Jimmy/Blazer, any Lotus
other than 01-04 esprit,, Mercedes CLK63 Black Series or S500 Guard
Package, Tesla Model S, some Masaratti and McLaren, and quite a few
Saleen, Shelby and Roush Mustangs (if converted after sale - not
purchased from Ford as finished vehicles) and van conversions not done
by a recognized list of converters.

We just bought a 2008 Pontiac Vibe (re-badged Toyota Matrix) from a
Canadian friend who was returning to Canada and didn't want to have to
mess with beefing it up to Canadian standards on top of having to pay
import duty.

Can't he just drive it registered to the US? Like if you were on holiday?
Easy way to be charged with tax evasion - plus most likely driving
with no insurance since you cannot insure an american licenced vehicle
in Canada.

You have 6 months if visiting, and a couple weeks after importing to
change the registration.
Bringing a car across the border to stay without geclaring it is also
smuggling..

Bad Jiu Jiu if you get caught.

How absurd. Don't the Canadians trust the Americans? If it was ok in one country, it's ok in another one.

The Americans don't "trust" the Canadians any more than the Canadians
"trust" the Americans, but it doesn't come down to "trust" - it comes
down to "regulations"

Does your mommy know you are using her computer?

You can't follow simple reasoning. If the Americans deem a car safe, then the Canadians should accept that, and vice versa.
Different safety requirements. Who is to say the USA is right????
Canadian safety standards tend to be higher than USA standards for
many things. We are 2 different countries - with 2 different legal
systems, 2 different sets of laws,

But it's very childish/pedantic not to accept similar laws from another country.

Says the Brit - where they still drive on the "wrong" side of the road

Why would any side be wronger than the other? If anything, we drive on the same side as we begin writing a line of text.

and have kept their currency (instead of adopting the Euro like the
rest of the "European Community" they are otherwise part of.

Again, 3 words

Pot
Kettle
Black

Why on earth do you think changing the national currency is anything like accepting a small number of cars with safety standards from another country?

--
What did the elephant say to the naked man?
How do you pick up anything with that?

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 04:54:00 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 14:55:05 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 02/13/2016 01:13 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

I drive at a speed sensible for the roads, I don't need to know the
numerical value.

We have a number of roads where 45 was considered sensible for years.
Then one day the county put up shiny new 35 mph signs. Can you make the
distinction between 35 and 40? If not, the county deputies are standing
by to help you.

I suppose you don't scan your mirrors either?
Judging by his earlier post re the condition of what he calls a car
he drives on the roads of the UK, I doubt he even HAS functional
mirrors.

I honestly wonder if he even has a legitimate driver's licence.

Can you only see out of the centre of your eye? This is called tunnel vision and means you should not have a license. I can see something in my mirror without looking at it.

--
It's strange, isn't it? You stand in the middle of a library and go "Aaaaaaagghhhh!!!!" and everyone just stares at you. But you do the same thing on an aeroplane, and everyone joins in.

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 05:29:48 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 14/02/2016 04:45, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:52:16 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:39:00 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:23:33 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:13:24 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 15:32:20 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 04:19:59 -0000, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 19:44:50 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 02/12/2016 04:31 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
An even stupider thing about daytime running lights is they don't turn
the tail lights on, which means there are now loads of people driving
around at night with only the front lights on, not realising they are
unlit at the back. If you have no front lights on in the day, when it
gets dark you notice.

Been there, done that, and had a hard time explaining to the cop that
headlights with no tail lights did not mean the tail lights were
defective. That I had to explain how it worked speaks to the relatively
few vehicles with DRL's here.
And the "ignorance" of law enforcement officers

No, the stupidity of the car manufacturer. If the front lights are going to be on all the time, then so should the back ones, that's how Volvos always worked.

You've never seen a volvo with DRLs?

My father had one decades ago, before DRL was anywhere but Sweden.

Anyway, not putting on your taillights is just as bad if not a worse offence than having defective ones, as you could say you didn't realise they were defective.

Ignorance is no excuse. As a driver YOU have the responsibility of
checking your vehicle and making sure it is in safe operating
condition.

That's what I bloody said you moron. You said above that the law enforcement officers were being ignorant, which is irrelevant.

I never said the police officer was BEING ignorant - I said he WAS
ignorant of how DRLs work. VERY different

Those are the same thing. He doesn't know how DRLs work, so he is ignorant of that particular piece of knowledge.

No "being " ignorant is being a prick Being a prick IS irrelevant.
Not knowing how the lighting system of a vehicle works - and that DRLs
usually don't turn on the tail-lights, for a law enforcement officer,
is NOT irrelevant.

Forgetting to put your lights on is as serious as having faulty ones. The net result is the same, no lights. And in fact it should be MORE serious, and in the UK it is. If I forget to wear a seatbelt, or forget to stay under the speed limit, I get a fine. If I have a bald tyre or a faulty bulb because I haven't checked it recently, I have to get it fixed within 2 weeks, but no fine.

Here in North America - either Canada or the USA, you also get a fine
if you forget to put your lights on and get stopped. (or drive without
seat belts) But here you can also be charged with operating an unsafe
vehicle for driving on a bald tire or with defective lighting
equipment. The officer MAY give you a "grace period" if it is not a
commercial vehicle, but he doesn't have to. You are usually charged on
the spot - with the priveledge of explaining in court why you should
not be found guilty and why you should not be fined.

Ouch, glad I don't live there. Here in the UK I was stopped for going 95mph in a 70mph limit, driving with half my exhaust missing, one bald tyre, one soft tyre, one tyre with a split in the side, and a non-functional handbrake. I got a "pink slip" to get the defects fixed in 2 weeks then stamped by a mechanic, and they forgot the speeding offence.

Damned sure I'm glad there is an entire ocean between where you drive
and where I drive, is all I can say about that.


