Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

snakeweasel

driver100 said:l.p.

My Florida neighbor told me his car insurance doubled. The insurance company blamed it on two things......the hurricane and the number of accidents has gone up by 25%, mostly because of distracted drivers using cell phones and texting. 

To me it sounds like the insurance company is just trying to justify rate increases. Has accidents really gone up that much?

snakeweasel

imidazol97 said:

SiriusXM got my ire up recently when they replaced Soultown with a Holiday music channel. I believe there are two other channels that are variations of Christmas/Holiday music. I liked my Soultown...

Speaking of Sirius I got a letter from them offering a deal if I renew my subscription. Funny thing is I never activated my Sirius, never saw a need for it. 

abacomike

I don’t doubt that all the new “nanny technology” on new cars today have and will help to reduce accidents (assuming the driver has not deactivated them), especially rear-enders.  The emergency “stop” technology in most new cars immediately alerts and stops the car if approaching another vehicle too quickly or too closely.

The same is true when backing out of a driveway or in a parking lot - any pedestrian or vehicle crossing the car’s sensors will alert and stop the car.

A problem with these alerts is that the beeps and sounds are the same and/or similar to many other alerts which can confuse the driver.  But, in general, adaptive lane tracking, blind spot monitors, cruise control, etc., can make a big difference in saving costly accidents and saving lives.

With all that said, some of the other technology advancements in audio, streaming, Car-Play, large display screens, etc., can contribute to even more distractions to the driver.  Examples include receiving and sending text messages through Car-Play, phone calls, changing audio sources (Sirius/XM, IHeartRadio, Pandora, Internet Radio) to name a few.

Now with the onset of autonomous and semiautonomous cars, the driver begins to depend more and more on computers to drive the car and look out for dangerous situations.  Thus, by drivers relinquishing some control of driving to technology, the danger is that the driver can become too complacent when behind the wheel.  Self-parking cars is another example where driving skills become desensitized by dependency on technology.

It’s another example of “the good, the bad and the ugly!”  

pensfan83

qbrozen said:

I put up with this atrocity for as long as I could stand. This morning was finally the time to take the matter into my own hands.

Ha! Well done...

stickguy

iluvmysephia1 said:

Are they snows, stick?

Nope. All seasons. I have no need for snow tires around here.

iluvmysephia1

abacomike - I agree with your points there, but, I still think that a good driver can adapt to these noises, bells and whistles, and still benefit overall from them. As a music lover, the hookup connections to get sound from so many sources is a fantastic thing for me. I grew up in the Seattle music scene, and, went south the 15 miles from where I lived in north Edmonds to Seattle for concerts whenever I could. I saw Foghat at least 6 times in the music-rich 70's, I saw Aerosmith a half-dozen times, J. Geils (RIP J. Geils) was often playing on the same bill with Foghat.

I never left the 70's as far as music goes. Carmakers are getting better at outfitting new cars with adequate stereos now, too. My 2011 Kia Soul's base unit needs no updating at all. The sound is loud and it is clear. The bass thumps, and there is a graphic equalizer that helps you adjust channels how you like them. I'm eager to get in the cabin of the little red smoker and tinker with the equipment. But if I stay with the '11 Kia Soul, I am outfitted well with my own little music paradise in there. Now, back to Aerosmith's 'Rocks' album. That was, IMHO, their best piece of musical genius. The entire album cooks with a vengeance, car lovers!

fintail

I'd like to know who signed off on that sign. Then drive by and downshift just for fun - as long as it doesn't break the engine, it's good

qbrozen

nyccarguy said:

I'll second that!  As well as the state & local tax deduction!  My bill for the year is over $9,700

I just went and looked at the proposed changes (in rough format). http://www.businessinsider.com/tax-brackets-2018-trump-tax-plan-chart-house-senate-comparison-2017-11

The increase in standard deduction is not near enough to offset my mortgage interest deduction; however, our tax bracket is dropping 3% overall. I would THINK that would all work out to about a wash. BUT I'm looking at my last year's return and, for some reason, that overall tax the software calculated for me works out to 24.68%, while I was in the 28% bracket. So color me thoroughly confused. If i take the table at face value and compare to last year's return, I'd be paying about $6k more. $500/mo is not small change!

qbrozen

fintail said:

I'd like to know who signed off on that sign. Then drive by and downshift just for fun - as long as it doesn't break the engine, it's good

