Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

stickguy

murphy, if you are paying, try to fix. I had a problem with our Quest (I think it was a 1999?) radio. We had an optional package with a fancy headunit, and they were pricey. Probably about 4 years old maybe, when the display went out, and I about had heart failure when I found out how much ($900? Something crazy like that). Did some research, and discovered that it also was fairly common issue, and also failed connections on the board. took it to a local stereo shop, they pulled it out, fixed all the broken joints, put it back in, and it was good as new for as long as I owned the car. Might have been in the $125 range? way, way cheaper.

isellhondas

28firefighter said:

murphydog said:

Just noticed that one of the LED tail lights went out on the 2013 X3 - did some research and the LED is part of the housing and not replaceable like a typical light bulb. Figured no big deal, covered under CPO warranty....Nope, not covered and replacing the housing is $450! I asked the service tech to see if BMW HQ will throw in a goodwill replacement.

Dug a bit deeper and this appears to be a very common issue, the control board for the LED lights has weak solder joints that can crack. Several YouTube videos show what a simple fix it is.

That said I can't believe there isn't a recall as having your tail lights go out seems like a clear safety issue.

Figures. I love German cars but this is a perfect example of over-engineering.

Typical BMW! This comes from a guy who has owned four of them. If you replace a tail light bulb with a bulb that comes from NAPA, it'll work just fine but after a few days you'll get a warning light saying your light is out when it isn't! Why? Because you didn't use an OEM light bulb! If you replace your gas cap with one from NAPA that is identical in every way, somehow, the car will know it and after a day or so your CEL will come on and stay on UNTIL you go to BMW and buy the factory one! Go figure!

explorerx4

My wife bought an extended warranty for her Lincoln MKC. The LED housing were extra on top of the 'best' coverage. The cheaper rear light housing was $450. Extra coverage for 7 years(front and back) was $85. She followed my advice and added it. Kind of feel like I'm off the hook in case something goes wrong.

28firefighter

explorerx4 said:

My wife bought an extended warranty for her Lincoln MKC. The LED housing were extra on top of the 'best' coverage. The cheaper rear light housing was $450. Extra coverage for 7 years(front and back) was $85. She followed my advice and added it. Kind of feel like I'm off the hook in case something goes wrong.

Smart man.

suydam

An ‘08 minivan is nearly 10 years old. Newer ones are more efficient. Most seat 7 with ease and carry a lot of stuff too. SUVs are a choice people make. Just as are minivans and every other kind of vehicle.

murphydog

murphydog said:

Just noticed that one of the LED tail lights went out on the 2013 X3 - did some research and the LED is part of the housing and not replaceable like a typical light bulb. Figured no big deal, covered under CPO warranty....Nope, not covered and replacing the housing is $450! I asked the service tech to see if BMW HQ will throw in a goodwill replacement.

Dug a bit deeper and this appears to be a very common issue, the control board for the LED lights has weak solder joints that can crack. Several YouTube videos show what a simple fix it is.

That said I can't believe there isn't a recall as having your tail lights go out seems like a clear safety issue.

Whew - I asked the service advisor to check and see if it could be covered via "goodwill". He followed up and got the replacement unit covered 95% - I am OK paying 5% of ~$450.

Only time will tell if the other 3 fail as well...

murphydog

suydam said:

An ‘08 minivan is nearly 10 years old. Newer ones are more efficient. Most seat 7 with ease and carry a lot of stuff too. SUVs are a choice people make. Just as are minivans and every other kind of vehicle.

Kind of interesting - the local vanpool vans are Dodge's. They get pretty poor mileage, maybe 1 MPG better than my RAM 1500 pick up truck. Mind you these are brand new models as well

Sandman6472

Have driven a Silverado at work, probably same size as the F-150, and they are truly big, too big for me. My neighbor has a Silverado but drives it solo 90% of the time, and that's to work. Takes his two little boys on the weekend though. Just seems a bit too big and think a Colorado size would work just as well.

