hwh wrote:

Mortimer wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...

and brake lights kept permanently on when drivers are stationary in
a queue of traffic. Why can't people use ther handbrake rather than
footbrake when they are stopped at traffic lights?

I am going to assume that you are getting on in years here. It seems
like the driving schools teach this to drivers going to about 40
years ago.


I'm in my mid 40s. I learned in the early 80s, taught by an ex police
Class 1 driving instructor. Same thing was reiterated when I took my
IAM test ten year later. So are modern-day pupils taught to keep their
foot on the footbrake at traffic lights and not to use the handbrake?
How standards have slipped ;-)


People driving cars with automatic gearboxes keep their foots on the
brake pedal to keep the car from creeping forward.

Foots?

What is wrong with their hand brake then?

Dave.

Mortimer wrote:
":Jerry:" wrote in message
...
Not sure what you mean about 'umbrella' - what do other use?

They literally have what looks like the handle end of a umbrella
sticking out of the dash, hence the name.
Ahhh - the parking brake release. Yes. Never heard that term before.
Some vehicles use the same lever to apply the parking brake.

"Some"? Every car that I've seen which has an umbrella-type handbrake (eg
1960s Ford Cortina and Corsair, and Renault 4, 6 and 16) or a spade-handle
handrake (Citroen GS and CX) has used the same lever to apply and release
the handbrake.

With the specific parking brake I posted about, there is an extra
"pedal" - in the UK, it is to the right of the accelerator and close up
to the side of the well. You have to lift your foot up quite a long way
in order to step on it. As you step on it, the umbrella thing comes out
of the dash (maybe it's from under the dash - details are hazy). To
release it, you grab the umbrella, press on a lever/button/something and
push gently.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

Dave wrote:
hwh wrote:

Mortimer wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...

and brake lights kept permanently on when drivers are stationary in
a queue of traffic. Why can't people use ther handbrake rather than
footbrake when they are stopped at traffic lights?

I am going to assume that you are getting on in years here. It seems
like the driving schools teach this to drivers going to about 40
years ago.


I'm in my mid 40s. I learned in the early 80s, taught by an ex police
Class 1 driving instructor. Same thing was reiterated when I took my
IAM test ten year later. So are modern-day pupils taught to keep
their foot on the footbrake at traffic lights and not to use the
handbrake? How standards have slipped ;-)


People driving cars with automatic gearboxes keep their foots on the
brake pedal to keep the car from creeping forward.

Foots?

What is wrong with their hand brake then?

It is much easier using the foot brake because then they just have to
shift their foot when the light changes.

gr, hwh

Just found a pictu

http://2phast.com/500e/slk-6.jpg

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

Dave wrote:

And I thought that the we were going green :-(
Just how much carbon dioxide are we going to put in the atmosphere by
doing that :-(

Darnn all.

Headlights are at most 100W; tail-lights typically 7W. That's 214W for
the whole system. Even allowing for generator losses you are looking at
well under 500W to drive them, from a car that probably produces 100kW.

On the other hand, those of us who have pop-up headlights will have
their aerodynamics wrecked by being forced to leave them up all the
time. And that *will* make a difference.

Oh, I know, I can use the front fog lights as day notice lights instead.
That'll do the trick. cue loud discussion

Andy

--
Can't anyone else rename a thread around here?

"Rod" wrote in message
...
snip

With the specific parking brake I posted about, there is an extra
"pedal" - in the UK, it is to the right of the accelerator and close
up to the side of the well. You have to lift your foot up quite a
long way in order to step on it. As you step on it, the umbrella
thing comes out of the dash (maybe it's from under the dash -
details are hazy). To release it, you grab the umbrella, press on a
lever/button/something and push gently.


IIRC you turn the handle, this releases the ratchet, the various
springs in the linkage / brake mechanism then does the rest.

"hwh" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
hwh wrote:

Mortimer wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...

and brake lights kept permanently on when drivers are
stationary in a queue of traffic. Why can't people use ther
handbrake rather than footbrake when they are stopped at
traffic lights?

I am going to assume that you are getting on in years here. It
seems like the driving schools teach this to drivers going to
about 40 years ago.


I'm in my mid 40s. I learned in the early 80s, taught by an ex
police Class 1 driving instructor. Same thing was reiterated when
I took my IAM test ten year later. So are modern-day pupils
taught to keep their foot on the footbrake at traffic lights and
not to use the handbrake? How standards have slipped ;-)


People driving cars with automatic gearboxes keep their foots on
the brake pedal to keep the car from creeping forward.

Foots?

What is wrong with their hand brake then?