I'm curious if it is misspelled in the laws book, too.

abacomike

qbrozen said:

I'll second that!  As well as the state & local tax deduction!  My bill for the year is over $9,700

I just went and looked at the proposed changes (in rough format). http://www.businessinsider.com/tax-brackets-2018-trump-tax-plan-chart-house-senate-comparison-2017-11 The increase in standard deduction is not near enough to offset my mortgage interest deduction; however, our tax bracket is dropping 3% overall. I would THINK that would all work out to about a wash. BUT I'm looking at my last year's return and, for some reason, that overall tax the software calculated for me works out to 24.68%, while I was in the 28% bracket. So color me thoroughly confused. If i take the table at face value and compare to last year's return, I'd be paying about $6k more. $500/mo is not small change!

Since Social Security becomes fully taxable under the proposed plans, retired folks will be hurt quite a bit.  These tax plans are for the wealthy taxpayers and business and corporations. My taxes go up, not down after looking at the proposed bills, and my income is upper middle class for a single individual.  

roadburner

So far I'm very pleased with the Vredestein Quatrac 5 tires I put on the Clubman. On Saturday we got some heavy snow showers that iced up a few of the local roads and the tires seemed to grip very well(the Severe Snow Service rating is a major plus).
I really like driving the Clubman in the colder weather- the heated seats get very warm and the HVAC is great as well.

Mr_Shiftright

roadburner said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

The Bolt is interesting---it can pretty much do anything a Model 3 can do, it's cheaper, and you can buy it right now.

BUT....it has a bowtie on the grill, not a "T". The Model 3 is the Apple X, the Bolt is the Samsung.

My main issue with the Bolt is that it's FWD; but I realize that is something that maybe .05% of car shoppers care about...

Well one can make a plausible case for FWD as an everyday car for everyday drivers, but FWD is, IMO, a great example of how consumers don't necessarily get "what they want" or "the best technology", but what manufacturers find profitable to design for them. And like you say, most consumers don't seem to mind at all.

Mr_Shiftright

fintail said:

I'd like to know who signed off on that sign. Then drive by and downshift just for fun - as long as it doesn't break the engine, it's good

Same guy who posted on Craigslist to sell his "Camero, new breaks, runs grate".

houdini1

abacomike said:

qbrozen said:

nyccarguy said:

I'll second that!  As well as the state & local tax deduction!  My bill for the year is over $9,700

I just went and looked at the proposed changes (in rough format). http://www.businessinsider.com/tax-brackets-2018-trump-tax-plan-chart-house-senate-comparison-2017-11

The increase in standard deduction is not near enough to offset my mortgage interest deduction; however, our tax bracket is dropping 3% overall. I would THINK that would all work out to about a wash. BUT I'm looking at my last year's return and, for some reason, that overall tax the software calculated for me works out to 24.68%, while I was in the 28% bracket. So color me thoroughly confused. If i take the table at face value and compare to last year's return, I'd be paying about $6k more. $500/mo is not small change!

Since Social Security becomes fully taxable under the proposed plans, retired folks will be hurt quite a bit.  These tax plans are for the wealthy taxpayers and business and corporations. My taxes go up, not down after looking at the proposed bills, and my income is upper middle class for a single individual.  

100% Mike. The middle class tax cut is just so much hot air. All politicians are on the dishonesty spectrum, it's just a matter of degree.

driver100

snakeweasel said:

driver100 said:l.p.

My Florida neighbor told me his car insurance doubled. The insurance company blamed it on two things......the hurricane and the number of accidents has gone up by 25%, mostly because of distracted drivers using cell phones and texting. 

To me it sounds like the insurance company is just trying to justify rate increases. Has accidents really gone up that much?

They really have gone up that much....25% and distracted driving is the big one now. I don't know how many cars were damaged in hurricanes but rental car rates doubled this fall. Car theft has also risen substantially in some areas of Tampa......kids just taking cars. They are looking at stiffer penalties for that too. I don't know if all that merits a doubling...but, I think it would add quite a bit.

oldfarmer50

abacomike said:

qbrozen said:

nyccarguy said:

I'll second that!  As well as the state & local tax deduction!  My bill for the year is over $9,700

I just went and looked at the proposed changes (in rough format). http://www.businessinsider.com/tax-brackets-2018-trump-tax-plan-chart-house-senate-comparison-2017-11

The increase in standard deduction is not near enough to offset my mortgage interest deduction; however, our tax bracket is dropping 3% overall. I would THINK that would all work out to about a wash. BUT I'm looking at my last year's return and, for some reason, that overall tax the software calculated for me works out to 24.68%, while I was in the 28% bracket. So color me thoroughly confused. If i take the table at face value and compare to last year's return, I'd be paying about $6k more. $500/mo is not small change!