The Sandman

thebean

qbrozen said:

thebean said:

I spent Saturday driving around Dallas doing errands, and it depressed me that at least 60% of the vehicles on the road were either medium to large pickups or SUV's and 60% of those had ONE person in them. It was like driving in a corn maze trying to see around these numbskulls. About a month ago, a friend of mine from Germany was in NY/NJ/Pennsylvania and asked me why people drove such monstrous vehicles. I had no good answer except to say that we are a dumb, ego-driven country. I told him he should come down to a Texas and he would be amazed. It's huge vehicle Disneyland down here. I just don't understand the reasoning behind the big SUV's and pickups as daily drivers, especially for women. If you need to transport 5 or more people, a minivan is much more efficient. If you occasionally need to haul something, you can rent a truck for pocket change. I think we Americans are the most wasteful consumers in the world. Is image and perceived "prestige" all some people think about when they buy a vehicle? I know people will point to safety as a reason to buy a huge vehicle, but if there were very few of these battering rams, driving would be safer and everyone would not need to drive behemoths everywhere they go. Don't even get me started on all the idiots glued to their phones going 70 mph on a crowded highway. Somehow, and I can't point to a tipping point, we Americans collectively have lost massive IQ points in the past 40 years when it comes to our vehicles. Maybe I need to move to Greenland.

Wow. Way to be unbiased.

your assertion that a minivan is more effecient is incorrect. My F150 beats our '08 T&C (and '09 LR2) easily. Just about a dead heat with my previous EX35, CTS, G35x, Lincoln LS, and Mustang. Our '14 T&C wins by 1 whopping mpg. Meanwhile, compared to my previous "socially acceptable" vehicles, I have the added advantage of 4WD, very comfy seating for 6, and the ability to carry things the minivan fails to (such as the kids loft beds we got last month). So why again am I am "numbskull" according to you? Perception is not always reality, my friend.

You're just as biased for huge vehicles as I am for not liking them.  I don't expect owners of them to be anything other than unabashed homers for them.  I get that and it's your right.  People can drive what they want, but understand that some of us don't share this love for tanks.  I didn't classify all drivers of huge cars as numbskulls, but a lot of them I come into contact with are.

thebean

murphydog said:

thebean said:

I spent Saturday driving around Dallas doing errands, and it depressed me that at least 60% of the vehicles on the road were either medium to large pickups or SUV's and 60% of those had ONE person in them. It was like driving in a corn maze trying to see around these numbskulls. About a month ago, a friend of mine from Germany was in NY/NJ/Pennsylvania and asked me why people drove such monstrous vehicles. I had no good answer except to say that we are a dumb, ego-driven country. I told him he should come down to a Texas and he would be amazed. It's huge vehicle Disneyland down here. I just don't understand the reasoning behind the big SUV's and pickups as daily drivers, especially for women. If you need to transport 5 or more people, a minivan is much more efficient. If you occasionally need to haul something, you can rent a truck for pocket change. I think we Americans are the most wasteful consumers in the world. Is image and perceived "prestige" all some people think about when they buy a vehicle? I know people will point to safety as a reason to buy a huge vehicle, but if there were very few of these battering rams, driving would be safer and everyone would not need to drive behemoths everywhere they go. Don't even get me started on all the idiots glued to their phones going 70 mph on a crowded highway. Somehow, and I can't point to a tipping point, we Americans collectively have lost massive IQ points in the past 40 years when it comes to our vehicles. Maybe I need to move to Greenland.

Wow. Way to be unbiased.

your assertion that a minivan is more effecient is incorrect. My F150 beats our '08 T&C (and '09 LR2) easily. Just about a dead heat with my previous EX35, CTS, G35x, Lincoln LS, and Mustang. Our '14 T&C wins by 1 whopping mpg. Meanwhile, compared to my previous "socially acceptable" vehicles, I have the added advantage of 4WD, very comfy seating for 6, and the ability to carry things the minivan fails to (such as the kids loft beds we got last month). So why again am I am "numbskull" according to you? Perception is not always reality, my friend.

I agree Q - in fact in this neck of the woods the dangerous drivers not paying attention to those around them are the prius drivers who seem more focused on the "eco video game" playing out on their dash board. Vehicles are a personal choice - I have a full size pick up that I typically use on the weekends and when we pickup and haul items related to owning a horse, that said I occasionally drive it around town. However I don't drive it to and from work as I have alternatives that work better for that. Not sure why the need for such sweeping judgement.

Nice unbiased post about Prius drivers.  Pot, meet kettle.  No different than my post.

imidazol97

I don't think most people have actually sat down and used the information given to estimate the tax bill under the proposed new systems compared to the 2016 system. It would be like going in to buy a car without doing a spreadsheet in advance to estimate what to expect. Instead folks are getting the propaganda from parts of the media in their own efforts to affect the opinions.

