On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:11:36 +0100, Andy Champ
wrote:

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

I think the CO2 argument against mandatory daytime lights is
irrelevant. The safety impact on vulnerable road users is the real
point.

--
(\__/) 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

"Rod" wrote in message
...
:Jerry: wrote:
"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...
snip
Learn to read, you half baked ****. snip more total ignorance

Stop talking to yourself. Were, what, when is irrelevant, the
control we are talking about here is safety critical, if the driver
can't operate the control (s)he should not be using the vehicle. A
parking prawl in a autobox is not an equivalent to the parking
brake - for all the reasons given previously in this thread.

You can always slam the box into R as an emergency brake. :-)

Regardless of your (and my) opinions on the matter, the fact is that
a considerable number of people have driven vehicles fitted with
such brakes but been unable to use them as you suggest - as an
emergency brake. Indeed, many have probably been unable to use them
for parking.

Indeed, many people do think that the parking pawl can be relied on to
hold a vehicle only to discover that their vehicles have disappeared
when they return (they are normally found at the bottom of the hill,
embedded into what ever they collided with....


Given the circumstances in which people might have been presented
with a vehicle so fitted, it might not have appeared
sensible/reasonable/possible to decline to drive it. Further, many
people will simply hnot have known the issues at all. (Given my
experience of car hire, the only thing they seem keen to tell you is
that you must sign your life away.)


None of which is an excuse that could be used in a court of law and
there is a real possibility that the insurance company will also
refuse to pay out on the claim or if they do, only pay the third
party...

"Mortimer" wrote in message
et...
"Huge" wrote in message
...
Mortimer wrote:

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:

CVTs do not change up or down. Which bit of "continuous" is it that
has
passed
you by?

Sorry if the terms "change up/down" misled you into thinking that I
was referring to a conventional gearbox with discrete ratios. I know
that CVT is
continuous. Perhaps I should said "change to a lower/higher ratio";
if not, what term should I have used?


They DO change ratios up and down (it's just that it's *consciously
variable*, unlike a conventional manual or auto box were each of the
available ratios are set), ignore Huge, he just proved that he is the
one who doesn't understand how the system works. Nothing new there
though! :~(

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

Indeed, many people do think that the parking pawl can be relied on to
hold a vehicle only to discover that their vehicles have disappeared
when they return (they are normally found at the bottom of the hill,
embedded into what ever they collided with....

Gosh, it's news to me that the Park setting on an automatic transmission can
sometimes allow a car to move - I'd always thought that it was even more
infallible than a handbrake, where cable stretching can occasionally allow
the brakes to work free. Not that it matters because I would always apply
the handbrake on any car - auto or manual.

In article ,
:Jerry: wrote:


Indeed, many people do think that the parking pawl can be relied on to
hold a vehicle only to discover that their vehicles have disappeared
when they return (they are normally found at the bottom of the hill,
embedded into what ever they collided with....

which is probably why I was taught - 50 years ago - to park with the engine
in gear. And of course what "Park" does on automatic boxes.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
:Jerry: wrote:


Indeed, many people do think that the parking pawl can be relied on to
hold a vehicle only to discover that their vehicles have disappeared
when they return (they are normally found at the bottom of the hill,
embedded into what ever they collided with....

which is probably why I was taught - 50 years ago - to park with the
engine
in gear. And of course what "Park" does on automatic boxes.

I'm always wary about parking with the car in gear except on a steep hill
when I always choose first if I'm parked uphill and reverse if I'm parked
downhill, because more than once when someone else has driven my car and
left it in gear I've operated the starter without checking that the car is
in neutral and the car has lurched forwards - hence the use of a gear that
will always try to take the car uphill rather than downhill.

After a couple of cock-ups, I soon got into the habit of always giving the
gear lever a side-to-side waggle before starting and also before letting the
clutch up when I park, to confirm that the car really *is* in neutral.

Mortimer wrote:
":Jerry:" wrote in message
...
Indeed, many people do think that the parking pawl can be relied on to
hold a vehicle only to discover that their vehicles have disappeared
when they return (they are normally found at the bottom of the hill,
embedded into what ever they collided with....

Gosh, it's news to me that the Park setting on an automatic transmission can
sometimes allow a car to move - I'd always thought that it was even more
infallible than a handbrake, where cable stretching can occasionally allow
the brakes to work free. Not that it matters because I would always apply
the handbrake on any car - auto or manual.