Since Social Security becomes fully taxable under the proposed plans, retired folks will be hurt quite a bit.  These tax plans are for the wealthy taxpayers and business and corporations. My taxes go up, not down after looking at the proposed bills, and my income is upper middle class for a single individual.  

My SS is taxed 85% as it is so unless you're in abject poverty ($30k or so) there's not much difference.

What I want to see is how Capital Gains will change. Right now, at my modest income level my Capital Gains are pretty much tax free unless I sell so much of my investments that it boosts my income way up. I'd hate to be paying 20% from dollar one.

andres3

roadburner said:

I had a bit of fun on the drive home today; a guy in an early 2000's Mustang GT ended up beside me at a light. Very clean looking, with wider than stock tires and a loud(but nice sounding) exhaust. Alas, all his mods were in vain as I beat him by half a car length before I had to slow for the next light...

I don't think I drive enough 4-lane/2-lane each direction roads to encounter these stoplight shenanigans much. Or if there was a race, I've won them in such a landslide that it didn't seem like they challenged me (I remember picking on a lowly new FRS on a wet rainy day, ) Okay, so maybe I took advantage of that guy given the conditions.

I suppose I should set my sights on something that might be more than I can handle. There was a nice blue Ferrari in the Target parking lot the other week.

andres3

abacomike said:

Well, I just received my statement from the Social Security Administration advising me of my benefit(s) effective January 1, 2018. There was an increase of 2% over 2017, but my monthly benefit only went up $4.00 - it seems that the Congress approved an increase in the Medicare Insurance charge back on the monthly Social Security Benefit of $26.00, or about 99% of the 2% increase. Thus, I will have $4.00 more per month to "splurge" on in my retirement years.

Ahhhhhh, yes, God bless our government - one hand giveth and the other hand taketh away. Why didn't they just say, "...no increase in benefits this year for Social Security recipients." Then, behind the scenes, just take any increase they were thinking of giving retired folks and dump it right into the Medicare Trust Fund. Why get all our hopes up and then just take it away? They are "sadistic" - and I'm being kind!

If you think that's bad, what about traffic tickets that might have a fine of $25, but then end up costing you $370 after you pay for all the tacked-on court costs, fees, taxes, and anything else they can think of?

My understanding is the purpose of this is to avoid a Constitutional challenge to the "Cruel & Unusual Punishment" protections of our Constitution & Bill of Rights.

The punishment is $25, the rest is just fees and taxes

andres3

explorerx4 said:

Everyone better sit down. I have 5 Sirius subscriptions.
It is a pain to go through the renewal process, but it's just a 1st world problem, not real problem.

I have 2 accounts, and it's annoying. I have 3 cars, and since they won't make a "global" deal, I can't see having 3 accounts.

andres3

Mr_Shiftright said:

Michaell said:

Shifty - she’s as stubborn as they come. Unless the winds shift 180 degrees, I don’t think her house is in danger. 

Generally if she gets an advisory evac, she is at some risk. If she refuses a mandatory, she's asking for trouble. She might also consider the possibility of being trapped in a last minute panic.

There was a story of a couple people surviving some of these recent wildfires by jumping in their pool. Bonus points if they used wet clothes as a shield (extreme heat) and air filter every time coming up to breathe. Not a pleasant experience from what I read, but at least they lived.

stickguy

I kept consolidating since it was a pain keeping track of them all. Having fewer cars helps too.

andres3

roadburner said:

The latest episode of the RB Election Saga...
I'm definitely running; the appointee has made several unforced errors- the biggest of which was firing the extremely popular office manager who had worked in that office for 25 years- and she was just 9 months away from retirement. The lady has a huge network of family and friends, who will all work like crazy for me.
To make things crazier, the mayor of the city I live in called me today and asked me if I'd consider the job of city attorney. I'm probably going to accept the job and resign from my current job. It won't be as much fun, but it's also part-time, pays double what I'm making now, lets me work out of my home, and won't require working weekends or holidays. I'm waiting on a quote on malpractice insurance and if it's reasonable I'll be taking over the job my father held back in the 1960s...

