Sleep better tonight if you have a manual transmission in your vehicle- repost

On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 18:55:09 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:

>On 2011-12-10, dwight > wrote:
>
>> As years go by, I've wondered about
>>
>> Valet parking
>>
>> Auto service centers (actually had to go 'round the back of a Ford
>> dealership to get my own car, because the kid that was supposed to bring it
>> around for me couldn't drive stick)
>>
>> or any other situation where someone other than yourself has to drive your
>> manual transmission car. It's becoming a lost skill, no question.
>
>Have some real "fun", get a three-on-the-tree car. I am so glad my '73
>is finally exempt from emissions testing. First they find the one
>person in the place that can drive an MT and then they look at it and
>don't have a clue... I then have to teach that person how to drive it a
>few feet because government regulations didn't permit me to do it.
>First is down and towards you... you have to put it in reverse to
>remove the key...
>
>> On the
>> flip side, with all of the improvements and changes made to automatics,
>> selectable automatics, manual-shift automatics, etc etc, I'm wondering
>> whether I would know how to drive one of those so-equipped cars.
>
>If you can operate a video game, you can. Just find where the buttons
>are.

It's getting harder and harder to find a mechanic who knows how to
tune a carb.... and a good share of the dealerships hire kids to move
the cars around, and they are totally lost. Ahhhh Just wait until the
whole worldwide system of electronics crashes. The shade tree
mechanics will rule! :0)

My broker said I should invest in gold, silver, and other prescious
metals. I said, give me brass and lead. With bullets, I can get
whatever I want. LOL

"D E Willson" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 10:59:57 -0500, "dwight" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"D E Willson" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 17:37:45 -0600, Dickr > wrote:
>>>
>>>>A police report out of St. Petersburg, Florida, reveals the current
>>>>state of the U.S. car culture. Two would-be carjackers robbed a
>>>>45-year-old man and his 24-year-old girlfriend after they had dropped
>>>>off the man's work truck.
>>>>
>>>>As the couple was getting ready to leave two men appeared, one on each
>>>>side. They demanded money and a cell phone. One of them wielded a
>>>>handgun and told the couple to get out of the woman's 2007 Nissan.
>>>>Neither of the thieves was prepared for what was next: the Nissan's
>>>>third pedal and stick shift. The two men quickly gave up and ran off on
>>>>foot. The pair made off with a cell phone, but alas no money, or the
>>>>car.
>>>
>>> Many years ago (in a galaxy far far away) California planned to offer
>>> two different driver tests. One for those who knew how to drive a
>>> standard shift and one for the rest. The drivers license would be so
>>> annotated that if you were certified for auto and you were driving a
>>> standard, you got cited and the car impounded until someone who could
>>> drive it bailed it out. The reason? A lot of young drivers were taking
>>> the test in Mom's automatic and then going out and buying a standard
>>> which they couldn't control, thus increasing the accident, injury and
>>> death rates. Unfortunately, the liberals considered that to be
>>> discrimination. I wonder how many young drivers might have been saved
>>> a lifetime of grief.
>>>
>>> Decades later, new rules were instituted for young drivers which
>>> limited the hours they could be on the road, who could be in the car
>>> with them, etc. We still lose kids, but it seems we lose fewer.
>>
>>Wait... You want MORE government regulation, control, and oversight to
>>protect the stupid from themselves?
>>
>>What?
>>
>>dwight
>>
> Adults can fend for themselves. They have enough experience in most
> things to make decisions, right or wrong.
>
> The same can not be said of a "child" who is just beginning to drive.
>
> Adults know that things like cell phones are distracting, and having
> other teens in the car is distracting, but a new driver doesn't.
>
> I am not for more government. I just know that our local schools have
> lost a lot of A students over a moments distraction.
>
> I wouldn't send a newbie who is learning to handle explosives out with
> other newbies to learn the hard way. A vehicle is a deadly weapon. Not
> just for the driver and passengers, but also for a large number of
> innocent people... and around schools, that means kids.
>
> As one who has suffered the loss of my 12 year old son under the
> wheels of a school bus whose driver was "distracted" by cars which
> would not allow her to pull away from the curb - so she used the
> sidewalk upon which my son was standing... I am all about protecting
> children.
>
> As a police officer who has had to investigate far too many such
> losses and had to deal with the parents, I am all about protecting
> children.
>
> And let's be clear about it. The government may lower the age of what
> is considered an adult, but I don't see an adult at any age until they
> have the experience and knowledge needed to make adult decisions.