But we have been discussing a foot-operated parking brake (not a
handbrake)! :-)

--
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

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

snip

Learn to read, you half baked ****. snip more total ignorance

Stop talking to yourself. Were, what, when is irrelevant, the control we
are talking about here is safety critical, if the driver can't operate the
control (s)he should not be using the vehicle. A parking prawl in a
autobox is not an equivalent to the parking brake - for all the reasons
given previously in this thread.


Yes, you ARE monumentally stupid. I wonder why it is that fools like you
always snip anything relevant to an argument, before then going off on
another irrelevant tangent ? Oh yes, I know. It's because they are incapable
of adressing the simplest points without making themselves look even more
stupid, so they figure that by introducing some more half-arsed nonsense in
an hysterically loud voice with a funny red face, they are making some new
point that has validity.

Unless you are capable of addressing the point - which is that you have
never had control of a vehicle with a foot operated parking brake, and know
**** all about driving in America, since you have never been there - you
have NOTHING of any validity to add to the thread, so shut up and go back
under your stone.

And where did you get that the parking pawl in an auto box is not equivalent
to the parking brake from anything I said ?

Try reading what I, and others actually SAY - I take it you *can* read
properly? - and then try to absorb the actual MEANING of the words
collectively in a sentence, before applying your fingers to the keyboard to
create another senseless reply.

Very very sad ...

Arfa

"Paul Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
:Jerry: wrote:

They DO change ratios up and down (it's just that it's *consciously
variable*, unlike a conventional manual or auto box were each of the

Ooer! Self-aware gearboxes! Should we be afraid?

--
Paul Martin

LOL !!!!

Arfa

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

snip

I guess you don't get out on motorways too much then ... I was on the
M25 earlier this week, and had motorbikes come around the inside of me
in all three lanes - yes, the inside lane as well. All were just taking
the 'easiest' route through the traffic for them, and sod the rest of
us who couldn't weave around like they could. What with all the foreign
trucks, the people who can't use a slip road, the people who have no
idea what lane speed structure is about, and particularly irresponsible
motorbike riders, the motorways are becoming more dangerous almost by
the week.


Yes, especially with ****tards like you who can't drive, I though you
said that you had driven in the USA - think about it, and you claim that
you can't cope with the M25....


Did I say that I couldn't cope with the M25 ?

"the motorways are becoming more dangerous almost by the week"

Boy you really are a **** aren't you ? Did they not teach you to read and
absorb the words at all at school ? Or did you even go to school at all?
In fact, you can't even spell a lot of the time. ****tard now, am I ?

Talking about yourself again.......


And once again, the bit that actually makes you look a ****, is snipped ...

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:

Very very sad ...

You're funny, but not in a good way.

Are you going to reply with lots of words typed in CAPITALS to this
post?

"Mortimer" wrote in message
et...
snip

I'm always wary about parking with the car in gear except on a steep
hill when I always choose first if I'm parked uphill and reverse if
I'm parked downhill, because more than once when someone else has
driven my car and left it in gear I've operated the starter without
checking that the car is in neutral and the car has lurched
forwards - hence the use of a gear that will always try to take the
car uphill rather than downhill.

First rule taught to all in the motor trade, ALWAYS depress the clutch
(or put the left foot on the brake if the vehicle is an automatic)
BEFORE operating the starter, a sloppy / mal-adjusted gear leaver can
give the 'appearance' of being in neutral (or park) but not actually
being so.

I've seen cars get driven off workshop ramps when someone has
forgotten such a basic safety procedure, not a problem when the ramp
is down, something altogether different when it's 6ft up in the air...
:~o

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...


F*ck off troll.

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...



F*ck off troll

:Jerry: wrote:


First rule taught to all in the motor trade, ALWAYS depress the clutch
(or put the left foot on the brake if the vehicle is an automatic)
BEFORE operating the starter, a sloppy / mal-adjusted gear leaver can
give the 'appearance' of being in neutral (or park) but not actually
being so.

Why use the left foot when normal auto behaviour is to use right foot
for both brake and accelerator? (I am aware of variations on this in the
real world.)

--
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
...
:Jerry: wrote:


First rule taught to all in the motor trade, ALWAYS depress the
clutch (or put the left foot on the brake if the vehicle is an
automatic) BEFORE operating the starter, a sloppy / mal-adjusted
gear leaver can give the 'appearance' of being in neutral (or park)
but not actually being so.