It is much easier using the foot brake because then they just have
to shift their foot when the light changes.


In a lot of cases it's also instilled in the driver as a safety
measure, unlike with a manual box a auto box will not just stall the
engine should a gear become unintentionally engaged (for what ever
reasons, you don't appreciate the carnage an out of control vehicle
with auto-transmission can cause until you see it...).

"Mark" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:48:55 +0100, Dave
wrote:

Mark Carver wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:


(Men have better night vision. Picking fruit vs hunting rabbits?)


****ing on target at 3am, without having to put the bathroom light on ?

IKWYM. Doesn't the light hurt the eyes if you do switch it on. :-(
I have good night vision and it gets spoiled by cars at both night and
day, who have badly aligned head lights, or fog lamps. Do drivers assume
that their fog lamps are driving lights, because they are not yellow? On
the same subject, I get blinded by the number of drivers that are using
head lights during the day and there is nothing better to distract you,
when they start flashing their lights in your rear view mirror as they
bounce along the road. As for motorcycles, why do they drive round using
full beam? That really gives me black spots in my vision. I've started
to put mine on now, when they approach me.

AFAIK you can't buy a motorcycle in the UK where you can switch the
headlights off! I don't know anyone who rides around on full beam.

You won't like the latest EU proposals - they want compulsory daytime
running lights for all motor vehicles.


Well, that's about right then ... Hit us all with assorted 'green'
legislation to satisfy the 'save the planet' agenda, then make us use more
fuel by having to have daytime running lights on ... This euro bollox defies
belief ! :- (

Arfa

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:

And I thought that the we were going green :-(
Just how much carbon dioxide are we going to put in the atmosphere by
doing that :-(

Darnn all.

Headlights are at most 100W; tail-lights typically 7W. That's 214W for
the whole system. Even allowing for generator losses you are looking at
well under 500W to drive them, from a car that probably produces 100kW.

Granted, but multiply that by several million vehicles, and it then becomes
a significant quantity ...

Arfa

"Mortimer" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
Mark Carver wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:


(Men have better night vision. Picking fruit vs hunting rabbits?)


****ing on target at 3am, without having to put the bathroom light on ?

IKWYM. Doesn't the light hurt the eyes if you do switch it on. :-(
I have good night vision and it gets spoiled by cars at both night and
day, who have badly aligned head lights, or fog lamps. Do drivers assume
that their fog lamps are driving lights, because they are not yellow? On
the same subject, I get blinded by the number of drivers that are using
head lights during the day and there is nothing better to distract you,
when they start flashing their lights in your rear view mirror as they
bounce along the road. As for motorcycles, why do they drive round using
full beam? That really gives me black spots in my vision. I've started to
put mine on now, when they approach me.

I've no problem with motorbikes using headlights during the day - anything
that makes them more visible as they overtake

on the inside, on the motorway...

Arfa

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

"Rod" wrote in message
...
snip

The parking brake used in some cars (e.g. some European Mercedes as well
as many US motors) requires the use of a leg to apply it. There are many
drivers who for various reasons can drive the car fine but cannot apply
this brake. (You sort of need to lift your knee up to your chin in order
to get your foot onto the pedal. Then press down quite hard with your
leg.) I suspect that many drivers never use it - just leaving the car in
P when parked.

If they can't operate the vehicle they should not be driving it,
especially on an automatic.

Have you ever driven such a vehicle in the U.S. ?

Arfa

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Mark wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:13:30 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Mortimer" wrote in message
...



The lights that really knacker my vision are rear (red) fog lights when
I'm travelling right behind and brake lights kept permanently on when
drivers are stationary in a queue of traffic. Why can't people use ther
handbrake rather than footbrake when they are stopped at traffic lights?

Its just more poor driving.
If you were taught by a proper instructor you would use your handbrake.
Its the ones that think I have passed my test.. now I can start to drive
that cause most of the problems as they don't have a clue as to why the
rules are there.


Excerpt from highway code:

"236. You MUST NOT use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is
seriously reduced (see Rule 226) as they dazzle other road users and
can obscure your brake lights. You MUST switch them off when
visibility improves."

It's good practise to use the handbrake when waiting at traffic
lights.

Along those lines...


How many drivers understand, when joining a motorway from a slip road,
that the broken white line at the edge of the slip road, adjacent to the
motorway is actually a give way and be prepared to stop line?

Dave

But how many also try to join a road doing at least 60mph, by driving their
own vehicle at 30mph? It's reached the point now that I hate having anyone
in front of me on a slip road, because I just know that they are going to
make a hash of the joining procedure, and as a result, interfere with my
joining of the road. Bring back PIFs on the TV, so that these issues can be
taught to the marching morons that now inhabit this country, using cartoons
that they will understand ...

