People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
#121
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:L%LAh.2766$B25.2285@news01.roc.ny...
> "Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:lXLAh.4149$E71.2334@trnddc04...
>
>>> Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind,
>>> clinically dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How
>>> do we get rid of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting
>>> chance? That would be tough because of:
>>
>> While too many drivers are drunk, the number of people who are in the
>> above catagories is rather small.
>
>
> Actually, wrong. Add together the various categories:
>
> - Elderly drivers with failed peripheral vision, driving while terrified.
Not legally blind.
> - Drunks (all day long - alcoholics often start early)
Small protion, maybe 5%.
> - People distracted by cell phones and other bullshit toys
> - People reading maps, newspaper, etc (yeah...newspapers - I've seen it.)
> - People with zero sense of the physics of cars, especially in adverse
> conditions.
> - People who never check their tire inflation
> - People who think red lights, yield signs and stop signs are for others
> - Tailgaters (almost all young women)
None of these people are too stupid to use a spoon. And obviously smart
enough to drive a car.
And many tailgater older and/or male.
> I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed, it's
> time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock. Parallel
> parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the snow? I think
> not.
If people are as stupid as you say, they would kill themselves (and everyone
else). While the death rate is too high, it is not nearly as high as your
figures would suggest.
All the best,
Jeff
#122
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
<SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171452408.323940.77550@p10g2000cwp.googlegro ups.com...
> Not so much because of the statement, but because they don't have any
> math to back-up said statement. Might as well say, "If I flap my arms
> real hard, I could fly." Yeah. Sure. If it WERE possible to build a
> 400MPG civic or Prius, Honda or Toyota or Ford would would already be
> doing it (and bragging about it on the television).
>
>
>
> There are limits the universe places on Energy-to-Motion conversion.
> You can't exceed those limits. That means NO civic hybrid or prius
> hybrid will ever get 400 mpg. As it stands now, both these hybrids
> are already operating at 40% efficiency. Even if you increased that
> to 60% (a miracle), you'd still only boost them from 50 to 60mpg.
>
> And if you're a wizard like Gandalf who can magically boost a Prius
> engine to 100%, such that you had a perfect 1-to-1 conversion w/o
> losses, that's still only 125mpg.
>
> In other words, "a 400mpg prius" is not only a bad idea.
> It violates the Laws of the universe.
> It's perpetual motion.
> Impossible.
>
> Now if you leave behind the "standard" car shape, and try something
> exotic life a Jetsons-car, then you might be able to do better.
> Volkswagen did exactly that a few years ago, with a 1-seat car, 8
> horsepower engine, and shaped like a cigar.
>
> But even then, they still only got 250 miles per gallon.
>
You are forgetting the important question - how fast is the vehicle going to
achieve better mileage.
The current generation of hybrids operates nowhere near 40% efficiency most
of the time and probably closer to 20% on the highway. The impressive
increase in economy around town is because they are margianlly more
efficient than conventional power trains, which operate at 0% efficiency
while waiting and a couple percent when moving on city streets. To be
technical, that is only the fuel efficiency toward overcoming losses; the
efficiency in moving the payload from one spot to another at the same
altitude is exactly zero - not hard to beat that! Even 100 mpg at 60 mph /
100 kph is attainable; niche turbodiesels like the Lupo 3L are getting
close.
400 mpg is mighty ambitious, though. I'd bet against seeing that in my
lifetime. A serial hybrid with a 200-300cc turbo'd diesel engine as the
power plant should have no problems reaching somewhere between 100 and 200
mpg below 40 mph. Since an effect of hybridization is to separate throttle
responsiveness from powerplant output, the acceleration is entirely a state
of technology question. A serial hybrid with a dead engine accelerates as
well as it does with the engine running - only the range is affected.
Hybrids are in their infancy now, scarcely as developed as the pre-Model T
automobiles were. The advantages of not using a 200 hp engine to move a few
passengers around town are scarcely beginning to be felt.
Mike
news:1171452408.323940.77550@p10g2000cwp.googlegro ups.com...
> Not so much because of the statement, but because they don't have any
> math to back-up said statement. Might as well say, "If I flap my arms
> real hard, I could fly." Yeah. Sure. If it WERE possible to build a
> 400MPG civic or Prius, Honda or Toyota or Ford would would already be
> doing it (and bragging about it on the television).
>
>
>
> There are limits the universe places on Energy-to-Motion conversion.
> You can't exceed those limits. That means NO civic hybrid or prius
> hybrid will ever get 400 mpg. As it stands now, both these hybrids
> are already operating at 40% efficiency. Even if you increased that
> to 60% (a miracle), you'd still only boost them from 50 to 60mpg.
>
> And if you're a wizard like Gandalf who can magically boost a Prius
> engine to 100%, such that you had a perfect 1-to-1 conversion w/o
> losses, that's still only 125mpg.
>
> In other words, "a 400mpg prius" is not only a bad idea.
> It violates the Laws of the universe.
> It's perpetual motion.
> Impossible.
>
> Now if you leave behind the "standard" car shape, and try something
> exotic life a Jetsons-car, then you might be able to do better.
> Volkswagen did exactly that a few years ago, with a 1-seat car, 8
> horsepower engine, and shaped like a cigar.
>
> But even then, they still only got 250 miles per gallon.
>
You are forgetting the important question - how fast is the vehicle going to
achieve better mileage.
The current generation of hybrids operates nowhere near 40% efficiency most
of the time and probably closer to 20% on the highway. The impressive
increase in economy around town is because they are margianlly more
efficient than conventional power trains, which operate at 0% efficiency
while waiting and a couple percent when moving on city streets. To be
technical, that is only the fuel efficiency toward overcoming losses; the
efficiency in moving the payload from one spot to another at the same
altitude is exactly zero - not hard to beat that! Even 100 mpg at 60 mph /
100 kph is attainable; niche turbodiesels like the Lupo 3L are getting
close.