Why use the left foot when normal auto behaviour is to use right
foot for both brake and accelerator? (I am aware of variations on
this in the real world.)


Because one might need to use the other foot to operate the
throttle?.... Duh! :~)

"Rod" wrote in message
...
:Jerry: wrote:


First rule taught to all in the motor trade, ALWAYS depress the
clutch (or put the left foot on the brake if the vehicle is an
automatic) BEFORE operating the starter, a sloppy / mal-adjusted
gear leaver can give the 'appearance' of being in neutral (or park)
but not actually being so.

Why use the left foot when normal auto behaviour is to use right
foot for both brake and accelerator? (I am aware of variations on
this in the real world.)


Because one might need to use the other foot to operate the
throttle?.... Duh! :~)

:Jerry: wrote:

First rule taught to all in the motor trade, ALWAYS depress the clutch
(or put the left foot on the brake if the vehicle is an automatic)
BEFORE operating the starter, a sloppy / mal-adjusted gear leaver can
give the 'appearance' of being in neutral (or park) but not actually
being so.

In the case of an Auto, you can't even start the engine if it's in
anything other than Park or Neutral [1]. I drove a hire car Honda once
that would not accept the ignition key unless the selector was in 'Park'
That was a case of RTFM to figure out what on earth was going on.
My Peugeot 406 will not come out of Park, until the engine is running,
which could be a PITA if it breaks down in that mode.

[1] That's not to say if the interlock has a fault, that it wouldn't
start 'in gear', but hey, **** happens.

Rod wrote:
:Jerry: wrote:


First rule taught to all in the motor trade, ALWAYS depress the clutch
(or put the left foot on the brake if the vehicle is an automatic)
BEFORE operating the starter, a sloppy / mal-adjusted gear leaver can
give the 'appearance' of being in neutral (or park) but not actually
being so.

Why use the left foot when normal auto behaviour is to use right foot
for both brake and accelerator? (I am aware of variations on this in the
real world.)

My understanding is that you should *never* use your left foot for
anything, at any time, when driving an Auto. This retains backward
'compatibility' with driving a manual, where the left foot must only be
used to control the clutch.

(I am also aware of variations on this in the real world.)

Rod wrote:
Just found a pictu

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

I drove a car in the States once that had a pull lever to operate the
handbrake. Only thing was it was next to the bonnet release lever.

I looked really cool sweeping into a parking space, and then the bonnet
jumping up :-)

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
:Jerry: wrote:

First rule taught to all in the motor trade, ALWAYS depress the
clutch (or put the left foot on the brake if the vehicle is an
automatic) BEFORE operating the starter, a sloppy / mal-adjusted
gear leaver can give the 'appearance' of being in neutral (or park)
but not actually being so.

In the case of an Auto, you can't even start the engine if it's in
anything other than Park or Neutral [1].

As you point out yourself below, in footnote #1, you are quite wrong
in that comment!

I drove a hire car Honda
once that would not accept the ignition key unless the selector was
in 'Park' That was a case of RTFM to figure out what on earth was
going on.
My Peugeot 406 will not come out of Park, until the engine is
running, which could be a PITA if it breaks down in that mode.

[1] That's not to say if the interlock has a fault, that it wouldn't
start 'in gear', but hey, **** happens.


Yes, **** happens but a bit of thought prevents much of it happening,
it's a bit like a lighting rigger not bothering to use the safety
chain "because the clamp never fails" and then saying "Oh well, ****
happens" after the talent below gets killed by the spot failing on
him....

:Jerry: wrote in


snip

First rule taught to all in the motor trade, ALWAYS depress the clutch
(or put the left foot on the brake if the vehicle is an automatic)
BEFORE operating the starter, a sloppy / mal-adjusted gear leaver can
give the 'appearance' of being in neutral (or park) but not actually
being so.

There are half a dozen UK deaths a year caused by drivers running themselves
over whilst working under the bonnet of automatics ticking over in Drive
rather than Park

I've seen cars get driven off workshop ramps when someone has
forgotten such a basic safety procedure, not a problem when the ramp
is down, something altogether different when it's 6ft up in the air...

I was once teaching a lad about the basics of tractor driving - we were
using a Fergie135 (in the days when they were new!) and we'd used it to pull
a 30' greenhouse frame upright. Bit of a "ship-in-bottle" assembly -
construct it flat on the ground and connect a cable to the apex and slowly
move the tractor forward as the whole thing rises into shape.

