Target a resonable part of the population

Post #219,194 by JayMehaffey 8/13/05 6:54:01 PM Reply	Target a resonable part of the population There will always be a small percent who's tolerance is either higher or lower no matter where you set the bars. The goal is to set a number that is resonable for 90% or more of the population. I'm not sure where those number really should be though. Drunk driving is like handgun control. there are a lot of studies you can quote and most of them have significant problems. The only other solution is to abandon driving while intoxicated as a class of crime and go after unsafe driving instead. There are two problems with doing that, first it's not as safe and second, it's a lot more subjective on the part of the police officer. What I mean by unsafe here is that a lot of moderatly drunk people can drive perfectly fine as long as nothing goes wrong, but they can't cope with any problems. Jay
Post #219,208 by boxley 8/13/05 8:58:29 PM Reply	your last sentence applies to totally sober drivers as well "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #219,210 by boxley 8/13/05 9:01:14 PM Reply	impaired driving should be a crime with stiff sentences for re-offenders but the problem I have is that it is classified now as a crime of violence when no such violence has occured unless an accident is involved. Now MADD is determined to place DUI in the same class as heroin and cocaine usage, dont beleive me call and ask. Now if a impaired person causes a wreck, heavy charge, if a sober person piles into an impaired driver only one will get arrested, that is not justice. thanx, bill "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #219,214 by pwhysall 8/13/05 9:07:09 PM Reply	Every single driver on this planet... ...has their ability to drive safely reduced by the presence of alcohol in their bloodstream. This is not anecdotal; it has been demonstrated that reaction times are slowed by even a single drink. What's so critical about this, and you inadvertently allude to it, is that the drink-driver is gambling with other people's lives. This sentence: What I mean by unsafe here is that a lot of moderatly drunk people can drive perfectly fine as long as nothing goes wrong, but they can't cope with any problems. is wrong. A lot of moderately drunk people think they can drive perfectly fine as long as nothing goes wrong. The fact that these retards have a habit of featuring in the accident statistics disproves that (drunken) notion. I just don't see where there's a grey area. There is only one safe limit : zero milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. I don't drink and drive. Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #219,271 by Yendor 8/14/05 10:38:24 PM Reply	After taking cough syrup? Or using mouthwash, do you drive? Both have alcohol, you know... -YendorMike "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania
Post #219,308 by pwhysall 8/15/05 1:49:12 AM Reply	Alcohol-free mouthwash for me... ...and I read the label of my medication. Not that cough syrup ever does any good, mind. Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #219,312 by ben_tilly 8/15/05 2:07:37 AM Reply	Ironic... that someone who has as much alcohol as you do on a regular basis should worry about the alcohol in your cough syrup. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #219,316 by pwhysall 8/15/05 2:48:29 AM 8/15/05 2:55:07 AM Reply	I don't. But thanks for calling a me a drunk. hic Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes! Edited by pwhysall Aug. 15, 2005, 02:55:07 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #219,276 by Another Scott 8/14/05 11:05:55 PM Reply	Why stop at alcohol? (I feel a little guilty doing this...) There is no safe distraction level while driving. People have more accidents talking on the phone, or applying makeup, or leaning over to roll down the passenger window, or turning to yell at little Satan in the back seat, or ..., than they do when they are paying full attention to driving. Therefore: Car radios should be outlawed. ? Diphenhydramine (Benadryl 50 mg) can impare driving as much as 0.1% BAC alcohol - [link\|http://www.science.com.br/artigos_pdf/effects_of_fexofenadine.pdf\|Annals of Internal Medicine]. Even fexofenadine (Allegra 60 mg) seemed to have some adverse effect on driving (compared to a placebo). As we know, nothing in life is totally safe. Making it illegal to have any alcohol in one's blood while driving would likely do little to change drunk driving deaths. The national limit in the US has been 0.08 since [link\|http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/cfr/title23/part1225.html\|1998]. Yet [link\|http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html\|Alcohol-Related fatalities in the US] have been in the low 40% range since 1994 (when the limit was 0.1 in many states). Note that "alcohol-related" means that the driver or non-occupant (e.g. if a pedestrian was killed) had a BAC > 0.01. That's probably a very generous category. It looks like the BAC limit in the [link\|http://www.cadd.org.uk/drunk.htm\|UK] is also 0.08. If the limit were 0., there would be a lot of problems. (Cough medicines; filling the courts with cases where people weren't impaired but had non-0 BACs; etc.) BTW, I agree with you that people shouldn't drive after they drink. Cheers, Scott.
