Someone please talk me out of this...
Sean_Q_
The guy wants Cdn$2000 for it and it's not exactly
in turnkey shape. The motor is in the frame; he says
he rebuilt the top end; changed swing arm bushings,
steering bearings, bought a lot of new parts, etc.
Most of the smaller stuff including the carbs are in
cardboard boxes. The tank has has primer paint with some
minor surface rust on the inside which I can easily
get fixed.
So it's a project... a Bonneville is prominently on
my list of Bikes-I've-Always-Wanted-Oh-Please-Mummy,
but there's this voice whispering in my other ear
that I don't have a very good track record on projects
and this thing stands a good chance of languishing
in the garage until either the cows come home or
the leopard changes his spots, whichever comes last.
What should I do? Well, I know very well what I should do,
ie, forget it. That would be the sensible thing. So when
have I ever done the sensible thing? Would someone please
acquaint me with the harsh facts of Reality before I do
something real stupid.
TIA, SQ
'06 Zook S40 / '85 Dnepr MT-11 / various conversation pieces
The Older Gentleman
If I were after a Bonnie, I would go for a T120 rather than 140.
OTOH, a decent T140 is about half the price of a decent T120, so that's
a factor.
But... if I wanted a T140, I'd go for a later one because the first ones
were bolted together in the very early days of the Meriden co-operative
and were a bit flakey.
So.... price. CAN$2000 is about �1160. That would count as a bit pricey
for a basket case early T140, over here, as a decent functioning bike
would be maybe �2000-2500. In Canada, I dunno.
Then there's the tool issue. I'd need to buy a complete new toolkit.
Everything I possess is metric. YMMV.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
Bob Mann
Gentleman) wrote:
I'd say that a decent condition, running, complete Bonny would fetch
around $5000 or more.
Seems to work aboutthe opposite of everything else.
My experience has been that you pay in pounds what we pay in dollars
for most goods.
Bob
Bob Mann
<snip>
>
> What should I do? Well, I know very well what I should do,
> ie, forget it. That would be the sensible thing. So when
> have I ever done the sensible thing? Would someone please
> acquaint me with the harsh facts of Reality before I do
> something real stupid.
>
What's a couple of thou?
TOG@Toil
>
> I'd say that a decent condition, running, complete Bonny would fetch
> around $5000 or more.
Hm. Close to three grand sterling, be that US or Canadian dollars.
> Seems to work aboutthe opposite of everything else.
> My experience has been that you pay in pounds what we pay in dollars
> for most goods.
>
Um, I can't remember now. You're in the US or Canada?
Either way, you wouldn't spend £5k on a used T140 here. I've just
looked up completed auctions on eBay.co.uk and this:-
suggests that £2000-£2500 is, yes, about right for a nice T140 on this
side of the pond. Obviously, more for minters and less for hellhounds.
We're getting back to what Timo was saying elsewhere, concerning used
values in North America and Britain.
S'mee
a tank of fuel for short sunday ride?
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
Gentleman) wrote:
Do you think you might actually ride it? Then you want a Tiger, not a
Bonnie. The single carb models idel better, get off the line better,
and don't ever require carb synchronization. The Tiger looks just
like a Bonnie except it has one carb instead of two. Oh, you lose
about 3-5 mph on the top end. Most people don't ride classic British
iron at top speed for a half mile or more, except those vintage racing
them.
If you're going to ride it, the 650cc (T120 or Tiger TR6 vice T140/
TR7) is smoother and sweeter and is an all around nicer engine than
the 750cc engine.
Otoh, you can't get a disk-brake equipped 650cc Triumph, and the drum
brakes are a fatal flaw in modern traffic. Really. They simply suck,
even set up perfectly, they suck.
Finally there was a 729cc and a 744cc version of the Triumph 750;
don't ask me the details, I can't remember any more. But one is VERY
common and one is semi-rare; you might want to investigate that.
Oh, and TOG is DEAD right - the later the Meriden twin you get, the
better bike it likely will be. A collectable would be the '76 Queen
Elizabeth's Coronation 50th Anniversary (Royal Jubilee or something???
Brits help me here) model - quite sought after compared to other
mid-70's Triumphs, even though just a paint and trim option.
I'd go for one of those TSS Executive bikes from about '82. 8-valve
head (TSX-8?) , iirc, electronic ignition, MkII Amals, Lester(?) alloy
wheels, (tubeless?) and Krauser (?) hard saddlebags ... very BMW like
and likely to appreciate in value over the coming years. Sorry about
all the question marks; that old knowledge is apparently slowly
leaking out of my head!
Sean_Q_
> Do you think you might actually ride it?
Yes
> Then you want a Tiger, not a
> Bonnie.
However the point is that this bike is available now and
it's affordable. I'm just not sure what I'm getting myself
into... although it looks like all I have to do is bolt on
the carbs, chain, exhaust and tank, mess around with
the electrics and I'm down the road with the roar of twin pipes.
> The single carb models idel better, get off the line better,
> and don't ever require carb synchronization.
Couldn't I just scrounge an intake manifold from somewhere
and bolt on one of my carbs? Not that simple huh...(?)
SQ
S'mee
You know on other hand. (yeah I've been thinking on this) Go for it!
It's winter you can get alot done and send parts out for machining in
the summer...then finish next winter! That way you have time to source
the fiddly bits.