City Attorneys? Not sure what they do for City's other than get a paycheck and ignore my lawful Discovery Requests in Traffic Infraction cases.

Congrats!

andres3

graphicguy said:

Mentioned looking at new TVs for my son. Went to Best Buy last night. While the OLEDs haven’t dropped much since I bought mine over a year ago, the other TVs have become much better and dropped in price.

Pretty good time to buy one. I’ve never seen such an array of really good TVs with excellent pics and all the online goodies for such low prices.

Observations....Sony, Samsung and LG seem to be the ones that are vying for top honors. Sony has their own OLED (that they get from LG), but even those a step down from OLED are quite good. He liked the Vizio, but it did not have its own tuner. So, that was a non-starter for him.

Didn’t know SHarp was still in the biz. But, saw a few of those at Best Buy. Thinking someone bought the rights to Sharp and is now slapping the name on some (mediocre) TVs made by someone else.

All the rest seemed 2nd or 3rd tier for picture quality....Insignia (Best Buy’s house brand), Westinghouse (who knows where these are coming from, but they don’t look very good)...and some others on the periphery.

Right now, he’s leaning towards a Sony 900 series. But, we went to Costco, and they didn’t have that TV. So, he’s also looking at their Samsung 8xxx series from Costco, too.

Both are around $1,500 for 65”

Still, makes me wonder if plasmas kept being developed what they’d look like today, especially at 4K.

Side benefit, I get to spend time with my son while shopping. We usually have a quick bite before we’re hitting the stores. I’m sure I love this more than he does. But, who knows....he at least gets a free meal out of it.

I'm satisfied continuing to roll-on with Samsung's last generation higher end 60" 1080P Plasma. I believe it is a 85xx series as well. Combined with an OPPO Blu-Ray and higher end sound system, I've got no complaints.

roadburner

andres3 said:

roadburner said:

The latest episode of the RB Election Saga...
I'm definitely running; the appointee has made several unforced errors- the biggest of which was firing the extremely popular office manager who had worked in that office for 25 years- and she was just 9 months away from retirement. The lady has a huge network of family and friends, who will all work like crazy for me.
To make things crazier, the mayor of the city I live in called me today and asked me if I'd consider the job of city attorney. I'm probably going to accept the job and resign from my current job. It won't be as much fun, but it's also part-time, pays double what I'm making now, lets me work out of my home, and won't require working weekends or holidays. I'm waiting on a quote on malpractice insurance and if it's reasonable I'll be taking over the job my father held back in the 1960s...

City Attorneys? Not sure what they do for City's other than get a paycheck and ignore my lawful Discovery Requests in Traffic Infraction cases.

Congrats!

As City Attorney I don't have anything to do with prosecuting cases- traffic or otherwise. And if I land Commonwealth Attorney in May I will only prosecute felonies...

andres3

pensfan83 said:

A few weeks ago I spent a week between Cleveland and Columbus interviewing people to build out a new team and eventually settled on Columbus because there is less competition for talent between other groups within my line of business. I settled on the candidates I liked and made what I felt are competitive offers. Every one of them countered with a minimum of $10,000 more than what I offered. One counter was for more than one of my direct reports makes and she has 15+ years of experience, this person has 2 years total.

I have room to move up in my offers but I'm definitely taken aback at what people feel they are worth with the experience they have in the workplace.

Well, on one hand, the market is hot, and it's an employee market right now.
On the other, why even bother to counter unless it is for a significant amount (if you think you'll likely be countered?).

Exception, one time I did make a tiny counter of $3K/year and it only worked out because I wasn't countered. I was worried about doing this since I was taught the rule above, but their offer was indeed "spot-on" so I didn't have the gall to counter 10K.

thebean

Why is it that a dog loves to ride in a car/pickup and sticks his head out the window into the wind, but if a kid blows in their face, they might bite them?

andres3

fintail said:

I love the snow, I get anxious like a little kid when I see snow in the forecast. It's hilarious seeing armageddon break out around here after no more than 5" or so - it will literally shut things down.

You'd think with all the Subaru's up there they'd find a way to manage, but I suppose that is asking too much of the average NW driver.

andres3

stickguy said:

I would be perfectly happy to never see a snowflake in person again, or be out in temps below freezing. I have no need for it. Snow is just evil stuff. Causes heart attacks, accidents, and rust on cars.