Post #219,309 by pwhysall 8/15/05 1:59:11 AM Reply	The thing with phones and conversations... ...is that you can stop being distracted, instantly. Sure, it might be too late (see below about planning). But the option is there. Alcohol and drug impairment means that you're impaired when you get in the car. I am firmly of the opinion that drivers pay insufficient attention to the process of driving, in general. If I want to change station on the radio, I plan this event. I try to drive to the principle of COAST (Concentration, Observation, Anticipation, Speed and Time) and that means that I will wait until it is safe to do so before twiddling. That may well mean waiting until I can bring the car to a stop. By having both hands on the wheel (quarter to three, kids, not ten to two) I have maybe a half-second head start on the cool-looking dude with his one-finger steering, in the event of having to react. How fast does your car travel in half a second? All of the things you present as examples are things that I would expect to be classified as "driving without due care and attention" or, worse (for the driver in the event of an accident) "dangerous driving". If you are found guilty of the latter, you can expect to be jailed (in the UK). The primary reason for having a zero BAC is not to catch people who don't read the label on their medication, but rather to pummel home with a blunt instrument the idea that a pint on the way home from work is NOT safe, and that if you have to make the risk assessment of whether to drive or not, you should get a damn taxi. Making people read the label on their medication would be a nice side-effect. Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #219,314 by ben_tilly 8/15/05 2:27:24 AM Reply	If you need to pay that much attention... then you should add some space to the car in front of you. Nobody's attention is 100%, all the time, and your driving style shouldn't assume that yours is, either. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #219,317 by pwhysall 8/15/05 2:54:20 AM Reply	Re: If you need to pay that much attention... Half a second at 70MPH is fifteen metres. I endeavour to leave a two-second gap to the car in front (except when Golf-GTi-driving eejits fill the space fume). Throwing away 25% of my reaction space/time is just daft. Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #219,323 by ben_tilly 8/15/05 3:17:04 AM Reply	You'd hate LA freeways In normal roads I aim to leave 3 seconds at highway speeds. On the 405 I aim to leave 1 second and watch what is happening 3 cars ahead. (The gap may increase or decrease because I like to coast where feasible. With that I am leaving a distinctly larger gap than average, and I notice that I wind up needing to hit the brakes far less often than most other cars on the road. If I make the gap much larger than that, I'll immediately drop a significant amount of speed because of how many people will be cutting in in front of me. :-( Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #219,324 by pwhysall 8/15/05 3:25:03 AM Reply	Sounds like the M25 at 5PM And yes, I hate it. Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #219,367 by ben_tilly 8/15/05 1:10:19 PM Reply	It's like that all day here I've gotten used to it. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #219,327 by Ashton 8/15/05 6:34:32 AM Reply	Peter, you ignorant slut - Madeja look (?) Agree generally; reservations about absolutes though. I am firmly of the opinion that drivers pay insufficient attention to the process of driving, in general. You're in good company; Juan Manuel Fangio, the Argentine GP Ace of another era, when Tazio Nuvolaris roamed the Grandes Epreuves-earth... when finding himself being 'driven' by another -- would often command, ATTENTION! ATTENTION! -- as he was always on top of the fluid traffic flow and anticipating... as most people don't (very well, or re the necessary several cars ahead). Never mind Fangio; I agree. And yes, I too take seriously as simple a matter as 'radio attention', let alone swapping CDs. Some imagine that, ~"our shortened attention span" - as consequence of the inane distractions of all that techno - "enhances our 'multiplexing capabilities'" - ?!? (Lovely rationalization that, no?) BS. PhD - piled higher, deeper. I demur. Attention! Is in Short supply IME. And as you imply.. I rarely encounter anyone willing? able? to grok-to-fullness what it means (in $US) notation: that, at 60 mph you are travelling 88'/sec. Even fewer are able to estimate at-all-close, what their (car's) stopping distances are, from various common speeds. And don't hold breath for many to do these rough calcs in-head and add-in the drift distance while that reaction-time is running. (A slightly-inebriated person could make such allowance; I've seen that - so believe that.) (There are also problems in passing a car at too great a speed differential, at any nom. speed.) If I want to see 120, I want to see it with a clear road in front. Yes there are a few places still 'here' where that is possible and also sane. If One is also sane. Where we likely disagree: I'd feel safer with a driver with .02%ish EtOH, but who knows and reliably obeys physics laws (and won't be forgetting them at such a