Truck Rental

[Michael Trew]

Really? I didn't know that. Studded snow tires are allowed in Ohio between November and March or so.

[Puckdropper]

Michael Trew [e-mail] wrote in news:sau94q$6de$ [e-mail]:

The Piper Warrior window would be great for you. Just enough space to stick your hand out and a mechanical latch with only parts that you can see.

There's just one issue... your arm has to be awful long to get to the end of that wing!

Puckdropper

[J. Clarke]

Now if I had a helicopter . . . (there's a helipad and hangars at work). But then the town would come after me for noise (they wouldn't let my employer land helicopters in town--one reason that several thousand jobs moved out of CT).

[J. Clarke]

Good decision. When I was a kid I was fascinated with super cars. Then I drove a few. They look good and there was, for the time, a lot of power, but they weren't all that pleasant to drive. I did eventually get a Corvette, drove that for a few years, sometimes I miss it, but it really wasn't a substitute for even a mediocre motorcycle.

[J. Clarke]

The problem with that is unexpected expenses. Friend of mine retired with 3 million. He was one of the cheapest people you would find--only extravagance in his life was his computer--he had a high end desktop publishing system when desktop publishing was new. He lived to 100 and by the end he was worried about running out of money before he ran out of life--a lot of it went into long term care for his wife and then for him.

[J. Clarke]

Which shows that they are not really with the program. They should (if they buy the IPCC assertions about climate) be encouraging electrics--tax them when they are a high enough percentage of vehicles on the road for it to actually make a difference.

[J. Clarke]

Sorry, you're right, "Acty". The memory's the second thing to go and I forget what the first thing was.

[J. Clarke]

I'm starting to stiffen up noticeably. My current daily driver has a backup camera and when I drive something without it I miss it because I don't really bend that way anymore. OTOH, part of the problem is the seats in new cars that want you to sit in one position. I really miss bench seats. But with the law requiring that the kids sit in back in car seats there's not much purpose to them anymore.

[J. Clarke]

The last time I fixed the Jeep I realized that I'm getting too old to be spending time under cars. And the new ones are so low that they really need a lift.

[J. Clarke]

"Deadly on rain" is really an exaggeration--if the tires they are in are OK in rain the studs don't make a lot of difference. Although I could see the stud marks in my driveway after a while.

[DerbyDad03]

Some smart phones will let you set location based reminders.

[DerbyDad03]

It would be interesting to see the stats for that state and any others that require more than the initial road test. Are there really less accidents? What age groups are failing more than others? Is it worth the cost?

Some states require that drivers beyond a certain age renew their license in person so that the the DMV workers can "evaluate" the driver and decide if they should be re-tested. I'm not disparaging the fine people behind the counter at the DMV, but I'm not sure that I want them to be evaluating my mental or physical capabilities.

I'm certainly going to be nice to them. ;-)

Were you in the vehicle at the time of the exam? Do you know that the orders were actually being changed or if they were, why? Perhaps there was some misunderstanding or perhaps the examiner had valid reasons for changing things. I'm not blaming Mom, but perhaps we don't have all the facts because we weren't in the vehicle.

A firm voice can often be mistaken as yelling, especially if someone is nervous. I think we've all heard our teenagers say "Why are you yelling at me?" even when we weren't.

I do believe that that is the entire point of this discussion. More on that later.

Even if they are not as coordinated and quick? They may know the rules better and they may know what they are *supposed* to do in certain situations but they may not be able to actually do it. Both age groups might be equally dangerous but for different reasons.

OK, then let the younger group learn and hopefully make it to 50 without hurting themselves or others. After 65, start the testing. I'm OK with that.

Sure, if you compare the 80+ to *only* 16 YO drivers but that's a different discussion. The 80+ drivers (as a group) are obviously not better drivers than the 50 - 65 YO group. You said so yourself. Well, at least the insurance companies say so.

That again is a different discussion. Dangerous offense = Loss of license, at any age. Fine, but you make it sound like it has to be one or the other.

Both reasons for losing a license would make the most sense. Loss of license due to an offense is an after the fact event. Testing on a regular basis may prevent that offense from ever occurring. I said "may", which is better than nothing.

How old was the driver that was originally behind the truck?

Consider this when you say that older drivers don't put themselves in dangerous situations:

(Please do not take the following scenarios literally. I'm only creating them to counter the statement that "They generally don't put themselves in dangerous positions.")

First, the minute any driver starts a vehicle, they have created a dangerous situation. If you want to wait until they put the vehicle in gear, fine. One slip of the foot and the bad things can happen - to drivers of any age.

Second, just as a hypothetical, let's say that the driver that was originally behind the truck was an 85 YO. He was just cruising along, staying behind truck, minding his own business. Suddenly a car comes up on his right and attempts to squeeze in. A coordinated and quick driver checks the left lane, checks his rear view mirror and perhaps comes up with a means to avoid the collision. Perhaps even decides to take a somewhat controlled rear end hit to avoid a hit that will send him spinning. Perhaps a not so coordinated and quick driver (of any age, but let's stick with the 85 YO) isn't able to react as quickly as they should. Instant debris field.

Don't like that example? Let's keep it simple. Let's imagine a nice, safe trip to the grocery store. Quiet, tree lined suburban street. A 55 YO driver (in that insurance sweet spot) and an 85 YO driver (paying higher rates because there is a higher risk). Driving along, neither one is doing anything that could be deemed as "dangerous". Has either driver "put themselves in dangerous position"?

Ask the kid who runs out between 2 parked cars. If you are the grandparent of that child and have the option of choosing which driver you want to be coming down the road, which one are you going to choose? Be honest or be analytical, based on IIHS data. I'm choosing the 55 YO all day.

