On 02/13/2016 02:54 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.

No way, no day. For example, almost all of my firearms would be illegal
in New York state because of regulations pushed through by Cuomo. If the
people of NY want to put up with his liberal, gun-grabbing crap, that is
their prerogative. It will not fly in Montana.

No offense, but you could stick Great Britain out in the eastern part of
Montana where not too much lives except prairie dogs and rattlesnakes.
This is a vast country and as you might gather from US politics, the
different regions have as much use for the others as some Scots have for
England.

On 02/13/2016 02:55 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
I've heard of one where they had to fit larger wheels so the headlights
were at the correct minimum height. In the UK we only have a maximum
height.

The fitting of larger wheels actually ruined the handling and made the
car more dangerous. Health and softy shooting itself in the foot.

It would be hard enough to put big enough tires on a Lotus Super Seven
to make it legal In fact, I think the Evora is the only street legal
model in the US.

Even worse are French cars; except for those imported by individuals
they haven't been in the US market for 25 years. It's an economic
decision. Can they sell enough to bother to meet US certification?
Apparently they can meet the European Certificate of Conformance.

On 02/13/2016 03:02 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
If it was sensible then, it's sensible now.

Sensible and legal are not the same thing. Prior to 1999, the daytime
speed limit outside of town was 'reasonable and proper'. That tended to
be around 100 on a lot of roads. Then the maximum was dropped to 75. Was
that more sensible? Last year it was increased to 80. Sensible now?

On 2/13/2016 6:39 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/13/2016 03:19 PM, wrote:
ver or through the car ahead of you, giving more warning about what
is going on ahead. You can't see the brake lights of the vehicles 2 or
3 cars ahead through the solid bodies of the vehicles between you and
the vehicle braking.

You CAN see the high mounted brake light.

When you drive a Yaris in the land of SUVs and F250 pickups, you can't see
****, including traffic signals over an intersection. I'm better off on a bike
where I can stand on the pegs.

Ditto. Here, the guys drive trucks (that have IMMACULATE beds that have
never considered CARRYING anything!) and the gals drive SUV's or minivans.
That just leaves the panel trucks, delivery vehicles, busses, etc.

A "regular car" (pick your favorite make/model) is essentially a
"hole" in a sea of oversized vehicles. You learn to look at the
traffic signals on *cross* streets to infer what *yours* is likely
to be!

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 21:39:53 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/12/2016 7:30 PM, Andy wrote:
On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 11:25:21 AM UTC-6, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 12:14:18 PM UTC-5, 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

This can't be much of a problem anymore, can it? The vast majority of
cars on the road now have daytime lights on, ie if the car is running
the lights are on. Not sure if it's a law though.
Probably should be though.

I do not like cars with forced lights.

Shortens lifespan of expensive bulbs.

Andy

How much have you spent on bulbs in recent years? Last one I bought was
for my '91 Regal and it was not a "forced" light. I don't see it as a
burden, but your experience may be different.

I think I've only replaced one rear turn-signal bulb in my life, and
that's it for bulbs, except when I added after market halogen
headlights about 20 years ago. They burned out. I should have
stayed with the headlights the car came with.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anyway now they've got those bloody DRLs, lights will just be wired straight to the ****ing ignition.

That's not my car.

--
My car is a hybrid. It burns petrol AND oil.

LOL

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".....

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.

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.

On 2/13/2016 7:50 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/13/2016 02:34 PM, Muggles wrote:
My husband did OTR for a while, and then drove locally for a while. He
said a lot of people had that same quaint idea about playing chicken
with trucks!


I've sometimes wondered what goes on in the mind of an Audi TTS driver
trying to force his way into traffic when he has to loop up to read the
logo on the 11/R22.5 steer tire. He may be a master of the universe in
his world, but he was a speed bump in mine.

In most circumstances I let people in but when someone figures they're
so important they deserve to cut into the head of the line my stubborn
streak comes out.

yeah I like truckers, for good reasons. I'll nearly always let them in
if I can do it safely, flash my lights at them if they let me in to
thank them, and try to give them a wide birth. On the way to work I
could swear they let me in the rocking chair on purpose so I could get
off on my exit. Least I'd like to think they did that more than once.