modest %) to any teetotaler who is {ugh} "an average motorist". ie That which constitutes a Good Driver IMO: is neither simple to list-out nor possible to legislate; nor is 'impairment' easier catalogued, via YAN of those simplistic IQ-style NUMBERS. This, however much our spread-sheet kultur would like to do numbers on.. probably on screwing, too. Or maybe %likelihood Heaven/Hell to 3 significant figures? We'll continue to have L.C.D. rulez, rigidly enforced by the Speed Killz simpletons - because no one knows how (or cares to try) to write an enforceable statute addressing the larger fact, IMO Ignorance and/or Inattention Killz. Finally - citations (here anyway) are far more often about ez extraction of revenue than about "teaching a lesson" - though yes, there are exceptional cops, too. (Got an outdoor thermometer with alarm near-freezing / glare ice, etc. ??) Msgr. Safety Fast LLC Ob gauntlet/fling: My Acura Plutocrat will out-Gran-Turismo your Beemer, 'least up to 134ish .. on those 900 mile days, re the sort of trek as needs to er, leave one with enough energy on arrival? - to boogie. En garde! er, :-\ufffd
Post #219,377 by pwhysall 8/15/05 1:55:39 PM Reply	Re: Peter, you ignorant slut - The 318 is good for 120-130MPH (takes a while to get there, mind; the 100->130 leg requires getting to 6000RPM in 5th) and stable at it; after that, you just run out of horses. This is purely academic, you understand. I always drive at or within the posted speed limit. But if I were, hypothetically, to exercise my car to its limit, then I imagine that that would be the result. Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #219,384 by boxley 8/15/05 2:17:53 PM Reply	I could get my 82 4cyl mustang to 125, you should be able to get 135-140 thanx, bill "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #219,385 by Another Scott 8/15/05 2:28:00 PM 8/15/05 2:28:40 PM Reply	I don't think so. [link\|http://www.cars.com/carsapp/national/?srv=parser&act=display&tf=/advice/bookreviews/bookreviews_sanow.tmpl\|Encyclopedia of American Police Cars]: In 1982 jurisdictions began (out of desperation) using the two-door Ford Mustang LX equipped with the 5.0-liter high-output V-8 engine as a pursuit vehicle. American sedans had gotten so slow it was well known that anything with more than a pair of squirrels on Ritalin under the hood could walk away from Johnny Law. But the Mustang, with its 132-mph top end and 7-second 0-60 capability, put an end to many speeder\ufffds plans. A 1982 4-cylinder wouldn't be almost as powerful as a 1982 [link\|http://home.pon.net/hunnicutt/history_79_93.htm\|157 HP] 5 liter V-8 (unless it had been massaged). (Power translates into ultimate speed, if all else is equal.) I suspect your speedometer was highly optimistic (or had the wrong size tires). Or there's something you're not telling us. :-) Cheers, Scott. Edited by Another Scott Aug. 15, 2005, 02:28:40 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #219,396 by boxley 8/15/05 3:21:30 PM Reply	go to mapquest and lookup driving directions from anchorage alaska to seward alaska. Now add the last 3 milage together it comes to 121 miles. I did it in exactly 1 hr with 3 people in the car. There is 2 intersections that you have to slow for and a nice eurotwisty spot coming down the pass. No traffic to speak of. Now you tell me how fast I was going :-) thanx, bill "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #219,400 by Another Scott 8/15/05 3:51:19 PM Reply	You still haven't said whether the car was stock. Yeah, I guess you did it. It's quite a contrast with my limited high speed driving experience though. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=105895\|#105895]. That engine had 350 gross HP when new, probably over 200 at the rear wheels even at that time. It would only do 120 mph max and had a 140 mph speedo. It had a 3.23 rear end, so the gearing wasn't an issue. I find it hard to believe that a stock 1982 4 cylinder Mustang had that much power. Fess up, you were running nitrous, weren't you. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #219,404 by boxley 8/15/05 3:57:05 PM Reply	5 speed manual transmission all stock were your valves floating at 120? If not you still had some horses to unleash. My 1964 Buick wildacat with a 421 motor topped at 120 but it was a heavy car, your goat wasnt that heavy though. The 82 mustang was a small car with plastic parts and I had the larger of the 2 4cylinders. Had to replace the transmission twice in 1 year kept losing 2nd gear. Ford claimed it was because of abuse :-) thanx, bill "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #219,515 by Another Scott 8/16/05 10:30:54 AM Reply	Dunno about the lifters. The engine was a little tired, as was the transmission (THM 400). But it did OK. It did the quarter mile in < 16 s, ~ 95? mph. It would have been much quicker with decent tires (it would lose traction very easily in 1st and 2nd) - maybe in the 14s range. I'm sure it could have done better with a little work. 6 people in the car cut the top-end some too... A friend had a 68 GTO that he massaged a little. That car was scary-fast. He ended up bending some pushrods racing some monster dual-quad tunnel ram thing (and getting stomped in the process). He fixed it and sold it shortly thereafter. Big mistake. :-( Manual transmissions help a lot. Especially overdrive. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #219,388 by pwhysall 8/15/05 2:35:14 PM Reply	If I ever get my dream car... ...an E46 M3 Evo, then I'll leave just about anything for dead. But as said car means a \ufffd20K up-front investment plus higher running costs (M-tech cars need proper servicing by proper mechanics, more frequently), it'll have to remain a dream for now. And no, I wouldn't get it in Baby-Shit Brown (aka Phoenix Yellow). Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #219,422 by ben_tilly 8/15/05 5:31:57 PM Reply	Anything..except any motorcycle I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #219,426 by pwhysall 8/15/05 5:39:27 PM Reply	Re: Anything..except any motorcycle ...over 1000CC. Smaller bikes will out-accelerate it, but not outrun it. The M3 tops out at about 155MPH because of the limiter. Pretty much any bike bigger than 400CC will stuff it on 0-60. (M3 is about 5.5 sec). Of course, at 150MPH the motorcyclist is not in a position to pick the bugs out of his teeth... Mmm, protein! Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #219,466 by Ashton 8/15/05 9:48:03 PM Reply	'thetruthaboutcars.com' My fav acerbic commentator (and hands-on Tester) of all the toys; updated frequently. (Hmmm - he'd make a decent IWEr; certainly at parry / thrust) Now, what you Want (I deem from above) is: [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/content/110808075917533721/\| Can Am] [. . .]The Can Am does the fast thing with a straightforward formula: keep it light, strip out all the fancy stuff and pour on the power. The car doesn't have power steering, ABS braking, fuel injection, traction control or anything terribly clever. What it does have is a Chevrolet 6.3 litre small block V8. In standard tune, it's good for 355bhp. The hotter version (survived above) pumps out a whopping 530bhp. For the technically minded, that engine generates 520 foot-pounds of torque at 4000 rpms. For the non-technically minded, it has enough brute force to scare the bejesus out of any passenger that hasn't competed in open car racing. Not that you'd hear them begging you to stop\ufffd Meanwhile, back here in the real world, where children want new running shoes and the wife can't understand that a sports car is a better investment than a new kitchen, you've got to balance fun with fiscal responsibility. Balance this: the extra spicy edition of the mid-engined Can Am goes from zero to 60 miles per hour in 3.3 seconds. The McLaren F1- still the world's fastest passenger car- does the same sprint in 3.2 seconds. Give up .1 of a second and a roof to the Big Mac, forget the 46mph top end difference, and you'll save \ufffd657,865.67. That's right: the Ultima Can Am costs from just \ufffd28,000. Oh yes, I forgot to mention one little thing: the Can Am is a kit car. Wait! Don't dismiss the idea as an invitation to construct- or try to construct- a shoddy replica. Unlike the majority of "self-builds", the Can Am isn't an imitation anything. The looks may hark back to the Can Am racers of the 70's, but the car is a fresh design. Ultima boss and former racer Ted Marlow started with a clean sheet of paper. Drawing on twenty years experience in the field and an adrenalin addiction of monumental proportions, Marlow has created a road-legal racecar that makes no apologies to anyone. All the major parts, from the adjustable wishbone suspension to the race-developed steering, were specifically built for the Can Am. While I didn't screw the demonstrator together myself, the car's consistent shut-lines and gel-coated bodywork (no need for painting) indicate a well-considered, quality product. Yes, well, so is a Porsche, but you don't build one of those in a shed. [More . . .] Rest case, Tazio
Post #219,481 by admin 8/15/05 11:53:43 PM Reply	Re: 'thetruthaboutcars.com' [link\|http://www.ultimasports.co.uk/record.html\|http://www.ultimaspo...co.uk/record.html] WTF. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #219,483 by pwhysall 8/16/05 1:23:26 AM Reply	Re: 'thetruthaboutcars.com' Also, [link\|http://www.noblecars.com/home.htm\|http://www.noblecars.com/home.htm] Considered by many to be the best-handling cars evar. Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #219,486 by pwhysall 8/16/05 1:30:35 AM Reply	Oh, and drool Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #219,427 by pwhysall 8/15/05 5:40:30 PM Reply	The new M5 is truly terrifying, though Electronically limited to 155MPH, when unlimited the far side of 200MPH beckons. That's supercar performance for "only" \ufffd60K. Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #219,434 by Another Scott 8/15/05 5:55:30 PM Reply	I picture you in this... (11 kB .img) [link\|http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=102831\|Maybach Exelero]. [image\|http://www.autoweek.com/files/weekart/2005/0801/maybach_side.jpg\|0\|Exelero\|176\|345] 19 feet long, 7 feet wide, 6500 pounds, 700 HP, 218 MPH at Nardo. Ugly as sin, and impossibly impractical, but the perfect car for the land of [link\|http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/\|$5.79/gal gas], no? Cheers, Scott.