My contribution over, as regards the tractor driving, and with the
greenhouse frame now standing erect and held there by the cable attached to
the tractor, I thought I'd carry on with the tractor driving lesson.

I demonstrated the ignition cut-out, to show him that the tractor couldn't
be accidentally started in gear, by leaning over and turning the key.

As I said afterwards, the bloke who removed the safety cut-out was as much
to blame...

....then again, the chap who'd been sitting on the ridge bolting the thing
together didn't know who'd removed the cut-out whereas I was standing there
just waiting to hear his considered opinion of the bloke who'd turned the
key.

Quite right too.

I hope the lad I was training remembered the lesson about reliance on safety
features to the abandonment of common sense - in the best part of 40 years,
I haven't forgotten.

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Arfa Daily wrote:

Very very sad ...

You're funny, but not in a good way.

Not sure I follow that ....


Are you going to reply with lots of words typed in CAPITALS to this
post?

No, I'm not. In fact, it's not worth replying to him again, at all - see his
final post below for the sort of retard that he actually is. It is not worth
sparring with people who lack the intelligence to respond in a reasoned way
to reasonably asked questions. It was he who started in with the bad-arsed
stuff, not me. The reasoning behind the capitalisation, should have been
clear to anyone who had been following this, and was done more for comical
than dramatic effect, but obviously too subtle ... :-)

Jerry is one of those people who is like a punch-drunk boxer, who just has
to keep getting up to take another punch, when he should just stay down.
Still, no matter. He obviously needs to have the last word to satisfy his 'I
won' mentality, so as far as I am concerned, he has it, with his post below,
where he quite nicely calls me a troll, and tells me to **** off ... Mr Nice
Guy personified !

see

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...rouscranus.htm

Arfa

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...



F*ck off troll


I'm done with you, friend. I've had a laugh at your expense, and now I can't
be bothered any more, because your lack of both wit, and having anything
sensible to say, other than insults that you haven't even got the balls to
type in full, is simply tiresome ...

Arfa

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:53:59 +0100 Rod 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'm on my second Jazz CVT, and it is a joy to drive. Mind you round here
(SW London) 30 is fast!

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

"PeterMcC" wrote in message
...
:Jerry: wrote in


snip

First rule taught to all in the motor trade, ALWAYS depress the
clutch
(or put the left foot on the brake if the vehicle is an automatic)
BEFORE operating the starter, a sloppy / mal-adjusted gear leaver
can
give the 'appearance' of being in neutral (or park) but not
actually
being so.

There are half a dozen UK deaths a year caused by drivers running
themselves
over whilst working under the bonnet of automatics ticking over in
Drive
rather than Park
snip

Indeed, vehicles with automatic transmissions are very dangerous, I
know someone who wrote off *four* brand new cars whilst doing a dealer
PDI check on a new Volvo whilst it was "ticking over in Park" (well he
actually had to rev it up to check the CO readings), on investigation
(by the insurance Co and Volvo UK) it was found that a manufacturing
fault had caused the box to select drive rather than 'Park' even
though the lever *was* in Park.

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:57:14 +0100 Andy Champ wrote :
It's a real achievement because the limiting factor on anything over
about a 1300 is traction. It must have had really special tyres.

I had a DAF 66 and ISTR that it had large skinny tyres something like
135 x 15. The estate also had an upward pointing peg which the hatch
locked against, and if you weren't careful at the BM it would slit a bag
of cement open as you put it in!

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On 2008-06-20 10:11:36 +0100, Rod said:

David Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:32:26 +0100 someone who may be Rod
wrote this:-

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

Around here (and, I am sure in mahy other parts of the world),
"enforcing" speed limits has been done by much speed hump building.

Enforcing speed limits can be done in a variety of ways, of which
this is just one.

So perhaps:

Actually enforcing speed limits *could* be a fuel/emission saving
measure. In reality, badly thought through implemntation
sometimes/often/always [1] cause an increase in fuel usage/emissions.

[1] Choose one.

Another exmaple very close to me. Major hill out of town. Became
largely 30 mph and rigorously enforced often by mobile speed traps.
Result - huge queues and very slow moving traffic. Change to 40 (yes -
it is very rare to hear of an increase these days) and traffic improves
considerably. Again, I strongly suspect that the 30mph limit, enforced,
actually caused more fuel usage/emissions than the current 40 mph.

