HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX !

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 19:25:57 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:58:06 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

As with cars, experience and exposure both go into the rate makeup.
Along with one's credit history (which is insane).

Not as insane as you might think.
There are a *LOT* of people who get insurance when they actually need
it, then just don't pay the premiums.
Until the coverage is dropped for non-payment, coverage remains in
force; often for more than a month.
Any chargable crashes in that time must still be covered by the
insurance company.
The people who do this also, by and large, have poor credit ratings (I
wonder why?).

This is a case of self-fulfilling prophesy. If the price they are
forced (we MUST have insurance here) goes up, then they will have
problems paying, which will then lower their credit score, which
fulfills the prophesy of the insurance company when they can't pay.

If you assume that the people who do this are *forced* to be
dishonest, then we are going to have a problem discussing it.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

William Graham wrote:

The old and blind are driving right now, even as we speak.....I thought I
had made that clear. I have been driving all of my life, and I was never
able to see very well in the dark. I have never been tested by the DMV or
anyone else for night vision. As a matter of fact, I was turned down by the
US Navy for pilot training because of, "weak ankles". Later on, I realized
how lucky I was, because I would have caught the lip of a carrier during
after dark air-ops and be dead right now, instead of talking to you guys on
the internet. I am 71 years old, and just passed my DMV eye exam for another
6 years a few months ago. I will be very lucky if I don't run off the road
and kill myself and perhaps someone else during the next 6 years. But,
apparently, you guys aren't listening to me. I am not alone....Thousands of
retired Californians are coming up here to Oregon to share these dark
streets with me every year.....Sooner or later, one of us is going to run
off the road and kill you. If I was you, I'd do something about it before
it's too late.

I, for one, appreciate the warning, and will take appropriate
precautionary measures.

"Ken Lucke" wrote in message
...
In article , William
Graham wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
William Graham wrote:

My "excuse" as you put it, is that I just had an eye check up, and got
a
new 6 year license from the DMV. The fact that I can barely see after
dark, didn't even enter the picture.....that's not my fault. I use the
transportation method chosen for me by the society, and I comply with
all
their regulations.....If that is inadequate, then whose fault is that?
Just be advised that there are lots of people like me out there on
the roads, and our number is growing as more and more of us retire and
move up here to Oregon. - If you want to keep your roads safe, then
you'd
better do something about us, because we aren't going to go away, and
we
do have to get where we are going.

Oh *now* you want somebody else to meddle? A bunch of liberal *******s
perhaps?

Meddle? - Is that what you call spending this taxpayers money? -
Meddling?
I think I have the right to inform the city fathers that the best way
to
prevent accidents is to light our roads at night. - That this is how I
would prefer them to spend my tax dollars.......As far as I know, there
exists no liberal law that prevents me from giving them advice. they may
(and have) ignore it at their own peril.

One of the best way for YOU to prevent accidents is to get the hell off
of the road, as you've clearly indicated by your posts admitting that
you can't even see well enough to drive at night, and that you don't
care if you die and take someone else with you doing so, and in fact
seem to be proud of the fact that you are going to continue to drive
until that actually happens.

You are a scary, arrogant, and thoughtless person, only interested in
what YOU want - from your posts, all that matters to you is that you be
able to get to your music playing gig in Mt Angel, despite the fact
that you admit that you are literally so f%*^$^&ing night blind that
you are a considerable danger to everyone else. Your "freedom" is all
important, even when it starts impinging on the freedom and safety of
others.

plonk


And what about the other ten thousand or so of us that retire up here every
year? Are you going to plonk them too? (you idiot)

wrote in message
s.com...

William Graham wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...

Ron Hunter wrote:
wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:

You would be better off in just about ANYTHING but a pickup
truck!
They
are notably 'squirrelly' in hard avoidance maneuvers.
Wow. I learn somethig new every day. Thanks for the information.

Actually, neither is worth a crap for handling, compared with a
well-balanced automobile.

I'd love to hear exactly which well-balanced automobile[1] makes my
truck comparatively "not worth a crap" in handling. Even more, I'd
love to meet you at Summit Point racetrack for a Friday At The Track
session, with me in my pickup truck and you in your well-balanced
automobile for a day of fun, lapping, and comparing handling traits...
and lap times!

[1] I certainly hope you're not referring to any of the 70-80% of cars
on the road that are front wheel drive with 58-63% of their weight on
the front axle.

A truck is made for hauling garbage.....A race car is made for
racing....There is no comparison between the two. Go and look at an Indy
racing car. Compare it to your pick-up truck.

Okay, I'm back. Wow, you're right! There is no comparison between my
truck and an Indy race car, other than the fact that they both have
four wheels, a V-8 internal combustion engine that drives the rear
wheels, disk brakes, a steering wheel, racket pinned-on steering
(whatever THAT is) and a seat for the driver, them two ain't got much
o' innythang in common. Why, did you know that Indy car got's sumpin
called a "mono cock"? Hell, it's a wonder they let them lil' ol' girls
drive 'em these days!

