 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / February 2008How Perfectly Canadian...
BAN THE VAN! http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2008/01/18/graham-vans.html?ref=rss "However, a number of questions have been raised this week in the aftermath of the accident that has created an air of uncertainty about 15-passenger vans," the minister said in the release. "Some of the questions are based on actions of other jurisdictions, while some may be outright guesses." Color me silly, but driving into a combination vehicle may have played a small part in the tragedy.  SignatureDoes anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 > BAN THE VAN! > > http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2008/01/18/graham-vans.html?ref=rss "Icy road conditions, not the type of vehicle the victims were travelling in, were likely the key factor in the crash, Frank Wilson, co-ordinator of the Transport Canada investigation team, said on Wednesday." Icy road conditions? In Canada, in the winter? No way! One should not attempt to occupy the same point in the space time continuum with an 18-wheeler... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > BAN THE VAN! http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2008/01/18/graham-vans.html?ref=rss > "However, a number of questions have been raised this week in the aftermath > of the accident that has created an air of uncertainty about 15-passenger [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Color me silly, but driving into a combination vehicle may have played a > small part in the tragedy. And this may've played a larger role: "Icy road conditions, not the type of vehicle the victims were travelling in, were likely the key factor in the crash, Frank Wilson, co-ordinator of the Transport Canada investigation team, said on Wednesday. The RCMP reported snow-covered roads in the area at the time of the accident and the van was not outfitted with snow tires." Dennis On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 08:22:42 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: >> BAN THE VAN! >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Dennis And what do they suppose the outcome of a school bus semi colision would be ? Considering the likelyhood the school bus having more room would have more passengers. Incredible, just incredible. On Jan 19, 12:27 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > BAN THE VAN! > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > vans," the minister said in the release. "Some of the questions are based on > actions of other jurisdictions, while some may be outright guesses." Seems pretty American as well. From your article: "The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued several advisories about the dangers of the 15-passenger vans. About 1,100 people in the U.S. were killed in single-vehicle rollovers in the vans between 1992 and 2002. Such vans were found to be three times more likely to roll over than any other vehicle." And from: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/080116/canada/pei_vans_schools_1 "U.S. schools districts are banned from using the vans to transport students under the age of 18." So apparently, at least in the area of transporting their schoolchildren, Canadians have more freedom than we do. > "U.S. schools districts are banned from using the vans to transport > students under the age of 18." Incredible, just incredible. >> "U.S. schools districts are banned from using the vans to transport >> students under the age of 18." > > Incredible, just incredible. really... our school district still uses them..... have to love it..... it must be the equipment not the user.....or in this case the driver..... don't want to blame them for this because then it might hurt there feelings having to live with the fact that the driver and his/her family might have to accept the fact they were responsible for this... and then of course be up for a law suit..... yeah... that is it blame the van company then it is their fault not theschool then they can sue the van company not the school....... next they will start a movement to make trucks smaller because if the truck was smaller it would have only killed 6 and not 7 people.... sorry if this offends any one but please..... quit blaming things people use.... blame the operator of the thing!!! Invisible68 > >> "U.S. schools districts are banned from using the vans to transport > >> students under the age of 18." [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Invisible68 http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2008/01/16/edmunston-vans.html From another article "The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued several advisories about the dangers of the 15-passenger vans. About 1,100 people in the U.S. were killed in single-vehicle rollovers in the vans between 1992 and 2002. Such vans were found to be three times more likely to roll over than any other vehicle." And "A study by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board concluded in 2002 that the stability of the vans decreases when fully loaded." Go to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/01/15/van-safety.html for the entire text. Maybe, just maybe, there are times to blame the equipment. If the statistical evidence bears out the concern, wouldn't the folks in charge of student safety be remiss if they didn't investigate or at least use caution? JF > Maybe, just maybe, there are times to blame the equipment. If the > statistical evidence bears out the concern, wouldn't the folks in > charge of student safety be remiss if they didn't investigate or at > least use caution? Didn't Popeye recently quote Ralph Nader? I wonder what the author of "Unsafe at Any Speed" would have to say about the vans. > > Maybe, just maybe, there are times to blame the equipment. If the > > statistical evidence bears out the concern, wouldn't the folks in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Didn't Popeye recently quote Ralph Nader? I wonder what the author of > "Unsafe at Any Speed" would have to say about the vans. I've never forgiven him for being so critical of my tippy Corvair. JF On Jan 30, 3:16 pm, "invisible68" <plath...@lcom.net> wrote: > "jimson" <jim...