...the UK usually follows soon afterwards:
tinyurl.com/39vrxb
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
And quite right too. One of my pet peeves are people who smoke in cars with kids in the back. Quite often you'll see mum and dad puffing away with the windows tightly closed meaning that the poor little blighters in the back are being comprehensively kippered.
|
"the UK usually follows soon afterwards"
Goodo, price of petrol? price of cars? Price of many other things? Handy rifle?
--
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
Our government should not have made the "no smoking in public places by law" act(s). They shouldn't stop people smoking just because there are children in the car. They should stop drivers smoking, similarly to stopping drivers using mobile 'phones (but with far harsher penalties for both) - but if they really want to do something sensible about smoking, they should just ban it completely, full stop. Have they the guts to? No. Neither have the Yanks.
|
Hmm, yes, because the previous example of banning alcohol was an almost complete success wasn't it, as is the current ban on drugs?
Whatever substance you've tried to ban is still available, except now there's no quality control and the black market creates lots and lots of jolly rich criminals about, prepared to defend their ill-gotten gains with guns.
|
Dyane 6 Mehari, respeck.
:o)
|
Amercia does today - as afr as car design is concerned - what the rest of the woprld did 10 years ago.
They are so far behind... third world.
When oil is traded in yen or euros or anything but dollars (cos the US is printing too many)
you'll see an interesting change.
madf
|
|
|
|
Whatever substance you've tried to ban is still available except now there's no quality control and the black market creates lots and lots of jolly rich criminals about prepared to defend their ill-gotten gains with guns.
Eh? Were you reading the same thing as me? I don't recall it saying that cigarettes would be banned - just that smoking whilst driving a car containing children would be banned. Eminently sensible if you ask me...
**This post is sponsored by Jacob's Creek**
|
Eh? Were you reading the same thing as me?
No he wasn't, he was reading the post suggesting they should just ban smoking outright, which you seem to have missed ;)
|
|
|
|
Hmm yes because the previous example of banning alcohol was an almost complete success wasn't
You are quite right. Prohibition was a complete disaster, and simply turned America into a gangster state with a taste for alcohol.
But it is pointless trying to argue with people who want to ban things. For them the arguments are irrelevant: it is the act of banning that makes them feel good, regardless of the outcome.
|
Quote: {Amercia does today - as afr as car design is concerned - what the rest of the woprld did 10 years ago.}
Exactly what I was going to say. US has given the world very few innovations in terms of vehicle technology, one of those few things being the automatic gearbox (Cadillac, I think, in the early 1930's)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can't you drive at sixteen in the States? Turn right on a red traffic light signal, use your lights when operating your wipers, have a sixgun in your face if pulled over by the local constabulary. The fuel may be cheap but our American friends pay lots of tax, healthcare costs are a huge chunk of ordinary families budgets.
|
Exactly what I was going to say. US has given the world very few innovations in terms of vehicle technology one of those few things being the automatic gearbox
You will find they are credited with a few more firsts than auto gearboxes!
If you look at this list of firsts in *production* cars, a good percentage are from US manufacturers. ;o)
snipurl.com/1s34b
(but then its Wikipedia so probably all wrong?)
|
Quite right Rich 9-3. US certainly led the way in automobile production technology, as well as originating quite a few design firsts. The Ford Model T set the tone for the world car industry, being the first car mass-produced on a moving production line.
Since the second world war though the US motor corporations have been so huge and musclebound that conservatism has ruled most of the time. The defeat of GM over the Chevrolet Corvair (under harassment from the appalling shyster Ralph Nader) is an example of post-war Detroit pusillanimity. American buyers tended for a long time to dislike anything genuinely unusual, although bizarre bling was much favoured. I think the US industry has lost its way now. Can't think of a decent American car apart from the Chrysler 300C and a few sporting monsters.
|
Wasn't it in 1973 (or 1978) that the Americans were the first to introduce catalytic converters?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
|
snipurl.com/1s34b
American manufacturers get remarkably few firsts on that list, especially considering the United States' dominance in auto manufacturing for much of the twentieth century. But my favourite item listed is the Geely BL, the first with in-car karaoke system. Pity that never caught on!
|
American manufacturers get remarkably few firsts on that list
On that list of innovations: steering wheel, speedometer, fuel guage, indicators, windscreen demister, windscreen washers, alternator, starter motor, power steering, coil spring/ damper suspension, turbocharger. Most (not all) of these items are fundamental to the car as we know it, (I've not gone into gadgets like cruise control, automatic headlights, or head-up display).
I agree with Lud that the US industry was hit hard by the '70's fuel crisis and never really recovered. They failed to respond to the influx of economical Japanese and European cars. I cant think of a truly innovative (mass produced) US car since the '60's? (although Dodge Caravan came out a year before the Espace, so we could jointly blame them for introducing the people carrier as we currently know it).
Corvair was innovative for the US but it handled like a dog apparently?
To answer Stuarts question they introduced catalytic converters in 1975. '75 Corvettes had a sign in the fuel guage saying 'unleaded fuel only'.
Mid- '70's Mustangs with all the 'smog gear' fitted only managed to produce around 125bhp from a 5 litre engine - shameful! Five years earlier you could buy one with 200 more than that..
|
I understand US auto philosphy was:
If it's small , make it slipshod. SO buyers buy our bigger cars.
If it's bigger, most of our owners are idiots. So live rear axles and simple does it.
If it's big and expensive, it does not need to go round corners. (Ever heard a US car cornering on US rubber?)
What's fuel economy? It's for wimps.
A pick up is a symbol of national engineering achievement.
And finally: if you want a car with doors that shut properly, a reasonable interior and an exterior with any resemblance to tasteful styling, buy an import.
Apart from that, US cars are the epitome of carp.
madf
|
|
|
|
|
|