It's rack and pinion steering......When you turn your steering wheel, you
turn a pinion gear which is attached to the bottom of the steering
column....This gear moves a rack, which is a flat piece of steel with gear
teeth on it, to the left and right, which is what turns your wheels......

wrote in message
oups.com...

William Graham wrote:

The old and blind are driving right now, even as we speak.....I thought I
had made that clear. I have been driving all of my life, and I was never
able to see very well in the dark. I have never been tested by the DMV or
anyone else for night vision. As a matter of fact, I was turned down by
the
US Navy for pilot training because of, "weak ankles". Later on, I
realized
how lucky I was, because I would have caught the lip of a carrier during
after dark air-ops and be dead right now, instead of talking to you guys
on
the internet. I am 71 years old, and just passed my DMV eye exam for
another
6 years a few months ago. I will be very lucky if I don't run off the
road
and kill myself and perhaps someone else during the next 6 years. But,
apparently, you guys aren't listening to me. I am not alone....Thousands
of
retired Californians are coming up here to Oregon to share these dark
streets with me every year.....Sooner or later, one of us is going to run
off the road and kill you. If I was you, I'd do something about it before
it's too late.

I, for one, appreciate the warning, and will take appropriate
precautionary measures.

Well, that's a more reasonable answer that that of Ken Lucke, who apparently
thinks I will go away because he puts me in his kill file.....:^)
I suggest that you institute some program of testing the night vision of
drivers. They will either restrict the driving of those whose vision is
inadequate to daylight hours, or provide better lighting on the main roads,
or both. The tacit assumption that because one can see and drive very well
during daylight hours, they must also be safe night drivers is very false,
and I believe it is high time something was done about it.

William Graham wrote:
"Ken Lucke" wrote in message
...
In article , William
Graham wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
William Graham wrote:

My "excuse" as you put it, is that I just had an eye check up, and got
a
new 6 year license from the DMV. The fact that I can barely see after
dark, didn't even enter the picture.....that's not my fault. I use the
transportation method chosen for me by the society, and I comply with
all
their regulations.....If that is inadequate, then whose fault is that?
Just be advised that there are lots of people like me out there on
the roads, and our number is growing as more and more of us retire and
move up here to Oregon. - If you want to keep your roads safe, then
you'd
better do something about us, because we aren't going to go away, and
we
do have to get where we are going.
Oh *now* you want somebody else to meddle? A bunch of liberal *******s
perhaps?

Meddle? - Is that what you call spending this taxpayers money? -
Meddling?
I think I have the right to inform the city fathers that the best way
to
prevent accidents is to light our roads at night. - That this is how I
would prefer them to spend my tax dollars.......As far as I know, there
exists no liberal law that prevents me from giving them advice. they may
(and have) ignore it at their own peril.
One of the best way for YOU to prevent accidents is to get the hell off
of the road, as you've clearly indicated by your posts admitting that
you can't even see well enough to drive at night, and that you don't
care if you die and take someone else with you doing so, and in fact
seem to be proud of the fact that you are going to continue to drive
until that actually happens.

You are a scary, arrogant, and thoughtless person, only interested in
what YOU want - from your posts, all that matters to you is that you be
able to get to your music playing gig in Mt Angel, despite the fact
that you admit that you are literally so f%*^$^&ing night blind that
you are a considerable danger to everyone else. Your "freedom" is all
important, even when it starts impinging on the freedom and safety of
others.

plonk


And what about the other ten thousand or so of us that retire up here every
year? Are you going to plonk them too? (you idiot)


Are you assuming that anyone who retires is so nightblind that they
represent a hazard to others, and so self-centered that they don't care?
I doubt that. If this is true, remind me not to drive at night next
time I visit Oregon.

wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:

You would be better off in just about ANYTHING but a pickup truck! They
are notably 'squirrelly' in hard avoidance maneuvers.
Wow. I learn somethig new every day. Thanks for the information.
Actually, neither is worth a crap for handling, compared with a
well-balanced automobile.
I'd love to hear exactly which well-balanced automobile[1] makes my
truck comparatively "not worth a crap" in handling. Even more, I'd
love to meet you at Summit Point racetrack for a Friday At The Track
session, with me in my pickup truck and you in your well-balanced
automobile for a day of fun, lapping, and comparing handling traits...
and lap times!

[1] I certainly hope you're not referring to any of the 70-80% of cars
on the road that are front wheel drive with 58-63% of their weight on
the front axle.

I will take a front-wheel drive over a rear-wheel any time for highway
driving. For racing, the stresses on the tires required for driving,
and steering result in premature failure. NOT good at speeds over 100mph.

So, which would rather drive in ice, my Chevy Impala, or your pickup?