And who gets to decide? You? A locally-appointed board of commissioners?
Does an 18-year-old have to re-take a driving test to qualify for a manual
transmission and, if so, what about the 30-something who's buying his first
stick car?

Or is a 30-something automatically assumed to be an adult ('cause I could
argue that point, too)?

And I still laugh when I hear that some video game or the other is "rated
mature." That's funny, and another topic.

dwight

On 2011-12-12, D E Willson > wrote:

> Adults can fend for themselves. They have enough experience in most
> things to make decisions, right or wrong.
>
> The same can not be said of a "child" who is just beginning to drive.

And the age of a 'child' keeps going up and up.

> Adults know that things like cell phones are distracting, and having
> other teens in the car is distracting, but a new driver doesn't.

A new driver is a new driver regardless of age.

> I am not for more government. I just know that our local schools have
> lost a lot of A students over a moments distraction.

Perhaps it's time to reconsider fear based driver's ed?

> I wouldn't send a newbie who is learning to handle explosives out with
> other newbies to learn the hard way. A vehicle is a deadly weapon. Not
> just for the driver and passengers, but also for a large number of
> innocent people... and around schools, that means kids.

Imagine for a moment that explosives training taught practically nothing
about handling them, wiring them up, etc and so forth but instead
focused on making the students fearful of explosives, that handling them
fast will kill them, and showing them the results of accidents with
explosives. Would that result in graduates who knew how to use
explosives safely and competently?

The problem is that driver's ed is faulty so that the learning happens
on the road when they are driving by themselves or with their friends.

Early in the age of the automobile, when they were far more difficult to
handle and far less safe 12 year olds managed to use them competently.
Age is not relevant, but ability, training, and experience. Age is just
a rough indicator of development and often a poor one.

> As one who has suffered the loss of my 12 year old son under the
> wheels of a school bus whose driver was "distracted" by cars which
> would not allow her to pull away from the curb - so she used the
> sidewalk upon which my son was standing... I am all about protecting
> children.

> As a police officer who has had to investigate far too many such
> losses and had to deal with the parents, I am all about protecting
> children.

I for one am tired of being less and less free and seeing young people
more and more restricted to later and later ages because people make
decisions based on emotions. Sad things happen, but they cannot be
prevented with increasing levels of government dumbing things down while
micromanaging our lives. What we do get is ever less capable people who
end up doing dumber and dumber things requiring more and more laws and
more and more oversight.

> And let's be clear about it. The government may lower the age of what
> is considered an adult, but I don't see an adult at any age until they
> have the experience and knowledge needed to make adult decisions.

The government keeps acting to retard people into a condition of
childhood for their entire lives. Oddly enough, government gets to be
the parents.

In article >, "dwight" >
wrote:

> "D E Willson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 10:59:57 -0500, "dwight" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"D E Willson" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >>> On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 17:37:45 -0600, Dickr > wrote:
> >>>
--- Snip a bit ---
> >>>
> >>> Many years ago (in a galaxy far far away) California planned to offer
> >>> two different driver tests. One for those who knew how to drive a
> >>> standard shift and one for the rest. The drivers license would be so
> >>> annotated that if you were certified for auto and you were driving a
> >>> standard, you got cited and the car impounded until someone who could
> >>> drive it bailed it out. The reason? A lot of young drivers were taking
> >>> the test in Mom's automatic and then going out and buying a standard
> >>> which they couldn't control, thus increasing the accident, injury and
> >>> death rates. Unfortunately, the liberals considered that to be
> >>> discrimination. I wonder how many young drivers might have been saved
> >>> a lifetime of grief.

--- Snip a bit more ---
>
> And who gets to decide? You? A locally-appointed board of commissioners?
> Does an 18-year-old have to re-take a driving test to qualify for a manual
> transmission and, if so, what about the 30-something who's buying his first
> stick car?

I would say that anyone _of_any_age_ driving a car with a manual trans,
has to have the manual trans endorsement, just like most states require
a motor cycle endorsement, or heavy truck, bus, etc. I think that is an
excellent idea.

> Or is a 30-something automatically assumed to be an adult ('cause I could
> argue that point, too)?
>
> And I still laugh when I hear that some video game or the other is "rated
> mature." That's funny, and another topic.
>
> dwight
>

--
For all you know this message was...
Sent via an exclusive network, on a snobby portable computing device.