I know it well. Actually there are two of them in a way, but the one
on the Marlow side is the one I presume you mean, and it does seem to
have improved. Possibly this is because there is less bunching of
cars.

Andy Hall gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Another exmaple very close to me. Major hill out of town. Became
largely 30 mph and rigorously enforced often by mobile speed traps.
Result - huge queues and very slow moving traffic. Change to 40 (yes -
it is very rare to hear of an increase these days) and traffic improves
considerably. Again, I strongly suspect that the 30mph limit, enforced,
actually caused more fuel usage/emissions than the current 40 mph.

I know it well. Actually there are two of them in a way, but the one
on the Marlow side is the one I presume you mean, and it does seem to
have improved. Possibly this is because there is less bunching of
cars.

Wycombe? Oh, yes, indeed...

On 2008-06-20 14:23:07 +0100, Mark Carver said:

Rod wrote:
Just found a pictu

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

I drove a car in the States once that had a pull lever to operate the
handbrake. Only thing was it was next to the bonnet release lever.

I looked really cool sweeping into a parking space, and then the bonnet
jumping up :-)

You weren't the guy in the Speedos joke were you? ;-)

Mark wrote:

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

I think the CO2 argument against mandatory daytime lights is
irrelevant. The safety impact on vulnerable road users is the real
point.

It would be interesting to see if the risk homostasis effect applies to
this like it does to many other "safety improving" changes.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
et...
Mark wrote:

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

I think the CO2 argument against mandatory daytime lights is
irrelevant. The safety impact on vulnerable road users is the real
point.

It would be interesting to see if the risk homostasis effect applies to
this like it does to many other "safety improving" changes.

Yes - the safety disbenefit to vulnerable road users will carry on, while
any safety benefit obtained by seeing cars/lorries etc will be squandered.

cheers,
clive

Adrian wrote:
Andy Hall gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Another exmaple very close to me. Major hill out of town. Became
largely 30 mph and rigorously enforced often by mobile speed traps.
Result - huge queues and very slow moving traffic. Change to 40 (yes -
it is very rare to hear of an increase these days) and traffic improves
considerably. Again, I strongly suspect that the 30mph limit, enforced,
actually caused more fuel usage/emissions than the current 40 mph.

I know it well. Actually there are two of them in a way, but the one
on the Marlow side is the one I presume you mean, and it does seem to
have improved. Possibly this is because there is less bunching of
cars.

Wycombe? Oh, yes, indeed...

Don't worry - just got back from an interesting trip - unfortunately
what you gain on Marlow hill (correctly identified folks - 5 points
apiece) you lose on Oxford Road/West Wycombe Road/Archway/London
Road/etc. :-(

For many years it has been my contention that roads *out* of town should
be as free flowing and uninterrupted as possible. Split speed limits.
Near-permanent green lights. Anything to get the people out of town asap
and with the least impact. This is possibly of particular benefit in a
town with steep hills on many outward routes.

--
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

:Jerry: wrote:
"Rod" wrote in message
...
:Jerry: wrote:

First rule taught to all in the motor trade, ALWAYS depress the
clutch (or put the left foot on the brake if the vehicle is an
automatic) BEFORE operating the starter, a sloppy / mal-adjusted
gear leaver can give the 'appearance' of being in neutral (or park)
but not actually being so.
Why use the left foot when normal auto behaviour is to use right
foot for both brake and accelerator? (I am aware of variations on
this in the real world.)


Because one might need to use the other foot to operate the
throttle?.... Duh! :~)

Never had to do that. And in current car, cannot start the engine
without foot being on brake. I use my right foot as clearly intended by
the manufacturer.

--
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
...
:Jerry: wrote:
"Rod" wrote in message
...
:Jerry: wrote:

First rule taught to all in the motor trade, ALWAYS depress the
clutch (or put the left foot on the brake if the vehicle is an
automatic) BEFORE operating the starter, a sloppy / mal-adjusted
gear leaver can give the 'appearance' of being in neutral (or
park) but not actually being so.
Why use the left foot when normal auto behaviour is to use right
foot for both brake and accelerator? (I am aware of variations on
this in the real world.)


Because one might need to use the other foot to operate the
throttle?.... Duh! :~)
Never had to do that.

But then you probably don't spend your time repairing faulty
vehicles...