I have been running estimates as info comes out comparing my 2017/8 to my 2016 tax bill. My biggest question is how capital gains will be handled. Many story writers in the media try to include data points and numbers about who won't have tax cuts but that incudes many people who already pay little or no taxes. Indeed some get money back as credits. I'm more interested in people who do pay taxes as do I and who will be getting some cut in their taxes.

This topic probably should be in https://forums.edmunds.com/discussion/7256/general/x/the-stock-market-and-investing#latest
since it easily can become problematic. There the topic has some relationship to the markets.

explorerx4

When I drove a small car, I hated mid size car drivers. They had no compunction about pulling out right of front of me. It's just a perspective difference.
Do I feel bad about driving a big, all black truck? NO.

qbrozen

thebean said:

qbrozen said:

thebean said:

I spent Saturday driving around Dallas doing errands, and it depressed me that at least 60% of the vehicles on the road were either medium to large pickups or SUV's and 60% of those had ONE person in them. It was like driving in a corn maze trying to see around these numbskulls. About a month ago, a friend of mine from Germany was in NY/NJ/Pennsylvania and asked me why people drove such monstrous vehicles. I had no good answer except to say that we are a dumb, ego-driven country. I told him he should come down to a Texas and he would be amazed. It's huge vehicle Disneyland down here. I just don't understand the reasoning behind the big SUV's and pickups as daily drivers, especially for women. If you need to transport 5 or more people, a minivan is much more efficient. If you occasionally need to haul something, you can rent a truck for pocket change. I think we Americans are the most wasteful consumers in the world. Is image and perceived "prestige" all some people think about when they buy a vehicle? I know people will point to safety as a reason to buy a huge vehicle, but if there were very few of these battering rams, driving would be safer and everyone would not need to drive behemoths everywhere they go. Don't even get me started on all the idiots glued to their phones going 70 mph on a crowded highway. Somehow, and I can't point to a tipping point, we Americans collectively have lost massive IQ points in the past 40 years when it comes to our vehicles. Maybe I need to move to Greenland.

Wow. Way to be unbiased.

your assertion that a minivan is more effecient is incorrect. My F150 beats our '08 T&C (and '09 LR2) easily. Just about a dead heat with my previous EX35, CTS, G35x, Lincoln LS, and Mustang. Our '14 T&C wins by 1 whopping mpg. Meanwhile, compared to my previous "socially acceptable" vehicles, I have the added advantage of 4WD, very comfy seating for 6, and the ability to carry things the minivan fails to (such as the kids loft beds we got last month). So why again am I am "numbskull" according to you? Perception is not always reality, my friend.

You're just as biased for huge vehicles as I am for not liking them.  I don't expect owners of them to be anything other than unabashed homers for them.  I get that and it's your right.  People can drive what they want, but understand that some of us don't share this love for tanks.  I didn't classify all drivers of huge cars as numbskulls, but a lot of them I come into contact with are.

Actually, I'm fairly unbiased considering this is my first truck in nearly 20 years. It took that long for them to make them drive, handle, and sip fuel in a way I find satisfactory. I don't judge a book by its cover and am a nonpartisan supporter of all good vehicles, regardless of size. 

thebean

imidazol97 said:

I don't think most people have actually sat down and used the information given to estimate the tax bill under the proposed new systems compared to the 2016 system. It would be like going in to buy a car without doing a spreadsheet in advance to estimate what to expect. Instead folks are getting the propaganda from parts of the media in their own efforts to affect the opinions. I have been running estimates as info comes out comparing my 2017/8 to my 2016 tax bill. My biggest question is how capital gains will be handled. Many story writers in the media try to include data points and numbers about who won't have tax cuts but that incudes many people who already pay little or no taxes. Indeed some get money back as credits. I'm more interested in people who do pay taxes as do I and who will be getting some cut in their taxes. This topic probably should be in https://forums.edmunds.com/discussion/7256/general/x/the-stock-market-and-investing#latest since it easily can become problematic. There the topic has some relationship to the markets.

Great post.  Way too much knee jerk reactions on a lot of things and not near enough looking at the reality.  A lot of people want the answers given to them and don't want to do even a minimum amount of work to get it themselves.

pensfan83

driver100 said:

Pensfan.....do your interviews go something like this?