400 mpg is mighty ambitious, though. I'd bet against seeing that in my
lifetime. A serial hybrid with a 200-300cc turbo'd diesel engine as the
power plant should have no problems reaching somewhere between 100 and 200
mpg below 40 mph. Since an effect of hybridization is to separate throttle
responsiveness from powerplant output, the acceleration is entirely a state
of technology question. A serial hybrid with a dead engine accelerates as
well as it does with the engine running - only the range is affected.
Hybrids are in their infancy now, scarcely as developed as the pre-Model T
automobiles were. The advantages of not using a 200 hp engine to move a few
passengers around town are scarcely beginning to be felt.
Mike
#123
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
<SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171452408.323940.77550@p10g2000cwp.googlegro ups.com...
> Not so much because of the statement, but because they don't have any
> math to back-up said statement. Might as well say, "If I flap my arms
> real hard, I could fly." Yeah. Sure. If it WERE possible to build a
> 400MPG civic or Prius, Honda or Toyota or Ford would would already be
> doing it (and bragging about it on the television).
>
>
>
> There are limits the universe places on Energy-to-Motion conversion.
> You can't exceed those limits. That means NO civic hybrid or prius
> hybrid will ever get 400 mpg. As it stands now, both these hybrids
> are already operating at 40% efficiency. Even if you increased that
> to 60% (a miracle), you'd still only boost them from 50 to 60mpg.
>
> And if you're a wizard like Gandalf who can magically boost a Prius
> engine to 100%, such that you had a perfect 1-to-1 conversion w/o
> losses, that's still only 125mpg.
>
> In other words, "a 400mpg prius" is not only a bad idea.
> It violates the Laws of the universe.
> It's perpetual motion.
> Impossible.
>
> Now if you leave behind the "standard" car shape, and try something
> exotic life a Jetsons-car, then you might be able to do better.
> Volkswagen did exactly that a few years ago, with a 1-seat car, 8
> horsepower engine, and shaped like a cigar.
>
> But even then, they still only got 250 miles per gallon.
>
You are forgetting the important question - how fast is the vehicle going to
achieve better mileage.
The current generation of hybrids operates nowhere near 40% efficiency most
of the time and probably closer to 20% on the highway. The impressive
increase in economy around town is because they are margianlly more
efficient than conventional power trains, which operate at 0% efficiency
while waiting and a couple percent when moving on city streets. To be
technical, that is only the fuel efficiency toward overcoming losses; the
efficiency in moving the payload from one spot to another at the same
altitude is exactly zero - not hard to beat that! Even 100 mpg at 60 mph /
100 kph is attainable; niche turbodiesels like the Lupo 3L are getting
close.
400 mpg is mighty ambitious, though. I'd bet against seeing that in my
lifetime. A serial hybrid with a 200-300cc turbo'd diesel engine as the
power plant should have no problems reaching somewhere between 100 and 200
mpg below 40 mph. Since an effect of hybridization is to separate throttle
responsiveness from powerplant output, the acceleration is entirely a state
of technology question. A serial hybrid with a dead engine accelerates as
well as it does with the engine running - only the range is affected.
Hybrids are in their infancy now, scarcely as developed as the pre-Model T
automobiles were. The advantages of not using a 200 hp engine to move a few
passengers around town are scarcely beginning to be felt.
Mike
news:1171452408.323940.77550@p10g2000cwp.googlegro ups.com...
> Not so much because of the statement, but because they don't have any
> math to back-up said statement. Might as well say, "If I flap my arms
> real hard, I could fly." Yeah. Sure. If it WERE possible to build a
> 400MPG civic or Prius, Honda or Toyota or Ford would would already be
> doing it (and bragging about it on the television).
>
>
>
> There are limits the universe places on Energy-to-Motion conversion.
> You can't exceed those limits. That means NO civic hybrid or prius
> hybrid will ever get 400 mpg. As it stands now, both these hybrids
> are already operating at 40% efficiency. Even if you increased that
> to 60% (a miracle), you'd still only boost them from 50 to 60mpg.
>
> And if you're a wizard like Gandalf who can magically boost a Prius
> engine to 100%, such that you had a perfect 1-to-1 conversion w/o
> losses, that's still only 125mpg.
>
> In other words, "a 400mpg prius" is not only a bad idea.
> It violates the Laws of the universe.
> It's perpetual motion.
> Impossible.
>
> Now if you leave behind the "standard" car shape, and try something
> exotic life a Jetsons-car, then you might be able to do better.
> Volkswagen did exactly that a few years ago, with a 1-seat car, 8
> horsepower engine, and shaped like a cigar.
>
> But even then, they still only got 250 miles per gallon.
>
You are forgetting the important question - how fast is the vehicle going to
achieve better mileage.
The current generation of hybrids operates nowhere near 40% efficiency most
of the time and probably closer to 20% on the highway. The impressive
increase in economy around town is because they are margianlly more
efficient than conventional power trains, which operate at 0% efficiency
while waiting and a couple percent when moving on city streets. To be
technical, that is only the fuel efficiency toward overcoming losses; the
efficiency in moving the payload from one spot to another at the same
altitude is exactly zero - not hard to beat that! Even 100 mpg at 60 mph /
100 kph is attainable; niche turbodiesels like the Lupo 3L are getting
close.
400 mpg is mighty ambitious, though. I'd bet against seeing that in my
lifetime. A serial hybrid with a 200-300cc turbo'd diesel engine as the
power plant should have no problems reaching somewhere between 100 and 200
mpg below 40 mph. Since an effect of hybridization is to separate throttle
responsiveness from powerplant output, the acceleration is entirely a state
of technology question. A serial hybrid with a dead engine accelerates as
well as it does with the engine running - only the range is affected.
Hybrids are in their infancy now, scarcely as developed as the pre-Model T
automobiles were. The advantages of not using a 200 hp engine to move a few
passengers around town are scarcely beginning to be felt.
Mike
#124
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
<SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171452408.323940.77550@p10g2000cwp.googlegro ups.com...
> Not so much because of the statement, but because they don't have any
> math to back-up said statement. Might as well say, "If I flap my arms
> real hard, I could fly." Yeah. Sure. If it WERE possible to build a
> 400MPG civic or Prius, Honda or Toyota or Ford would would already be
> doing it (and bragging about it on the television).