Here that car would be pulled off the road and it would cost you a
hefty towing bill to get tit to a garage to have it repaired AND you
would be charged with operating an unsafe vehicle on a public road,
AND in Ontario you would be getting close to having your vehicle
immediately impounded and your licence suspended for a minimum of 7
days, with that suspension being held against your record for 3 years.
Just about 5mph short. Exceding the speed limit by 50kph (roughly
30mph) will get you that charge - with an associated fine of between
$2000 and $1000 and a possibility of 6 months in jail upon summary
conviction. The suspension may also be extended to up to 2 years, and
good luck getting anything resembling affordable auto insurance for
the next 3 to 5 years minimum.
Oh - and you pay the towing and impound fees too - which can be quite
sizeable...

Bear in mind that Mr Macaw lives in Scotland. His behaviour on the road
here in England would not be tolerated by our police. The car would have
been removed from the road and he'd be in big trouble.
Mr Macaw doesn't respect laws and is a law unto himself.

I've driven in England plenty times, and Wales where the pigs are ridiculously strict. They're no harder on me than Scottish police. In fact I usually have a good laugh with the Welsh police about their accent. Everybody (including yourself, you've admitted it many times on newsgroups) drive well over the speed limit.

--
The scientific theory I like best is that the rings of Saturn are composed entirely of lost airline Luggage. -- Mark Russell

On 2/15/2016 8:40 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:30:18 -0000, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Per Mr Macaw:
Yes, and that language is English. And it's already happening
courtesy of the internet.


"The USA and The United Kingdom: Two great countries divided by a common
language."


Indeed.


We may be divided, but we're still connected with ties we'll never be
able to break.

--
Maggie

On 2/15/2016 1:09 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

To be seen you do NOT require as much light as to see. Bright lights to
illuminate your surroundings, dim lights to mark the position of your
vehicle for others to notice you. A bright light means they can no
longer see your vehicle, just lights, this makes it harder to judge your
speed, width, and distance. And no lights are necessary if the
surrounding daylight is reasonable - if your eyes cannot pick up an
object using the light reflected off it, you should seek immediate help
from an optician.


That makes a lot of sense.

--
Maggie

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:28:34 -0000, Muggles wrote:

On 2/15/2016 8:40 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:30:18 -0000, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Per Mr Macaw:
Yes, and that language is English. And it's already happening
courtesy of the internet.


"The USA and The United Kingdom: Two great countries divided by a common
language."


Indeed.


We may be divided, but we're still connected with ties we'll never be
able to break.

Like what? We share the same films and internet, that's about it.

--
Basic Flying Rules: "Try to stay in the middle of the air. Do not go near the edges of it. The edges of the air can be recognized by the appearance of ground, buildings, sea, trees and interstellar space. It is much more difficult to fly there."

On 2/15/2016 1:31 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:28:34 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 8:40 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:30:18 -0000, (PeteCresswell) wrote:


Per Mr Macaw:
Yes, and that language is English. And it's already happening
courtesy of the internet.


"The USA and The United Kingdom: Two great countries divided by a
common
language."


Indeed.

We may be divided, but we're still connected with ties we'll never be
able to break.


Like what? We share the same films and internet, that's about it.

History, heritage, humanity.

--
Maggie

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:34:27 -0000, Muggles wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:31 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:28:34 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 8:40 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:30:18 -0000, (PeteCresswell) wrote:


Per Mr Macaw:
Yes, and that language is English. And it's already happening
courtesy of the internet.


"The USA and The United Kingdom: Two great countries divided by a
common
language."


Indeed.

We may be divided, but we're still connected with ties we'll never be
able to break.


Like what? We share the same films and internet, that's about it.

History, heritage,

Not that those come up in everyday living.

humanity.

As in ethics? No more than any other two random countries (excluding Arab scum of course).

--
Some people's brains are purely for life support purposes only.

On 2/15/2016 1:37 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:34:27 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:31 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:28:34 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 8:40 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:30:18 -0000, (PeteCresswell)
wrote:

Per Mr Macaw:
Yes, and that language is English. And it's already happening
courtesy of the internet.

"The USA and The United Kingdom: Two great countries divided by a
common
language."

Indeed.

We may be divided, but we're still connected with ties we'll never be
able to break.

Like what? We share the same films and internet, that's about it.

History, heritage,

Not that those come up in everyday living.


humanity.

As in ethics? No more than any other two random countries (excluding
Arab scum of course).

But, the US and Britain, aren't just two random countries. We're connected.

--
Maggie

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:44:53 -0000, Muggles wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:37 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:34:27 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:31 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:28:34 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 8:40 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:30:18 -0000, (PeteCresswell)
wrote:

Per Mr Macaw:
Yes, and that language is English. And it's already happening
courtesy of the internet.

"The USA and The United Kingdom: Two great countries divided by a
common
language."

Indeed.

We may be divided, but we're still connected with ties we'll never be
able to break.

Like what? We share the same films and internet, that's about it.

History, heritage,

Not that those come up in everyday living.


humanity.

As in ethics? No more than any other two random countries (excluding
Arab scum of course).

But, the US and Britain, aren't just two random countries. We're connected.

Rubbish, we're no more connected to you than we are to France.

--
Experience is what you got by not having it when you need it.

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:44:53 -0600
Muggles wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:37 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:34:27 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:31 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:28:34 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 8:40 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:30:18 -0000, (PeteCresswell)
wrote:

Per Mr Macaw:
Yes, and that language is English. And it's already happening
courtesy of the internet.

"The USA and The United Kingdom: Two great countries divided
by a common
language."

Indeed.

We may be divided, but we're still connected with ties we'll
never be able to break.

Like what? We share the same films and internet, that's about it.

History, heritage,

Not that those come up in everyday living.


humanity.

As in ethics? No more than any other two random countries
(excluding Arab scum of course).

But, the US and Britain, aren't just two random countries. We're
connected.


Nonsense...no longer so.

