"Ivor Jones" wrote in message
...
snip

If they're below bumper level then they *are* foglights and must
only be

WRONG. driving lamps can also be fitted below the bumper level,
otherwise an awful lot of car manufactures are fitting four fog lights
to the fronts of their cars...

In ,
:Jerry: typed, for some strange, unexplained
reason:
: "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

It's not difficult to incorporate a link between the gear selector and the
starter such that the latter cannot be operated if the transmission is not
in neutral. All the buses I've ever driven have such a system. So does my
motorcycle.

Ivor

"Rod" wrote in message
...
: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.

Yeh, and pig can fly.


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.

Only if you are a cretin at driving, as it is, it's quite possible for
someone who can't position themselves into the correct driving
position for their stature to catch the accelerator and brake peddles
at the same time with the right foot, so what's the differences?!


[1] Not somewhat weird - downright dangerous.

IYO....


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.


IYO...

In ,
Rod typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
: Mortimer wrote:
: Another thing that offends my sense of symmetry, though it's not
: distracting
: in itself, is the trend for some modern cars to have just one rear
: fog light and one reversing light. The last few cars that I have
: owned (VW Golf and Peugeot 306) had two bulb-holders and "lenses"
: for the fog lights but only had a bulb fitted on one side - luckily
: it was easy to fit the missing bulb.
:
:
: Unfortunately, this is not so simple on at least some cars with bulb
: failure detection. They complain if both sockets are used. And if they
: do not complain, I suspect that they would be unable to detect a
: single bulb failure.
:
: Always struck me as madness that we can drive onto a train at
: Folkestone, drive off at Calais and have these lights exactly the
: opposite way round to how they should be for the country.

The problem with most smaller cars (such as my Ford Fiesta) is that the
rear light assemblies are different for LHD and RHD models with the single
rear foglight fitted to the offside (right for the UK) and the reversing
light on the other side. Each lamp occupies the same space on its own
side, there is nowhere to fit an additional fog or reversing light.

Ivor

Rod wrote in


snip

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.

Automatic gearbox and an additional accelerator pedal on the left-hand side
of the brake pedal with a bar across to the normal accelerator. Press the
extra pedal and the bar pushes down the original pedal.

My father lost his right leg - though he always said that it wasn't lost, he
knew exactly where it went - and his cars were adapted.

Strange sensation, to sit with an accelerator pedal under each foot - really
did feel as though it ought to go faster.

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

Ivor Jones wrote in


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


shout
IRONY
/shout

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

In ,
Paul Martin typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
: 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?

Only if Jerry's driving ;-)

Ivor

"Ivor Jones" wrote in message
...
In ,
:Jerry: typed, for some strange,
unexplained
reason:
: "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

It's not difficult to incorporate a link between the gear selector
and the

Most cars fitted with auto transmission are fitted with an electrical
interlocking switch that prevents operation of the starter unless the
gearbox linkage (at the box) is in either park or neutral.

starter such that the latter cannot be operated if the transmission
is not
in neutral. All the buses I've ever driven have such a system. So
does my
motorcycle.


The issues here is that anything can develop a fault and as most
vehicle get booked into a repair workshop due to being in some way
faulty and as the person moving the vehicle might not be aware of the
fault....

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

Yeh, and pig can fly.

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.

Only if you are a cretin at driving, as it is, it's quite possible for
someone who can't position themselves into the correct driving
position for their stature to catch the accelerator and brake peddles
at the same time with the right foot, so what's the differences?!

[1] Not somewhat weird - downright dangerous.

IYO....

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.


IYO...



"Cretin" is a woundingly insulting term. If you knew *ANYTHING* about
the effects of inadequately working thyroid glands (from whatever cause)
and the *HELL* they cause people you would not have written that.

You are obviously too ignorant and opinionated to even have read my sig
line - which has been broadcasting my thoughts on the subject for some
time now.

No amount of four-letter word usage could be as vindictive, cruel,
nasty, bigoted and heartless as that one word.

I shall never again knowingly respond to you civilly.

--
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

"PeterMcC" wrote in message
...
Rod wrote in


snip

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.

Automatic gearbox and an additional accelerator pedal on the
left-hand side
of the brake pedal with a bar across to the normal accelerator.
Press the
extra pedal and the bar pushes down the original pedal.