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:fmte8u$v1o$1@aioe.org... > > Greg Mossman wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Invisible68 http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2008/01/16/edmunston-vans.html From another article "The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued several advisories about the dangers of the 15-passenger vans. About 1,100 people in the U.S. were killed in single-vehicle rollovers in the vans between 1992 and 2002. Such vans were found to be three times more likely to roll over than any other vehicle." And "A study by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board concluded in 2002 that the stability of the vans decreases when fully loaded." Go to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/01/15/van-safety.html for the entire text. Maybe, just maybe, there are times to blame the equipment. If the statistical evidence bears out the concern, wouldn't the folks in charge of student safety be remiss if they didn't investigate or at least use caution? See here, brother. Let me help you out. First off, the van didn't roll over. So all that crap doesn't apply. Secondly, the information cited (grossly inaccurately) applies to single vehicle accidents. Which doesn't wash here, either. So all that crap doesn't apply. Third, the van hit a BFT. NTSB hasn't factored that into any of their findings. Fourth, all that news is old news, which merits the question: "Aren't we a wee bit late?" Fifth, you seem to believe anything you read (unless I write it). "The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued several advisories about the dangers of the 15-passenger vans. About 1,100 people in the U.S. were killed in single-vehicle rollovers in the vans between 1992 and 2002." Yep. 76% due to not wearing seatbelts. 92% wearing seatbelts lived. One might also drag out the conclusion that since the vehicles carry 15 people at a time, their fatality rate might be a tad higher than vehicles that carry 4-5 people. "Such vans were found to be three times more likely to roll over than any other vehicle." Well, no. Get the straight facts yourself, link provided. You might also figure in that all the vans considered by the NTSB were one tons, with the appropriately stiff suspension. Of course a vehicle that tall would be more prone to roll, especially with a 2000lb cargo, off the floor, raising the center of gravity even further. "A study by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board concluded in 2002 that the stability of the vans decreases when fully loaded." As it does with all vehicles, albeit to a lesser degree. http://deadsmall.com/33L Sixth, it took long to type this, than to educate myself on this point. And lo and behold, the van skidded and hit the truck head on. R.I.P., Fuckfish. SignatureDoes anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Jan 31, 9:12 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > On Jan 30, 3:16 pm, "invisible68" <plath...@lcom.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > > R.I.P., Fuckfish. Is it even remotely possible that the lack of stability had anything to do with the driver's inability to collide with the bft? JF On Jan 31, 9:12 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:448c8dcf-a179-45fb-9d6c-f1e3931edc06@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > > R.I.P., Fuckfish. Is it even remotely possible that the lack of stability had anything to do with the driver's inability to collide with the bft? That depends on how desperate you are to want it. I mean, it sure didn't help. But you don't hit anything unless you're going too fast. The vans don't just start getting jiggy from atmospheric pressure changes, or roll over in the MacDonald's drive thru. I followed a van like that for several hours today, and it didn't hop around like a Mexican Jumping Bean, or just blow into a Zero G Immelmann like Bong was at the stick. Is it remotely possible that not having snow tires was a factor? Or that the guy was just driving like a dick, and none of the kids had seatbelts on? Vans don't kill people, John. People kill people. SignatureDoes anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Jan 31, 10:31 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > But you don't hit anything unless you're going too fast. I was nearly, if not completely, stopped when a bft hit my van. According to witnesses, the bft driver wasn't speeding, just dicking around trying to change lanes without enough room and ended up jack- knifing and tipping over. Speed isn't always the main factor in an accident. > The vans don't just start getting jiggy from atmospheric pressure changes, or roll over in the MacDonald's drive thru. > > I followed a van like that for several hours today, and it didn't hop around like a Mexican Jumping Bean, or just blow into a Zero G Immelmann like Bong was at the stick. > > Is it remotely possible that not having snow tires was a factor? In my 40 some years of winter driving I've come to the conclusion that snow tires are overrated for highway driving by too many people. I'll take a good set of all-seasons any day for the paved roads. Back in the days before all-seasons I'd religiously install 4 snows for the winter months. They were the better choice then. Snow tires are fine for off road driving and back roads where the snow gets to accumulate, but for pavement, even when it's snowy, I want more rubber on the road. Good quality all-seasons provide that. I've never checked but do y'all even know about all-seasons south of the snow belt? I can understand someone who's only experience in snow has been on summer tires being impressed with snows. I've actually had some cars that I'd switch from performance tires in the summer to all-seasons in the winter, not snows. The majority of vehicles up here are delivered with all-seasons already mounted. > Or that the guy was just driving like a dick, and none of the kids had seatbelts on? > > Vans don't kill people, John. > > People kill people. Perhaps some people should be more careful in their choice of tool then. Sometimes the choices have to be mandated. Seat belts, motorcycle helmets, exhaust emissions standards, vehicle safety standards, driver's licenses, car insurance, all examples of laws necessary because of irresponsible people. But the Corvair's instability, Pinto gas tanks, Explorers with Firestones - These problems weren't just about driver irresponsibility. Perhaps the big vans are like bft's. The driver needs to have special training to handle them properly. JF On Jan 31, 10:31 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > But you don't hit anything unless you're going too fast. I was nearly, if not completely, stopped when a bft hit my van. According to witnesses, the bft driver wasn't speeding, just dicking around trying to change lanes without enough room and ended up jack- knifing and tipping over. Speed isn't always the main factor in an accident. Which has less to do with the accident we're discussing than if the school van was hit by an Exocet missile. Furthermore, last time YOU brought this accident into discussion, you wound up crying and sniveling about what a meanie I was, and then stomped out. Let's be clear about this, so you don't run out of kleenex: This accident did not have then, does not have now, and will never have, any justification to be discussed here. Do yourself the favor, and stop mentioning it. And don't bother- I have the cite ready, as usual. I'd just as soon skip it. > The vans don't just start getting jiggy from atmospheric pressure changes, > or roll over in the MacDonald's drive thru. > > I followed a van like that for several hours today, and it didn't hop > around like a Mexican Jumping Bean, or just blow into a Zero G Immelmann > like Bong was at the stick. I can't believe you didn't dig the Bong reference. > Is it remotely possible that not having snow tires was a factor? In my 40 some years of winter driving I've come to the conclusion that snow tires are overrated for highway driving by