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:51:58 -0000
"Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:44:53 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:37 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:34:27 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:31 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:28:34 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 8:40 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:30:18 -0000, (PeteCresswell)
wrote:

Per Mr Macaw:
Yes, and that language is English. And it's already
happening courtesy of the internet.

"The USA and The United Kingdom: Two great countries divided
by a common
language."

Indeed.

We may be divided, but we're still connected with ties we'll
never be able to break.

Like what? We share the same films and internet, that's about
it.

History, heritage,

Not that those come up in everyday living.


humanity.

As in ethics? No more than any other two random countries
(excluding Arab scum of course).

But, the US and Britain, aren't just two random countries. We're
connected.

Rubbish, we're no more connected to you than we are to France.


Both full of girlie men and no longer allowed
to defend/protect self family.
Better to be raped and/or butt ****ed than to kill
the rapist or even Severely beat him/her

On 2/15/2016 1:51 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:44:53 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:37 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:34:27 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:31 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:28:34 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 8:40 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:30:18 -0000, (PeteCresswell)
wrote:

Per Mr Macaw:
Yes, and that language is English. And it's already happening
courtesy of the internet.

"The USA and The United Kingdom: Two great countries divided by a
common
language."

Indeed.

We may be divided, but we're still connected with ties we'll never be
able to break.

Like what? We share the same films and internet, that's about it.

History, heritage,

Not that those come up in everyday living.


humanity.

As in ethics? No more than any other two random countries (excluding
Arab scum of course).

But, the US and Britain, aren't just two random countries. We're
connected.

Rubbish, we're no more connected to you than we are to France.


I guess I base my conclusion on ancestry. English, Irish, and Scottish
(all part of Britain) being in the top 8 ethnicity in the US with a
combined total greater than the number one ranked ethnicity.

Ancestry of U.S. Population by Rank
(Groups with populations exceeding one million)

Rank Ethnicity Number
1. German 47,901,779
2. *Irish 34,669,616*
3. *English 25,926,451*
4. American 19,975,875
5. Italian 17,235,941
6. Polish 9,569,207
7. French 8,761,496
8. *Scottish 5,460,679*
9. Dutch 4,645,131
10. Norwegian 4,470,081
http://www.infoplease.com/toptens/popancestry.html
--
Maggie

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:04:13 -0000, Muggles wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:51 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:44:53 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:37 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:34:27 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:31 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:28:34 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 8:40 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:30:18 -0000, (PeteCresswell)
wrote:

Per Mr Macaw:
Yes, and that language is English. And it's already happening
courtesy of the internet.

"The USA and The United Kingdom: Two great countries divided by a
common
language."

Indeed.

We may be divided, but we're still connected with ties we'll never be
able to break.

Like what? We share the same films and internet, that's about it.

History, heritage,

Not that those come up in everyday living.


humanity.

As in ethics? No more than any other two random countries (excluding
Arab scum of course).

But, the US and Britain, aren't just two random countries. We're
connected.

Rubbish, we're no more connected to you than we are to France.

I guess I base my conclusion on ancestry. English, Irish, and Scottish
(all part of Britain) being in the top 8 ethnicity in the US with a
combined total greater than the number one ranked ethnicity.

Ancestry of U.S. Population by Rank
(Groups with populations exceeding one million)

Rank Ethnicity Number
1. German 47,901,779
2. *Irish 34,669,616*
3. *English 25,926,451*
4. American 19,975,875
5. Italian 17,235,941
6. Polish 9,569,207
7. French 8,761,496
8. *Scottish 5,460,679*
9. Dutch 4,645,131
10. Norwegian 4,470,081
http://www.infoplease.com/toptens/popancestry.html

Now that's surprising, I didn't know there were many Germans over there. Didn't you guys fight the Germans in WWII?

--
Sweet dreams are made of cheese, who am I to diss a Brie? I cheddar the world and the feta cheese, everybody's looking for Stilton.

On 2/15/2016 1:09 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 04:22:41 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:32:25 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:29:37 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/13/2016 3:49 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

Again, why do you want the front of cars lit up but not the back?
Pretty obvious to anyone who actually drives. The front of the car
is comming towards you

On the other side of the road, it's far easier to hit the back of
another car than one going the other way on the wrong side.

at the combined speed of the car approaching
and your car. He's doing 100kph and you are doing 90, the closing
speed is 190kph.,

Oh no, you don't actually believe that do you? Answer this simple
question:

Situation 1: You drive at 50mph into a brick wall.
Situation 2: You drive at 50mph into another identical car going at
50mph the other way.

WTF does that have to do with closing speed? He never said anything
about damage, but closing speed has a lot to do with time to evade an
accident. I thought you were smarter than that Harry.

She wasn't clear what she meant by it. But most people use closing
speed when talking about damage.
I think "harry" Macaw is taking the crazy position he is taking
figuring he can out- mart or out argue or whatever a "woman".....

Nobody can out-mart a woman. Women are brilliant at shopping.

And closing speed, past a certain very limited point, and damage,
become pretty well irrelevant as dead is dead - and totally destroyed
is totally destroyed.

So why did you bring up the fact that cars coming the other way have
more closing speed if you think it's irrelevant?

The best way to survive a collision is to avoid it.
The best way to avoid it is to see and be seen.
The BE SEEN is the part very effectively affected by "daylighting". As
a rallye driver in the past, "daylighting" was one of the safety
precautions we ALL took - long before DRLs became mandatory, or even
common.

To be seen you do NOT require as much light as to see. Bright lights to
illuminate your surroundings, dim lights to mark the position of your
vehicle for others to notice you. A bright light means they can no
longer see your vehicle, just lights, this makes it harder to judge your
speed, width, and distance. And no lights are necessary if the
surrounding daylight is reasonable - if your eyes cannot pick up an
object using the light reflected off it, you should seek immediate help
from an optician.

One of the problems with all that talk about lights is that the older
you get, the less light your eyes absorb.