Job interview with a millenial

Playing catch up...love this video.

explorerx4

I thought the impact of the 2018 tax rules were pretty easy to figure out using 2016 as a reference.
Where we live, it will be additional taxes paid.
Probably more AMT.

tbirdmarco

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EkPP7wQ_YhA

oldfarmer50

explorerx4 said:

When I drove a small car, I hated mid size car drivers. They had no compunction about pulling out right of front of me. It's just a perspective difference.
Do I feel bad about driving a big, all black truck? NO.

I think the saddest thing would be to drive a car you don't like for the sake of meeting someone else's expectations.

I drive the big van in traffic because it has good forward visibility and as an $1800 vehicle if it gets whacked, so what.

I drive the PT Crusier for errands because it's zippy and maneuverable at lower speeds. Also it's the one my wife can get in to.

I drive the Mustang just for me...well...because.

abacomike

@imidazol97

I totally agree, imid!  Lots of propaganda out there - especially about the tax bill.  If you take the time to carefully extrapolate the provisions and how these will affect your tax bill for 2018, depression quickly takes hold of you emotions when you find out your taxes will not go down after all.

stickguy

a couple of random thoughts. First, it was supposed to be a tax simplification overhaul. Not an across the board tax cut. The concept is that you make it fair by eliminating tons of useless or unfair deductions and loopholes. And yes, that means that some people pay more, some people pay less. The tax code has always, and will always, pick "winners and losers" based on the provisions that make it in. So just because some middle class earners end up paying more, does not mean the bill is inherently bad or unfair (rather, it should mean that those people were paying too little in the past!)

Note: not commenting on the specifics of this bill (which so far, sounds like just as loaded with "pork", just moving it around to different people). Just the theory of what is claimed to be happening, vs. the reality.

Also, there is not actually a bill. There are 2, with quite different provisions in some areas. Until the lobbyists house and senate get together and hash out one bill to get voted on, no one is really sure what it means to them.

thebean

stickguy said:

a couple of random thoughts. First, it was supposed to be a tax simplification overhaul. Not an across the board tax cut. The concept is that you make it fair by eliminating tons of useless or unfair deductions and loopholes. And yes, that means that some people pay more, some people pay less. The tax code has always, and will always, pick "winners and losers" based on the provisions that make it in. So just because some middle class earners end up paying more, does not mean the bill is inherently bad or unfair (rather, it should mean that those people were paying too little in the past!) Note: not commenting on the specifics of this bill (which so far, sounds like just as loaded with "pork", just moving it around to different people). Just the theory of what is claimed to be happening, vs. the reality. Also, there is not actually a bill. There are 2, with quite different provisions in some areas. Until the lobbyists house and senate get together and hash out one bill to get voted on, no one is really sure what it means to them.

All true, but I would bet a sizable amount that wealthy people will make out best of anyone once the final bill is passed.  And, the subset of super-rich will make out the best of the wealthy folks.

stickguy

oh sure, that is pretty much a given in both bills. but the devil will be in the details for normal folks.

jmonroe

abacomike said:

@imidazol97

I totally agree, imid!  Lots of propaganda out there - especially about the tax bill.  If you take the time to carefully extrapolate the provisions and how these will affect your tax bill for 2018, depression quickly takes hold of you emotions when you find out your taxes will not go down after all.

Now you know why I cheat. :@

jmonroe

murphydog

thebean said:

murphydog said:

qbrozen said:

thebean said:

I spent Saturday driving around Dallas doing errands, and it depressed me that at least 60% of the vehicles on the road were either medium to large pickups or SUV's and 60% of those had ONE person in them. It was like driving in a corn maze trying to see around these numbskulls. About a month ago, a friend of mine from Germany was in NY/NJ/Pennsylvania and asked me why people drove such monstrous vehicles. I had no good answer except to say that we are a dumb, ego-driven country. I told him he should come down to a Texas and he would be amazed. It's huge vehicle Disneyland down here.

I just don't understand the reasoning behind the big SUV's and pickups as daily drivers, especially for women. If you need to transport 5 or more people, a minivan is much more efficient. If you occasionally need to haul something, you can rent a truck for pocket change. I think we Americans are the most wasteful consumers in the world. Is image and perceived "prestige" all some people think about when they buy a vehicle?

