82 year old ticketed for slow walking

Nate Nagel wrote: <brevity snip>
> We've made a decent amount
> of progress in the last 50 years or so in brakes, suspension, and
> especially tires - but we're not taking advantage of it.

If we're not "taking advantage" of better vehicle design and technology
we're all certainly enjoying the benefits... just not *the* benefit
with which you seem to be obsessed.
------

- gpsman

gpsman wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote: <brevity snip>
>
>>We've made a decent amount
>>of progress in the last 50 years or so in brakes, suspension, and
>>especially tires - but we're not taking advantage of it.
>
>
> If we're not "taking advantage" of better vehicle design and technology
> we're all certainly enjoying the benefits... just not *the* benefit
> with which you seem to be obsessed.

What benefits would those be? I don't really see any... and I think I'm
qualified to say that, being the owner/driver of a 50 year old car.

nate


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:
> gpsman wrote:
> > Nate Nagel wrote: <brevity snip>
> >
> >>We've made a decent amount
> >>of progress in the last 50 years or so in brakes, suspension, and
> >>especially tires - but we're not taking advantage of it.
> >
> >
> > If we're not "taking advantage" of better vehicle design and technology
> > we're all certainly enjoying the benefits... just not *the* benefit
> > with which you seem to be obsessed.
>
> What benefits would those be? I don't really see any... and I think I'm
> qualified to say that, being the owner/driver of a 50 year old car.

You don't see any benefits in radial tires, disc brakes and ABS, seat
belts, parabolic side mirrors, halogen (or newer) headlamps, crumple
zones, rubber-lined fuel tanks, coil-over struts and multi-link
suspensions and gas-filled shocks, cruise control, multi-port fuel
injection, close ratio syncronized transmissions, hydraulic clutches,
aluminum wheels... et al?

Ok.
-----

- gpsman

gpsman wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
> > gpsman wrote:
> > > Nate Nagel wrote: <brevity snip>
> > >
> > >>We've made a decent amount
> > >>of progress in the last 50 years or so in brakes, suspension, and
> > >>especially tires - but we're not taking advantage of it.
> > >
> > >
> > > If we're not "taking advantage" of better vehicle design and technology
> > > we're all certainly enjoying the benefits... just not *the* benefit
> > > with which you seem to be obsessed.
> >
> > What benefits would those be? I don't really see any... and I think I'm
> > qualified to say that, being the owner/driver of a 50 year old car.
>
> You don't see any benefits in radial tires,

got 'em. You don't think I'd be driving around on expensive repro
6.70-15s when modern radials are cheaper and better?

> disc brakes

easily retrofitted, but if you drive like a sane person the stock 11"
drums are more than adequate

> and ABS,

unnecessary if you know how to drive and also drive in a sane manner.
ABS falls under the category of things that raise the ultimate limits
of a car in the hands of an average driver to a point that is
completely unnecessary given current road conditions and speed limits.

> seat belts

got 'em, an easy afternoon retrofit as well.

> parabolic side mirrors

got 'em

> halogen (or newer) headlamps,

Again, got 'em, it would be foolhardy to not replace the original
tungsten lights with halogens, when the latter are more readily
available. What is newer than halogens, anyway? Not counting HIDs
which are for the most part not really a safety advantage in many
implementations

> crumple zones

Irrelevant if you don't wreck.

> rubber-lined fuel tanks

what regular production car has this?

> coil-over struts

see above, and what safety advantage do they offer over a well-set-up
conventional suspension?

> and multi-link suspensions

got it, unless you mean in the rear, which is a live axle not unlike
that installed on some modern "performance" cars

> gas-filled shocks

got 'em, although they don't really offer any advantage over the stock
hydraulics unless you are engaged in "spirited" driving, i.e. outside
legal limits. The only reason I installed them is that they are
readily available and $15 each and seem to work well, while stock-type
shocks are much harder to find.

> cruise control

How is cruise control in any way relevant to safety?

> multi-port fuel injection

How is MPFI in any way related to safety?

> close ratio syncronized transmissions

It's an automatic, but a T-10 4-speed is an easy swap using all factory
parts, and how is this a safety issue?

> hydraulic clutches

how is a hydraulic clutch in any way safer than a linkage type?

> aluminum wheels... et al?