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:19:20 -0000, SeaNymph wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:09 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 04:22:41 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:32:25 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:29:37 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/13/2016 3:49 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

Again, why do you want the front of cars lit up but not the back?
Pretty obvious to anyone who actually drives. The front of the car
is comming towards you

On the other side of the road, it's far easier to hit the back of
another car than one going the other way on the wrong side.

at the combined speed of the car approaching
and your car. He's doing 100kph and you are doing 90, the closing
speed is 190kph.,

Oh no, you don't actually believe that do you? Answer this simple
question:

Situation 1: You drive at 50mph into a brick wall.
Situation 2: You drive at 50mph into another identical car going at
50mph the other way.

WTF does that have to do with closing speed? He never said anything
about damage, but closing speed has a lot to do with time to evade an
accident. I thought you were smarter than that Harry.

She wasn't clear what she meant by it. But most people use closing
speed when talking about damage.
I think "harry" Macaw is taking the crazy position he is taking
figuring he can out- mart or out argue or whatever a "woman".....

Nobody can out-mart a woman. Women are brilliant at shopping.

And closing speed, past a certain very limited point, and damage,
become pretty well irrelevant as dead is dead - and totally destroyed
is totally destroyed.

So why did you bring up the fact that cars coming the other way have
more closing speed if you think it's irrelevant?

The best way to survive a collision is to avoid it.
The best way to avoid it is to see and be seen.
The BE SEEN is the part very effectively affected by "daylighting". As
a rallye driver in the past, "daylighting" was one of the safety
precautions we ALL took - long before DRLs became mandatory, or even
common.

To be seen you do NOT require as much light as to see. Bright lights to
illuminate your surroundings, dim lights to mark the position of your
vehicle for others to notice you. A bright light means they can no
longer see your vehicle, just lights, this makes it harder to judge your
speed, width, and distance. And no lights are necessary if the
surrounding daylight is reasonable - if your eyes cannot pick up an
object using the light reflected off it, you should seek immediate help
from an optician.

One of the problems with all that talk about lights is that the older
you get, the less light your eyes absorb.

What is the average age of the driving population?

And do you think OAPs drive as much as working people?

--
A child is for life, not just for benefits.

On 2/15/2016 2:06 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:04:13 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:51 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:44:53 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:37 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:34:27 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:31 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:28:34 -0000, Muggles

wrote:

On 2/15/2016 8:40 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:30:18 -0000, (PeteCresswell)
wrote:

Per Mr Macaw:
Yes, and that language is English. And it's already happening
courtesy of the internet.

"The USA and The United Kingdom: Two great countries divided by a
common
language."

Indeed.

We may be divided, but we're still connected with ties we'll
never be
able to break.

Like what? We share the same films and internet, that's about it.

History, heritage,

Not that those come up in everyday living.


humanity.

As in ethics? No more than any other two random countries (excluding
Arab scum of course).

But, the US and Britain, aren't just two random countries. We're
connected.

Rubbish, we're no more connected to you than we are to France.

I guess I base my conclusion on ancestry. English, Irish, and Scottish
(all part of Britain) being in the top 8 ethnicity in the US with a
combined total greater than the number one ranked ethnicity.

Ancestry of U.S. Population by Rank
(Groups with populations exceeding one million)

Rank Ethnicity Number
1. German 47,901,779
2. *Irish 34,669,616*
3. *English 25,926,451*
4. American 19,975,875
5. Italian 17,235,941
6. Polish 9,569,207
7. French 8,761,496
8. *Scottish 5,460,679*
9. Dutch 4,645,131
10. Norwegian 4,470,081
http://www.infoplease.com/toptens/popancestry.html


Now that's surprising, I didn't know there were many Germans over
there. Didn't you guys fight the Germans in WWII?

Amazing, huh?

My ancestry is a combination of English, Irish, Scottish, French, and
German.

It's easy to see why with so many different ethnicity's existing here in
the US.

--
Maggie

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:28:14 -0000, Muggles wrote:

On 2/15/2016 2:06 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:04:13 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:51 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:44:53 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:37 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:34:27 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:31 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:28:34 -0000, Muggles

wrote:

On 2/15/2016 8:40 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:30:18 -0000, (PeteCresswell)
wrote:

Per Mr Macaw:
Yes, and that language is English. And it's already happening
courtesy of the internet.

"The USA and The United Kingdom: Two great countries divided by a
common
language."

Indeed.

We may be divided, but we're still connected with ties we'll
never be
able to break.

Like what? We share the same films and internet, that's about it.

History, heritage,

Not that those come up in everyday living.


humanity.

As in ethics? No more than any other two random countries (excluding
Arab scum of course).

But, the US and Britain, aren't just two random countries. We're
connected.

Rubbish, we're no more connected to you than we are to France.

I guess I base my conclusion on ancestry. English, Irish, and Scottish
(all part of Britain) being in the top 8 ethnicity in the US with a
combined total greater than the number one ranked ethnicity.

Ancestry of U.S. Population by Rank
(Groups with populations exceeding one million)

Rank Ethnicity Number
1. German 47,901,779
2. *Irish 34,669,616*
3. *English 25,926,451*
4. American 19,975,875
5. Italian 17,235,941
6. Polish 9,569,207
7. French 8,761,496
8. *Scottish 5,460,679*
9. Dutch 4,645,131
10. Norwegian 4,470,081
http://www.infoplease.com/toptens/popancestry.html


Now that's surprising, I didn't know there were many Germans over
there. Didn't you guys fight the Germans in WWII?

Amazing, huh?

My ancestry is a combination of English, Irish, Scottish, French, and
German.

It's easy to see why with so many different ethnicity's existing here in
the US.

And I thought I was bad, having 1/2 North England, 1/4 South England, 1/4 Sweden, and lived in Scotland all my life.

I can speak with three silly accents and don't feel the cold.