My father lost his right leg - though he always said that it wasn't
lost, he
knew exactly where it went - and his cars were adapted.

Strange sensation, to sit with an accelerator pedal under each
foot - really
did feel as though it ought to go faster.


....and lethal to others who might have to move the vehicle, I attended
an RTA were a vehicle so fitted had been *lightly involved* (no real
damage) in the accident but the driver suffered shock so was carted
off in an ambulance, along came a PC Plod who tried moving the car, I
nearly had another couple of cars for the panel shop....

In article ,
:Jerry: wrote:

"Ivor Jones" wrote in message
...
snip

If they're below bumper level then they *are* foglights and must
only be

WRONG. driving lamps can also be fitted below the bumper level,
otherwise an awful lot of car manufactures are fitting four fog lights
to the fronts of their cars...

depends on the height of the bumper. The C&U regulations used to specify
that the centre of the lamp had to be 24" above ground to avoid being
classed as fog light. I've no reason to believe this has changed.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:16:04 +0100, Arfa Daily wrote:

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 ...

This is classic :Jezzer: behaviour. He is the same with everybody. Strangely,
he still thinks that everybody else is the problem and not him.

Quite what any of this has to do with broadcasting though is beyond me.
Same applies to d-i-y.

"Rod" wrote in message
...

snip hard luck story

If the kitchen is to hot for you, the door is ==== that way...

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

"Ivor Jones" wrote in message
...
snip

If they're below bumper level then they *are* foglights and must
only be

WRONG. driving lamps can also be fitted below the bumper level,
otherwise an awful lot of car manufactures are fitting four fog
lights
to the fronts of their cars...

depends on the height of the bumper. The C&U regulations used to
specify
that the centre of the lamp had to be 24" above ground to avoid
being
classed as fog light. I've no reason to believe this has changed.


I'm not questioning it, I'm telling you, if you and Ivor are correct
then an awful lot of manufactures are fitting four fog lights to the
front bumper...

"Rod" wrote in message
...


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.

The last time I looked at the research it said 22 mph was the optimum speed
for getting traffic through.
I suspect it may appear to have more cars going through at 40 mph but
doesn't actually have more.
Maybe you could do a traffic census or ten to see?

"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:16:04 +0100, Arfa Daily
wrote:

snip

More trolling from those who can't accept when they are wrong.

dennis@home wrote:


"Rod" wrote in message
...


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.

The last time I looked at the research it said 22 mph was the optimum
speed for getting traffic through.
I suspect it may appear to have more cars going through at 40 mph but
doesn't actually have more.
Maybe you could do a traffic census or ten to see?


Unfortunately, maintaining ceteris paribus is impossible to achieve. :-)

otherwise, I'd love to.

--
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 ,
:Jerry: typed, for some strange, unexplained
reason:
: "Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message
: ...
: On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:16:04 +0100, Arfa Daily
: wrote:
:
: snip
:
: More trolling from those who can't accept when they are wrong.

Not really my argument, but if I'm *not* wrong I'll be buggered if I'll
accept some troll telling me I am.

Ivor

On 2008-06-20 19:14:20 +0100, Rod said:


Unfortunately, maintaining ceteris paribus is impossible to achieve. :-)



Then you need to replace the U2 batteries. ;-)

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

"Cretin" is a woundingly insulting term.

Apropos of nothing... "Nice" used to be an insult.

Jerry is Jerry. When he's losing the argument (and sometimes before
that), he resorts to insults.
snip trolling

IYO.... Of course it would not be the first time that you too have
been proven wrong.

"Ivor Jones" wrote in message
...
In ,
:Jerry: typed, for some strange,
unexplained
reason:
: "Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message
: ...
: On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:16:04 +0100, Arfa Daily
: wrote:
:
: snip
:
: More trolling from those who can't accept when they are wrong.

Not really my argument, but if I'm *not* wrong I'll be buggered if
I'll
accept some troll telling me I am.


Glad to know that you won't be talking to yourself then!

"Paul Martin" wrote in message
...
snip

Verbal abuse is neither clever nor funny.


So why do you engage in it?

Huge wrote:
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?

They change up and down - just not in discrete steps.