too many people. Once again, that's a people error. The snow tire is not designed for slick roads, but for snow. Like the fact that only studs (chains) give advantage on ice. 4 wheel drive, front wheel drive all-seasons, nada I'll take a good set of all-seasons any day for the paved roads. Everybody has an opinion: =========== http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tires All Season The All Season tire classification is a compromise between one developed for use on dry and wet roads during summer and one developed for use under winter conditions. The type of rubber and the tread pattern best suited for use under summer conditions cannot, for technical reasons, give good performance on snow and ice. The all-season tire is a compromise, and is neither an excellent summer tire nor an excellent winter tire. They have, however, become almost ubiquitous as original and replacement equipment on automobiles marketed in the United States, due to their convenience and their adequate performance in most situations. All-Season tires are also marked for mud and snow the same as winter tires. Owing to the compromise with performance during summer, winter performance is usually poorer than a winter tire. =========== Back in the days before all-seasons I'd religiously install 4 snows for the winter months. They were the better choice then. A lot of this change is due to front wheel drive. Snow tires are fine for off road driving and back roads where the snow gets to accumulate, but for pavement, even when it's snowy, I want more rubber on the road. Good quality all-seasons provide that. I've never checked but do y'all even know about all-seasons south of the snow belt? Since the mid seventies. I can understand someone who's only experience in snow has been on summer tires being impressed with snows. As I'm sure you've forgotten, I lived for 30 years in western Massachusetts. Very slightly south of Toronto. I've actually had some cars that I'd switch from performance tires in the summer to all-seasons in the winter, not snows. The majority of vehicles up here are delivered with all-seasons already mounted. As they are here, since the early eighties. The majority of cars, however, are not one ton vans. It's a simple matter of physics- the vehicles are around 7 feet tall. > Or that the guy was just driving like a dick, and none of the kids had > seatbelts on? > > Vans don't kill people, John. > > People kill people. Perhaps some people should be more careful in their choice of tool then. Absolutely. The one ton van is very much a truck, not an SUV. The information about the roll over problem has long been available. As I'm sure you're aware, roll over problems are also very inherent in SUVs. The Firestone/Ford Explorer tire flap is a case in point. But regardless, that still puts it on the driver for exceeding safe conditions. It's Occam's Razor, John. Sometimes the choices have to be mandated. Hmmmm. Baaaaaaaa? Seat belts, motorcycle helmets, exhaust emissions standards, vehicle safety standards, driver's licenses, car insurance, all examples of laws necessary because of irresponsible people. But the Corvair's instability, Pinto gas tanks, Explorers with Firestones Keep in mind, the #1 issue with Explorer rollover was not the tire blowing, but the driver panic afterwards. It was well proven that simply holding the steering wheel straight after the blow out, while decelerating, prevented the roll over. - These problems weren't just about driver irresponsibility. Perhaps the big vans are like bft's. The driver needs to have special training to handle them properly. Everything isn't a Honda Civic. A guy that takes a chauffer's responsibility should be prepared. JF SignatureDoes anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Feb 1, 12:18 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > On Jan 31, 10:31 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > [quoted text clipped - 151 lines] > > A guy that takes a chauffer's responsibility should be prepared. You've pretty well anticipated anything I might have addressed. My answers would have been different but hey, an answer's an answer. Kinda ends the discussion, huh? Oh, one thing. One of my cars in the day was a Mini Minor. JF > Oh, one thing. One of my cars in the day was a Mini Minor. That's not a car, that a go-kart... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. In article <232ef6d7-bd50-4b85-9186- 5b0d8bb5b23f@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, jofrancis@gmail.com says... -On Feb 1, 12:18 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" -<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: -> "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message -> -> news:89d317bd-97f0-49a3-8cd9-6a40ed3c074b@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... -> On Jan 31, 10:31 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" -> -> <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: -> > But you don't hit anything unless you're going too fast. -> -> I was nearly, if not completely, stopped when a bft hit my van. -> According to witnesses, the bft driver wasn't speeding, just dicking -> around trying to change lanes without enough room and ended up jack- -> knifing and tipping over. Speed isn't always the main factor in an -> accident. -> -> Which has less to do with the accident we're discussing than if the -> school van was hit by an Exocet missile. -> -> Furthermore, last time YOU brought this accident into discussion, you -> wound up crying and sniveling about what a meanie I was, and then stomped -> out. -> -> Let's be clear about this, so you don't run out of kleenex: -> -> This accident did not have then, does not have now, and will never have, -> any justification to be discussed here. -> -> Do yourself the favor, and stop mentioning it. -> -> And don't bother- I have the cite ready, as usual. -> -> I'd just as soon skip it. -> -> > The vans don't just start getting jiggy from atmospheric pressure changes, -> > or roll over in the MacDonald's drive thru. -> -> > I followed a van like that for several hours today, and it didn't hop -> > around like a Mexican Jumping Bean, or just blow into a Zero G Immelmann -> > like Bong was at the stick. -> -> I can't believe you didn't dig the Bong reference. -> -> > Is it remotely possible that not having snow tires was a factor? -> -> In my 40 some years of winter driving I've come to the conclusion that -> snow tires are overrated for highway driving by too many people. -> -> Once again, that's a people error. -> -> The snow tire is not designed for slick roads, but for snow. -> -> Like the fact that only studs (chains) give advantage on ice. -> -> 4 wheel drive, front wheel drive all-seasons, nada -> -> I'll take a good set of all-seasons any day for the paved roads. -> -> Everybody has an opinion: -> ===========http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tires -> -> All Season -> The All Season tire classification is a compromise between one developed for -> use on dry and wet roads during summer and one developed for use under -> winter conditions. The type of rubber and the tread pattern best suited for -> use under summer conditions cannot, for technical reasons, give good -> performance on snow and ice. The all-season tire is a compromise, and is -> neither an excellent summer tire nor an excellent winter tire. They have, -> however, become almost ubiquitous as original and replacement equipment on -> automobiles marketed in the United States, due to their convenience and -> their adequate performance in most situations. All-Season tires are also -> marked for mud and snow the same as winter tires. Owing to the compromise -> with performance during summer, winter performance is usually poorer than a -> winter tire. -> =========== -> -> Back in -> the days before all-seasons I'd religiously install 4 snows for the -> winter months. They were the better choice then. -> -> A lot of this change is due to front wheel drive. -> -> Snow tires are fine -> for off road driving and back roads where the snow gets to accumulate, -> but for pavement, even when it's snowy, I want more rubber on the -> road. Good quality all-seasons provide that. I've never checked but do -> y'all even know about all-seasons south of the snow belt? -> -> Since the mid seventies. -> -> I can -> understand someone who's only experience in snow has been on summer -> tires being impressed with snows. -> -> As I'm sure you've forgotten, I lived for 30 years in western -> Massachusetts. -> -> Very slightly south of Toronto. -> -> I've actually had some cars that I'd -> switch from performance tires in the summer to all-seasons in the -> winter, not snows. The majority of vehicles up here are delivered with -> all-seasons already mounted. -> -> As they are here, since the early eighties. -> -> The majority of cars, however, are not one ton vans. -> -> It's a simple matter of physics- the vehicles are around 7 feet tall. -> -> > Or that the guy was just driving like a dick, and none of the kids had -> > seatbelts on? -> -> > Vans don't kill people, John. -> -> > People kill people. -> -> Perhaps some people should be more careful in their choice of tool then. -> -> Absolutely. -> -> The one ton van is very much a truck, not an SUV. -> -> The information about the roll over problem has long been available. -> -> As I'm sure you're aware, roll over problems are also very inherent in -> SUVs. -> -> The Firestone/Ford Explorer tire flap is a case in point. -> -> But regardless, that still puts it on the driver for exceeding safe -> conditions. -> -> It's Occam's Razor, John. -> -> Sometimes the choices have to be mandated. -> -> Hmmmm. -> -> Baaaaaaaa? -> -> Seat belts, -> motorcycle helmets, exhaust emissions standards, vehicle safety -> standards, driver's licenses, car insurance, all examples of laws -> necessary because of irresponsible people. But the Corvair's -> instability, Pinto gas tanks, Explorers with Firestones -> -> Keep in mind, the #1 issue with Explorer rollover was not the tire -> blowing, but the driver panic afterwards. -> -> It was well proven that simply holding the steering wheel straight after -> the blow out, while decelerating, prevented the roll over. -> -> - These problems weren't just about driver irresponsibility. Perhaps the big -> vans are like bft's. The driver needs to have special training to -> handle them properly. -> -> Everything isn't a Honda Civic. -> -> A guy that takes a chauffer's responsibility should be prepared. - -You've pretty well anticipated anything I might have addressed. My -answers would have been different and illogical, unfounded, obtuse, and make no sense at all. -Oh, one thing. One of my cars in the day was a Mini Minor. - -JF - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > road. Good quality all-seasons provide that. I've never checked but do > y'all even know about all-seasons south of the snow belt? I can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > winter, not snows. The majority of vehicles up here are delivered with > all-seasons already mounted. It can even snow in Southern California. The mountains up the road from my house are looking particularly nice now that the rain and wind has cleared out all the smog and they're snow covered from 6,000' up to the 9-10,000' peaks. "Ping" me with a good address (my old machine died since the last time you e-mailed me) and I'll send you a pretty picture or two. The two SUVs that I've purchased in the USA, one in WA and one in So CA, came standard with M&S rated "all season" tires. You'd think the M would come in handy more than the S down here, but even with the rains we've been having, I don't get much chance to drive in M. Most of our roads around here tend to be paved. With an SUV in four-wheel drive and M&S rated tires, you can skip the chains when they're otherwise required. > The two SUVs that I've purchased in the USA, one in WA and one in So CA, > came standard with M&S rated "all season" tires. You'd think the M would > come in handy more than the S down here, but even with the rains we've > been having, I don't get much chance to drive in M. Most of our roads > around here tend to be paved. I suspect that the 'M' part was so that you would be able to drive around after the mudslides that occur the winter after the Santa Ana fire storms... > With an SUV in four-wheel drive and M&S rated tires, you can skip the > chains when they're otherwise required. I drove my Jeep XJ up to the north rim of the Grand Canyon one winter... 18 inches of snow depth on the road... No M+S tires, just big lug mudders in 31x10.50... Worked well enough... Probably would have sucked on ice though... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > In my 40 some years of winter driving I've come to the conclusion that > snow tires are overrated for highway driving by too many people. I'll [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > winter, not snows. The majority of vehicles up here are delivered with > all-seasons already mounted. There is no such thing as all season tires. There are 3-season tires and winter/snow tires. Unless, or course, you live where it doesn't snow. > > In my 40 some years of winter driving I've come to the conclusion that > > snow tires are overrated for highway driving by too many people. I'll [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > There are 3-season tires and winter/snow tires. > Unless, or course, you live where it doesn't snow.- As Popeye says, they're a compromise, but they work fine up here. They get good mileage and they hold the road. They cut the rain better than most high performance tires. They definitely go through snow better than summer treads. They also save the damage to the expensive modern alloy rims from constant changing. Slick ice is a problem for any tire, and since I'm not interested in street racing any more I don't need the dry road traction I once did. They work fine for me, year round. JF JF >> > In my 40 some years of winter driving I've come to the conclusion that >> > snow tires are overrated for highway driving by too many people. I'll [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> There are 3-season tires and winter/snow tires. >> Unless, or course, you live where it doesn't snow.