--
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one -- George Bernard Shaw

On 2/15/2016 2:32 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:28:14 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 2:06 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:04:13 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:51 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:44:53 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:37 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:34:27 -0000, Muggles

wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:31 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:28:34 -0000, Muggles

wrote:

On 2/15/2016 8:40 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:30:18 -0000, (PeteCresswell)

wrote:

Per Mr Macaw:
Yes, and that language is English. And it's already happening
courtesy of the internet.

"The USA and The United Kingdom: Two great countries divided
by a
common
language."

Indeed.

We may be divided, but we're still connected with ties we'll
never be
able to break.

Like what? We share the same films and internet, that's about it.

History, heritage,

Not that those come up in everyday living.


humanity.

As in ethics? No more than any other two random countries
(excluding
Arab scum of course).

But, the US and Britain, aren't just two random countries. We're
connected.

Rubbish, we're no more connected to you than we are to France.

I guess I base my conclusion on ancestry. English, Irish, and Scottish
(all part of Britain) being in the top 8 ethnicity in the US with a
combined total greater than the number one ranked ethnicity.

Ancestry of U.S. Population by Rank
(Groups with populations exceeding one million)

Rank Ethnicity Number
1. German 47,901,779
2. *Irish 34,669,616*
3. *English 25,926,451*
4. American 19,975,875
5. Italian 17,235,941
6. Polish 9,569,207
7. French 8,761,496
8. *Scottish 5,460,679*
9. Dutch 4,645,131
10. Norwegian 4,470,081
http://www.infoplease.com/toptens/popancestry.html


Now that's surprising, I didn't know there were many Germans over
there. Didn't you guys fight the Germans in WWII?

Amazing, huh?

My ancestry is a combination of English, Irish, Scottish, French, and
German.

It's easy to see why with so many different ethnicity's existing here in
the US.


And I thought I was bad, having 1/2 North England, 1/4 South England,
1/4 Sweden, and lived in Scotland all my life.

I can speak with three silly accents and don't feel the cold.

One side of my family is E/I/Sc, and the other side is F/G.

--
Maggie

On 2/15/2016 2:23 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:19:20 -0000, SeaNymph
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:09 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 04:22:41 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:32:25 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:29:37 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/13/2016 3:49 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

Again, why do you want the front of cars lit up but not the back?
Pretty obvious to anyone who actually drives. The front of the
car
is comming towards you

On the other side of the road, it's far easier to hit the back of
another car than one going the other way on the wrong side.

at the combined speed of the car approaching
and your car. He's doing 100kph and you are doing 90, the closing
speed is 190kph.,

Oh no, you don't actually believe that do you? Answer this simple
question:

Situation 1: You drive at 50mph into a brick wall.
Situation 2: You drive at 50mph into another identical car going at
50mph the other way.

WTF does that have to do with closing speed? He never said anything
about damage, but closing speed has a lot to do with time to evade an
accident. I thought you were smarter than that Harry.

She wasn't clear what she meant by it. But most people use closing
speed when talking about damage.
I think "harry" Macaw is taking the crazy position he is taking
figuring he can out- mart or out argue or whatever a "woman".....

Nobody can out-mart a woman. Women are brilliant at shopping.

And closing speed, past a certain very limited point, and damage,
become pretty well irrelevant as dead is dead - and totally destroyed
is totally destroyed.

So why did you bring up the fact that cars coming the other way have
more closing speed if you think it's irrelevant?

The best way to survive a collision is to avoid it.
The best way to avoid it is to see and be seen.
The BE SEEN is the part very effectively affected by "daylighting". As
a rallye driver in the past, "daylighting" was one of the safety
precautions we ALL took - long before DRLs became mandatory, or even
common.

To be seen you do NOT require as much light as to see. Bright lights to
illuminate your surroundings, dim lights to mark the position of your
vehicle for others to notice you. A bright light means they can no
longer see your vehicle, just lights, this makes it harder to judge your
speed, width, and distance. And no lights are necessary if the
surrounding daylight is reasonable - if your eyes cannot pick up an
object using the light reflected off it, you should seek immediate help
from an optician.

One of the problems with all that talk about lights is that the older
you get, the less light your eyes absorb.

What is the average age of the driving population?

And do you think OAPs drive as much as working people?

Well, according to the link, the largest demographic of drivers is
persons 45-49, with virtually equal numbers of male and female drivers.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinfor...8/chapter4.cfm


OAP = Old Age Pensioner? Never heard that one before. I have no idea who
drives more. Non workers have more time to run around though, I would think.

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:37:15 -0000, Muggles wrote:

On 2/15/2016 2:32 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:28:14 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 2:06 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:04:13 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:51 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:44:53 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:37 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:34:27 -0000, Muggles

wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:31 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:28:34 -0000, Muggles

wrote:

On 2/15/2016 8:40 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:30:18 -0000, (PeteCresswell)

wrote:

Per Mr Macaw:
Yes, and that language is English. And it's already happening
courtesy of the internet.

"The USA and The United Kingdom: Two great countries divided
by a
common
language."

Indeed.

We may be divided, but we're still connected with ties we'll
never be
able to break.

Like what? We share the same films and internet, that's about it.

History, heritage,

Not that those come up in everyday living.


humanity.

As in ethics? No more than any other two random countries
(excluding
Arab scum of course).

But, the US and Britain, aren't just two random countries. We're
connected.

Rubbish, we're no more connected to you than we are to France.

I guess I base my conclusion on ancestry. English, Irish, and Scottish
(all part of Britain) being in the top 8 ethnicity in the US with a
combined total greater than the number one ranked ethnicity.

Ancestry of U.S. Population by Rank
(Groups with populations exceeding one million)

Rank Ethnicity Number
1. German 47,901,779
2. *Irish 34,669,616*
3. *English 25,926,451*
4. American 19,975,875
5. Italian 17,235,941
6. Polish 9,569,207
7. French 8,761,496
8. *Scottish 5,460,679*
9. Dutch 4,645,131
10. Norwegian 4,470,081
http://www.infoplease.com/toptens/popancestry.html


Now that's surprising, I didn't know there were many Germans over
there. Didn't you guys fight the Germans in WWII?