>
>
>
> There are limits the universe places on Energy-to-Motion conversion.
> You can't exceed those limits. That means NO civic hybrid or prius
> hybrid will ever get 400 mpg. As it stands now, both these hybrids
> are already operating at 40% efficiency. Even if you increased that
> to 60% (a miracle), you'd still only boost them from 50 to 60mpg.
>
> And if you're a wizard like Gandalf who can magically boost a Prius
> engine to 100%, such that you had a perfect 1-to-1 conversion w/o
> losses, that's still only 125mpg.
>
> In other words, "a 400mpg prius" is not only a bad idea.
> It violates the Laws of the universe.
> It's perpetual motion.
> Impossible.
>
> Now if you leave behind the "standard" car shape, and try something
> exotic life a Jetsons-car, then you might be able to do better.
> Volkswagen did exactly that a few years ago, with a 1-seat car, 8
> horsepower engine, and shaped like a cigar.
>
> But even then, they still only got 250 miles per gallon.
>
You are forgetting the important question - how fast is the vehicle going to
achieve better mileage.
The current generation of hybrids operates nowhere near 40% efficiency most
of the time and probably closer to 20% on the highway. The impressive
increase in economy around town is because they are margianlly more
efficient than conventional power trains, which operate at 0% efficiency
while waiting and a couple percent when moving on city streets. To be
technical, that is only the fuel efficiency toward overcoming losses; the
efficiency in moving the payload from one spot to another at the same
altitude is exactly zero - not hard to beat that! Even 100 mpg at 60 mph /
100 kph is attainable; niche turbodiesels like the Lupo 3L are getting
close.
400 mpg is mighty ambitious, though. I'd bet against seeing that in my
lifetime. A serial hybrid with a 200-300cc turbo'd diesel engine as the
power plant should have no problems reaching somewhere between 100 and 200
mpg below 40 mph. Since an effect of hybridization is to separate throttle
responsiveness from powerplant output, the acceleration is entirely a state
of technology question. A serial hybrid with a dead engine accelerates as
well as it does with the engine running - only the range is affected.
Hybrids are in their infancy now, scarcely as developed as the pre-Model T
automobiles were. The advantages of not using a 200 hp engine to move a few
passengers around town are scarcely beginning to be felt.
Mike
news:1171452408.323940.77550@p10g2000cwp.googlegro ups.com...
> Not so much because of the statement, but because they don't have any
> math to back-up said statement. Might as well say, "If I flap my arms
> real hard, I could fly." Yeah. Sure. If it WERE possible to build a
> 400MPG civic or Prius, Honda or Toyota or Ford would would already be
> doing it (and bragging about it on the television).
>
>
>
> There are limits the universe places on Energy-to-Motion conversion.
> You can't exceed those limits. That means NO civic hybrid or prius
> hybrid will ever get 400 mpg. As it stands now, both these hybrids
> are already operating at 40% efficiency. Even if you increased that
> to 60% (a miracle), you'd still only boost them from 50 to 60mpg.
>
> And if you're a wizard like Gandalf who can magically boost a Prius
> engine to 100%, such that you had a perfect 1-to-1 conversion w/o
> losses, that's still only 125mpg.
>
> In other words, "a 400mpg prius" is not only a bad idea.
> It violates the Laws of the universe.
> It's perpetual motion.
> Impossible.
>
> Now if you leave behind the "standard" car shape, and try something
> exotic life a Jetsons-car, then you might be able to do better.
> Volkswagen did exactly that a few years ago, with a 1-seat car, 8
> horsepower engine, and shaped like a cigar.
>
> But even then, they still only got 250 miles per gallon.
>
You are forgetting the important question - how fast is the vehicle going to
achieve better mileage.
The current generation of hybrids operates nowhere near 40% efficiency most
of the time and probably closer to 20% on the highway. The impressive
increase in economy around town is because they are margianlly more
efficient than conventional power trains, which operate at 0% efficiency
while waiting and a couple percent when moving on city streets. To be
technical, that is only the fuel efficiency toward overcoming losses; the
efficiency in moving the payload from one spot to another at the same
altitude is exactly zero - not hard to beat that! Even 100 mpg at 60 mph /
100 kph is attainable; niche turbodiesels like the Lupo 3L are getting
close.
400 mpg is mighty ambitious, though. I'd bet against seeing that in my
lifetime. A serial hybrid with a 200-300cc turbo'd diesel engine as the
power plant should have no problems reaching somewhere between 100 and 200
mpg below 40 mph. Since an effect of hybridization is to separate throttle
responsiveness from powerplant output, the acceleration is entirely a state
of technology question. A serial hybrid with a dead engine accelerates as
well as it does with the engine running - only the range is affected.
Hybrids are in their infancy now, scarcely as developed as the pre-Model T
automobiles were. The advantages of not using a 200 hp engine to move a few
passengers around town are scarcely beginning to be felt.
Mike
#125
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
<SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171452408.323940.77550@p10g2000cwp.googlegro ups.com...
> Not so much because of the statement, but because they don't have any
> math to back-up said statement. Might as well say, "If I flap my arms
> real hard, I could fly." Yeah. Sure. If it WERE possible to build a
> 400MPG civic or Prius, Honda or Toyota or Ford would would already be
> doing it (and bragging about it on the television).
>
>
>
> There are limits the universe places on Energy-to-Motion conversion.
> You can't exceed those limits. That means NO civic hybrid or prius
> hybrid will ever get 400 mpg. As it stands now, both these hybrids
> are already operating at 40% efficiency. Even if you increased that
> to 60% (a miracle), you'd still only boost them from 50 to 60mpg.
>
> And if you're a wizard like Gandalf who can magically boost a Prius
> engine to 100%, such that you had a perfect 1-to-1 conversion w/o
> losses, that's still only 125mpg.
>
> In other words, "a 400mpg prius" is not only a bad idea.
> It violates the Laws of the universe.
> It's perpetual motion.
> Impossible.
>
> Now if you leave behind the "standard" car shape, and try something
> exotic life a Jetsons-car, then you might be able to do better.
> Volkswagen did exactly that a few years ago, with a 1-seat car, 8
> horsepower engine, and shaped like a cigar.