- That's it exactly. >As Popeye says, they're a compromise, but they work fine up here. They >get good mileage and they hold the road. They cut the rain better than [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >need the dry road traction I once did. They work fine for me, year >round. "All-seasons" or "M+S" tires become as hard as hockey pucks at about +5-7 C. That would be in November for me, and that's when I change over to winter tires. Winter tires have a different rubber compound that keeps the tire softer at lower temps -- hence the better grip. The difference is very noticeable in handling, mobility and being able to easily drive out of snow patches. After a snow storm, you're not going to be speeding, but you'll get where you want to go. All-seasons or M+S on a Sport Futility or any all-wheel drive vehicle of any type, are dangerous in the winter. Less grip trumps all-wheel drive. My wife says the best present I ever got her was 4 snow tires on rims. > My wife says the best present I ever got her was 4 snow tires on rims. Hmmm... I suspect that this must say something about the *other* presents that you got her over the years... She must not have like the snow shovel you bought her a few years ago... Didn't really appreciate the lawn mower either, did she? SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. >> My wife says the best present I ever got her was 4 snow tires on rims. > >Hmmm... I suspect that this must say something about the *other* presents >that you got her over the years... She must not have like the snow shovel >you bought her a few years ago... Didn't really appreciate the lawn mower >either, did she? Hey, I have a strong sense of self-preservation -- I would never get her a snow shovel or any kind of appliance. She remarked on a necklace in a jewellery shop some years ago. She later caught me buying it for her. Now she never tells me what she wants, which makes it damn tough to get her things. > I followed a van like that for several hours today, and it didn't hop around like a Mexican Jumping Bean, or just blow into a Zero G > Immelmann like Bong was at the stick. You'll have to explain that Bong in this instance is not a crude device for smoking pot. >> I followed a van like that for several hours today, and it didn't hop > around like a Mexican Jumping Bean, or just blow into a Zero G [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for > smoking pot. Forgot who I was talking to. How many weeks do you think it will take him to notice he was the author of the below signature? :-) SignatureDoes anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 > >> I followed a van like that for several hours today, and it didn't hop > > around like a Mexican Jumping Bean, or just blow into a Zero G [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > How many weeks do you think it will take him to notice he was the author > of the below signature? :-) Francis weeks or real weeks? On Feb 5, 6:31 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > "Scott" <pugetsounddi...@gmail.com> wrote in message > How many weeks do you think it will take him to notice he was the author > of the below signature? :-) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the > mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper Who's Jeff Cooper? JF On Feb 5, 6:31 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > "Scott" <pugetsounddi...@gmail.com> wrote in message > How many weeks do you think it will take him to notice he was the author > of the below signature? :-) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the > mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper Who's Jeff Cooper? Priceless. SignatureDoes anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Feb 5, 9:28 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > On Feb 5, 6:31 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Priceless. I just googled him. Why would you think I should know who he was? The only gun freaks I know are here on rec.scuba. Or has he been here? JF On Feb 5, 9:28 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Priceless. I just googled him. Why would you think I should know who he was? That's not what I said. The only gun freaks I know are here on rec.scuba. Or has he been here? I wasn't aware there were any gun freaks here, and we've quoted him here a score of times. Who he was, and what he was, has been discussed several times. But I'm sure you don't remember. JF On Feb 5, 10:31 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > On Feb 5, 9:28 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > I wasn't aware there were any gun freaks here, and we've quoted him here > a score of times. Sure there are. You've even got the colt tattoo to prove it, haven't you? > Who he was, and what he was, has been discussed several times. > > But I'm sure you don't remember. Perhaps I wasn't as impressed as you. Did he ever do anything that should have impressed me? JF On Feb 5, 10:31 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > I wasn't aware there were any gun freaks here, and we've quoted him here > a score of times. Sure there are. You've even got the colt tattoo to prove it, haven't you? Wow, more fear and elitist judgment. No more than I'm a "scuba freak" (super freak?), with three tatts and a brand. Or a "Marine freak", with that tatt. Or a "pirate freak", with the coming unpleasantness. But we all know how impressionable you are. > Who he was, and what he was, has been discussed several times. > > But I'm sure you don't remember. Perhaps I wasn't as impressed as you. Did he ever do anything that should have impressed me? Should have? Very probably. But as far as I can tell, only the French tendency to surrender impresses you. SignatureDoes anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Feb 6, 12:29 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > On Feb 5, 10:31 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > Very probably. What? > But as far as I can tell, only the French tendency to surrender > impresses you. I don't know enough Frenchmen to have an informed opinion. Many do seem excessively arrogant, but that isn't an exclusively French thing. Historically their leaders tend to be a tad frustrating, again not an exclusively French thing. But the French citizenry on it's own has done some brave and even selfless things throughout history. And a lot of folks don't realize how much difference there is between Euro-French and French-Canadians, perhaps like Brits and English speaking Canucks. I suspect Floridians tend to paint all French with the Habitant brush, and that rubs off on a lot of other Americans. In my own limited experience I found Parisian French were typically less likeable than the Mediterranean French, In fact, I quite liked a lot of the folks I met in Nice. Quebecers aren't such bad guys for the most part. They're often more volatile, or at least more voluble and animated, opinionated. In fact, they remind me of some of the Americans I've met, and that's not meant as an insult in any way. There's nothing wrong with being assertive. I sometimes wish the rest of us Canucks could be more that way. We sure can't be accused of a