I thought everyone dreams of a White Christmas. For me, snow is that stuff that falls in the winter up at high elevations only.

andres3

imidazol97 said:

oldfarmer50 said:

Giving a kid a RWD car especially a Mustang anywhere it snows is just asking for trouble.

Giving him a GT is suicide.

Even giving him a 6 with over 300hp is dumb.

It was a 6 cylinder. I do not recall seeing it was a GT. But the tires the kid had put on were

NT 555 by Nitto. They are ultra high performance SUMMER tires. Pure negligence, IMHO, in an area that some snow, sleet, and RAIN.

http://www.nittotire.com/passenger-tires/nt555-summer-ultra-high-performance-tire/

They'll be great in the rain, unless temperatures drop below 40 degrees (or they haven't been warmed up a bit yet). They will probably be horrible in snow and sleet, or in temperatures below 40.

andres3

qbrozen said:

ab348 said:

When you're a young buck and make too much money too fast, this sort of thing can really make you lose a lot of street cred.

https://youtu.be/RsMXDxXlvmY

The blue GTS at the 1:35 mark is the one I want.

The red one would be cheaper and comes with free camber.

andres3

oldfarmer50 said:

ab348 said:

When you're a young buck and make too much money too fast, this sort of thing can really make you lose a lot of street cred.

https://youtu.be/RsMXDxXlvmY

I don't get it, do those drivers just freeze when the car starts fishtailing? There are numerous videos of Mustang crashes just like that where you scream at the screen to let off the gas and counter steer. Even slamming on the brakes would be better. Do today's drivers have so little experience with RWD?

As kids we learned control in snowy parking lots and had fun.

Basic driving 101 doesn't seem to include even basic skills anymore. It pretty much is a guide on how to not get a traffic citation or ticket, but not much on how to drive safely in the curriculum.

Perhaps the autonomous driver computer programming companies are paying States' DMV's to make our driver's as bad as possible so as to make their mediocre driver-less cars more tolerable sooner.

tbirdmarco

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

andres3

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.

Reduces speeding and reduces accidents are two different things. It seems different entities are claiming both (or confusing the two). I'd like to see the Ohio City research on that.
Same with reducing red light running (usually by increasing rear-end collisions by a higher factor). Is that safer? Unlikely!

I think one of the previous administration's legacies will be they did things pretty much knowing the highest courts would strike it down. Can't blame the current administration there as much, as it seems only the lower courts are striking it down, whereas the higher courts tend to get things right. My experience is lower courts routinely get things wrong in the hopes you run out of time, money, or energy to get their decision overturned.

I feel as if many judges no longer fear having their decision overruled and overturned.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

graphicguy said:

imidazol97 said:

This is when you have real damage from an accident. This won't buff out.

I posted it because this is an example of the speed cameras effect that the local Dayton gov't reactivated recently. They don't work. This is an area where they set up a portable camera in a trailer.

What kind of car is this?

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?

How is the fault of speed cameras?

This has probably already been answered, but I'll chime in anyway:

1) Lack of real police presence and enforcement due to the cameras taking over the world.
2) Lack of Police enforcement of other more important and hazardous violations since the speed cameras take their primary motivation for existence away (revenue-generation). Lack of motivation breeds laziness, and it's a vicious cycle of less real enforcement, and less police presence.
3) Presence is important as the societal benefit of someone being pulled over being noticed by other drivers is far FAR FAR greater than the benefit to society from the ticket revenue and penalty to one driver being cited.
4) Speed Cameras breed contempt and increase rage.
5) That guy was going too fast for conditions, and speed cameras don't cite that violation.
6) That guy was driving recklessly, and speed cameras don't cite that violation.
7) Speed cameras don't pull over drivers like that, momentarily and at least temporarily slowing them down. They rely purely on the punitive effect of the fines from the tickets.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

graphicguy said:

imidazol97 said:

This is when you have real damage from an accident. This won't buff out.

I posted it because this is an example of the speed cameras effect that the local Dayton gov't reactivated recently. They don't work. This is an area where they set up a portable camera in a trailer.

What kind of car is this?

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?

How is the fault of speed cameras?