>
> But even then, they still only got 250 miles per gallon.
>
You are forgetting the important question - how fast is the vehicle going to
achieve better mileage.
The current generation of hybrids operates nowhere near 40% efficiency most
of the time and probably closer to 20% on the highway. The impressive
increase in economy around town is because they are margianlly more
efficient than conventional power trains, which operate at 0% efficiency
while waiting and a couple percent when moving on city streets. To be
technical, that is only the fuel efficiency toward overcoming losses; the
efficiency in moving the payload from one spot to another at the same
altitude is exactly zero - not hard to beat that! Even 100 mpg at 60 mph /
100 kph is attainable; niche turbodiesels like the Lupo 3L are getting
close.
400 mpg is mighty ambitious, though. I'd bet against seeing that in my
lifetime. A serial hybrid with a 200-300cc turbo'd diesel engine as the
power plant should have no problems reaching somewhere between 100 and 200
mpg below 40 mph. Since an effect of hybridization is to separate throttle
responsiveness from powerplant output, the acceleration is entirely a state
of technology question. A serial hybrid with a dead engine accelerates as
well as it does with the engine running - only the range is affected.
Hybrids are in their infancy now, scarcely as developed as the pre-Model T
automobiles were. The advantages of not using a 200 hp engine to move a few
passengers around town are scarcely beginning to be felt.
Mike
news:1171452408.323940.77550@p10g2000cwp.googlegro ups.com...
> Not so much because of the statement, but because they don't have any
> math to back-up said statement. Might as well say, "If I flap my arms
> real hard, I could fly." Yeah. Sure. If it WERE possible to build a
> 400MPG civic or Prius, Honda or Toyota or Ford would would already be
> doing it (and bragging about it on the television).
>
>
>
> There are limits the universe places on Energy-to-Motion conversion.
> You can't exceed those limits. That means NO civic hybrid or prius
> hybrid will ever get 400 mpg. As it stands now, both these hybrids
> are already operating at 40% efficiency. Even if you increased that
> to 60% (a miracle), you'd still only boost them from 50 to 60mpg.
>
> And if you're a wizard like Gandalf who can magically boost a Prius
> engine to 100%, such that you had a perfect 1-to-1 conversion w/o
> losses, that's still only 125mpg.
>
> In other words, "a 400mpg prius" is not only a bad idea.
> It violates the Laws of the universe.
> It's perpetual motion.
> Impossible.
>
> Now if you leave behind the "standard" car shape, and try something
> exotic life a Jetsons-car, then you might be able to do better.
> Volkswagen did exactly that a few years ago, with a 1-seat car, 8
> horsepower engine, and shaped like a cigar.
>
> But even then, they still only got 250 miles per gallon.
>
You are forgetting the important question - how fast is the vehicle going to
achieve better mileage.
The current generation of hybrids operates nowhere near 40% efficiency most
of the time and probably closer to 20% on the highway. The impressive
increase in economy around town is because they are margianlly more
efficient than conventional power trains, which operate at 0% efficiency
while waiting and a couple percent when moving on city streets. To be
technical, that is only the fuel efficiency toward overcoming losses; the
efficiency in moving the payload from one spot to another at the same
altitude is exactly zero - not hard to beat that! Even 100 mpg at 60 mph /
100 kph is attainable; niche turbodiesels like the Lupo 3L are getting
close.
400 mpg is mighty ambitious, though. I'd bet against seeing that in my
lifetime. A serial hybrid with a 200-300cc turbo'd diesel engine as the
power plant should have no problems reaching somewhere between 100 and 200
mpg below 40 mph. Since an effect of hybridization is to separate throttle
responsiveness from powerplant output, the acceleration is entirely a state
of technology question. A serial hybrid with a dead engine accelerates as
well as it does with the engine running - only the range is affected.
Hybrids are in their infancy now, scarcely as developed as the pre-Model T
automobiles were. The advantages of not using a 200 hp engine to move a few
passengers around town are scarcely beginning to be felt.
Mike
#126
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:TbMAh.4154$E71.3327@trnddc04...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:L%LAh.2766$B25.2285@news01.roc.ny...
>> "Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:lXLAh.4149$E71.2334@trnddc04...
>>
>>>> Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind,
>>>> clinically dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How
>>>> do we get rid of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting
>>>> chance? That would be tough because of:
>>>
>>> While too many drivers are drunk, the number of people who are in the
>>> above catagories is rather small.
>>
>>
>> Actually, wrong. Add together the various categories:
>>
>> - Elderly drivers with failed peripheral vision, driving while terrified.
>
> Not legally blind.
>
>> - Drunks (all day long - alcoholics often start early)
>
> Small protion, maybe 5%.
>> - People distracted by cell phones and other bullshit toys
>> - People reading maps, newspaper, etc (yeah...newspapers - I've seen it.)
>> - People with zero sense of the physics of cars, especially in adverse
>> conditions.
>> - People who never check their tire inflation
>> - People who think red lights, yield signs and stop signs are for others
>> - Tailgaters (almost all young women)
>
> None of these people are too stupid to use a spoon. And obviously smart
> enough to drive a car.
Smart enough to pass a driving test which checks about 2% of the skills
needed to drive a car.
> And many tailgater older and/or male.
Pay close attention to the age & gender of the next 100 people who tailgate
you, even if it means pulling to the side of local streets so you can look
in their cars. The vast majority are young women. I don't know why.
>> I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed, it's
>> time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock. Parallel
>> parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the snow? I think
>> not.
>
> If people are as stupid as you say, they would kill themselves (and
> everyone else). While the death rate is too high, it is not nearly as high
> as your figures would suggest.
>
> All the best,
>
> Jeff
With all due respect, you are phenomenally wrong in your observations. I'd
still let you borrow my lawnmower if you were my neighbor, but you need to
be more observant of what really goes on around you on the roads.
news:TbMAh.4154$E71.3327@trnddc04...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:L%LAh.2766$B25.2285@news01.roc.ny...
>> "Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:lXLAh.4149$E71.2334@trnddc04...