Arfa

in 125335 20080618 105507 ":Jerry:" wrote:
"SpamTrapSeeSig" wrote in message
. ..
snip

Blame Volvo and the EU: one introduced them, the other mandated
them.
I doubt there's a shred of evidence that high-mounted central brake
lights are a net safety improvement.


As a sound engineer and anti EU person, you are of course entitled to
your opinion....

How do you know he's a sound engineer and anti-EU? ;-)

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:11:36 +0100 someone who may be Andy Champ
wrote this:-

Headlights are at most 100W; tail-lights typically 7W. That's 214W for
the whole system. Even allowing for generator losses you are looking at
well under 500W to drive them, from a car that probably produces 100kW.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/vehicles/vssafety/drls/daytimerunninglampsexecutive1702

The EU think a 0.5 to 1.5% increase in fuel consumption/emissions.
The road research laboratory think these should be multiplied by
0.55 to allow for the 45% of trips at night.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:11:36 +0100 someone who may be Andy Champ
wrote this:-

Headlights are at most 100W; tail-lights typically 7W. That's 214W for
the whole system. Even allowing for generator losses you are looking at
well under 500W to drive them, from a car that probably produces 100kW.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/vehicles/vssafety/drls/daytimerunninglampsexecutive1702

The EU think a 0.5 to 1.5% increase in fuel consumption/emissions.
The road research laboratory think these should be multiplied by
0.55 to allow for the 45% of trips at night.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Well, at a time when everyone is becoming nothing short of hysterical about
emissions, that seems like a significant amount to me, even 'weighted' for
night-time journies. And on that score, if the **** who came up with the EU
figures had not factored that in, then he / she doesn't deserve to still
have a job with them. It's this lack of joined up thinking that's reponsible
for a lot of the eco-bollox legislation that we are now subjected to.

Arfa

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

"Rod" wrote in message
...
snip

The parking brake used in some cars (e.g. some European Mercedes
as well as many US motors) requires the use of a leg to apply it.
There are many drivers who for various reasons can drive the car
fine but cannot apply this brake. (You sort of need to lift your
knee up to your chin in order to get your foot onto the pedal.
Then press down quite hard with your leg.) I suspect that many
drivers never use it - just leaving the car in P when parked.

If they can't operate the vehicle they should not be driving it,
especially on an automatic.

Have you ever driven such a vehicle in the U.S. ?


....and haddock is 10 GBP per lb........

In article ,
"Mortimer" writes:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
.. .
It can be amusing when US colleagues come over here and rent a car.
Car hire companies usually get this right by themselves and give
Americans automatics without them having to ask, but sometimes that
fails, and an American trying to drive a manual is a complete
non-starter. We've had several calls from the airport over the
years when they've got stuck there with no automatics available to
rent.

I used to work with a guy whose father worked in a car hire company at
Heathrow airport. He witnessed an American trying to drive a manual car away
from the car park where it had been parked end-to-end between several other
cars. The driver kept stalling because he didn't apply enough revs before
letting the clutch up, so he overcompensated and got the engine up to about
4000 rpm before letting the clutch up smartly. The car shot into the car in
front, catapulting that car forward into the car in front of it. In his
panic to extricate himself from this situtation, he then processed to do the
same in reverse to the cars behind him. The total bill was three cars
written off (American's car plus the one in front and the one behind) and
two cars needing major surgery (the ones two in front and two behind).

Had an interesting discussion with one of my US team members
when he was staying over here for a couple of weeks. I asked him
why he got in to work so early over here (8am) when he normally
never arrived in the office before 11:30 in the US? He paused for
a long time, and then eventually said that it was due to our car
park. I must have looked very puzzled at that point -- although it
got full, there were exactly enough spaces. He went on, the spaces
were rather smaller than a US car park, and unless it was pretty
empty when he arrived, he couldn't squeeze his car (a small hire
car) into a space without fear of clobbering another car. Ah, US
car parking spaces, even those labelled "compacts" (which are for
large European sized cars rather than gigantic US ones), include
enough space to fling the doors wide open without dinging the next
car. Ours don't, of course. I hadn't realised what a problem that
caused a US driver, not used to using our sized parking spaces.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 13 Jun, 08:36, David Hansen
wrote:

The first sentence of which is, "Compact fluorescent lamps have some
benefits in comparison with classic light bulbs. It is lower power
consumption (to 80%) and much longer lifetime (5 to 15 times).