And in current car, cannot start the engine without foot being on
brake. I use my right foot as clearly intended by the manufacturer.


How do you work that one out, does it mean that someone who has had
their right leg amputated couldn't drive that vehicle [1], or are you
just implying that the standard practice is to operate the throttle
and brake with the right foot?...

[1] OK the driving position might be some what 'weird' to the norm

:Jerry: wrote:
"Rod" wrote in message
...
:Jerry: wrote:
"Rod" wrote in message
...
:Jerry: wrote:

First rule taught to all in the motor trade, ALWAYS depress the
clutch (or put the left foot on the brake if the vehicle is an
automatic) BEFORE operating the starter, a sloppy / mal-adjusted
gear leaver can give the 'appearance' of being in neutral (or
park) but not actually being so.
Why use the left foot when normal auto behaviour is to use right
foot for both brake and accelerator? (I am aware of variations on
this in the real world.)

Because one might need to use the other foot to operate the
throttle?.... Duh! :~)
Never had to do that.

But then you probably don't spend your time repairing faulty
vehicles...

And in current car, cannot start the engine without foot being on
brake. I use my right foot as clearly intended by the manufacturer.


How do you work that one out, does it mean that someone who has had
their right leg amputated couldn't drive that vehicle [1], or are you
just implying that the standard practice is to operate the throttle
and brake with the right foot?...

[1] OK the driving position might be some what 'weird' to the norm


I don't work it out. I read the manual.

Furthermore, using my left foot to operate the brake would stand a
chance of my shoe catching the accelerator - and that would be a really
bad thing. I wouldn't be stupid enough to do that.

[1] Not somewhat weird - downright dangerous.

Someone who has had their right leg amputated should seek proper
adaptation of the vehicle to work with their remaining capabilities.
(Most particularly if they have a vehicle with a foot operated parking
brake.) I think this has to be declared to DVLA, n'est pas? I thought
you would have sent them to the gallows for even considering driving an
unadapted car with such a problem.

--
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

In ,
PeterMcC typed, for some strange, unexplained
reason:
: Dave wrote in
:
:
: Mark Carver wrote:
: snip
:
: 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?
:
: I think you're confusing fog lamps with those really cool lights
: placed low down at the front of the car, making both car and driver
: look dead stylish.

If they're below bumper level then they *are* foglights and must only be
used in conditions of fog or bad visibility, on pain of a fixed penalty
(£20 IIRC) notice.

And for your information, they don't make the car or the driver look
"cool" (whatever that may mean) but merely a pillock.

They're also very dazzling, especially in heavy rain.

shout
TURN 'EM OFF IF IT'S NOT FOGGY..!
/shout

Ivor

In ,
SpamTrapSeeSig typed, for some strange,
unexplained reason:
: In article , Mortimer
: writes
: 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?
:
: 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.
:
: Incidentally, if you think it's bad here, North America is dreadful,
: as most cars are autos and people sit for minutes at a time with a
: foot on the brake pedal, at traffic lights.

Strange. Last time I drove a car in the US (last year as it happens) it
came equipped with a handbrake lever as well as a means of selecting
Neutral.

Ivor

In ,
Bob Eager typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
: On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:20:39 UTC, ":Jerry:"
: wrote:
:
:
: ":Jerry:" wrote in message
: ...
:
: snip
:
: Come on, how many people remember 'old Cyclops' or the combined
: tail/brake light (that is a single filament bulb that was used for
: *both* brake and tail light)?
:
: Actually, thinking about it (it's been a while since I've had to
: work on such a vehicle), it was a shared brake/indicator light that
: shared a single filament bulb.
:
: I've only seen the brake/tail version in common use. One has to ask
: how a shared brake/indicator would display the right colours..?

It wouldn't. But then in North America many US-made cars have these lights
and the rear indicators are indeed red. Confusing at first but you get
used to it.

Ivor

In ,
SpamTrapSeeSig typed, for some strange,
unexplained reason:
: In article , The Natural
: Philosopher writes
:
: Incidentally, if you think it's bad here, North America is
: dreadful, as most cars are autos and people sit for minutes at a
: time with a foot on the brake pedal, at traffic lights.
:
:
: Doesn't bother me.
:
: It ruins night vision if you're stuck in a traffic queue, and it is
: much worse in the USA than here, because of automatic boxes.

When did the US stop fitting cars with handbrakes, then..?

Ivor