Depends on the tires each has. Given equal tires, I'll take the truck.
I can set up its weight distribution for ice driving more easily than
I can your Impala. (Not that the Impala isn't a perfectly fine
automobile, mind you!)


It has proven very reliable, and predictable in all conditions I have
experienced so far. Of course, being retired, and living where I do,
ice and snow driving isn't something I have done much of. I was quite
surprised by how stable, and maneuverable it is.
Since I have never owned a pickup, or driven one a lot, I shouldn't be
so hard on them, but the number of times I have seen them vainly trying
to get enough traction to get moving on ice with that light rear end
convinces me that I wouldn't want to drive one in bad conditions, unless
I could toss a few hundred pounds of sandbags in the back.

William Graham wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
Bill Funk wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 09:10:52 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

No place to store. Plus, you're not going to convince me that a car
pulling a trailer is a better handling vehicle than my standard cab
shortbed 2wd pickup truck.

Actually, neither is worth a crap for handling, compared with a
well-balanced automobile.
From reading this, I can only assume that you don't really know how to
drive, and rely on the vehicle to handle your mistakes.
A good driver knows not just the limitations of his ride, but also how
to use its characteristics; something you obviously don't understand.
Your statements about the handling of pickups gives this away.
Yeah, just been driving since about 1953, or so. Know nothing about it.
Have driven just about all the various configurations, but have avoided
pickups as being too wasteful.
They don't fit either my lifestyle, or my wants. Kinda ugly too.

What used to kill me when I had a pick-up, was that every time I parked, I
had to move everything out of the bed and put it in the cab while I ran into
the local store or wherever.....In order to keep it from being stolen. Then
move it back into the bed when I retuned....After a while, I was keeping
nothing in the bed, but the cab was jammed with junk....Soon I realized that
I was using it as a sedan, only it had a lot less room than a sedan...So, I
did what was the only reasonable thing to do....I traded it in for a decent
sedan, and never looked back......


I thought you were going to say you bought a crew-cab. Grin.

William Graham wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
William Graham wrote:

The old and blind are driving right now, even as we speak.....I thought I
had made that clear. I have been driving all of my life, and I was never
able to see very well in the dark. I have never been tested by the DMV or
anyone else for night vision. As a matter of fact, I was turned down by
the
US Navy for pilot training because of, "weak ankles". Later on, I
realized
how lucky I was, because I would have caught the lip of a carrier during
after dark air-ops and be dead right now, instead of talking to you guys
on
the internet. I am 71 years old, and just passed my DMV eye exam for
another
6 years a few months ago. I will be very lucky if I don't run off the
road
and kill myself and perhaps someone else during the next 6 years. But,
apparently, you guys aren't listening to me. I am not alone....Thousands
of
retired Californians are coming up here to Oregon to share these dark
streets with me every year.....Sooner or later, one of us is going to run
off the road and kill you. If I was you, I'd do something about it before
it's too late.
I, for one, appreciate the warning, and will take appropriate
precautionary measures.

Well, that's a more reasonable answer that that of Ken Lucke, who apparently
thinks I will go away because he puts me in his kill file.....:^)
I suggest that you institute some program of testing the night vision of
drivers. They will either restrict the driving of those whose vision is
inadequate to daylight hours, or provide better lighting on the main roads,
or both. The tacit assumption that because one can see and drive very well
during daylight hours, they must also be safe night drivers is very false,
and I believe it is high time something was done about it.


How about a person of 71 years who KNOWS he doesn't see well enough to
drive at night being responsible, and rational, enough to NOT DRIVE AT
NIGHT? Naww, that would entail a person taking responsibility for his
OWN ACTIONS.

Even my older brother, who used to scare me to death by following too
close, has changed his habits since he realizes that at 78 his
responses aren't what they used to be, and now maintains a more sensible
distance from the driver in front of him. He used to adjust his
distance so that he couldn't see their license plate! CRAZY!

Bill Funk wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 19:25:57 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:58:06 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

As with cars, experience and exposure both go into the rate makeup.
Along with one's credit history (which is insane).
Not as insane as you might think.
There are a *LOT* of people who get insurance when they actually need
it, then just don't pay the premiums.
Until the coverage is dropped for non-payment, coverage remains in
force; often for more than a month.
Any chargable crashes in that time must still be covered by the
insurance company.
The people who do this also, by and large, have poor credit ratings (I
wonder why?).
This is a case of self-fulfilling prophesy. If the price they are
forced (we MUST have insurance here) goes up, then they will have
problems paying, which will then lower their credit score, which
fulfills the prophesy of the insurance company when they can't pay.

If you assume that the people who do this are *forced* to be
dishonest, then we are going to have a problem discussing it.

Who said anything about anyone being dishonest? IN these days, a bad
credit rating can result from a person losing his job, or incurring
excessive expenses due to any number of perfectly legitimate unexpected
situations.