Amazing, huh?

My ancestry is a combination of English, Irish, Scottish, French, and
German.

It's easy to see why with so many different ethnicity's existing here in
the US.


And I thought I was bad, having 1/2 North England, 1/4 South England,
1/4 Sweden, and lived in Scotland all my life.

I can speak with three silly accents and don't feel the cold.

One side of my family is E/I/Sc, and the other side is F/G.

Does everybody get along?

--
HELP WANTED:
Baiters. Local fishing boats need 4 baiters to bate hooks for tourists. Must have strong hands and work hard. Good pay-$15 per hour, and benefits.
After 6 weeks, 2 best baiters will be promoted to masterbaiters. Apply in person to Jon at the Gulf Marina.

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:37:27 -0000, SeaNymph wrote:

On 2/15/2016 2:23 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:19:20 -0000, SeaNymph
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:09 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 04:22:41 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:32:25 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:29:37 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/13/2016 3:49 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

Again, why do you want the front of cars lit up but not the back?
Pretty obvious to anyone who actually drives. The front of the
car
is comming towards you

On the other side of the road, it's far easier to hit the back of
another car than one going the other way on the wrong side.

at the combined speed of the car approaching
and your car. He's doing 100kph and you are doing 90, the closing
speed is 190kph.,

Oh no, you don't actually believe that do you? Answer this simple
question:

Situation 1: You drive at 50mph into a brick wall.
Situation 2: You drive at 50mph into another identical car going at
50mph the other way.

WTF does that have to do with closing speed? He never said anything
about damage, but closing speed has a lot to do with time to evade an
accident. I thought you were smarter than that Harry.

She wasn't clear what she meant by it. But most people use closing
speed when talking about damage.
I think "harry" Macaw is taking the crazy position he is taking
figuring he can out- mart or out argue or whatever a "woman".....

Nobody can out-mart a woman. Women are brilliant at shopping.

And closing speed, past a certain very limited point, and damage,
become pretty well irrelevant as dead is dead - and totally destroyed
is totally destroyed.

So why did you bring up the fact that cars coming the other way have
more closing speed if you think it's irrelevant?

The best way to survive a collision is to avoid it.
The best way to avoid it is to see and be seen.
The BE SEEN is the part very effectively affected by "daylighting". As
a rallye driver in the past, "daylighting" was one of the safety
precautions we ALL took - long before DRLs became mandatory, or even
common.

To be seen you do NOT require as much light as to see. Bright lights to
illuminate your surroundings, dim lights to mark the position of your
vehicle for others to notice you. A bright light means they can no
longer see your vehicle, just lights, this makes it harder to judge your
speed, width, and distance. And no lights are necessary if the
surrounding daylight is reasonable - if your eyes cannot pick up an
object using the light reflected off it, you should seek immediate help
from an optician.

One of the problems with all that talk about lights is that the older
you get, the less light your eyes absorb.

What is the average age of the driving population?

And do you think OAPs drive as much as working people?

Well, according to the link, the largest demographic of drivers is
persons 45-49, with virtually equal numbers of male and female drivers.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinfor...8/chapter4.cfm

So not people with **** eyesight then.

OAP = Old Age Pensioner? Never heard that one before.

It's a common acronym in the UK.

I have no idea who
drives more. Non workers have more time to run around though, I would think.

Yes but they only run around when they want to, workers have to drive twice a day.

--
Pilot to tower, pilot to tower, I am 300 miles from land, 600 feet over water, and running out of fuel, please instruct!
Tower to pilot, tower to pilot, repeat after me: "Our Father, which art in heaven....."

On 2/15/2016 2:43 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:37:27 -0000, SeaNymph
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 2:23 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:19:20 -0000, SeaNymph
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:09 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 04:22:41 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:32:25 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:29:37 -0000, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 2/13/2016 3:49 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

Again, why do you want the front of cars lit up but not the
back?
Pretty obvious to anyone who actually drives. The front of the
car
is comming towards you

On the other side of the road, it's far easier to hit the back of
another car than one going the other way on the wrong side.

at the combined speed of the car approaching
and your car. He's doing 100kph and you are doing 90, the closing
speed is 190kph.,

Oh no, you don't actually believe that do you? Answer this simple
question:

Situation 1: You drive at 50mph into a brick wall.
Situation 2: You drive at 50mph into another identical car
going at
50mph the other way.

WTF does that have to do with closing speed? He never said
anything
about damage, but closing speed has a lot to do with time to
evade an
accident. I thought you were smarter than that Harry.

She wasn't clear what she meant by it. But most people use closing
speed when talking about damage.
I think "harry" Macaw is taking the crazy position he is taking
figuring he can out- mart or out argue or whatever a "woman".....

Nobody can out-mart a woman. Women are brilliant at shopping.

And closing speed, past a certain very limited point, and damage,
become pretty well irrelevant as dead is dead - and totally destroyed
is totally destroyed.

So why did you bring up the fact that cars coming the other way have
more closing speed if you think it's irrelevant?

The best way to survive a collision is to avoid it.
The best way to avoid it is to see and be seen.
The BE SEEN is the part very effectively affected by
"daylighting". As
a rallye driver in the past, "daylighting" was one of the safety
precautions we ALL took - long before DRLs became mandatory, or even
common.

To be seen you do NOT require as much light as to see. Bright
lights to
illuminate your surroundings, dim lights to mark the position of your
vehicle for others to notice you. A bright light means they can no
longer see your vehicle, just lights, this makes it harder to judge
your
speed, width, and distance. And no lights are necessary if the
surrounding daylight is reasonable - if your eyes cannot pick up an
object using the light reflected off it, you should seek immediate
help
from an optician.