--
Maggie

On 2/13/2016 7:55 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/13/2016 02:36 PM, Muggles wrote:
I've come close to pulling out in front of a motor cycle at dusk time -
right before people turn their headlights on.

If you want to rob banks you should ride a bike; they're invisible. It
got up to 43 today so I went out for a ride. I'm particularly cautious
this time of year since people don't even think about motorcycles being
in traffic in February around here. Later on in the spring, the city has
a motorcycle awareness campaign but you're on you own in late winter.


I've never been fond of riding motor cycles myself. Kind of scary. How
do you get used to it?

--
Maggie

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 14:38:41 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 02/13/2016 08:31 AM, wrote:
If you thought you were being raped in Alberta be glad you were not
driving in Quebec - or even Ontario. (and my math isn't so bad - I
just saw 150 and thought 50 - - - -

The last time I was in eastern Canada, it was still imperial gallons,
iirc and the Canadian dollar was more or less par.
Alberta is a "low tax" province, particularly in the past several
decades being flush with oil revenue - so Alberta prices were low.
Ontario has always had fairly high fuel taxes - and quebec even more -
making quebec fuel often the most expensive in Canada - and several of
the maritime provinces have played with the "fixed price" gasoline
pricing model, where prices are set on a monthly? basis, and
permission is required to raise OR lower prices. I think Nova Scotia
is still using that model - which tends to result in higher fuel
prices with the Sinclair family dominating the market

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
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

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...

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.

Read this (DaDRL is a worldwide voluntary group of experienced motorists including Scientists, Engineers, Mathematicians, Lawyers and Ophthalmological experts who are supported by the leading Pedestrian, Cyclist and Motorcyclist organisations): http://www.dadrl.org.uk

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.

On 02/13/2016 09:25 PM, Muggles wrote:
yeah I like truckers, for good reasons. I'll nearly always let them in
if I can do it safely, flash my lights at them if they let me in to
thank them, and try to give them a wide birth. On the way to work I
could swear they let me in the rocking chair on purpose so I could get
off on my exit. Least I'd like to think they did that more than once.


You develop a different attitude, particularly as an OTR driver. You're
driving ten to twelve thousand miles a month and you're typically not
running on a tight schedule. By that I mean you don't have to get to the
office by 9:00. Most of my runs were at least 1,000 miles. You learn to
take the long view. A few minutes one way or the other don't mean
anything and you have plenty of time to study traffic patterns.

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.

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??

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 22:01:45 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:54:36 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:40:11 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:34:24 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:29:24 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:57:13 -0000, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:30:08 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:09 -0000, trader_4 wrote:

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 12:14:18 PM UTC-5, 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

This can't be much of a problem anymore, can it? The vast majority of
cars on the road now have daytime lights on, ie if the car is running
the lights are on. Not sure if it's a law though.
Probably should be though.

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%.
Mr Parrott. you are crazy.
Daylighting makes ALL vehicles more visible.. If other cars on the
road are a distraction to you, you should quit driving and stay aff
the road.

Says the person who cannot see an object which doesn't have bulbs all over it.

I'm a photographer, I know all about contrast and apertures, so shut up until you have a clue please.
You may be a photographer, mabee even a good one - but I have my
doubts about your driving.

We're discussing the ability to see objects.
When we are driving in real world conditions - not looking through
the viefinder of a high end professional camera.

You say "shut up untill you have a clue" then tell me to "grow up"
when I tell you the BS you smell is coming from your own posts.

3 words.

Pot

Kettle

Black

You do realise your eye has an iris which works like the aperture in a camera?
Sure do but when you are taking a picture you are not travelling at
100kph through mixed sunlight and shadow, taking a picture of a
subject doing the same coming towards you that you are not expecting
to be in the picture, generally speaking. And not seeing something in
the picture doesn't mean you will end up dead and demolished because
you didn't see it.

Pulling out to pass on 2 lane blacktop tends to have serious
consequenses when that unseen object ends up in your "viewfinder" just
after you "click the shutter"

On 02/13/2016 09:26 PM, Muggles wrote:
I've never been fond of riding motor cycles myself. Kind of scary. How
do you get used to it?

I don't know. Start when you are young and stupid? I was never too
comfortable flying and gave it up eventually even though I
intellectually realize it's a lot safer than bikes. In fact the guy who
taught me to fly was an ag pilot as was his father. Despite parking a
few planes in a tree, which is one of the occupational hazards of ag
flying, his father was killed on a motorcycle. It's definitely not
rational.

