HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX !

In article , Roger
writes
On 21 Dec 2006 11:11:19 -0800, "acl"
wrote:


Ken Lucke wrote:

Sorry, but to hell with fuel economy... with the millions of people on
the road in this country who merely know "how to operate a motor
vehicle" as opposed to actually knowing how to _drive_ their vehicles
(and there is a HUGE difference between those two skillsets), I want a
tank around me, if possible.

If gas would get up to $5 a gallon we might be able to do something
about that.

Careful what you wish for, Roger! We are way over $5 a gallon this side
of the pond (Current average price of 0.98GBP/litre works out at over
$7.4/ gallon US!) and I can assure you the price of gas makes absolutely
no difference to the skill or experience of the average driver on the
road, or the quantity.

Unfortunately for us, your "theory" was put into practice by British
governments decades ago and has been proved wrong every day since.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

In article , William
Graham writes


I am impressed, however with these formula I cars that can hit the rails at
175 MPH, fly end over end a dozen times, completely come apart at the seams
until there is nothing left of them but the cage containing the driver,
which, after he unbelts himself, he walks away from without a scratch....Why
can't they do that with the family sedan?

To an extent, most of them are designed to deform protectively in
exactly the same way - hence the presence of crush zones etc. Of
course, they won't withstand a 175MPH impact with all/any passengers
surviving, but the suspension doesn't fall apart when they drive over a
pothole either. Drivers and passengers of the average family sedan
wouldn't accept being strapped into the harness by a 3 man team (drivers
cannot tighten the harness enough by themselves), wearing a HANS brace
or flameproof overalls every time they get into the vehicle either or
being fit enough to withstand 10g differential forces on their neck
muscles before being given a license every season.

There have been many technologies that have transitioned from F1 to
commercial cars, seat belts, anti-lock brakes, monocoque/unibody chassis
to name a few, but ultimately they are different vehicle types with
vastly differing requirements. One common aspect is that if you make
the car capable of going fast enough, that is as fast as some people
will drive it, and I personally don't want to see someone in my rear
view mirror approaching at 175MPH while I am stuck at traffic lights on
my way home from work.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote:

I personally don't want to see someone in my rear view mirror approaching
at 175MPH while I am stuck at traffic lights on my way home from work.

The easy way to avoid that is to not own a car. (That's one of the reasons I
ended up in Tokyo.)

Seriously, I don't understand why more people don't decide not to own cars.
The (quite rational*) decision not to own a car ought to be a possibility,
right?

*: Cars are dangerous and expensive (at the least; breathing gasoline fumes
can't be good for one). And one can buy a lot of camera equipment for the
price of a car.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

In article ,
David J. Littleboy wrote:
*: Cars are dangerous and expensive (at the least; breathing gasoline fumes
can't be good for one). And one can buy a lot of camera equipment for the
price of a car.

However, often a car is the most convenient way to get all that gear to
where you need it. :-)


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 22:03:39 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

But I had a friend who walked away from an accident where his engine ended
up where his lap would have been had he been wearing his seat belt......He
didn't think much of them either....

Well, there had to be one. You really reckon this makes seat belts a
Bad Thing? Or is it merely fuel for a pro-personal-choice agenda?



I am impressed, however with these formula I cars that can hit the rails at
175 MPH, fly end over end a dozen times, completely come apart at the seams
until there is nothing left of them but the cage containing the driver,
which, after he unbelts himself, he walks away from without a scratch....Why
can't they do that with the family sedan?

They do, to an extent. Crumple zones.

BTW, petrol IS $5 a gallon here in the UK. It's made no difference to
the pattern of car usage. The only thing that DID make a difference
was one week a few years back when an industrial dispute caused a
petrol famine. Somehow, everyone got most places they HAD to get. But
"convenience" trips were cut out, the roads were empty, and travel
became a pleasure. Even allowing for some necessary journeys being
postponed, there's obviously lots of scope for cutting down on car use
without life grinding to a halt.

"Philip Homburg" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
*: Cars are dangerous and expensive (at the least; breathing gasoline
fumes
can't be good for one). And one can buy a lot of camera equipment for the
price of a car.

However, often a car is the most convenient way to get all that gear to
where you need it. :-)

I can hire a cab for a day for many more days than I have days to go out
shooting on the money I save not having a car. (Not that I've ever done
that, since public transportation here is flipping amazing, but it's on my
list of things to try for rural locations.)

I could also legally rent a car, but that wouldn't be a good idea (I've
never driven in Japan, and only drove for a year in the US and converted my
US license to a Japanese one).

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

In article ,
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

Seriously, I don't understand why more people don't decide not to own cars.
The (quite rational*) decision not to own a car ought to be a possibility,
right?

I live in Philadelphia for that reason -- public transportation. But I
may end up leaving Philadelphia for a better job. The only places where
Americans can afford not to have cars are small towns with viable
downtowns and a handful of cities which have good enough public
transportation. Some employers (Comcast in Philadelphia for one) have
moved back into the cities (over a transportation interchange in
Comcast's case); a lot are still out where the trans doesn't reach.

The infrastructure of the US is auto-centric.

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 22:03:39 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

I am impressed, however with these formula I cars that can hit the rails at
175 MPH, fly end over end a dozen times, completely come apart at the seams
until there is nothing left of them but the cage containing the driver,
which, after he unbelts himself, he walks away from without a scratch....Why
can't they do that with the family sedan?

Because the people who ride in that sedan will not put up with being
made to wear a helmet and suit that tend to keep all the various
internal parts where they are supposed to, along with a 5-point
harness and HANS device.
Then add the cost for the car itself.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 22:52:31 -0500, Roger
wrote:

I also fly high performance airplanes. The interesting comparison is
insurance rates and vehicle value. The more you drive the higher your
rates due to exposure, but the more you fly the lower your rates due
to time building competency.

Well, sort of.
The more you drive, the more experience you get, which lowers your
rate; try comparing an 18-year old with a 40-year old, bith driving
since age 16, both driving the same number of miles per year in the
same market.
As for the pilot, the real danger is on the ground; while any flight
might be any number of hours, there's only two ground contacts:
takeoff and landing (or crashing). So, the more you fly (the more
hours), it's reasonable to assume the number of grounds contacts
remain at two per flight, but the hours will go up with more
experience.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 13:57:15 GMT, Rebecca Ore
wrote:

The infrastructure of the US is auto-centric.

Yeah. It's going to come as an even bigger shock to you guys. But
you'll cope, as we all will have to.