I drove a Volvo 66 for a few months many years ago, and got used to its
peculiarities. When the transmission was correctly setup you could
usually choose when it changed up by delicate use of the throttle - just
backing off the power briefly would start it winding its way up the
range so you maintained speed but lost revs. You also got some natural
variation in drive ratio in response to changing load - more load pulled
the belts deeper into the vee shaped pulleys reducing the effective
diameter of the pulley. There was no "kickdown" as such, but
accelerating hard in a higher ratio would cause the box to drop the
gearing a bit (by widening the vee gap in the pulley) in addition to
that gained from the loading effect described above.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:16:04 +0100, Arfa Daily
wrote:

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 ...

This is classic :Jezzer: behaviour. He is the same with everybody.
Strangely,
he still thinks that everybody else is the problem and not him.

Quite what any of this has to do with broadcasting though is beyond me.
Same applies to d-i-y.

Well, nothing really. Just a bunch of grown-ups (mostly ... ;~} !! )
having a chat over a pint in a thread that has departed a long way from
where it started ...

Shame it had to degenerate the way it did, but still, there's always one in
every group !

Arfa

David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:57:47 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Actually enforcing speed limits would be a fuel/emission saving
measure.
How? by increasing congestion? Right..

One of the reasons it would reduce emissions is by reducing
congestion.



Even Plod admits that having one lorry at 56mph being overtaken by
another at 57mph increases congestion, and anyone who regularly drives a
single lane road with any traffic density will tell you that one slow
vehicle causes tailbacks, and if there is ANY interference with the
flow, brings cars to a halt further back.

All speed limits and traffic cal;ming and traffic lights do, is make
people travel as fast as they can get away with. Due to sheer
frustration mainly.

I used to burn far more fuel tryng to conform to speed limits with other
traffic around, than just speeding p and slowing down with the natural
flow of it.

If you want to save fuel, make it expensive. I konw how to dric-ve
economically, and sticking rigidly to the limits is a LOT less effective
than e.g. starting to slow down or a junction a mile ahead of time.

If keeping speed way down were the be all and end all of fuel economy,
why is urban fuel consumption (seldom over 30mph) so much worse than a
motorway, at 70mph?


Excessive sped limits demand longer drive times and greater driver
concentration, and make the need to overtake higher and teh ability to
do so legally far less.

All in all, its dangerous.

:Jerry: wrote:
"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*,

which just shows you know **** all.

No gearbox has ever been claimed to be conscious.

Paul Martin wrote:
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?

Only of :jerry: can.
with that kind of delusional framework who knows what he might do ?

:Jerry: wrote:
"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.


teh lead seems to have lodged in your brain permanently.

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


Yeah. Right. Apparently the best way to open a late 80's locked jaguar
was with a mallet on the front bumper. That acticvated the 'crash'
sensor 'safaty related control' and the door locks sprang open.

Arfa Daily wrote:
":Jerry:" wrote in message
...
"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 difference it makes, you self opinionated ass, is that if you have never
driven an american vehicle which has the type of parking brake that was
being discussed, then you are not qualified to comment on whether people who
have, are competent or not to be in control of such a vehicle. It really
doesn't matter how many different vehicles you have driven. If you haven't
had experience of the ones being discussed, your opinions in regard of their
actual drivers are valueless.

From your vehemently defensive responses, and silly 'cost of fish'
deflections, I have to assume that you do not have experience of driving
these vehicles in the USA, so allow me to put you straight.

The pedal operated parking brake, which is found on many american vehicles,
is intended to be just that - a PARKING brake. Unlike a UK handbrake lever,
it is not intended to be a supplemental brake to the footbrake. As others
have said, its operation requires the left leg to be lifted very high off
the floor, and considerable effort then needs to be applied, to engage it.
The release lever is often located under the dash, above the pedal, and is
not particularly easily operated.

The 'difficulties' of both engaging and releasing this brake, are of no
consequence when you are parked up and going nowhere. However, they would be
significant if you attempted to use this brake as an 'in traffic' supplement
to the footbrake, in the same way as proper drivers here, use the handbrake
at traffic lights.

Arfa

Exactly. Which just goes to show what a clueless parochial clot :jerry'
actually is.