On 02/13/2016 09:27 PM, wrote:
Alberta is a "low tax" province, particularly in the past several
decades being flush with oil revenue - so Alberta prices were low.

We'll see how that goes. I haven't been up to Calgary in a while but I
understand it isn't too rosy. Despite decades of history they never
thing the boom is going to end.

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.?

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?

Good luck convincing the rest of the Continent!

On 02/13/2016 09:30 PM, wrote:
Says the Brit - where they still drive on the "wrong" side of the road
and have kept their currency (instead of adopting the Euro like the
rest of the "European Community" they are otherwise part of.

They're tooling up for the Brexit. Maybe. I feel sorry for the Danes
trying to figure out what the Brits will do next. They only joined the
EEC because the UK did and aren't the most enthusiastic EU members.
They're still using the krone rather than the euro too.

On 2/13/2016 9:54 PM, 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.

Photos of hisself taped to the places where the mirror glass *should* be!

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

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:53:17 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 02/13/2016 09:25 PM, Muggles wrote:
yeah I like truckers, for good reasons. I'll nearly always let them in
if I can do it safely, flash my lights at them if they let me in to
thank them, and try to give them a wide birth. On the way to work I
could swear they let me in the rocking chair on purpose so I could get
off on my exit. Least I'd like to think they did that more than once.


You develop a different attitude, particularly as an OTR driver. You're
driving ten to twelve thousand miles a month and you're typically not
running on a tight schedule. By that I mean you don't have to get to the
office by 9:00. Most of my runs were at least 1,000 miles. You learn to
take the long view. A few minutes one way or the other don't mean
anything and you have plenty of time to study traffic patterns.
I wish all OTR drivers thought the same way you do.
Too many ARE on a tight schedule - they have to have their load at the
dock between 3:15 and 4:00 pm tomorrow, and to keep your logbook legal
you cannot lose 20 minutes in the next 14 hours or you have to stop
for the mandated rest period - meaning you will be a few hours late.
I have 2 brothers who made their living as OTR drivers for many years.
One is currently either running the ice road in northern Sakatchewan
or waiting for the road to open, and the other took his own life last
year.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 22:02:15 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 02/13/2016 09:26 PM, Muggles wrote:
I've never been fond of riding motor cycles myself. Kind of scary. How
do you get used to it?

I don't know. Start when you are young and stupid? I was never too
comfortable flying and gave it up eventually even though I
intellectually realize it's a lot safer than bikes. In fact the guy who
taught me to fly was an ag pilot as was his father. Despite parking a
few planes in a tree, which is one of the occupational hazards of ag
flying, his father was killed on a motorcycle. It's definitely not
rational.
I used to love riding the bike - I had an Ex Police Honda that I was
thinking about riding across Africa and Europe coming back from Zambia
until a friend lost his life on his brand new 750-4 when he hit a
Honda 90 that pulled out in front of him. The 90 driver lost his leg.
My friend lost most of his skull sliding down the pavement -after
destroying the helmet he had on his head.

Somehow motorcycle riding has never been the same for me since.
Sure - I've owned a few bikes since, and did some local driving - but
I've never had the desire to do any long distancr riding since and
have not actually driven a motorcycle in the last almost 20 years.

Hoping to have my pilots license by the time the Pegazair is ready to
fly - - -

On 2/13/2016 10:53 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/13/2016 09:25 PM, Muggles wrote:
yeah I like truckers, for good reasons. I'll nearly always let them in
if I can do it safely, flash my lights at them if they let me in to
thank them, and try to give them a wide birth. On the way to work I
could swear they let me in the rocking chair on purpose so I could get
off on my exit. Least I'd like to think they did that more than once.


You develop a different attitude, particularly as an OTR driver. You're
driving ten to twelve thousand miles a month and you're typically not
running on a tight schedule. By that I mean you don't have to get to the
office by 9:00. Most of my runs were at least 1,000 miles. You learn to
take the long view. A few minutes one way or the other don't mean
anything and you have plenty of time to study traffic patterns.

My older brother owns his own rig and travels all over the place. Makes
a good living at it.

--
Maggie

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.