>>
>>>> Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind,
>>>> clinically dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How
>>>> do we get rid of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting
>>>> chance? That would be tough because of:
>>>
>>> While too many drivers are drunk, the number of people who are in the
>>> above catagories is rather small.
>>
>>
>> Actually, wrong. Add together the various categories:
>>
>> - Elderly drivers with failed peripheral vision, driving while terrified.
>
> Not legally blind.
>
>> - Drunks (all day long - alcoholics often start early)
>
> Small protion, maybe 5%.
>> - People distracted by cell phones and other bullshit toys
>> - People reading maps, newspaper, etc (yeah...newspapers - I've seen it.)
>> - People with zero sense of the physics of cars, especially in adverse
>> conditions.
>> - People who never check their tire inflation
>> - People who think red lights, yield signs and stop signs are for others
>> - Tailgaters (almost all young women)
>
> None of these people are too stupid to use a spoon. And obviously smart
> enough to drive a car.
Smart enough to pass a driving test which checks about 2% of the skills
needed to drive a car.
> And many tailgater older and/or male.
Pay close attention to the age & gender of the next 100 people who tailgate
you, even if it means pulling to the side of local streets so you can look
in their cars. The vast majority are young women. I don't know why.
>> I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed, it's
>> time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock. Parallel
>> parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the snow? I think
>> not.
>
> If people are as stupid as you say, they would kill themselves (and
> everyone else). While the death rate is too high, it is not nearly as high
> as your figures would suggest.
>
> All the best,
>
> Jeff
With all due respect, you are phenomenally wrong in your observations. I'd
still let you borrow my lawnmower if you were my neighbor, but you need to
be more observant of what really goes on around you on the roads.
#127
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:TbMAh.4154$E71.3327@trnddc04...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:L%LAh.2766$B25.2285@news01.roc.ny...
>> "Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:lXLAh.4149$E71.2334@trnddc04...
>>
>>>> Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind,
>>>> clinically dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How
>>>> do we get rid of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting
>>>> chance? That would be tough because of:
>>>
>>> While too many drivers are drunk, the number of people who are in the
>>> above catagories is rather small.
>>
>>
>> Actually, wrong. Add together the various categories:
>>
>> - Elderly drivers with failed peripheral vision, driving while terrified.
>
> Not legally blind.
>
>> - Drunks (all day long - alcoholics often start early)
>
> Small protion, maybe 5%.
>> - People distracted by cell phones and other bullshit toys
>> - People reading maps, newspaper, etc (yeah...newspapers - I've seen it.)
>> - People with zero sense of the physics of cars, especially in adverse
>> conditions.
>> - People who never check their tire inflation
>> - People who think red lights, yield signs and stop signs are for others
>> - Tailgaters (almost all young women)
>
> None of these people are too stupid to use a spoon. And obviously smart
> enough to drive a car.
Smart enough to pass a driving test which checks about 2% of the skills
needed to drive a car.
> And many tailgater older and/or male.
Pay close attention to the age & gender of the next 100 people who tailgate
you, even if it means pulling to the side of local streets so you can look
in their cars. The vast majority are young women. I don't know why.
>> I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed, it's
>> time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock. Parallel
>> parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the snow? I think
>> not.
>
> If people are as stupid as you say, they would kill themselves (and
> everyone else). While the death rate is too high, it is not nearly as high
> as your figures would suggest.
>
> All the best,
>
> Jeff
With all due respect, you are phenomenally wrong in your observations. I'd
still let you borrow my lawnmower if you were my neighbor, but you need to
be more observant of what really goes on around you on the roads.
news:TbMAh.4154$E71.3327@trnddc04...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:L%LAh.2766$B25.2285@news01.roc.ny...
>> "Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:lXLAh.4149$E71.2334@trnddc04...
>>
>>>> Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind,
>>>> clinically dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How
>>>> do we get rid of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting
>>>> chance? That would be tough because of:
>>>
>>> While too many drivers are drunk, the number of people who are in the
>>> above catagories is rather small.
>>
>>
>> Actually, wrong. Add together the various categories:
>>
>> - Elderly drivers with failed peripheral vision, driving while terrified.
>
> Not legally blind.
>
>> - Drunks (all day long - alcoholics often start early)
>
> Small protion, maybe 5%.
>> - People distracted by cell phones and other bullshit toys
>> - People reading maps, newspaper, etc (yeah...newspapers - I've seen it.)
>> - People with zero sense of the physics of cars, especially in adverse
>> conditions.
>> - People who never check their tire inflation
>> - People who think red lights, yield signs and stop signs are for others
>> - Tailgaters (almost all young women)
>
> None of these people are too stupid to use a spoon. And obviously smart
> enough to drive a car.
Smart enough to pass a driving test which checks about 2% of the skills
needed to drive a car.
> And many tailgater older and/or male.
Pay close attention to the age & gender of the next 100 people who tailgate
you, even if it means pulling to the side of local streets so you can look
in their cars. The vast majority are young women. I don't know why.
>> I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed, it's
>> time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock. Parallel
>> parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the snow? I think
>> not.
>
> If people are as stupid as you say, they would kill themselves (and
> everyone else). While the death rate is too high, it is not nearly as high
> as your figures would suggest.
>
> All the best,
>
> Jeff
With all due respect, you are phenomenally wrong in your observations. I'd
still let you borrow my lawnmower if you were my neighbor, but you need to
be more observant of what really goes on around you on the roads.
#128
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:TbMAh.4154$E71.3327@trnddc04...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:L%LAh.2766$B25.2285@news01.roc.ny...
>> "Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:lXLAh.4149$E71.2334@trnddc04...
>>
>>>> Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind,
>>>> clinically dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How
>>>> do we get rid of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting
>>>> chance? That would be tough because of:
>>>
>>> While too many drivers are drunk, the number of people who are in the
>>> above catagories is rather small.
>>
>>
>> Actually, wrong. Add together the various categories:
>>
>> - Elderly drivers with failed peripheral vision, driving while terrified.
>
> Not legally blind.
>
>> - Drunks (all day long - alcoholics often start early)
>
> Small protion, maybe 5%.