This has probably already been answered, but I'll chime in anyway:

1) Lack of real police presence and enforcement due to the cameras taking over the world.
2) Lack of Police enforcement of other more important and hazardous violations since the speed cameras take their primary motivation for existence away (revenue-generation). Lack of motivation breeds laziness, and it's a vicious cycle of less real enforcement, and less police presence.
3) Presence is important as the societal benefit of someone being pulled over being noticed by other drivers is far FAR FAR greater than the benefit to society from the ticket revenue and penalty to one driver being cited.
4) Speed Cameras breed contempt and increase rage.
5) That guy was going too fast for conditions, and speed cameras don't cite that violation.
6) That guy was driving recklessly, and speed cameras don't cite that violation.
7) Speed cameras don't pull over drivers like that, momentarily and at least temporarily slowing them down. They rely purely on the punitive effect of the fines from the tickets.

andres3

roadburner said:

graphicguy said:

imidazol97 said:

This is when you have real damage from an accident. This won't buff out.

I posted it because this is an example of the speed cameras effect that the local Dayton gov't reactivated recently. They don't work. This is an area where they set up a portable camera in a trailer.

What kind of car is this?

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?

The way states get around that pesky United States Constitution is to classify the traffic infractions as administrative rather than criminal. Kentucky hasn't fallen into that trap so no cameras and there is a right to trial by jury for any moving violation.

If CA had a right to trial by jury, and a public defender, and a right to face a DA/Prosecutor in Traffic Court, I'm pretty sure out of all the tickets I've ever been given, only 1 or 2 would have been written or been selected for prosecution all the way to trial by a reasonable DA/Prosecutor.

When CA wants to raise the stakes and double-down, I'm all for it. I'll take a rap sheet, huge fines, and possible jail time in exchange for a fair trial with a Jury of my peers instead of the Kangaroo CA Traffic Courts!

There is a movement from time to time, I'm sad to say, usually by a Democratic representative in the State of CA, who has their campaign contributions coming from "Insurance & Traffic Cam Manufacturer" sources, to introduce a bill to try and classify Traffic Infractions (criminal) as Civil Infractions.

andres3

Marcothecarguy1986 said:

iI think those trafick camrias should go! just my two sence!

Unfortunately the PRO-CAM lobbies (Red-light and speed cam manufacturers, Insurance companies, some Law Enforcement Agencies, LEO Unions) have lots of money and support to continue the charade.

Us individual drivers/US Citizens get distracted by North Korean missiles and ISIS terrorist attacks halfway around the World, and we can't seem to organize to defeat the insidious nature of these lobbyists.

andres3

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.

I can understand this as I do take greater offense from a 5,000 pound SUV plowing down the highway at 70 MPH with their eyes glued to the cell phone more than say by a 3,000 lb. Prius doing the same thing.

suydam

I’m not bashing either vehicle but I’m curious — I thought minivans generally had the most cargo room compared to SUVs. Is that not the case?

andres3

snakeweasel said:

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?

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. 

I'm getting too good at this

If I hold-up and commit robbery at a liquor/convenience store, you better bet my Defense Attorney worth 2 cents will call in the Store Manager (or Subcontractor) that installed and setup the security system and video the prosecution is using to help convict me. They know how the camara system operates and can be questioned on that. In every Traffic Court I've ever heard of, they don't allow this. In my opinion, this makes the video hearsay evidence as no one is in court to testify where the camera was positioned, when it was installed, ect. A random police officer testifying to those facts is hearsay (they would just be reading the City records on that data. They assume you are guilty instead of innocent. The presumption is the video is accurate and has not been altered or doctored in some manner.

I'm not questioning the mechanics/engineering process of how video tape works, but I would sure be worried about how many hands and computers had access to the USB drive that video was stored on before reaching the courtroom on the trial date!

andres3

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. 

Oh yes you can, because everyone pays taxes. Perhaps not income taxes, but everyone pays taxes. To help the common-man reduce his tax burden you would:

Reduce State Sales Taxes
Reduce Driver's License Fees, Taxes
Reduce Vehicle Registration and Licensing fees and taxes
Reduce Smog Abatement fees and Taxes (yes, I got my CA DMW Registration renewal recently)
Reduce Traffic Infraction penalties
Reduce Telecommunications Taxes & Fees (Cable/Phone/Cell/TV)
Reduce Property Taxes
Reduce National Park & Recreation Fees/Taxes
Reduce Airport/Air Travel Fees/Taxes
Reduce Hotel Taxes

And I'm sure there are many more. Yes, I realize a lot of these are the fault of CA or the State, not the Federal Gov't.

andres3

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. 