Got those, although they aren't factory and weren't a factory option
until '63... although I fail to see any safety advantage over steel
wheels, the real advantage is in ride due to lower unsprung weight

I don't see your point... however *my* point remains that my '55 MY
car is more than capable of keeping up with modern traffic in perfect
safety, given a good driver...

nate

"N8N" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> gpsman wrote:
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>> > gpsman wrote:
>> > > Nate Nagel wrote: <brevity snip>
>> > >
>> > >>We've made a decent amount
>> > >>of progress in the last 50 years or so in brakes, suspension, and
>> > >>especially tires - but we're not taking advantage of it.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > If we're not "taking advantage" of better vehicle design and
>> > > technology
>> > > we're all certainly enjoying the benefits... just not *the* benefit
>> > > with which you seem to be obsessed.
>> >
>> > What benefits would those be? I don't really see any... and I think
>> > I'm
>> > qualified to say that, being the owner/driver of a 50 year old car.
>>
>> You don't see any benefits in radial tires,
>
> got 'em. You don't think I'd be driving around on expensive repro
> 6.70-15s when modern radials are cheaper and better?
>
>> disc brakes
>
> easily retrofitted, but if you drive like a sane person the stock 11"
> drums are more than adequate
>
>> and ABS,
>
> unnecessary if you know how to drive and also drive in a sane manner.
> ABS falls under the category of things that raise the ultimate limits
> of a car in the hands of an average driver to a point that is
> completely unnecessary given current road conditions and speed limits.
>
>> seat belts
>
> got 'em, an easy afternoon retrofit as well.
>
>> parabolic side mirrors
>
> got 'em
>
>> halogen (or newer) headlamps,
>
> Again, got 'em, it would be foolhardy to not replace the original
> tungsten lights with halogens, when the latter are more readily
> available. What is newer than halogens, anyway? Not counting HIDs
> which are for the most part not really a safety advantage in many
> implementations
>
>> crumple zones
>
> Irrelevant if you don't wreck.
>
>> rubber-lined fuel tanks
>
> what regular production car has this?
>
>> coil-over struts
>
> see above, and what safety advantage do they offer over a well-set-up
> conventional suspension?
>
>> and multi-link suspensions
>
> got it, unless you mean in the rear, which is a live axle not unlike
> that installed on some modern "performance" cars
>
>> gas-filled shocks
>
> got 'em, although they don't really offer any advantage over the stock
> hydraulics unless you are engaged in "spirited" driving, i.e. outside
> legal limits. The only reason I installed them is that they are
> readily available and $15 each and seem to work well, while stock-type
> shocks are much harder to find.
>
>> cruise control
>
> How is cruise control in any way relevant to safety?
>
>> multi-port fuel injection
>
> How is MPFI in any way related to safety?
>
>> close ratio syncronized transmissions
>
> It's an automatic, but a T-10 4-speed is an easy swap using all factory
> parts, and how is this a safety issue?
>
>> hydraulic clutches
>
> how is a hydraulic clutch in any way safer than a linkage type?
>
>> aluminum wheels... et al?
>
> Got those, although they aren't factory and weren't a factory option
> until '63... although I fail to see any safety advantage over steel
> wheels, the real advantage is in ride due to lower unsprung weight
>
> I don't see your point... however *my* point remains that my '55 MY
> car is more than capable of keeping up with modern traffic in perfect
> safety, given a good driver...

If there was ever an example of "typical usenet counterargument," then this
is it.

Sheesh.

brink

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2006 08:24:40 -0700, "N8N" > wrote:
>
> >> crumple zones
> >
> >Irrelevant if you don't wreck.
>
> Hardly. You can be struck by another vehicle while stopped at a red
> light or parked. I don't care how good a driver you are, you cannot
> avoid ALL possible crash scenarios (unless you never get into a car at
> all).
> --
> What the heck, I'll play too.
> - Dave

But unless it's a head-on situation, which is the least likely (far
more likely is a rear-ender) the crumple zones and seatbelts won't help
you at all. Now headrests or high-back seats would, but that wasn't on
gpsman's list.

nate

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 08:48:41 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On 15 Apr 2006 08:24:40 -0700, "N8N" > wrote:
>
>>> crumple zones
>>
>>Irrelevant if you don't wreck.
>
>Hardly. You can be struck by another vehicle while stopped at a red
>light or parked. I don't care how good a driver you are, you cannot
>avoid ALL possible crash scenarios (unless you never get into a car at
>all).

I disagree. I don't think it is true to say that you CAN'T avoid all
crash scenarios, but it is true to say that it is unreasonable to do
so.

For example, while stopped at a red light I can make sure I always
have an out. Unfortunately that would mean leaving large amounts of
space around yourself, and sometimes pulling off when the intersection
prevents one from leaving a safe zone. It is unreasonable to do so,
but it is possible.

I believe I can counter any argument you come up with, giving some
contrived method of avoiding whatever incident you suggest. But
rather than spend weeks doing this, let me just say this is my
opinion, and I recognize nobody would drive this way, but I do think
it is likely to be possible.

Does that leave enough wiggle room?

*************************
Dave