>> - People distracted by cell phones and other bullshit toys
>> - People reading maps, newspaper, etc (yeah...newspapers - I've seen it.)
>> - People with zero sense of the physics of cars, especially in adverse
>> conditions.
>> - People who never check their tire inflation
>> - People who think red lights, yield signs and stop signs are for others
>> - Tailgaters (almost all young women)
>
> None of these people are too stupid to use a spoon. And obviously smart
> enough to drive a car.
Smart enough to pass a driving test which checks about 2% of the skills
needed to drive a car.
> And many tailgater older and/or male.
Pay close attention to the age & gender of the next 100 people who tailgate
you, even if it means pulling to the side of local streets so you can look
in their cars. The vast majority are young women. I don't know why.
>> I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed, it's
>> time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock. Parallel
>> parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the snow? I think
>> not.
>
> If people are as stupid as you say, they would kill themselves (and
> everyone else). While the death rate is too high, it is not nearly as high
> as your figures would suggest.
>
> All the best,
>
> Jeff
With all due respect, you are phenomenally wrong in your observations. I'd
still let you borrow my lawnmower if you were my neighbor, but you need to
be more observant of what really goes on around you on the roads.
news:TbMAh.4154$E71.3327@trnddc04...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:L%LAh.2766$B25.2285@news01.roc.ny...
>> "Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:lXLAh.4149$E71.2334@trnddc04...
>>
>>>> Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind,
>>>> clinically dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How
>>>> do we get rid of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting
>>>> chance? That would be tough because of:
>>>
>>> While too many drivers are drunk, the number of people who are in the
>>> above catagories is rather small.
>>
>>
>> Actually, wrong. Add together the various categories:
>>
>> - Elderly drivers with failed peripheral vision, driving while terrified.
>
> Not legally blind.
>
>> - Drunks (all day long - alcoholics often start early)
>
> Small protion, maybe 5%.
>> - People distracted by cell phones and other bullshit toys
>> - People reading maps, newspaper, etc (yeah...newspapers - I've seen it.)
>> - People with zero sense of the physics of cars, especially in adverse
>> conditions.
>> - People who never check their tire inflation
>> - People who think red lights, yield signs and stop signs are for others
>> - Tailgaters (almost all young women)
>
> None of these people are too stupid to use a spoon. And obviously smart
> enough to drive a car.
Smart enough to pass a driving test which checks about 2% of the skills
needed to drive a car.
> And many tailgater older and/or male.
Pay close attention to the age & gender of the next 100 people who tailgate
you, even if it means pulling to the side of local streets so you can look
in their cars. The vast majority are young women. I don't know why.
>> I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed, it's
>> time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock. Parallel
>> parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the snow? I think
>> not.
>
> If people are as stupid as you say, they would kill themselves (and
> everyone else). While the death rate is too high, it is not nearly as high
> as your figures would suggest.
>
> All the best,
>
> Jeff
With all due respect, you are phenomenally wrong in your observations. I'd
still let you borrow my lawnmower if you were my neighbor, but you need to
be more observant of what really goes on around you on the roads.
#129
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:TbMAh.4154$E71.3327@trnddc04...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:L%LAh.2766$B25.2285@news01.roc.ny...
>> "Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:lXLAh.4149$E71.2334@trnddc04...
>>
>>>> Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind,
>>>> clinically dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How
>>>> do we get rid of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting
>>>> chance? That would be tough because of:
>>>
>>> While too many drivers are drunk, the number of people who are in the
>>> above catagories is rather small.
>>
>>
>> Actually, wrong. Add together the various categories:
>>
>> - Elderly drivers with failed peripheral vision, driving while terrified.
>
> Not legally blind.
>
>> - Drunks (all day long - alcoholics often start early)
>
> Small protion, maybe 5%.
>> - People distracted by cell phones and other bullshit toys
>> - People reading maps, newspaper, etc (yeah...newspapers - I've seen it.)
>> - People with zero sense of the physics of cars, especially in adverse
>> conditions.
>> - People who never check their tire inflation
>> - People who think red lights, yield signs and stop signs are for others
>> - Tailgaters (almost all young women)
>
> None of these people are too stupid to use a spoon. And obviously smart
> enough to drive a car.
Smart enough to pass a driving test which checks about 2% of the skills
needed to drive a car.
> And many tailgater older and/or male.
Pay close attention to the age & gender of the next 100 people who tailgate
you, even if it means pulling to the side of local streets so you can look
in their cars. The vast majority are young women. I don't know why.
>> I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed, it's
>> time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock. Parallel
>> parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the snow? I think
>> not.
>
> If people are as stupid as you say, they would kill themselves (and
> everyone else). While the death rate is too high, it is not nearly as high
> as your figures would suggest.
>
> All the best,
>
> Jeff
With all due respect, you are phenomenally wrong in your observations. I'd
still let you borrow my lawnmower if you were my neighbor, but you need to
be more observant of what really goes on around you on the roads.
news:TbMAh.4154$E71.3327@trnddc04...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:L%LAh.2766$B25.2285@news01.roc.ny...
>> "Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:lXLAh.4149$E71.2334@trnddc04...
>>
>>>> Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind,
>>>> clinically dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How
>>>> do we get rid of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting
>>>> chance? That would be tough because of:
>>>
>>> While too many drivers are drunk, the number of people who are in the
>>> above catagories is rather small.
>>
>>
>> Actually, wrong. Add together the various categories:
>>
>> - Elderly drivers with failed peripheral vision, driving while terrified.
>
> Not legally blind.
>
>> - Drunks (all day long - alcoholics often start early)
>
> Small protion, maybe 5%.
>> - People distracted by cell phones and other bullshit toys
>> - People reading maps, newspaper, etc (yeah...newspapers - I've seen it.)
>> - People with zero sense of the physics of cars, especially in adverse
>> conditions.
>> - People who never check their tire inflation
>> - People who think red lights, yield signs and stop signs are for others
>> - Tailgaters (almost all young women)
>
> None of these people are too stupid to use a spoon. And obviously smart
> enough to drive a car.
Smart enough to pass a driving test which checks about 2% of the skills
needed to drive a car.