--
Bod

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 2/13/2016 11:02 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/13/2016 09:26 PM, Muggles wrote:
I've never been fond of riding motor cycles myself. Kind of scary. How
do you get used to it?

I don't know. Start when you are young and stupid? I was never too
comfortable flying and gave it up eventually even though I
intellectually realize it's a lot safer than bikes. In fact the guy who
taught me to fly was an ag pilot as was his father. Despite parking a
few planes in a tree, which is one of the occupational hazards of ag
flying, his father was killed on a motorcycle. It's definitely not
rational.

I had an uncle who took me for a motor cycle ride around his
neighborhood when I was a teen. Scared some sense into me, and never
got on another one since then.

--
Maggie

On 2/13/2016 11:17 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:53:17 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 02/13/2016 09:25 PM, Muggles wrote:
yeah I like truckers, for good reasons. I'll nearly always let them in
if I can do it safely, flash my lights at them if they let me in to
thank them, and try to give them a wide birth. On the way to work I
could swear they let me in the rocking chair on purpose so I could get
off on my exit. Least I'd like to think they did that more than once.


You develop a different attitude, particularly as an OTR driver. You're
driving ten to twelve thousand miles a month and you're typically not
running on a tight schedule. By that I mean you don't have to get to the
office by 9:00. Most of my runs were at least 1,000 miles. You learn to
take the long view. A few minutes one way or the other don't mean
anything and you have plenty of time to study traffic patterns.
I wish all OTR drivers thought the same way you do.

Too many ARE on a tight schedule - they have to have their load at the
dock between 3:15 and 4:00 pm tomorrow, and to keep your logbook legal
you cannot lose 20 minutes in the next 14 hours or you have to stop
for the mandated rest period - meaning you will be a few hours late.
I have 2 brothers who made their living as OTR drivers for many years.
One is currently either running the ice road in northern Sakatchewan
or waiting for the road to open, and the other took his own life last
year.


awe I'm so sorry for your loss clare.

--
Maggie

On 2/13/2016 11:23 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 22:02:15 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 02/13/2016 09:26 PM, Muggles wrote:
I've never been fond of riding motor cycles myself. Kind of scary. How
do you get used to it?

I don't know. Start when you are young and stupid? I was never too
comfortable flying and gave it up eventually even though I
intellectually realize it's a lot safer than bikes. In fact the guy who
taught me to fly was an ag pilot as was his father. Despite parking a
few planes in a tree, which is one of the occupational hazards of ag
flying, his father was killed on a motorcycle. It's definitely not
rational.
I used to love riding the bike - I had an Ex Police Honda that I was
thinking about riding across Africa and Europe coming back from Zambia
until a friend lost his life on his brand new 750-4 when he hit a
Honda 90 that pulled out in front of him. The 90 driver lost his leg.
My friend lost most of his skull sliding down the pavement -after
destroying the helmet he had on his head.

Somehow motorcycle riding has never been the same for me since.
Sure - I've owned a few bikes since, and did some local driving - but
I've never had the desire to do any long distancr riding since and
have not actually driven a motorcycle in the last almost 20 years.

Hoping to have my pilots license by the time the Pegazair is ready to
fly - - -


My dad, in his younger days, rode a Harley and had a group of guys he
rode with for a while. One of his buddies had an accident and when off
the side of a mountain. The next day he said he sold his bike and never
rode again.

--
Maggie

On 02/13/2016 10:17 PM, wrote:
I wish all OTR drivers thought the same way you do.
Too many ARE on a tight schedule - they have to have their load at the
dock between 3:15 and 4:00 pm tomorrow, and to keep your logbook legal
you cannot lose 20 minutes in the next 14 hours or you have to stop
for the mandated rest period - meaning you will be a few hours late.

The computers weren't around when I was driving so logbooks were a work
of art. In the US, you could only be on for 10 hours.

The guys are felt sorry for were the east coast drivers. Most of their
stuff was short hauls from city to city. Screw around all day getting
loaded, drive all night to get there for a morning delivery, screw
around all day getting loaded... I don't know when they ever slept.

On 02/13/2016 10:27 PM, Muggles wrote:
My older brother owns his own rig and travels all over the place. Makes
a good living at it.


You can if you know what you're doing. A lot of owner operators are good
drivers but poor businessmen.

Per Mr Macaw:
Nah, it's always ben like that. I think it's to do with standard of living.