national sense of entitlement, at least internationally. It may be the opposites attract thing going on. Americans and Canadians tend to get along because we're different, but French Canadians just rub Americans the wrong way. JF -"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message -news:487a9413-3c0e-4d48-870a-1299b851058a@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... -On Feb 5, 10:31 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" -<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: -> "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message -> -> news:44129fec-e205-4175-ab0b-f954a58ca833@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... -> On Feb 5, 9:28 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" -> -> -> -> -> -> <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: -> > "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message -> -> >news:8532cf7e-b7bf-46ea-b0ae-183a063d4d71@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com... -> > On Feb 5, 6:31 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" -> -> > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: -> > > "Scott" <pugetsounddi...@gmail.com> wrote in message -> > > How many weeks do you think it will take him to notice he was the -> > > author -> > > of the below signature? :-) -> -> > > Does anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop -> > > killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball -> > > bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, -> > > and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old -> > > ones. -> > > And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to -> > > commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. -> > > I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. -> > > I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on -> > > anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the -> > > mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper -> -> > Who's Jeff Cooper? -> -> > Priceless. -> -> I just googled him. Why would you think I should know who he was? -> -> That's not what I said. -> -> The only gun freaks I know are here on rec.scuba. Or has he been here? -> -> I wasn't aware there were any gun freaks here, and we've quoted him here -> a score of times. - -Sure there are. You've even got the colt tattoo to prove it, haven't -you? - - Wow, more fear and elitist judgment. - - No more than I'm a "scuba freak" (super freak?), with three tatts and a -brand. - - Or a "Marine freak", with that tatt. - - Or a "pirate freak", with the coming unpleasantness. - - But we all know how impressionable you are. you left out golf freaks. you left out slacks freaks. you left out freaky sheeple. - -> Who he was, and what he was, has been discussed several times. -> -> But I'm sure you don't remember. - -Perhaps I wasn't as impressed as you. Did he ever do anything that -should have impressed me? - - Should have? - - Very probably. - - But as far as I can tell, only the French tendency to surrender -impresses you. - - - - - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > you left out golf freaks. I was kinda freaky about golf for a few years but I got over it. > you left out slacks freaks. Pants are pants. I just subscribe to a dress code of sorts for business attire. It's kinda important in my job. Perhaps your working environment doesn't impose the same expectations. > you left out freaky sheeple. It's you gun freaks that are preoccupied with sheep. I say to each his own. JF On Feb 6, 1:04 pm, crownfield <crownfi...@verizon.net> wrote: > you left out freaky sheeple. It's you gun freaks that are preoccupied with sheep. Actually, those you fearfully describe as "gun freaks" are preoccupied with -not being- sheep. That's not an issue with you. I say to each his own. No. That's not what you say. Signature"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ~Jeff Snyder~ On Feb 6, 4:37 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > On Feb 6, 1:04 pm, crownfield <crownfi...@verizon.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Actually, those you fearfully describe as "gun freaks" are preoccupied > with -not being- sheep. Practically obsessed with it apparently. > That's not an issue with you. Obviously not. Obsessions suck. > I say to each his own. > > No. > > That's not what you say. Well, gee, who am I to question yer omniscience? > "To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and > law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the expected behavior of the law-abiding." > ~Jeff Snyder~ What happened to yer man Cooper? It's wordy enuf to be the quote attributed to him yesterday, but it doesn't sound quite the same. You have way too many unknown heroes. But it's kinda cool when folks lionize obscure people. Shows they have some imagination. JF > On Feb 6, 4:37 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > JF obscure to you, perhaps. But that does not surprise me. Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 >> What happened to yer man Cooper? It's wordy enuf to be the quote >> attributed to him yesterday, but it doesn't sound quite the same. You >> have way too many unknown heroes. But it's kinda cool when folks >> lionize obscure people. Shows they have some imagination. Sorry, I missed this part. Actually, that quote was written by someone else, with a few scuba references removed, and I put Coopers' name on it for camouflage. The author is a pathetic, shiftless, spineless flip-flopper with no credibility here. An insult to Cooper, really, on reflection. As far as you describing him as being "obscure", as opposed to "I never heard of him" (and you have, many times), that's just another example of your ignorance, conceit, and narcissism. And your pitiful and selective recall. > obscure to you, perhaps. But that does not surprise me. :-) Signature"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ~Jeff Snyder~ On Feb 6, 10:24 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > >> What happened to yer man Cooper? It's wordy enuf to be the quote > >> attributed to him yesterday, but it doesn't sound quite the same. You [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Actually, that quote was written by someone else, with a few scuba > references removed, and I put Coopers' name on it for camouflage. Hence rendering all yer future quotes fit only for the garbage can, eh? > The author is a pathetic, shiftless, spineless flip-flopper with no > credibility here. > > An insult to Cooper, really, on reflection. > As far as you describing him as being "obscure", as opposed to "I never > heard of him" (and you have, many times), that's just another example of > your ignorance, conceit, and narcissism. > > And your pitiful and selective recall. Or of how unimportant this Cooper is to anyone but a fellow gun freak? You still don't get the difference, do you? JF On Feb 6, 10:24 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > "dazed and confuzzed" <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote in > messagenews:FdudnQ8Nd8N17TfanZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@comcast.com... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Actually, that quote was written by someone else, with a few scuba > references removed, and I put Coopers' name on it for camouflage. Hence rendering all yer future quotes fit only for the garbage can, eh? Whatever. That's pretty rich for someone that routinely denies his own written word. > The author is a pathetic, shiftless, spineless flip-flopper with no > credibility here. > > An insult to Cooper, really, on reflection. > As far as you describing him as being "obscure", as opposed to "I never > heard of him" (and you have, many times), that's just another example of > your ignorance, conceit, and narcissism. > > And your pitiful and selective recall. Or of how unimportant this Cooper is to anyone but a fellow gun freak? > As far as you describing him as being "obscure", as opposed to "I never > heard of him" (and you have, many times), that's just another example of > your ignorance, conceit, and narcissism. > > And your pitiful and selective recall You still don't get the difference, do you? And we know you sure won't explain it. JF Signature"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ~Jeff Snyder~ On Feb 8, 10:55 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > On Feb 6, 10:24 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > And we know you sure won't explain it. I've tried, as have others, but you've got yer hands over yer ears going nananananana as loud as you can. You don't get it. JF < > You still don't get the difference, do you? > > And we know you sure won't explain it. I've tried, as have others, but <blah,blah,blah> The usual, predicted, whining flatulence, sans any spec of definition.. How rote. Signature"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ~Jeff Snyder~ > On Feb 8, 10:55 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > JF Perhaps it's you that is failing here. Or perhaps your basic premise is at fault. Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 > I say to each his own. > > No. > > That's not what you say. Well, gee, who am I to question yer omniscience? Nobody, actually. Since you asked. Signature"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ~Jeff Snyder~ >>you left out golf freaks. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > JF Thank God. There are no gun freaks here > >>you left out golf freaks. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Thank God. There are no gun freaks here- Of course there aren't, Joe. And no divers either. JF >>>>you left out golf freaks. >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > JF 50% right - there are divers > >>>>you left out golf freaks. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > 50% right - there are divers- C'mon Joe. Ya can't have it both ways. JF >>>>>>you left out golf freaks. >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > JF that's only one way >>>>>>>you left out golf freaks. >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> > that's only one way But if it's not Futile John's way, the big arm circles start. Signature"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ~Jeff Snyder~ In article <44129fec-e205-4175-ab0b-f954a58ca833 @v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, jofrancis@gmail.com says... -On Feb 5, 9:28 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" -<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: -> "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message -> -> news:8532cf7e-b7bf-46ea-b0ae-183a063d4d71@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com... -> On Feb 5, 6:31 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" -> -> <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: -> > "Scott" <pugetsounddi...@gmail.com> wrote in message -> > How many weeks do you think it will take him to notice he was the author -> > of the below signature? :-) -> -> > Does anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop -> > killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball -> > bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, -> > and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. -> > And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to -> > commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. -> > I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. -> > I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on -> > anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the -> > mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper -> -> Who's Jeff Cooper? -> -> Priceless. - -I just googled him. -Why would you think I should know who he was? We do not expect you to know anything any more. your posts have shown us that. -JF - - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > Is it even remotely possible that the lack of stability had anything to do > with the driver's inability to collide with the bft? You might be able to make that argument if it had occured on *dry* pavement, but on icy roads, I would hazard to guess that you would go into a skid before a rollover could even get started... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. On Feb 1, 1:33 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman581-usenet-2...@spambob.net> wrote: > > Is it even remotely possible that the lack of stability had anything to do > > with the driver's inability to collide with the bft? > > You might be able to make that argument if it had occured on *dry* > pavement, but on icy roads, I would hazard to guess that you would go into > a skid before a rollover could even get started... Our roads tend to have spotty ice. It gets exciting when you get slightly sideways (or worse) on black ice and then suddenly hit a dry patch. That's an invitation to highsiding. JF In article <e94f429b-3346-4ab5-8e09-2419b7de4767 @b2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, jofrancis@gmail.com says... -On Feb 1, 1:33 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman581-usenet-2...@spambob.net> -wrote: -> > Is it even remotely possible that the lack of stability had anything to do -> > with the driver's inability to collide with the bft? -> -> You might be able to make that argument if it had occured on *dry* -> pavement, but on icy roads, I would hazard to guess that you would go into -> a skid before a rollover could even get started... - -Our roads tend to have spotty ice. It gets exciting when you get -slightly sideways (or worse) on black ice and then suddenly hit a dry -patch. That's an invitation to highsiding. in a car? new levels of driving skill... - -JF - - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net e-Our roads tend to have spotty ice. It gets exciting when you get -slightly sideways (or worse) on black ice and then suddenly hit a dry -patch. That's an invitation to highsiding. in a car? new levels of driving skill... Not so new. It's one of the more common ways cars roll over, and over, and over. They get sideways and then the skid side tires hit something, a curb for example, or simply regain bite, slamming the vehicle over violently. As far as I know, it's not usually called highsiding, but the mechanism is pretty much the