I know people will point to safety as a reason to buy a huge vehicle, but if there were very few of these battering rams, driving would be safer and everyone would not need to drive behemoths everywhere they go. Don't even get me started on all the idiots glued to their phones going 70 mph on a crowded highway. Somehow, and I can't point to a tipping point, we Americans collectively have lost massive IQ points in the past 40 years when it comes to our vehicles.

Maybe I need to move to Greenland.

Wow. Way to be unbiased.

your assertion that a minivan is more effecient is incorrect. My F150 beats our '08 T&C (and '09 LR2) easily. Just about a dead heat with my previous EX35, CTS, G35x, Lincoln LS, and Mustang. Our '14 T&C wins by 1 whopping mpg. Meanwhile, compared to my previous "socially acceptable" vehicles, I have the added advantage of 4WD, very comfy seating for 6, and the ability to carry things the minivan fails to (such as the kids loft beds we got last month). So why again am I am "numbskull" according to you? Perception is not always reality, my friend.

I agree Q - in fact in this neck of the woods the dangerous drivers not paying attention to those around them are the prius drivers who seem more focused on the "eco video game" playing out on their dash board.

Vehicles are a personal choice - I have a full size pick up that I typically use on the weekends and when we pickup and haul items related to owning a horse, that said I occasionally drive it around town. However I don't drive it to and from work as I have alternatives that work better for that. Not sure why the need for such sweeping judgement.

Nice unbiased post about Prius drivers.  Pot, meet kettle.  No different than my post.

That was exactly my point. Making a broad stereotype unsupported by any kind of facts. Came across as an attack on your fellow posters

driver100

jmonroe said:

abacomike said:

@imidazol97

I totally agree, imid!  Lots of propaganda out there - especially about the tax bill.  If you take the time to carefully extrapolate the provisions and how these will affect your tax bill for 2018, depression quickly takes hold of you emotions when you find out your taxes will not go down after all.

Now you know why I cheat. :@

jmonroe

I hope there aren't any government tax auditors on this site.

If there are, it has been nice knowing JMonroe.

btw....are there any rewards for handing someone in?

cdnpinhead

Several of us on here probably remember the "I Don't Like SUVs -- Why Do You?" board -- definitely a bleachers and popcorn situation. Seemed to come down to "if you don't need it or use it for its intended purpose, who are you trying to convince that you're a big bad offroader?" The responses were worth the price of admission, and we seem to be headed down that road here as well. For a few years my two vehicles were a Datsun 240Z and a Kenworth cabover tractor, so it's all relative.

Party on!

graphicguy

imidazol97 said:

graphicguy said:

I don’t get it. How many times do speed cameras have to be declared unconstitutional? What am I missing given these things are still around?
RB....your thoughts?

RB's in the wrong state... Ohio has "home rule." Somehow the cities say that means they can do as they please about giving out bills for speeding without due course as in a hearing before being pronounced guilty.

Our legislators, so called, passed a law that there had to be a policeman present for each photo billing taken from a speed or red light camera. A few cities saw $$$ flying away and won a suit that went to the supreme court. They gleefully have announced they have turned back on their cameras--Dayton and Trotwood. And every citation about their reasons by the story-writers in the local media carries the pronouncement that the cameras stop red light running and slow cars down, magically, somehow. And that the cities are only doing this for safety.

My own legislator, an insurance salesman guy, responded when I asked what was being done about these rogue cities by saying the State is withholding money they dole out to local entities equal to what they collect in "bills" to the criminals running and speeding. Then he also said that the cities say it reduces accidents and is for safety.

A camera can not be cross examined. Again, with no one observing the alleged crime to testify against you, how is this constitutional?

graphicguy

RB...with all the glad handing, back room deals between municipalities, and downright dirty politics red light camera companies have participated in, that alone should be cause for a massive amount of litigation against them, and the state.

snakeweasel

thebean said:

stickguy said:

a couple of random thoughts. First, it was supposed to be a tax simplification overhaul. Not an across the board tax cut. The concept is that you make it fair by eliminating tons of useless or unfair deductions and loopholes. And yes, that means that some people pay more, some people pay less. The tax code has always, and will always, pick "winners and losers" based on the provisions that make it in. So just because some middle class earners end up paying more, does not mean the bill is inherently bad or unfair (rather, it should mean that those people were paying too little in the past!) Note: not commenting on the specifics of this bill (which so far, sounds like just as loaded with "pork", just moving it around to different people). Just the theory of what is claimed to be happening, vs. the reality. Also, there is not actually a bill. There are 2, with quite different provisions in some areas. Until the lobbyists house and senate get together and hash out one bill to get voted on, no one is really sure what it means to them.