Longer lifetime my arse. I have tried several makes of these, and
while they have all produced some light for a long time, they have all
become unusably dim by about twice the life of a tungsten bulb - I've
been comparing them in a hallway and living room, each of which has
two sockets.

None of them has anything like the life of the GEC long-life reflector
tungstens I use in the kitchen.

Disadvantages are longer starts mainly at more expensive types,
impossibility to use darker and price."

And the environmental cost of producing and disposing of huge
quantities of electronics, plastic enclosures and mercury.

Thanks for pointing out that page. It demolishes your assertion.

Nice try.

Ian

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:22:36 +0100, Dave
wrote:

Mark wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:48:55 +0100, Dave
wrote:


Mark Carver wrote:

Andy Champ wrote:


(Men have better night vision. Picking fruit vs hunting rabbits?)


****ing on target at 3am, without having to put the bathroom light on ?

IKWYM. Doesn't the light hurt the eyes if you do switch it on. :-(
I have good night vision and it gets spoiled by cars at both night and
day, who have badly aligned head lights, or fog lamps. Do drivers assume
that their fog lamps are driving lights, because they are not yellow? On
the same subject, I get blinded by the number of drivers that are using
head lights during the day and there is nothing better to distract you,
when they start flashing their lights in your rear view mirror as they
bounce along the road. As for motorcycles, why do they drive round using
full beam? That really gives me black spots in my vision. I've started
to put mine on now, when they approach me.


AFAIK you can't buy a motorcycle in the UK where you can switch the
headlights off!

So, if you get a dodgy battery, you will never get the engine started to
self sustain the running of the systems then? How do you get it in for
repair?

Crazy isn't it? (Motorycle batteries are small and alternators
usually underspecced so flat batteries are a common problem on
motorbikes. I have to recharge mine regularly when I am not using it
much [too much DIY!]). At least mine's old enough to have a switch.

I don't know anyone who rides around on full beam.

All of them in the North West do it :-(

That's because it's dark up there near the arctic ;-)

You won't like the latest EU proposals - they want compulsory daytime
running lights for all motor vehicles.

And I thought that the we were going green :-(
Just how much carbon dioxide are we going to put in the atmosphere by
doing that :-(

Absolutely. At least our current government seem opposed to it for
once. I guess they can't get everything wrong?

If we were in the Nordic states, then I could understand it, but for the
likes of Spain, France, Italy, Portugal and the uk, what is the point
when the sun is shining? On this subject, why have indicator lights gone
from coloured glass to white glass with a coloured bulb? The sun comes
out and you (for that read me) can't see the bulb flashing :-(

Couldn't agree more.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

On 13 Jun, 12:46, David Hansen
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:42:07 +0100 someone who may be ":Jerry:"
wrote this:-

Hansen the trains-potting, eco-w*nker, is talking about himself
again...

Excellent, a personal attack.

Yes! Is he accusing people of "mind reading" here as well?

Ian

On 16 Jun, 12:36, David Hansen
wrote:

"* Every year since 1984, we have been discovered less oil than we
have produced

"* We currently find one barrel of oil for every four that we use"

That is a fairly useless figure without knowing how much oil has
already been found and discounted as uneconomic to recover. What's
important - in the short to medium term - is how much oil is becoming
economically recoverable (through discovery /or/ increasing prices)
for each barrel used.

Ian

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:19:43 +0100, Dave
wrote:

Mark wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:13:30 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Mortimer" wrote in message
...



The lights that really knacker my vision are rear (red) fog lights when
I'm travelling right behind and brake lights kept permanently on when
drivers are stationary in a queue of traffic. Why can't people use ther
handbrake rather than footbrake when they are stopped at traffic lights?

Its just more poor driving.
If you were taught by a proper instructor you would use your handbrake.
Its the ones that think I have passed my test.. now I can start to drive
that cause most of the problems as they don't have a clue as to why the
rules are there.


Excerpt from highway code:

"236. You MUST NOT use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is
seriously reduced (see Rule 226) as they dazzle other road users and
can obscure your brake lights. You MUST switch them off when
visibility improves."

It's good practise to use the handbrake when waiting at traffic
lights.

Along those lines...


How many drivers understand, when joining a motorway from a slip road,
that the broken white line at the edge of the slip road, adjacent to the
motorway is actually a give way and be prepared to stop line?

Judging from experience, hardly anyone. In fact driving standards in
general have dropped considerably in the last 10 years IMHO.

I usually move over into the centre lane if I can see someone
approaching too close. Although I did this once on a almost empty
motorway and the idiot shot across the inside lane and positioned
himself about 6 feet in front of me!!!!