One of the problems with all that talk about lights is that the older
you get, the less light your eyes absorb.

What is the average age of the driving population?

And do you think OAPs drive as much as working people?

Well, according to the link, the largest demographic of drivers is
persons 45-49, with virtually equal numbers of male and female drivers.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinfor...8/chapter4.cfm

So not people with **** eyesight then.

I didn't say anything about old people. I said that as you get older,
the less light your eyes can absorb.


OAP = Old Age Pensioner? Never heard that one before.

It's a common acronym in the UK.

I figured as much once I figured out what it was.


I have no idea who
drives more. Non workers have more time to run around though, I would
think.

Yes but they only run around when they want to, workers have to drive
twice a day.

And what if all they want to do is run around? Maybe they like driving
and have all the time in the world to do it g

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:52:31 -0000, SeaNymph wrote:

On 2/15/2016 2:43 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:37:27 -0000, SeaNymph
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 2:23 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:19:20 -0000, SeaNymph
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:09 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 04:22:41 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:32:25 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:29:37 -0000, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 2/13/2016 3:49 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

Again, why do you want the front of cars lit up but not the
back?
Pretty obvious to anyone who actually drives. The front of the
car
is comming towards you

On the other side of the road, it's far easier to hit the back of
another car than one going the other way on the wrong side.

at the combined speed of the car approaching
and your car. He's doing 100kph and you are doing 90, the closing
speed is 190kph.,

Oh no, you don't actually believe that do you? Answer this simple
question:

Situation 1: You drive at 50mph into a brick wall.
Situation 2: You drive at 50mph into another identical car
going at
50mph the other way.

WTF does that have to do with closing speed? He never said
anything
about damage, but closing speed has a lot to do with time to
evade an
accident. I thought you were smarter than that Harry.

She wasn't clear what she meant by it. But most people use closing
speed when talking about damage.
I think "harry" Macaw is taking the crazy position he is taking
figuring he can out- mart or out argue or whatever a "woman".....

Nobody can out-mart a woman. Women are brilliant at shopping.

And closing speed, past a certain very limited point, and damage,
become pretty well irrelevant as dead is dead - and totally destroyed
is totally destroyed.

So why did you bring up the fact that cars coming the other way have
more closing speed if you think it's irrelevant?

The best way to survive a collision is to avoid it.
The best way to avoid it is to see and be seen.
The BE SEEN is the part very effectively affected by
"daylighting". As
a rallye driver in the past, "daylighting" was one of the safety
precautions we ALL took - long before DRLs became mandatory, or even
common.

To be seen you do NOT require as much light as to see. Bright
lights to
illuminate your surroundings, dim lights to mark the position of your
vehicle for others to notice you. A bright light means they can no
longer see your vehicle, just lights, this makes it harder to judge
your
speed, width, and distance. And no lights are necessary if the
surrounding daylight is reasonable - if your eyes cannot pick up an
object using the light reflected off it, you should seek immediate
help
from an optician.

One of the problems with all that talk about lights is that the older
you get, the less light your eyes absorb.

What is the average age of the driving population?

And do you think OAPs drive as much as working people?

Well, according to the link, the largest demographic of drivers is
persons 45-49, with virtually equal numbers of male and female drivers.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinfor...8/chapter4.cfm

So not people with **** eyesight then.

I didn't say anything about old people. I said that as you get older,
the less light your eyes can absorb.

As you get older you become an old people. Anyway I'm 40 and I can see just as well as a teenager (optician says so, and I can see things without lights on them just as easily, if not easier than those with DRL crap).

OAP = Old Age Pensioner? Never heard that one before.

It's a common acronym in the UK.

I figured as much once I figured out what it was.

What do you guys call them?

I have no idea who
drives more. Non workers have more time to run around though, I would
think.

Yes but they only run around when they want to, workers have to drive
twice a day.

And what if all they want to do is run around? Maybe they like driving
and have all the time in the world to do it g

That explains why the *******s stick to the ****ing sped limit and get in my way!

--
Next time you wave at me, use more than one finger please.

On 2/15/2016 2:57 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:52:31 -0000, SeaNymph
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 2:43 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:37:27 -0000, SeaNymph
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 2:23 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:19:20 -0000, SeaNymph

wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:09 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 04:22:41 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:32:25 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:29:37 -0000, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 2/13/2016 3:49 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

Again, why do you want the front of cars lit up but not the
back?
Pretty obvious to anyone who actually drives. The front of
the
car
is comming towards you

On the other side of the road, it's far easier to hit the
back of
another car than one going the other way on the wrong side.

at the combined speed of the car approaching
and your car. He's doing 100kph and you are doing 90, the
closing
speed is 190kph.,

Oh no, you don't actually believe that do you? Answer this
simple
question:

Situation 1: You drive at 50mph into a brick wall.
Situation 2: You drive at 50mph into another identical car
going at
50mph the other way.

WTF does that have to do with closing speed? He never said
anything
about damage, but closing speed has a lot to do with time to
evade an
accident. I thought you were smarter than that Harry.

She wasn't clear what she meant by it. But most people use
closing
speed when talking about damage.
I think "harry" Macaw is taking the crazy position he is taking
figuring he can out- mart or out argue or whatever a "woman".....

Nobody can out-mart a woman. Women are brilliant at shopping.

And closing speed, past a certain very limited point, and damage,
become pretty well irrelevant as dead is dead - and totally
destroyed
is totally destroyed.

So why did you bring up the fact that cars coming the other way have
more closing speed if you think it's irrelevant?

The best way to survive a collision is to avoid it.
The best way to avoid it is to see and be seen.
The BE SEEN is the part very effectively affected by
"daylighting". As
a rallye driver in the past, "daylighting" was one of the safety
precautions we ALL took - long before DRLs became mandatory, or
even
common.