> And many tailgater older and/or male.
Pay close attention to the age & gender of the next 100 people who tailgate
you, even if it means pulling to the side of local streets so you can look
in their cars. The vast majority are young women. I don't know why.
>> I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed, it's
>> time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock. Parallel
>> parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the snow? I think
>> not.
>
> If people are as stupid as you say, they would kill themselves (and
> everyone else). While the death rate is too high, it is not nearly as high
> as your figures would suggest.
>
> All the best,
>
> Jeff
With all due respect, you are phenomenally wrong in your observations. I'd
still let you borrow my lawnmower if you were my neighbor, but you need to
be more observant of what really goes on around you on the roads.
#130
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8pMAh.2768$B25.588@news01.roc.ny...
<...>
>> None of these people are too stupid to use a spoon. And obviously smart
>> enough to drive a car.
>
>
> Smart enough to pass a driving test which checks about 2% of the skills
> needed to drive a car.
Don't complain here. Complain to your state representatives and ask that
they change the test.
>> And many tailgater older and/or male.
>
> Pay close attention to the age & gender of the next 100 people who
> tailgate you, even if it means pulling to the side of local streets so you
> can look in their cars. The vast majority are young women. I don't know
> why.
You appear to be making the false assumption that I don't see who is
tailgating other drivers or myself.
>
>>> I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed, it's
>>> time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock. Parallel
>>> parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the snow? I
>>> think not.
>>
>> If people are as stupid as you say, they would kill themselves (and
>> everyone else). While the death rate is too high, it is not nearly as
>> high as your figures would suggest.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Jeff
>
>
> With all due respect, you are phenomenally wrong in your observations. I'd
> still let you borrow my lawnmower if you were my neighbor, but you need to
> be more observant of what really goes on around you on the roads.
Well, we will have to disagree about that. I do watch what goes on.
Jeff
#131
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8pMAh.2768$B25.588@news01.roc.ny...
<...>
>> None of these people are too stupid to use a spoon. And obviously smart
>> enough to drive a car.
>
>
> Smart enough to pass a driving test which checks about 2% of the skills
> needed to drive a car.
Don't complain here. Complain to your state representatives and ask that
they change the test.
>> And many tailgater older and/or male.
>
> Pay close attention to the age & gender of the next 100 people who
> tailgate you, even if it means pulling to the side of local streets so you
> can look in their cars. The vast majority are young women. I don't know
> why.
You appear to be making the false assumption that I don't see who is
tailgating other drivers or myself.
>
>>> I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed, it's
>>> time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock. Parallel
>>> parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the snow? I
>>> think not.
>>
>> If people are as stupid as you say, they would kill themselves (and
>> everyone else). While the death rate is too high, it is not nearly as
>> high as your figures would suggest.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Jeff
>
>
> With all due respect, you are phenomenally wrong in your observations. I'd
> still let you borrow my lawnmower if you were my neighbor, but you need to
> be more observant of what really goes on around you on the roads.
Well, we will have to disagree about that. I do watch what goes on.
Jeff
#132
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8pMAh.2768$B25.588@news01.roc.ny...
<...>
>> None of these people are too stupid to use a spoon. And obviously smart
>> enough to drive a car.
>
>
> Smart enough to pass a driving test which checks about 2% of the skills
> needed to drive a car.
Don't complain here. Complain to your state representatives and ask that
they change the test.
>> And many tailgater older and/or male.
>
> Pay close attention to the age & gender of the next 100 people who
> tailgate you, even if it means pulling to the side of local streets so you
> can look in their cars. The vast majority are young women. I don't know
> why.
You appear to be making the false assumption that I don't see who is
tailgating other drivers or myself.
>
>>> I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed, it's
>>> time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock. Parallel
>>> parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the snow? I
>>> think not.
>>
>> If people are as stupid as you say, they would kill themselves (and
>> everyone else). While the death rate is too high, it is not nearly as
>> high as your figures would suggest.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Jeff
>
>
> With all due respect, you are phenomenally wrong in your observations. I'd
> still let you borrow my lawnmower if you were my neighbor, but you need to
> be more observant of what really goes on around you on the roads.
Well, we will have to disagree about that. I do watch what goes on.
Jeff
#133
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8pMAh.2768$B25.588@news01.roc.ny...
<...>
>> None of these people are too stupid to use a spoon. And obviously smart
>> enough to drive a car.
>
>
> Smart enough to pass a driving test which checks about 2% of the skills
> needed to drive a car.
Don't complain here. Complain to your state representatives and ask that
they change the test.
>> And many tailgater older and/or male.
>
> Pay close attention to the age & gender of the next 100 people who
> tailgate you, even if it means pulling to the side of local streets so you
> can look in their cars. The vast majority are young women. I don't know
> why.
You appear to be making the false assumption that I don't see who is
tailgating other drivers or myself.
>
>>> I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed, it's
>>> time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock. Parallel
>>> parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the snow? I
>>> think not.
>>
>> If people are as stupid as you say, they would kill themselves (and
>> everyone else). While the death rate is too high, it is not nearly as
>> high as your figures would suggest.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Jeff
>
>
> With all due respect, you are phenomenally wrong in your observations. I'd
> still let you borrow my lawnmower if you were my neighbor, but you need to
> be more observant of what really goes on around you on the roads.
Well, we will have to disagree about that. I do watch what goes on.
Jeff
#134
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1tMAh.4159$E71.1274@trnddc04...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8pMAh.2768$B25.588@news01.roc.ny...
> <...>
>
>>> None of these people are too stupid to use a spoon. And obviously smart
>>> enough to drive a car.
>>
>>
>> Smart enough to pass a driving test which checks about 2% of the skills
>> needed to drive a car.
>
> Don't complain here. Complain to your state representatives and ask that
> they change the test.
My son almost didn't pass my test, but because he is the NEXT highway god
(after I'm gone), I gave him lots of extra attention. Nobody else would pass
my test.
>>> And many tailgater older and/or male.