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:25:45 +0100, ":Jerry:"
wrote:


"hwh" wrote in message
.. .
Dave wrote:
hwh wrote:

Mortimer wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...

and brake lights kept permanently on when drivers are
stationary in a queue of traffic. Why can't people use ther
handbrake rather than footbrake when they are stopped at
traffic lights?

I am going to assume that you are getting on in years here. It
seems like the driving schools teach this to drivers going to
about 40 years ago.


I'm in my mid 40s. I learned in the early 80s, taught by an ex
police Class 1 driving instructor. Same thing was reiterated when
I took my IAM test ten year later. So are modern-day pupils
taught to keep their foot on the footbrake at traffic lights and
not to use the handbrake? How standards have slipped ;-)


People driving cars with automatic gearboxes keep their foots on
the brake pedal to keep the car from creeping forward.

Foots?

What is wrong with their hand brake then?

It is much easier using the foot brake because then they just have
to shift their foot when the light changes.


In a lot of cases it's also instilled in the driver as a safety
measure, unlike with a manual box a auto box will not just stall the
engine should a gear become unintentionally engaged (for what ever
reasons, you don't appreciate the carnage an out of control vehicle
with auto-transmission can cause until you see it...).

If the handbrake can't hold the car against pulling off at tickover
than the car should not be allowed on the road (it should fail it's
MOT).


--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Mark wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:13:30 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Mortimer" wrote in message
...



The lights that really knacker my vision are rear (red) fog lights when
I'm travelling right behind and brake lights kept permanently on when
drivers are stationary in a queue of traffic. Why can't people use ther
handbrake rather than footbrake when they are stopped at traffic lights?

Its just more poor driving.
If you were taught by a proper instructor you would use your handbrake.
Its the ones that think I have passed my test.. now I can start to drive
that cause most of the problems as they don't have a clue as to why the
rules are there.


Excerpt from highway code:

"236. You MUST NOT use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is
seriously reduced (see Rule 226) as they dazzle other road users and
can obscure your brake lights. You MUST switch them off when
visibility improves."

It's good practise to use the handbrake when waiting at traffic
lights.

Along those lines...


How many drivers understand, when joining a motorway from a slip road,
that the broken white line at the edge of the slip road, adjacent to the
motorway is actually a give way and be prepared to stop line?


You don't stop, you adjust your speed to fit into a gap, if there isn't a
gap use the hard shoulder for a bit.
It is positively dangerous to stop unless the actual motorway is stationary.
I am amazed by the idiots that having cocked up adjusting the speed stop at
the end and then try to pull into a gap from zero MPH.
The same idiots do it on the hard shoulder too, just pull out and wonder why
the drivers passing are all swearing at them.

Dave

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:11:36 +0100 someone who may be Andy Champ
wrote this:-

Headlights are at most 100W; tail-lights typically 7W. That's 214W for
the whole system. Even allowing for generator losses you are looking at
well under 500W to drive them, from a car that probably produces 100kW.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/vehicles/vssafety/drls/daytimerunninglampsexecutive1702

The EU think a 0.5 to 1.5% increase in fuel consumption/emissions.
The road research laboratory think these should be multiplied by
0.55 to allow for the 45% of trips at night.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Well, at a time when everyone is becoming nothing short of hysterical
about emissions, that seems like a significant amount to me, even
'weighted' for night-time journies. And on that score, if the **** who
came up with the EU figures had not factored that in, then he / she
doesn't deserve to still have a job with them. It's this lack of joined up
thinking that's reponsible for a lot of the eco-bollox legislation that we
are now subjected to.

But insignificant compared to the savings to be had by people driving slower
than the speed limits or by restricting engine power.


Arfa

hwh wrote:
Dave wrote:
hwh wrote:

Mortimer wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...

and brake lights kept permanently on when drivers are stationary
in a queue of traffic. Why can't people use ther handbrake rather
than footbrake when they are stopped at traffic lights?

I am going to assume that you are getting on in years here. It
seems like the driving schools teach this to drivers going to about
40 years ago.


I'm in my mid 40s. I learned in the early 80s, taught by an ex
police Class 1 driving instructor. Same thing was reiterated when I
took my IAM test ten year later. So are modern-day pupils taught to
keep their foot on the footbrake at traffic lights and not to use
the handbrake? How standards have slipped ;-)


People driving cars with automatic gearboxes keep their foots on the
brake pedal to keep the car from creeping forward.

Foots?

What is wrong with their hand brake then?

It is much easier using the foot brake because then they just have to
shift their foot when the light changes.