Post #219,438 by pwhysall 8/15/05 6:09:30 PM Reply	Can't think of anything worse. Well, there's the Chrysler Crossfire, but enough said about that. Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #219,441 by Another Scott 8/15/05 6:16:59 PM Reply	:-)
Post #219,442 by boxley 8/15/05 6:19:03 PM Reply	The crossfire is butt ugly settle for one of these (SFW) nice Italian Motor [link\|http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.citroen.mb.ca/citroenet/sm/injection/007g.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.citroen.mb.ca/citroenet/html/s/sm2.html&h=517&w=800&sz=53&tbnid=Q2zWH9OIc1QJ:&tbnh=91&tbnw=141&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcitroen%2Bsm%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D&oi=imagesr&start=3\|http://images.google...i=imagesr&start=3] go fast in comfort thanx, bill "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #219,443 by pwhysall 8/15/05 6:20:18 PM Reply	French, lovely car, hydraulic nightmare. Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #219,444 by boxley 8/15/05 6:46:52 PM Reply	maybe now, but back then not a problem "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #219,472 by Ashton 8/15/05 10:29:10 PM Reply	Watch it, Buster - I've driven one The SM would hold its own in '05 on most checklists which do not beigin with the heading, Most Excessive $$ Can Buy. Neat Maserati engine in the SM coupled with most-advanced chassis concepts of its time (as with the original '56 DS, ID at their introductions. Would trade my Plutocrat in a trice, were it not now suffering from out-of-production overhead, collector$ appeal etc. SM: YAN pure case of Pearls before Swine IMeptO. As to hydraulics.. Pshaw! As I've menioned before.. even in the wide-open spaces of USA, say the endless trek all across Texas at-speed? - Citro\ufffdns just kept going, and at shockingly high fuel mileage numbers VS The Dinosaurs. What killed them here was the rampant ignorance about so simple a requirement as: Draining the hyd. reservoir and flushing-in new fluid: Once a Year! (or >> some mileage). They. Wouldn't. So aside from needing a mechanic who understands that 'Clean' is not optional on the few occasions of replacing a hydraulic appendage - only ignorance killed them off in Murica.. (I knew the LA distrib. Chief Troubleshooter - re these conclusions, BTW) Could it be, then - that the same dumbth-distro as US ?? <<< {shudder} perfuses also our Euro brethren, despite all those centuries-old Institutions with books and stuff? I never had problems / I also didn't do stupid things to my 4 DSs (+ one DS-Mechanique) including a couple learning-specimens I overhauled; one engine, in 'class': just for the lore / curiosity about "working on them".
Post #219,394 by Andrew Grygus 8/15/05 3:09:02 PM Reply	To quote my uncle Lou . . . . . . who decided to see how fast his new XK150 Jaguar would go, "I don't know how fast the Jag will go, but now I know I go 140". [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #219,299 by static 8/15/05 1:20:14 AM Reply	I think you need to fine-tune your objection. This sentence: What I mean by unsafe here is that a lot of moderatly drunk people can drive perfectly fine as long as nothing goes wrong, but they can't cope with any problems. is wrong. A lot of moderately drunk people think they can drive perfectly fine as long as nothing goes wrong. The fact that these retards have a habit of featuring in the accident statistics disproves that (drunken) notion. This hinges on "as long as nothing goes wrong" and just what that means. I daresay most people would interpret "something going wrong" as major as another car running a red-light across you. Thus, the justification rolled out that slightly drunken people think they can still drive safely, and may even be able to give that appearance. It's just that it doesn't actually take much for "something to go wrong" - a fellow driver going past that you didn't see coming up behind you, a foot slipping off the brake pedal, a light red at that time of night that you never not seen green before... We have an ad campaign in Australia at the moment aimed at exactly this type of perception: after a few beers, sure, you can usually drive safely home. Steering, changing gears, navigating familiar streets are not hugely taxing for an intoxicated brain. Wade. Save Fintlewoodlewix

Welcome to IWETHEY!