All true, but I would bet a sizable amount that wealthy people will make out best of anyone once the final bill is passed.  And, the subset of super-rich will make out the best of the wealthy folks.

Would make sense since a sizable amount of tax revenue comes from wealthy people and there is a large segment of the country that pays no tax. You can't give a tax cut to someone who pays no taxes. 

snakeweasel

driver100 said:

@imidazol97

I totally agree, imid!  Lots of propaganda out there - especially about the tax bill.  If you take the time to carefully extrapolate the provisions and how these will affect your tax bill for 2018, depression quickly takes hold of you emotions when you find out your taxes will not go down after all.

Now you know why I cheat. :@ jmonroe

I hope there aren't any government tax auditors on this site. If there are, it has been nice knowing JMonroe. btw....are there any rewards for handing someone in?

Well you may be entitled to 10% of anything recovered. Fun fact estranged spouses and jilted lovers are the largest group that turn in tax cheats. 

snakeweasel

graphicguy said:

I don’t get it. How many times do speed cameras have to be declared unconstitutional? What am I missing given these things are still around? RB....your thoughts?

RB's in the wrong state... Ohio has "home rule." Somehow the cities say that means they can do as they please about giving out bills for speeding without due course as in a hearing before being pronounced guilty. Our legislators, so called, passed a law that there had to be a policeman present for each photo billing taken from a speed or red light camera. A few cities saw $$$ flying away and won a suit that went to the supreme court. They gleefully have announced they have turned back on their cameras--Dayton and Trotwood. And every citation about their reasons by the story-writers in the local media carries the pronouncement that the cameras stop red light running and slow cars down, magically, somehow. And that the cities are only doing this for safety. My own legislator, an insurance salesman guy, responded when I asked what was being done about these rogue cities by saying the State is withholding money they dole out to local entities equal to what they collect in "bills" to the criminals running and speeding. Then he also said that the cities say it reduces accidents and is for safety.

A camera can not be cross examined. Again, with no one observing the alleged crime to testify against you, how is this constitutional?

The camera, or the picture, is not a witness or the complanted, it's simply evidence. By your logic any evidence cannot be admitted in court because you cannot cross examine it. 

The one you cross examine in the officer or technician who examined the picture and made the determination. 

fintail

I think it has in some areas, I know I have read cases about the crony capitalism and outright bribery involved with some camera schemes.

They just need to admit it is about money and treat it like a tax, not some cheap fake veneer of safety to appease the timid and paranoid.

graphicguy said:

RB...with all the glad handing, back room deals between municipalities, and downright dirty politics red light camera companies have participated in, that alone should be cause for a massive amount of litigation against them, and the state.

fintail

Drive in suburban Seattle for a day, every Prius stereotype will manifest itself on the roads

I don't care what people drive, just learn lane discipline, your blind spots, and figure out how to properly park the thing.

murphydog said:

Nice unbiased post about Prius drivers.  Pot, meet kettle.  No different than my post.

That was exactly my point. Making a broad stereotype unsupported by any kind of facts. Came across as an attack on your fellow posters

fintail

There's a new love of the 80s out there, you can see it with some recent TV shows. We are also revisiting their failed tax/economic policies and wasteful drug dogma.

thebean said:

All true, but I would bet a sizable amount that wealthy people will make out best of anyone once the final bill is passed.  And, the subset of super-rich will make out the best of the wealthy folks.

qbrozen

cdnpinhead said:

Several of us on here probably remember the "I Don't Like SUVs -- Why Do You?" board -- definitely a bleachers and popcorn situation. Seemed to come down to "if you don't need it or use it for its intended purpose, who are you trying to convince that you're a big bad offroader?" The responses were worth the price of admission, and we seem to be headed down that road here as well. For a few years my two vehicles were a Datsun 240Z and a Kenworth cabover tractor, so it's all relative. Party on!

 Yes, and this was definitely reminding me of that. For a little while I went round and round with a poster who would claim that fuel efficiency was the big argument for not liking SUVs.  After some back-and-forth, he would eventually agree that something like my wife's Pilot at the time was just as efficient as many smaller vehicle choices, but then the next day he would be right back to making the same claims. I gave up after a little while since it was obvious some people there just wanted to argue no matter what and not actually learn anything.