To be seen you do NOT require as much light as to see. Bright
lights to
illuminate your surroundings, dim lights to mark the position of
your
vehicle for others to notice you. A bright light means they can no
longer see your vehicle, just lights, this makes it harder to judge
your
speed, width, and distance. And no lights are necessary if the
surrounding daylight is reasonable - if your eyes cannot pick up an
object using the light reflected off it, you should seek immediate
help
from an optician.

One of the problems with all that talk about lights is that the older
you get, the less light your eyes absorb.

What is the average age of the driving population?

And do you think OAPs drive as much as working people?

Well, according to the link, the largest demographic of drivers is
persons 45-49, with virtually equal numbers of male and female drivers.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinfor...8/chapter4.cfm

So not people with **** eyesight then.

I didn't say anything about old people. I said that as you get older,
the less light your eyes can absorb.

As you get older you become an old people. Anyway I'm 40 and I can see
just as well as a teenager (optician says so, and I can see things
without lights on them just as easily, if not easier than those with DRL
crap).

LOL
Well, that's fine.


OAP = Old Age Pensioner? Never heard that one before.

It's a common acronym in the UK.

I figured as much once I figured out what it was.

What do you guys call them?

I think they're just referred to as retirees.


I have no idea who
drives more. Non workers have more time to run around though, I would
think.

Yes but they only run around when they want to, workers have to drive
twice a day.

And what if all they want to do is run around? Maybe they like driving
and have all the time in the world to do it g

That explains why the *******s stick to the ****ing sped limit and get
in my way!

I'm wondering if you're making an assumption about who drives more, or
if there's some statistic about it. Not that I really care, but in my
house, I drive more and I don't work.

We live pretty close to where my husband works. Since I do all the
shopping, I tend to drive much more in a week than he does. He has a 5
year old vehicle and it has less than 40,000 miles on it.

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 21:08:25 -0000, SeaNymph wrote:

On 2/15/2016 2:57 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:52:31 -0000, SeaNymph
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 2:43 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:37:27 -0000, SeaNymph
wrote:

On 2/15/2016 2:23 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:19:20 -0000, SeaNymph

wrote:

On 2/15/2016 1:09 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 04:22:41 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:32:25 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:29:37 -0000, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 2/13/2016 3:49 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

Again, why do you want the front of cars lit up but not the
back?
Pretty obvious to anyone who actually drives. The front of
the
car
is comming towards you

On the other side of the road, it's far easier to hit the
back of
another car than one going the other way on the wrong side.

at the combined speed of the car approaching
and your car. He's doing 100kph and you are doing 90, the
closing
speed is 190kph.,

Oh no, you don't actually believe that do you? Answer this
simple
question:

Situation 1: You drive at 50mph into a brick wall.
Situation 2: You drive at 50mph into another identical car
going at
50mph the other way.

WTF does that have to do with closing speed? He never said
anything
about damage, but closing speed has a lot to do with time to
evade an
accident. I thought you were smarter than that Harry.

She wasn't clear what she meant by it. But most people use
closing
speed when talking about damage.
I think "harry" Macaw is taking the crazy position he is taking
figuring he can out- mart or out argue or whatever a "woman".....

Nobody can out-mart a woman. Women are brilliant at shopping.

And closing speed, past a certain very limited point, and damage,
become pretty well irrelevant as dead is dead - and totally
destroyed
is totally destroyed.

So why did you bring up the fact that cars coming the other way have
more closing speed if you think it's irrelevant?

The best way to survive a collision is to avoid it.
The best way to avoid it is to see and be seen.
The BE SEEN is the part very effectively affected by
"daylighting". As
a rallye driver in the past, "daylighting" was one of the safety
precautions we ALL took - long before DRLs became mandatory, or
even
common.

To be seen you do NOT require as much light as to see. Bright
lights to
illuminate your surroundings, dim lights to mark the position of
your
vehicle for others to notice you. A bright light means they can no
longer see your vehicle, just lights, this makes it harder to judge
your
speed, width, and distance. And no lights are necessary if the
surrounding daylight is reasonable - if your eyes cannot pick up an
object using the light reflected off it, you should seek immediate
help
from an optician.

One of the problems with all that talk about lights is that the older
you get, the less light your eyes absorb.

What is the average age of the driving population?

And do you think OAPs drive as much as working people?

Well, according to the link, the largest demographic of drivers is
persons 45-49, with virtually equal numbers of male and female drivers.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinfor...8/chapter4.cfm

So not people with **** eyesight then.

I didn't say anything about old people. I said that as you get older,
the less light your eyes can absorb.

As you get older you become an old people. Anyway I'm 40 and I can see
just as well as a teenager (optician says so, and I can see things
without lights on them just as easily, if not easier than those with DRL
crap).

LOL
Well, that's fine.


OAP = Old Age Pensioner? Never heard that one before.

It's a common acronym in the UK.

I figured as much once I figured out what it was.

What do you guys call them?

I think they're just referred to as retirees.

I've never heard that, but if I did I'd think it a bit posh. "One is a retiree you know, one has a mansion and a golf course to one's self."

I have no idea who
drives more. Non workers have more time to run around though, I would
think.

Yes but they only run around when they want to, workers have to drive
twice a day.

And what if all they want to do is run around? Maybe they like driving
and have all the time in the world to do it g

That explains why the *******s stick to the ****ing sped limit and get
in my way!

I'm wondering if you're making an assumption about who drives more, or
if there's some statistic about it. Not that I really care, but in my
house, I drive more and I don't work.

If they drove at a reasonable speed I wouldn't care.

We live pretty close to where my husband works. Since I do all the
shopping, I tend to drive much more in a week than he does. He has a 5
year old vehicle and it has less than 40,000 miles on it.

"All the shopping" is more than commuting?!? I go to the supermarket once every 3 weeks, and that's 2 miles away.

--
What do bungee jumping and sex with a prostitute have in common?
1) They both cost about $100.
2) They both last about 30 seconds.
3) In both cases, if the rubber breaks, you're a dead man.