And those of us who liked manual gearboxes because they allow you to
select what gear you want to be in, use the left foot to brake with in
an auto so we can use the right to force a kickdown in mid corner ;-)

I wish some manufacturer would produce a really 'sport' auto progammed
box..one that says' I will keep the revs vbetween 2000 and 5000 as long
as I can'


Autos are great for traffic. And a lot better for the average driver to
whom any gear change is a constant challenge, and clutch control means
how to avoid getting pawed in a nightclub.


gr, hwh

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Autos are great for traffic. And a lot better for the average driver to
whom any gear change is a constant challenge, and clutch control means
how to avoid getting pawed in a nightclub.


gr, hwh

Agreed. I see little advantage to manual in 0-30 mph traffic. And not
much more between 30 and 50. Nor at a constant 70. As almost all roads I
travel are limited to 50 or lower - or are motorways - little point in
manual.

Clutch pedal can play merry hell with plantar fasciitis.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

On 19 Jun 2008 08:31:08 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
"Mortimer" writes:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
.. .
It can be amusing when US colleagues come over here and rent a car.
Car hire companies usually get this right by themselves and give
Americans automatics without them having to ask, but sometimes that
fails, and an American trying to drive a manual is a complete
non-starter. We've had several calls from the airport over the
years when they've got stuck there with no automatics available to
rent.

I used to work with a guy whose father worked in a car hire company at
Heathrow airport. He witnessed an American trying to drive a manual car away
from the car park where it had been parked end-to-end between several other
cars. The driver kept stalling because he didn't apply enough revs before
letting the clutch up, so he overcompensated and got the engine up to about
4000 rpm before letting the clutch up smartly. The car shot into the car in
front, catapulting that car forward into the car in front of it. In his
panic to extricate himself from this situtation, he then processed to do the
same in reverse to the cars behind him. The total bill was three cars
written off (American's car plus the one in front and the one behind) and
two cars needing major surgery (the ones two in front and two behind).

Had an interesting discussion with one of my US team members
when he was staying over here for a couple of weeks. I asked him
why he got in to work so early over here (8am) when he normally
never arrived in the office before 11:30 in the US? He paused for
a long time, and then eventually said that it was due to our car
park. I must have looked very puzzled at that point -- although it
got full, there were exactly enough spaces. He went on, the spaces
were rather smaller than a US car park, and unless it was pretty
empty when he arrived, he couldn't squeeze his car (a small hire
car) into a space without fear of clobbering another car. Ah, US
car parking spaces, even those labelled "compacts" (which are for
large European sized cars rather than gigantic US ones), include
enough space to fling the doors wide open without dinging the next
car. Ours don't, of course. I hadn't realised what a problem that
caused a US driver, not used to using our sized parking spaces.

Our sized parking spaces cause a great deal of trouble for UK drivers
too judging by the number of dents and scratches that have appeared on
my car over the years (and not put there by me, I might add) :-(

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:50:37 +0100 someone who may be "dennis@home"
wrote this:-

The EU think a 0.5 to 1.5% increase in fuel consumption/emissions.
The road research laboratory think these should be multiplied by
0.55 to allow for the 45% of trips at night.

Well, at a time when everyone is becoming nothing short of hysterical
about emissions, that seems like a significant amount to me, [snip]

But insignificant compared to the savings to be had by people driving slower
than the speed limits or by restricting engine power.

It is not an either or situation. Every little helps.

Actually enforcing speed limits would be a fuel/emission saving
measure.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 2008-06-19 15:05:46 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:50:37 +0100 someone who may be "dennis@home"
wrote this:-

The EU think a 0.5 to 1.5% increase in fuel consumption/emissions.
The road research laboratory think these should be multiplied by
0.55 to allow for the 45% of trips at night.

Well, at a time when everyone is becoming nothing short of hysterical
about emissions, that seems like a significant amount to me, [snip]

But insignificant compared to the savings to be had by people driving slower
than the speed limits or by restricting engine power.

It is not an either or situation. Every little helps.

How successful have you been at explaining that to the Chinese
government as they build a new power station each week, or to the
Russians as they drive around in their up to the minute GAZ Volga cars
with petrol at 50p per litre?

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

"Rod" wrote in message
...
snip

The parking brake used in some cars (e.g. some European Mercedes as
well as many US motors) requires the use of a leg to apply it. There
are many drivers who for various reasons can drive the car fine but
cannot apply this brake. (You sort of need to lift your knee up to your
chin in order to get your foot onto the pedal. Then press down quite
hard with your leg.) I suspect that many drivers never use it - just
leaving the car in P when parked.

If they can't operate the vehicle they should not be driving it,
especially on an automatic.