Oh yes you can, because everyone pays taxes. Perhaps not income taxes, but everyone pays taxes. To help the common-man reduce his tax burden you would:

Reduce State Sales Taxes
Reduce Driver's License Fees, Taxes
Reduce Vehicle Registration and Licensing fees and taxes
Reduce Smog Abatement fees and Taxes (yes, I got my CA DMW Registration renewal recently)
Reduce Traffic Infraction penalties
Reduce Telecommunications Taxes & Fees (Cable/Phone/Cell/TV)
Reduce Property Taxes
Reduce National Park & Recreation Fees/Taxes
Reduce Airport/Air Travel Fees/Taxes
Reduce Hotel Taxes

And I'm sure there are many more. Yes, I realize a lot of these are the fault of CA or the State, not the Federal Gov't.

andres3

qbrozen said:

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.

That guy would probably really be peeved that my compact and little TTS doesn't get good mileage the way I drive it.

I've also heard the "speed kills" crowd use the "you should drive slower because it saves fuel" argument.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

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.

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.

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

If you think they could pick more lucrative corners for cameras there's a high-paying job at RedFlex waiting for you! How are your lobbying skills with corrupted Politicians?

andres3

snakeweasel said:

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.

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. 

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. 

That's been the opposite of my experience and observation and I've been around a few moons.

To help prove my point, who here (anyone!) has been pulled over when it was raining or snowing in the last decade or 2? (not me, not once).

Now answer the same question but with the qualifier changing to "ideal weather conditions."

Grabbing the popcorn!

qbrozen

andres3 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.

I can understand this as I do take greater offense from a 5,000 pound SUV plowing down the highway at 70 MPH with their eyes glued to the cell phone more than say by a 3,000 lb. Prius doing the same thing.

You shouldn't. A bullet from a .28 will make you just as dead as one from a .38

qbrozen

suydam said:

I’m not bashing either vehicle but I’m curious — I thought minivans generally had the most cargo room compared to SUVs. Is that not the case?

Largely, yes. But not always (a Suburban has more than an MPV, for example). A pickup trumps both, though. 

andres3

driver100 said:

$60 a year! I wonder if satellite radio is going to survive? I like it, but, there are so many other ways to get music I don't find it is worth much more than $5 a month.

Since we are home 7 months and in Florida for 5 I just listen to the radio or my USB stick, and it is fine.....I can live without Sirius if I have to.

$60 year is $5/month.
That's my threshold, the day they go past that amount is the day I cancel.

andres3

fintail said:

Isn't FL also a haven for insurance fraud?

I have no problem with harsh texting enforcement, throw the book at phone holders. Don't hold your breath though - it is already a primary offense where I live, but I think enforcement is just over zero.

driver100 said:

My Florida neighbor told me his car insurance doubled. The insurance company blamed it on two things......the hurricane and the number of accidents has gone up by 25%, mostly because of distracted drivers using cell phones and texting.

Some government and police officials want to make texting a primary cause for stopping and fining a driver. Right now it is a secondary offense, meaning you only get charged if you have been stopped for something else, the fine is $20. This is insane.....driving here is bad enough without people trying to text or hold a cell phone while driving.

If the fine really totaled out to $20 I'd have a hard time writing the violation if I was a cop. Of course I'd write up the $350-$500 tickets so I could feel productive about myself.

I could never grasp why legislatures have been so light-footed with cellphone and distracted driving laws having minuscule penalties. I have seen how the "statisticians" have been VERY SLOW to realize distracted driving is the #1 problem.. Anyone that is observant while driving knew this a long time ago.

andres3

driver100 said:

In Southern Ontario the cops ride in large trucks and look down into cars....and the fines are pretty heavy for texting or phoning while driving. They catch a lot of them and it is worthwhile from a revenue standpoint, plus it makes some people think twice before they do these things.

I still say what police need are unmarked cars with people who aren't full police officers....they would be traffic monitors. They have cameras and if they see someone speeding or doing stupid things they video it. Fines would be increased, and the system would add to revenues and make the roads safer and it would employ more people. (If they see a really bad driver they call for reinforcements).

Totally with you on the cell phones and distracted driving, but you lost me when you went to equating speeding with distracted driving or "stupid things."

Remember, there are limited resources, and law enforcement should concentrate on those that provide the best safety benefit for society. Speeding ain't it! If it was, the US would be the safest nation on the planet.