>>
>> Pay close attention to the age & gender of the next 100 people who
>> tailgate you, even if it means pulling to the side of local streets so
>> you can look in their cars. The vast majority are young women. I don't
>> know why.
>
> You appear to be making the false assumption that I don't see who is
> tailgating other drivers or myself.
Logic bomb. If you were paying attention, you'd see that I was correct.
Therefore, you are not paying attention. I don't like the gender-heavy idea
either, but it *is* factual.
>>>> I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed,
>>>> it's time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock.
>>>> Parallel parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the
>>>> snow? I think not.
>>>
>>> If people are as stupid as you say, they would kill themselves (and
>>> everyone else). While the death rate is too high, it is not nearly as
>>> high as your figures would suggest.
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> With all due respect, you are phenomenally wrong in your observations.
>> I'd still let you borrow my lawnmower if you were my neighbor, but you
>> need to be more observant of what really goes on around you on the roads.
>
> Well, we will have to disagree about that. I do watch what goes on.
Don't start with me, Jeff. I have 3 feet of snow in my driveway and I am
not in the mood for nonsense. :-)
news:1tMAh.4159$E71.1274@trnddc04...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8pMAh.2768$B25.588@news01.roc.ny...
> <...>
>
>>> None of these people are too stupid to use a spoon. And obviously smart
>>> enough to drive a car.
>>
>>
>> Smart enough to pass a driving test which checks about 2% of the skills
>> needed to drive a car.
>
> Don't complain here. Complain to your state representatives and ask that
> they change the test.
My son almost didn't pass my test, but because he is the NEXT highway god
(after I'm gone), I gave him lots of extra attention. Nobody else would pass
my test.
>>> And many tailgater older and/or male.
>>
>> Pay close attention to the age & gender of the next 100 people who
>> tailgate you, even if it means pulling to the side of local streets so
>> you can look in their cars. The vast majority are young women. I don't
>> know why.
>
> You appear to be making the false assumption that I don't see who is
> tailgating other drivers or myself.
Logic bomb. If you were paying attention, you'd see that I was correct.
Therefore, you are not paying attention. I don't like the gender-heavy idea
either, but it *is* factual.
>>>> I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed,
>>>> it's time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock.
>>>> Parallel parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the
>>>> snow? I think not.
>>>
>>> If people are as stupid as you say, they would kill themselves (and
>>> everyone else). While the death rate is too high, it is not nearly as
>>> high as your figures would suggest.
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> With all due respect, you are phenomenally wrong in your observations.
>> I'd still let you borrow my lawnmower if you were my neighbor, but you
>> need to be more observant of what really goes on around you on the roads.
>
> Well, we will have to disagree about that. I do watch what goes on.
Don't start with me, Jeff. I have 3 feet of snow in my driveway and I am
not in the mood for nonsense. :-)
#135
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1tMAh.4159$E71.1274@trnddc04...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8pMAh.2768$B25.588@news01.roc.ny...
> <...>
>
>>> None of these people are too stupid to use a spoon. And obviously smart
>>> enough to drive a car.
>>
>>
>> Smart enough to pass a driving test which checks about 2% of the skills
>> needed to drive a car.
>
> Don't complain here. Complain to your state representatives and ask that
> they change the test.
My son almost didn't pass my test, but because he is the NEXT highway god
(after I'm gone), I gave him lots of extra attention. Nobody else would pass
my test.
>>> And many tailgater older and/or male.
>>
>> Pay close attention to the age & gender of the next 100 people who
>> tailgate you, even if it means pulling to the side of local streets so
>> you can look in their cars. The vast majority are young women. I don't
>> know why.
>
> You appear to be making the false assumption that I don't see who is
> tailgating other drivers or myself.
Logic bomb. If you were paying attention, you'd see that I was correct.
Therefore, you are not paying attention. I don't like the gender-heavy idea
either, but it *is* factual.
>>>> I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed,
>>>> it's time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock.
>>>> Parallel parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the
>>>> snow? I think not.
>>>
>>> If people are as stupid as you say, they would kill themselves (and
>>> everyone else). While the death rate is too high, it is not nearly as
>>> high as your figures would suggest.
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> With all due respect, you are phenomenally wrong in your observations.
>> I'd still let you borrow my lawnmower if you were my neighbor, but you
>> need to be more observant of what really goes on around you on the roads.
>
> Well, we will have to disagree about that. I do watch what goes on.
Don't start with me, Jeff. I have 3 feet of snow in my driveway and I am
not in the mood for nonsense. :-)
news:1tMAh.4159$E71.1274@trnddc04...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8pMAh.2768$B25.588@news01.roc.ny...
> <...>
>
>>> None of these people are too stupid to use a spoon. And obviously smart
>>> enough to drive a car.
>>
>>
>> Smart enough to pass a driving test which checks about 2% of the skills
>> needed to drive a car.
>
> Don't complain here. Complain to your state representatives and ask that
> they change the test.
My son almost didn't pass my test, but because he is the NEXT highway god
(after I'm gone), I gave him lots of extra attention. Nobody else would pass
my test.
>>> And many tailgater older and/or male.
>>
>> Pay close attention to the age & gender of the next 100 people who
>> tailgate you, even if it means pulling to the side of local streets so
>> you can look in their cars. The vast majority are young women. I don't
>> know why.
>
> You appear to be making the false assumption that I don't see who is
> tailgating other drivers or myself.
Logic bomb. If you were paying attention, you'd see that I was correct.
Therefore, you are not paying attention. I don't like the gender-heavy idea
either, but it *is* factual.
>>>> I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed,
>>>> it's time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock.
>>>> Parallel parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the
>>>> snow? I think not.
>>>
>>> If people are as stupid as you say, they would kill themselves (and
>>> everyone else). While the death rate is too high, it is not nearly as
>>> high as your figures would suggest.
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> With all due respect, you are phenomenally wrong in your observations.
>> I'd still let you borrow my lawnmower if you were my neighbor, but you
>> need to be more observant of what really goes on around you on the roads.
>
> Well, we will have to disagree about that. I do watch what goes on.
Don't start with me, Jeff. I have 3 feet of snow in my driveway and I am
not in the mood for nonsense. :-)