The only point here is that if you are driving, you are in a dangerous position that has nothing to do with needing to get someplace *now*. Driving is dangerous, period.

Dead is dead. Preventing death from intentional bad driving, non-aged based bad driving, age-based bad driving and age-based inability to avoid an accident are all equally important. I'm not choosing any one over the other. Dead is dead and all methods of making a person dead should be addressed.

[Ed Pawlowski]

My license is valid until my 82nd birthday. Then I can renew on line for another 8 years.

Hopefully, I'll have enough sense to stop or my kids will stop me if I'm no longer competent.

I make a few long trips a year. First day 12 hours, second day 6 hours, return same way 7 to 12 days later. I'd miss doing that but at some point, it will have to.

[DerbyDad03]

Hopefully, the "sense" will be based on your own self assessment and not on an incident. If you are no longer competent to drive, you might also be no longer competent to realize it.

The kids might be reluctant to tell you or - worse yet - you might be reluctant to accept their advice. Short of taking all your keys, they might not be able to stop you. You could still rent. ;-)

Would you object to being tested every couple of years, either as required by the authorities or voluntarily by a family member?

12 hours of driving in one day, 18 hours over a 2 day period. Some might say that you are putting yourself in a "dangerous position". ;-)

[G Ross]

I owned two of those while living in Japan. They were used, had a 2 cylinder engine under the center panel of the seat. They must have been 2 cycle because they burned oil and gas with separate filler caps. They fouled spark plugs regularly. I always carried two new or cleaned plugs. Once I changed the plugs while sitting at a stop-light. I paid $125 for each. If I failed to get into a parallel parking spot, it was easy to lift the rear end and move it over. They were illegal to ship to the states but I actually saw one in south Georgia.

[krw]

That's alright. Who needs *THOSE* (looking down the nose) jobs anyway. They can learn to code.

[Ed Pawlowski]

I don't object to a test at some point. There are people that do not belong on the road.

My car does have a driver alert system. A few years ago it did go off once and it was right, time for a break. When I do the 12 hours, I do make frequent stops. One advantage of getting older the need to pee makes you take short breaks. At at least one or two of them, I recline the seat, lay back and close my eyes. Amazing what 5 minutes can do. So far, I'm smart enough to know what to do and when I should stop for the night. Snacks are better than big meals, the insulated water bottle is always available.

Eventually, I can get by with a tricycle or golf car to get to the store, doctor, pizza shop. They are 1 mile away; My son lives next door so he'd be able to take me other places.

[krw]

Do bureaucrats ever worry about whether their programs really do what they think they do? The correlation between vehicle safety tests and accidents is abysmal, but does that stop the bureaucrats?

I'd like to see their defense in a suit, based on their expertise. Profiling? Race? Pass the popcorn!

Always. I never saw the purpose of antagonizing the person holding the power. I laugh when I see some moron arguing with/screaming at a ticket/gate agent at the airport.

Of course not. What a silly comment. I know she never did well when she was yelled at, or someone barked confusing instructions. She naturally became confused, and it had nothing to do with her age.

But we usually are. It doesn't matter. It's what's heard that counts.

No, it's not. The point is that if you want a certainly level of driver, test for that, not only if they're a certain age. If a skill is required, age doesn't matter.

Yes. If they have the coordination and "quickness" needed. Yes. If you're going to test for coordination and reaction time, test everyone for it. You'll find a *significant* number of people below &age that can't meet your standard. First, make sure the standard makes sense. "Quickness" can be a negative, as well. Patience is a virtue, as well.

Why not test everyone? If they're too immature to handle a vehicle, walk.

No, it's *NOT* a different discussion. If you want "competent" (please give the specifications) drivers, then test for it. Test

*ALL* for it. No, you're putting words in my mouth. I said that 50-65yo drivers were the *best*, not just better than 80+. Better than 20-30, or 30-40, or...

With your logic, test everyone under 50, too. My point is that to decide what the minimum skills are, then make sure *all* meet that bar, not just look at someone because of an age. As it is, there really isn't a measure that can rationally decide who may, or may not, drive.

No, it's not a different discussion. You want him to lose is privileges for age, I want him to lose his privileges for being a dumbass. The age is irrelevant.

So, test all. I see incompetent assholes on the road every day. I doubt they're all over 80.

Not 80. He came buzzing by, no more than 3' beside me.

No, my point is that they're not unique.

Generally, no. Not like teens on a night out with daddy's car and bottle.

But you think it's more dangerous *because* the person twisting the key is 80+. I'm saying that it's more dangerous *when* a moron is doing it.

Bullshit. This is one place that a cool head and not quick response is the right set of skills. Anyone just pulling to the left, even if checking for an instant, is as much danger as the one passing/merging on the right. I'm not taking *any* chances involving someone else (to my left) without being damned sure there isn't anyone to my left. That simply can't be done in a split second. A professional driver may be able to make lemonade but to expect everyone to, BS.

OK, no go back and tell me *EXACTLY* what minimum skills, including reaction time, are needed to be able to drive. No waffling here. I want testable numbers.

Give me numbers. Give me a testable specification. Test everyone to it. NO waffling "what ifs" with no information.

And little to do with age. Many anv80yo is a far better driver than teens. Reaction times don't tell everything.

And there is no way to tell the difference, except by observation.

[krw]

I buy my wrenches and stuff at HF. Good enough and I'm constantly losing them. WW tools, not so much. There is a difference and I don't often lose a bandsaw.

A million in liquid cash isn't such a huge amount, as long as by "liquid" you're not talking about Franlklins in a mattress.

I suppose one could live on $40K a year, but I'd rather not. As I said, a megabuck ain't great shakes anymore.

[krw]

Not *nearly* enough. They should be taxing them by the mile.