Michaell

I don't care what people drive, just learn lane discipline, your blind spots, and figure out how to properly park the thing.

Exactly!

At the turn of the century, our two cars were a '99 VW New Beetle and a '99 Ford Expedition.

The Expedition had a better turning radius than the VW! Was much easier to park.

snakeweasel

fintail said:

I think it has in some areas, I know I have read cases about the crony capitalism and outright bribery involved with some camera schemes. They just need to admit it is about money and treat it like a tax, not some cheap fake veneer of safety to appease the timid and paranoid.

RB...with all the glad handing, back room deals between municipalities, and downright dirty politics red light camera companies have participated in, that alone should be cause for a massive amount of litigation against them, and the state.

If it's about money then they defiantly target the wrong streets. 

houdini1

abacomike said:

It’s 46 degrees right now and the low of 42 is slowly nearing my condo.  I haven’t had to turn on the heat for many years - but I did pull out a few comforters to keep me warm and toasty through the night.  In other words, “...I’m freezing my derrière off!”

Global warming is a bit*ch !!

Mr_Shiftright said:

Yep, one prediction for GW was temperature extremes on both ends. Makes sense if ocean currents and overall weather patterns change.

42 ain't bad. That's considered a "Mediterranean climate" normality for winter time.

Nope, makes no sense. Can't have it both ways, though that is indeed the intent.

fintail

I agree, they defiantly do a lot of things

Easy to do when there's no real accountability, and tons of rewards.

If it's not about money, why do camera operators get an insane cut, and have been known to bribe slammer (or worse) -worthy officials?

snakeweasel said:

If it's about money then they defiantly target the wrong streets. 

fintail

I remember when I was a student and a roomate had a 92 Accord, my fintail seemed much more maneuverable. Mordern cars aren't superior to older or larger rigs at everything.

At the same time, large vehicle drivers should think of themselves as representatives, knowing they are more visible, and try to behave properly. Every time I see a Suburban or similar crammed in a compact space, I cringe for the future, obliviousness. Park up against me in the old car, and the door might slip out of my hand a few dozen times while I am trying to squeeze in. Oops!

Michaell said:

Exactly!

At the turn of the century, our two cars were a '99 VW New Beetle and a '99 Ford Expedition.

The Expedition had a better turning radius than the VW! Was much easier to park.

snakeweasel

fintail said:

I agree, they defiantly do a lot of things Easy to do when there's no real accountability, and tons of rewards. If it's not about money, why do camera operators get an insane cut, and have been known to bribe slammer (or worse) -worthy officials?

If it's about money then they defiantly target the wrong streets. 

I can take you to many streets and roads here where few, if any, drive slower than 10 over the speed limit yet there is no enforcement of the speed limit. The respective town's could clean up on these roads but focus their enforcement on areas where they will generate less revenue. if it were simply about money there are much better fishing spots to raise revenue. 

fintail

Maybe because the "think of the children" idiots don't know or care about those places? Maybe the false pretense of safety won't work there? Maybe the volumes aren't worthy? I don't know about your local anecdotes, so I will take your word for it.

snakeweasel said:

I can take you to many streets and roads here where few, if any, drive slower than 10 over the speed limit yet there is no enforcement of the speed limit. The respective town's could clean up on these roads but focus their enforcement on areas where they will generate less revenue. if it were simply about money there are much better fishing spots to raise revenue. 

stickguy

Just need one local politician or noisy activist on a particular road to make that the priority.

snakeweasel

fintail said:

Maybe because the "think of the children" idiots don't know or care about those places? Maybe the false pretense of safety won't work there? Maybe the volumes aren't worthy? I don't know about your local anecdotes, so I will take your word for it.

I can take you to many streets and roads here where few, if any, drive slower than 10 over the speed limit yet there is no enforcement of the speed limit. The respective town's could clean up on these roads but focus their enforcement on areas where they will generate less revenue. if it were simply about money there are much better fishing spots to raise revenue. 

That's just it, they watch school zones, residential areas, and near parks as needing far more enforcement for safety issues than a wide open road going past fields and industrial parks. Even though it means less tickets issued and less revenue raised. 

Mr_Shiftright

driver100 said:

Speaking of single exhaust pipes I saw a Porsche Boxster the other day and it had a single exhaust in the MIDDLE! What's the deal there....looks odd to me?