same. Lee -crownfield wrote - -e-Our roads tend to have spotty ice. It gets exciting when you get --slightly sideways (or worse) on black ice and then suddenly hit a dry --patch. That's an invitation to highsiding. - -in a car? -new levels of driving skill... - -Not so new. It's one of the more common ways cars roll over, and over, and -over. They get sideways and then the skid side tires hit something, a curb -for example, or simply regain bite, slamming the vehicle over violently. As -far as I know, it's not usually called highsiding, but the mechanism is -pretty much the same. that I understand. I have more trouble understanding how/why drivers end up goung sideways. - -Lee - - - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > I have more trouble understanding how/why drivers end up goung sideways. You mean accidentally. There are lots of reasons to do it on purpose. It's happened to me a few times, once that I recall down here and once during a blizzard while I was crossing Wyoming. The time down here, it had been dry for a while when it started raining. With all the traffic we have here, lots of oil vapor winds up on and in the pavement. The first rain in a while brings it all to the surface. I was going around a tight corner a bit faster than I should have when the rear end on my father's Mustang broke loose. I adjusted for the skid quickly enough to keep from swapping ends, but not quickly enough to keep from going sideways for a bit. I was actually headed toward one of those curbs I mentioned above when the rear tires got enough traction to pull me out of the skid. No harm done. It could have been worse. The time in Wyoming was due to some black ice hiding in plain sight. Prior to that day, I'd never even heard of the stuff. That day I got up close and personal with it. I swapped ends more than once in each direction, weaved in and out between three other cars, also having a fun time of it, and wound up facing the wrong way facing the car that had previously been in front of the car in front of me. Nobody left the roadway and nobody as much as touched any of the other vehicles, but it was definitely an E ticket ride. That was probably 30 years ago. So far, I've managed not to repeat my error. Lee On Jan 19, 12:27 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > BAN THE VAN! > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > on > actions of other jurisdictions, while some may be outright guesses." Seems pretty American as well. From your article: "The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued several advisories about the dangers of the 15-passenger vans. About 1,100 people in the U.S. were killed in single-vehicle rollovers in the vans between 1992 and 2002. Such vans were found to be three times more likely to roll over than any other vehicle." And from: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/080116/canada/pei_vans_schools_1 "U.S. schools districts are banned from using the vans to transport students under the age of 18." So apparently, at least in the area of transporting their schoolchildren, Canadians have more freedom than we do. I missed the tractor-trailer part. Could you point that out? SignatureDoes anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Jan 19, 10:33 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > "U.S. schools districts are banned from using the vans to transport > students under the age of 18." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Could you point that out? Americans couldn't blame the tractor-trailer either since it couldn't happen in America. America is one of those pinko van banning countries. By the way, congratulations to Hillary for taking Nevada. I hear she won based on her Legalize School Vans campaign. It's a burning issue out there and everyone knows Obama is an anti-vanner. Van Nuts for Hillary 2008! On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:33:45 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >On Jan 19, 12:27 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" ><Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Could you point that out? Seven Bathurst High School basketball players, along with a local teacher, were killed early Saturday when their 15-seat 1997 Ford Club Wagon struck a tractor-trailer while returning from a game in Moncton. > Seven Bathurst High School basketball players, along with a local > teacher, were killed early Saturday when their 15-seat 1997 Ford Club > Wagon struck a tractor-trailer while returning from a game in Moncton. Obviously we should ban basketball players... Come to think of it, I didn't know that Canada even had enough blacks up there to field a single basketball team much less a league... <politically-incorrect-grin> Maybe they play basketball on ice... Now, *that* would be something that I would like to see... Well, assuming that they still used the same type of rubber soled shoes... <evil-grin> SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. >> Seven Bathurst High School basketball players, along with a local >> teacher, were killed early Saturday when their 15-seat 1997 Ford Club [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >would like to see... Well, assuming that they still used the same type of >rubber soled shoes... <evil-grin> Tell Steve Nash about that one. JF >>> Seven Bathurst High School basketball players, along with a local >>> teacher, were killed early Saturday when their 15-seat 1997 Ford Club [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > JF And James Naismith. : >>> Seven Bathurst High School basketball players, along with a local : >>> teacher, were killed early Saturday when their 15-seat 1997 Ford Club [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] : : And James Naismith. Where I used to live - Rockhampton - It would not rain for up to 8 months. The build up of oil and grime on the roads was not a problem until it rained for the first time after a big dry. Makes the roads quite slick for a while, not like ice but you would expect ice to be slippery. One day after a short downpour after a long dry I saw 2 landcruisers in different places on their sides that had slid sideways negotiating a corner and hit the gutter. Both had the wide tyres and weren't ready for what happened after the rain, either that or they had just forgotten what driving on a wet road is like. Where I live now we average an inch of rain a night, a week without rain is a drought. During the 3 months of winter (I should say shorter days, it's 32C here every day of the year) we get 200 inches, strange thing is almost all of it falls at night after 9PM. Last year I think we only had about 10 rainy days. The locals would say it is snowing on the mountains or it is snowing on the sea, they meant mist as it makes distant places look whiter, they've never seen snow, most are never likely to. The tallest mountain in the country sometimes can get sleet but it doesn't last long. SignatureBrad Leyden 6° 43.5816' S 146° 59.3097' E WGS84 To mail spam is really hot but please reply to thread so all may benefit (or laugh at my mistakes) |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message