I don't think so.... Back in the day guys who worked in, for instance,
steel mills and automobile assembly plants owned houses and sent their
kids through college.

Nowadays my impression is that most non-professional/non-technical
workers are living paycheck-to-paycheck.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 13:30:24 -0000, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Per Mr Macaw:
Nah, it's always ben like that. I think it's to do with standard of living.

I don't think so.... Back in the day guys who worked in, for instance,
steel mills and automobile assembly plants owned houses and sent their
kids through college.

I see you're not a Yorkshireman.

Nowadays my impression is that most non-professional/non-technical
workers are living paycheck-to-paycheck.

Doesn't explain the prevalence of brand new BMWs all over the place.

--
Got myself a new Jack Russell puppy, he's mainly black and brown with a small white patch, so I've named him England.

On 2/13/2016 7:55 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/13/2016 02:36 PM, Muggles wrote:
I've come close to pulling out in front of a motor cycle at dusk time -
right before people turn their headlights on.

If you want to rob banks you should ride a bike; they're invisible. It
got up to 43 today so I went out for a ride. I'm particularly cautious
this time of year since people don't even think about motorcycles being
in traffic in February around here. Later on in the spring, the city has
a motorcycle awareness campaign but you're on you own in late winter.

While riding a motorcycle can be dangerous, if you're smart, as a rider
you know people in cars often don't see you or ignore you. I rode for
years and really enjoyed it. There's a freedom to it that not much else
on the road gives you. I raced for some time, until I ran into a tree g

Per rbowman:
It
got up to 43 today so I went out for a ride. I'm particularly cautious
this time of year since people don't even think about motorcycles being
in traffic in February...

I'd also worry about black ice.

Busted my butt once on a 40-ish morning riding my MTB into the shadow of
a building where the off-camber wet blacktop wasn't wet any more.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 2/14/2016 11:36 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per rbowman:
It
got up to 43 today so I went out for a ride. I'm particularly cautious
this time of year since people don't even think about motorcycles being
in traffic in February...

I'd also worry about black ice.

Busted my butt once on a 40-ish morning riding my MTB into the shadow of
a building where the off-camber wet blacktop wasn't wet any more.


A long time ago we hit black ice turning into a restaurant parking lot.
There was a puddle at the entrance where cars had spread out the water
and it turned into black ice. We didn't see it in time and ended up
sliding into the curb and bending our front axle.

--
Maggie

On 02/14/2016 07:41 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:

I see you're not a Yorkshireman.

all I know of Yorkshire comes from Ken Loach's film, 'The Navigators'.
The takeaway from that was Yorkies do not speak English. It was as
incomprehensible as 'Trainspotters' or 'Sexy Beast'.

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 00:38:30 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 02/13/2016 10:27 PM, Muggles wrote:
My older brother owns his own rig and travels all over the place. Makes
a good living at it.


You can if you know what you're doing. A lot of owner operators are good
drivers but poor businessmen.
When my kid brother was an owner / operator he thought he was making
good money untill the truck he had finally finished paying off
required $20,000 of work. Get it fixed and the day after that repair
was paid off, something else went wrong - or he hit a herd of 26
antelope - or got struck by lightning - - -

He finally decided getting paid by the mile or hour and driving
someone else's truck made a lot more cents.

On 02/14/2016 10:36 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per rbowman:
It
got up to 43 today so I went out for a ride. I'm particularly cautious
this time of year since people don't even think about motorcycles being
in traffic in February...

I'd also worry about black ice.

Busted my butt once on a 40-ish morning riding my MTB into the shadow of
a building where the off-camber wet blacktop wasn't wet any more.


There are hazards. The road crews use copious amounts of gravel on bad
curves and intersections after snow storms. Eventually they get around
to sweeping it off the road but right now unexpected gravel piles can
ruin your day. I regularly ride on dirt but that's a different animal to
gravel on a paved road.

It usually isn't a springtime problem, but as the morning get below
freezing in the fall there are a couple of places I have to watch. The
lawn sprinklers irrigate a substantial part of the street and that can
be ice until the sun gets to it.

Yesterday's ride was on the DR-650, which is a dual sport (enduro).
After a hard winter it helps to have something to scout out road
conditions that can handle deep potholes and stretches of missing pavement.