Mr_Shiftright

oldfarmer50 said:

explorerx4 said:

When I drove a small car, I hated mid size car drivers. They had no compunction about pulling out right of front of me. It's just a perspective difference.
Do I feel bad about driving a big, all black truck? NO.

I think the saddest thing would be to drive a car you don't like for the sake of meeting someone else's expectations.

I drive the big van in traffic because it has good forward visibility and as an $1800 vehicle if it gets whacked, so what.

I drive the PT Crusier for errands because it's zippy and maneuverable at lower speeds. Also it's the one my wife can get in to.

I drive the Mustang just for me...well...because.

I have a bicycle, a motorcycle, a sub-compact and a big fat 4X4----I get to love everybody that way

Still need a skateboard and a Prius I guess to complete my embrace of all mankind.

oldfarmer50

graphicguy said:

imidazol97 said:

graphicguy said:

I don’t get it. How many times do speed cameras have to be declared unconstitutional? What am I missing given these things are still around?
RB....your thoughts?

RB's in the wrong state... Ohio has "home rule." Somehow the cities say that means they can do as they please about giving out bills for speeding without due course as in a hearing before being pronounced guilty.

Our legislators, so called, passed a law that there had to be a policeman present for each photo billing taken from a speed or red light camera. A few cities saw $$$ flying away and won a suit that went to the supreme court. They gleefully have announced they have turned back on their cameras--Dayton and Trotwood. And every citation about their reasons by the story-writers in the local media carries the pronouncement that the cameras stop red light running and slow cars down, magically, somehow. And that the cities are only doing this for safety.

My own legislator, an insurance salesman guy, responded when I asked what was being done about these rogue cities by saying the State is withholding money they dole out to local entities equal to what they collect in "bills" to the criminals running and speeding. Then he also said that the cities say it reduces accidents and is for safety.

A camera can not be cross examined. Again, with no one observing the alleged crime to testify against you, how is this constitutional?

In a local city they treat the camera ticket like a parking ticket and keep the fine at $50 which I guess passes constitutional muster. Not a moving violation so no points I guess.

First year in operation they raked in about $800k all of which went to the camera company. Suddenly it was about safety not revenue even though it left a $2 million hole in their budget.

Could these politicians be a bit disingenuous? Nah.

oldfarmer50

snakeweasel said:

thebean said:

stickguy said:

a couple of random thoughts. First, it was supposed to be a tax simplification overhaul. Not an across the board tax cut. The concept is that you make it fair by eliminating tons of useless or unfair deductions and loopholes. And yes, that means that some people pay more, some people pay less. The tax code has always, and will always, pick "winners and losers" based on the provisions that make it in. So just because some middle class earners end up paying more, does not mean the bill is inherently bad or unfair (rather, it should mean that those people were paying too little in the past!)

Note: not commenting on the specifics of this bill (which so far, sounds like just as loaded with "pork", just moving it around to different people). Just the theory of what is claimed to be happening, vs. the reality.

Also, there is not actually a bill. There are 2, with quite different provisions in some areas. Until the lobbyists house and senate get together and hash out one bill to get voted on, no one is really sure what it means to them.

All true, but I would bet a sizable amount that wealthy people will make out best of anyone once the final bill is passed.  And, the subset of super-rich will make out the best of the wealthy folks.

Would make sense since a sizable amount of tax revenue comes from wealthy people and there is a large segment of the country that pays no tax. You can't give a tax cut to someone who pays no taxes. 

Peons like me will make out pretty good with the doubled standard deduction. Never saw much benefit from itemizing because I had no mortgage. It always seemed unfair that I would get a 10% break at most and some rich tax cheat like Jmonroe would get close to 40% from the SALT deduction.

stickguy

Almost have to treat like a parking ticket, because citation mailed to the car, not the driver.

roadburner

cdnpinhead said:

Several of us on here probably remember the "I Don't Like SUVs -- Why Do You?" board -- definitely a bleachers and popcorn situation. Seemed to come down to "if you don't need it or use it for its intended purpose, who are you trying to convince that you're a big bad offroader?" The responses were worth the price of admission, and we seem to be headed down that road here as well. For a few years my two vehicles were a Datsun 240Z and a Kenworth cabover tractor, so it's all relative.

Party on!

Tell me about it; I just loved all the hand-wringing bedwetters who presumed to tell other people what they should drive. They were so wise and complacent- and amazed that anyone would dare to contradict their pious platitudes...