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:17:08 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:

>On 2011-12-12, D E Willson > wrote:
>

>The government keeps acting to retard people into a condition of
>childhood for their entire lives. Oddly enough, government gets to be
>the parents.
>

You get no argument from me about government intrusion. I think a M/C
rider has the right to decide whether to use a helmet or not. Same
with seatbelts. Yet I have no problem requiring a child to be belted
in or wear a helmet. Of course, I also don't have a problem with an
insurance company which says, no helmet, no coverage, or limited
coverage. That is a business decision.

As an example, I present the following: Most people know that military
people have full medical coverage for themselves and their families.
What few people know is that a GI who is involved in an accident while
not wearing a helmet or a seatbelt, etc, will have the military refuse
to cover his medical needs. Used to be that GIs took off the helmet,
or unbuckkled as soon as they were off base. No more. It also used to
be that no matter what the state drinking age was, or whether a locale
was "dry" or not, GIs could drink on base. That too ended.

Yes, bad things happen to anyone. And, I think the government has gone
way too far to protect people from themselves. The crap they are
pulling now with Happy Meals and soft drinks is just a small example.
But that does not mean we should be totally oblivious to things which
can help save lives of innocent people.

One other point... in the beginning, autos were not harder to operate.
They were very simple mechanical devices. Sure, you had to put some
muscle into turning the steering wheel, but, at the same time there
were far less distractions and far less traffic on the roads. The
highway next to my grandparents farm was two lanes, undivided, and we
pulled straight onto it from the gravel driveway. Today that same
highway had eight lanes, and in some sections, more.

On 2011-12-14, D E Willson > wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:17:08 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>
>>On 2011-12-12, D E Willson > wrote:
>>
>
>>The government keeps acting to retard people into a condition of
>>childhood for their entire lives. Oddly enough, government gets to be
>>the parents.
>>
>
> You get no argument from me about government intrusion. I think a M/C
> rider has the right to decide whether to use a helmet or not. Same
> with seatbelts. Yet I have no problem requiring a child to be belted
> in or wear a helmet. Of course, I also don't have a problem with an
> insurance company which says, no helmet, no coverage, or limited
> coverage. That is a business decision.

Only if the insurance business isn't a government regulated cartel. But
that's exactly what it is these days.

> As an example, I present the following: Most people know that military
> people have full medical coverage for themselves and their families.
> What few people know is that a GI who is involved in an accident while
> not wearing a helmet or a seatbelt, etc, will have the military refuse
> to cover his medical needs. Used to be that GIs took off the helmet,
> or unbuckkled as soon as they were off base. No more. It also used to
> be that no matter what the state drinking age was, or whether a locale
> was "dry" or not, GIs could drink on base. That too ended.

The government also uses those who signed up for the military as test
subjects for all sorts of things from vaccines to radiation exposure,
so perhaps they aren't a good example.

> Yes, bad things happen to anyone. And, I think the government has gone
> way too far to protect people from themselves. The crap they are
> pulling now with Happy Meals and soft drinks is just a small example.
> But that does not mean we should be totally oblivious to things which
> can help save lives of innocent people.

The mistake was allowing the government to get a foot in the door. The
USA is full of control freaks and once the government has a little
power the control freaks merely need to encourage government and no
government needs much encouragement to expand its power.

> One other point... in the beginning, autos were not harder to operate.
> They were very simple mechanical devices. Sure, you had to put some
> muscle into turning the steering wheel, but, at the same time there
> were far less distractions and far less traffic on the roads. The
> highway next to my grandparents farm was two lanes, undivided, and we
> pulled straight onto it from the gravel driveway. Today that same
> highway had eight lanes, and in some sections, more.

Driving is a relatively simple task. Distraction and bad driving is due
to the teachings we get. Distraction is easy because of the dumbed down
conditions and mind-numbing slow speed limits, it craves distraction
because driving as it has been legally dumbed down to is BORING. 55mph
on a near empty 6 lane interstate... where's the television? Where's
the internet connection? Furthermore we are taught to drive slow
because of the other guy. The teachings make bad driving socially
acceptable. It's gotten so assbackwards that people are offended
and believe the other guy at fault when someone doesn't give way to
their **** poor inattentive driving.