Have you ever driven such a vehicle in the U.S. ?


...and haddock is 10 GBP per lb........


And your point is ?? So have you ? Making silly noises about haddock, does
not answer a straightforward question, or is the answer "no" ... ?

Arfa

"Rod" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Autos are great for traffic. And a lot better for the average driver to
whom any gear change is a constant challenge, and clutch control means
how to avoid getting pawed in a nightclub.


gr, hwh

Agreed. I see little advantage to manual in 0-30 mph traffic. And not much
more between 30 and 50. Nor at a constant 70. As almost all roads I travel
are limited to 50 or lower - or are motorways - little point in manual.

Clutch pedal can play merry hell with plantar fasciitis.

--
Rod


Does that mean that it makes all the diodes in your left leg ache ... ? :-)

Arfa

"Rod" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Autos are great for traffic. And a lot better for the average driver to
whom any gear change is a constant challenge, and clutch control means
how to avoid getting pawed in a nightclub.


gr, hwh

Agreed. I see little advantage to manual in 0-30 mph traffic. And not much
more between 30 and 50. Nor at a constant 70. As almost all roads I travel
are limited to 50 or lower - or are motorways - little point in manual.

I loathe automatics: they change gear at the wrong time and are far too
inclined to change down in situations where I would hold onto a higher gear
and apply a bit more power. Negotiating roundabouts in an automatic is no
fun: I find that I either get too little acceleration in a high gear or
else, for just a tiny bit more power, the transmission changes right down
into first gear (well that's what it feels like) and I get far too much
acceleration. Nothing is worse than a car which changes gear by itself in
the middle of a manoeuvre when you're not expecting it.

I had a very bad experience with an automatic Ford Focus that was hired for
me to make a business trip: it had an aversion to going over 50 mph: the
more power I applied, the further it changed down - I could have 50 in any
of 5th, 4th, 3rd or 2nd gear! On the M25, every time I got the car up to 70,
some poxy HGV would pull out in front of me, requiring me to brake to 50 and
then take several miles to coax the car back up to 70 without provoking it
to change down.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On 19 Jun 2008 08:31:08 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
"Mortimer" writes:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
.. .
It can be amusing when US colleagues come over here and rent a car.
Car hire companies usually get this right by themselves and give
Americans automatics without them having to ask, but sometimes that
fails, and an American trying to drive a manual is a complete
non-starter. We've had several calls from the airport over the
years when they've got stuck there with no automatics available to
rent.

I used to work with a guy whose father worked in a car hire company at
Heathrow airport. He witnessed an American trying to drive a manual car
away
from the car park where it had been parked end-to-end between several
other
cars. The driver kept stalling because he didn't apply enough revs
before
letting the clutch up, so he overcompensated and got the engine up to
about
4000 rpm before letting the clutch up smartly. The car shot into the car
in
front, catapulting that car forward into the car in front of it. In his
panic to extricate himself from this situtation, he then processed to do
the
same in reverse to the cars behind him. The total bill was three cars
written off (American's car plus the one in front and the one behind)
and
two cars needing major surgery (the ones two in front and two behind).

Had an interesting discussion with one of my US team members
when he was staying over here for a couple of weeks. I asked him
why he got in to work so early over here (8am) when he normally
never arrived in the office before 11:30 in the US? He paused for
a long time, and then eventually said that it was due to our car
park. I must have looked very puzzled at that point -- although it
got full, there were exactly enough spaces. He went on, the spaces
were rather smaller than a US car park, and unless it was pretty
empty when he arrived, he couldn't squeeze his car (a small hire
car) into a space without fear of clobbering another car. Ah, US
car parking spaces, even those labelled "compacts" (which are for
large European sized cars rather than gigantic US ones), include
enough space to fling the doors wide open without dinging the next
car. Ours don't, of course. I hadn't realised what a problem that
caused a US driver, not used to using our sized parking spaces.

Our sized parking spaces cause a great deal of trouble for UK drivers
too judging by the number of dents and scratches that have appeared on
my car over the years (and not put there by me, I might add) :-(

--

From what I see, it doesn't cause any problem at all. They just park
diagonally across two spaces, or leave the car on double yellas ... !!
d;~}

Arfa

Mortimer wrote:
"Rod" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Autos are great for traffic. And a lot better for the average driver to
whom any gear change is a constant challenge, and clutch control means
how to avoid getting pawed in a nightclub.


gr, hwh
Agreed. I see little advantage to manual in 0-30 mph traffic. And not much
more between 30 and 50. Nor at a constant 70. As almost all roads I travel
are limited to 50 or lower - or are motorways - little point in manual.