:Jerry: wrote:
"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...
":Jerry:" wrote in message
...
snip
The fact is, if you can't operate all the *safety* related controls
you should not be using the vehicle or what ever.

The difference it makes, you self opinionated ass, is that if you
have never driven an american vehicle which has the type of parking
brake that was being discussed,
snip ill-informed cu*nt headed trolling

You asked if I had ever driven IN America, not if I had driven an
American car, but either question is still TOTALLY irrelevant as it
doesn't change the FACT that if you can't operate all the safety
critical controls than you should not be using the vehicle. Now ****
off troll and run along to your mummy.


Americans can and do operate their parking brakes: they just do not use
them in traffic, because THEY ARE NOT INTENDED FOR THAT PURPOSE.

The correct way to use a US automatic on e.g a hill star is to use left
foot braking to hold it until you have picked up enough torque in the
converter not to slide backwards. In general most do not at idle,
anyway. There is enough creep in there to move you forward slowly, or
at worst, hold you stationary. Indeed I am not sure, but its possible
that some other kind of locking system may prevent a car in 'drive' from
slipping backwards.

Certainly most auto drivers do not routinely use a hand or parking
brake whether easily accessible or not: the transmission in 'park' is
locked.

: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! :~)


Only if you have been servicing it.

Otherwise they all tart with zero throttle these days.. well unless you
flood them.

Mark Carver wrote:
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.)

Well thats the Rools for Fools guidance..

In reality, you can use whatever works best.

I switch between auto and manual all the time.

I usually left foot brake on the auto. Why? because I like to have a
smoother ride, and using both pedals together gives the smoothest
changedowns. Its also about .3 second faster once you are used to it.


Yes, I occasionally get caught out not using the clutch and expecting
the manual to change down..for the first 5 minutes..

:Jerry: wrote:
"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.


Remind me never to buy a used car from you.

Arfa Daily wrote:
":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


I wonder if he's ever driven a car with a fly-off handbrake..

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.





after you have repalced your suspension joints or teh thrird time, you
ask yousrelf how much extra fuel you have burned

- trying to slow down for the bloody things and accelerate backl to
30mph afterwards
- manufacturing all the spare parts you need/.

Not to mention the horrific accident I witnessed that was CAUSED by a
chicane. Carefully positioned as to be invisible to a driver following
another car at a perfectly safe and legal speed and distance.

Rod wrote:
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.

Ah. The 'Men from the Ministry' solution.

"I have solved London's congestion problem!"

"How?"

"I've made all the roads one way out of town!"

It was funny when I first heard it in what - the 70s'; These days I
fulluousness any day now.

:Jerry: wrote:

Or that you are just clueless....


Jerry,

if you have no answer beyond insults we can only assume you have no
evidence for your claims.

"What the Klingon says is not important. I do not hear him."

Andy

Ivor Jones wrote:
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

I WISH the bloody things were all wired like they are in some cars: that
is when you switch the ignition OR the headlights OFF, they wont come on
again without manual intervention.

Only the car at the head of the queue really needs front foglamps: the
rest are better following the one in front. Till it ends up ain a ditch
anyway.

Oh: interesting trick I discovered on vehiclkes with adjustable
hedalamps: in fog, try various combinations of high/low beam and
headlamp positions. I found that on two here a rather 'over compensated
for load I didn't have' main beam was optimal.

:Jerry: wrote:
"Ivor Jones" wrote in message
...
snip
If they're below bumper level then they *are* foglights and must
only be

WRONG. driving lamps can also be fitted below the bumper level,
otherwise an awful lot of car manufactures are fitting four fog lights
to the fronts of their cars...


in a nutshell they are.

Ivor Jones wrote:
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

They didn't stop, or start. Its always been a sort of model to model
thing: like having column shifts and pull out 'parking brakes' on the
bench front seat things: then they went to autos, and the column shift
became a gear selector, and the parking brake - handbrake not needed for
hill starts anymore - became a foot brake probably to get it out of the way.

Americans liek a big frnt bench seat to squeeze their enormous butts
onto, and a floor unobstructed by clutter. So the brake generally goes
down the side of the front seatr, but if you are fat, even thats a
bugger to reach,so its generally a pedal.

Which no one uses, because teh trasmission locks in 'park'. and the
torque convertor does the hill starts.