I loathe automatics: they change gear at the wrong time and are far too
inclined to change down in situations where I would hold onto a higher gear
and apply a bit more power. Negotiating roundabouts in an automatic is no
fun: I find that I either get too little acceleration in a high gear or
else, for just a tiny bit more power, the transmission changes right down
into first gear (well that's what it feels like) and I get far too much
acceleration. Nothing is worse than a car which changes gear by itself in
the middle of a manoeuvre when you're not expecting it.

I had a very bad experience with an automatic Ford Focus that was hired for
me to make a business trip: it had an aversion to going over 50 mph: the
more power I applied, the further it changed down - I could have 50 in any
of 5th, 4th, 3rd or 2nd gear! On the M25, every time I got the car up to 70,
some poxy HGV would pull out in front of me, requiring me to brake to 50 and
then take several miles to coax the car back up to 70 without provoking it
to change down.



I do accept that some are utter crap. A while ago I drove a Honda Jazz
CVT. That was very nice - but the engine could have done with being much
more powerful!

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:50:37 +0100 someone who may be "dennis@home"
wrote this:-

The EU think a 0.5 to 1.5% increase in fuel consumption/emissions.
The road research laboratory think these should be multiplied by
0.55 to allow for the 45% of trips at night.
Well, at a time when everyone is becoming nothing short of hysterical
about emissions, that seems like a significant amount to me, [snip]
But insignificant compared to the savings to be had by people driving slower
than the speed limits or by restricting engine power.

It is not an either or situation. Every little helps.

Actually enforcing speed limits would be a fuel/emission saving
measure.




How? by increasing congestion? Right..

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Rod" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Autos are great for traffic. And a lot better for the average driver to
whom any gear change is a constant challenge, and clutch control means
how to avoid getting pawed in a nightclub.


gr, hwh
Agreed. I see little advantage to manual in 0-30 mph traffic. And not much
more between 30 and 50. Nor at a constant 70. As almost all roads I travel
are limited to 50 or lower - or are motorways - little point in manual.

Clutch pedal can play merry hell with plantar fasciitis.


Does that mean that it makes all the diodes in your left leg ache ... ? :-)

Referring to:

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0003999398900028 ??

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

"Rod" wrote in message
...
Mortimer wrote:
I do accept that some are utter crap. A while ago I drove a Honda Jazz
CVT. That was very nice - but the engine could have done with being much
more powerful!

I'd like to drive a car with CVT or a DSG transmission. The VW Golf DSG is
supposed to be very good - smooth gearchanges up and down under the driver's
control or under automatic control - best of all worlds.

I remember in the early 80s getting lifts from a guy with a Volvo that had
Daf CVT. It seemed to have a very sensitive change-down and very late
change-up: it was weird when he set off from rest to hear the engine racing
and then the car would gradually pick up speed with the engine still racing
after which the engine note would slow down.

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

"Rod" wrote in message
...
snip

The parking brake used in some cars (e.g. some European Mercedes
as well as many US motors) requires the use of a leg to apply
it. There are many drivers who for various reasons can drive the
car fine but cannot apply this brake. (You sort of need to lift
your knee up to your chin in order to get your foot onto the
pedal. Then press down quite hard with your leg.) I suspect that
many drivers never use it - just leaving the car in P when
parked.

If they can't operate the vehicle they should not be driving it,
especially on an automatic.

Have you ever driven such a vehicle in the U.S. ?


...and haddock is 10 GBP per lb........


And your point is ?? So have you ? Making silly noises about
haddock, does not answer a straightforward question, or is the
answer "no" ... ?


What f*cking difference does it make if I have or haven't, FFS I
probably driven more vehicle than you have sat in, as I said you
question was about as pointless as asking for the price of fish here.

The fact is, if you can't operate all the *safety* related controls
you should not be using the vehicle or what ever.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:50:37 +0100 someone who may be "dennis@home"
wrote this:-

The EU think a 0.5 to 1.5% increase in fuel consumption/emissions.
The road research laboratory think these should be multiplied by
0.55 to allow for the 45% of trips at night.
Well, at a time when everyone is becoming nothing short of hysterical
about emissions, that seems like a significant amount to me, [snip]
But insignificant compared to the savings to be had by people driving
slower than the speed limits or by restricting engine power.

It is not an either or situation. Every little helps.

Actually enforcing speed limits would be a fuel/emission saving
measure.




How? by increasing congestion? Right..

Oh goody are we are going to have one of those arguments where the idiots
stand up to justify why they can break the rules while everyone else isn't
good enough to?