The Older Gentleman
> Do you think you might actually ride it? Then you want a Tiger, not a
> Bonnie. The single carb models idel better, get off the line better,
> and don't ever require carb synchronization. The Tiger looks just
> like a Bonnie except it has one carb instead of two. Oh, you lose
> about 3-5 mph on the top end. Most people don't ride classic British
> iron at top speed for a half mile or more, except those vintage racing
> them.
Oh, ye, agree 100%. The single-carb bikes are better 'riding' machines
most times.
>
> If you're going to ride it, the 650cc (T120 or Tiger TR6 vice T140/
> TR7) is smoother and sweeter and is an all around nicer engine than
> the 750cc engine.
>
> Otoh, you can't get a disk-brake equipped 650cc Triumph, and the drum
> brakes are a fatal flaw in modern traffic. Really. They simply suck,
> even set up perfectly, they suck.
>
> Finally there was a 729cc and a 744cc version of the Triumph 750;
> don't ask me the details, I can't remember any more. But one is VERY
> common and one is semi-rare; you might want to investigate that.
Didn't know that. I *think* the T120R might be the really rare
smaller-capacity one, but I'm not really that genned up on Bonnies.
>
> Oh, and TOG is DEAD right - the later the Meriden twin you get, the
> better bike it likely will be. A collectable would be the '76 Queen
> Elizabeth's Coronation 50th Anniversary (Royal Jubilee or something???
> Brits help me here) model - quite sought after compared to other
> mid-70's Triumphs, even though just a paint and trim option.
They did a Silver Jubilee version in 1977 and a Royal Wedding one in
1981. Both were just paint jobs and haven't really proved *that*
collectable because everyone knows they're exactly the same bike under
the paint.
>
> I'd go for one of those TSS Executive bikes from about '82. 8-valve
> head (TSX-8?) , iirc, electronic ignition, MkII Amals, Lester(?) alloy
> wheels, (tubeless?) and Krauser (?) hard saddlebags
Sigmas. As fitted to the Guzzi Spada Royale and Black Prince.
> ... very BMW like
> and likely to appreciate in value over the coming years.
I *think* they Executive was just a normal Bonnie (with electric start).
I don't think they ever made the TSS as an Executive, but ICBW.
> Sorry about
> all the question marks; that old knowledge is apparently slowly
> leaking out of my head!
Best Triumph twin I ever rode was the short-stroke 650 Thunderbird, just
before Meriden went bust. Smooth, sweet, revvy, fun.
The Older Gentleman
> Couldn't I just scrounge an intake manifold from somewhere
> and bolt on one of my carbs? Not that simple huh...(?)
Very simple. In fact, some people converted Bonnies to an SU single
carburettor - kits wre available. Smoother, easier starting, no real
power loss, and more economical.
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
Gentleman) wrote:
> Best Triumph twin I ever rode was the short-stroke 650 Thunderbird, just
> before Meriden went bust. Smooth, sweet, revvy, fun.
Best Triumph twin I ever owned was my 1972 TR6RV. 650cc, 5-speed, OIF
model with the much hated conical alloy hub TLS drum brakes. I
acquired a set of the early factory-approved modified longer front
brake actuating arms, and the front brake worked as well as any drum
brake I've ever had. The low compression engine could be "kick
started" by hand, much like a 2-stroke twin, and with the single Amal
it idled as smoothly as any multi I've ever owned, and did it at about
1,050 rpms. It didn't leak oil, it barely vibrated at all, and the 5-
speed gave it a very useful, relaxed, 55-60 mph cruising gait; at
which steady state speed the single carb allowed it to get just over
60mpg. Broad, flat, firm seat. I put a Daytona GP touring bend
handlebar on it (think R90S or early Honda CB400F bar with about 50mm
more rise and 75mm more pullback) and it was as near perfect (braking
excepted) as any Brit twin I've ever owned or ridden. I actually
preferred the look of the early OIF models with the megaphone exhaust
and the "spring wire" fender stays and headlamp "ears"; to my eye they
have the same light, lithe, "airy" look that the Ducati 750GT and 750
Sport did from '72 to '74.
The later twins with disk brakes were demonstrably better bikes for
modern traffic, though. I finally sold my TR6RV when I almost ate
the back end of a Nissan Altima that decided to stop dead (ABS
chirping and twitching) in front of me on a 50mph multilane highway
because he had just passed his exit ramp! I just barely managed to
swerve and miss his rear bumper following a brief and highly
educational attempt at an emergency stop that demonstrated to me that
the only thing that would stop *that* bike *that* short on *that* road
on *that* day in *that* situation was impact with the back of the
Nissan, and I wasn't too keen on that idea.
The Older Gentleman
> I just barely managed to
> swerve and miss his rear bumper following a brief and highly
> educational attempt at an emergency stop that demonstrated to me that
> the only thing that would stop *that* bike *that* short on *that* road
> on *that* day in *that* situation was impact with the back of the
> Nissan, and I wasn't too keen on that idea.
<G>
Sean_Q_
be a good deal but he wants to see the bike in his shop
to inspect it. However, the seller won't let it out of
his back yard without the full cash price up front.
On top of that, the reg papers aren't in his name; the owner
of record has it registered out-of-province (Alberta), so it
looks like there'd be some problems getting it into my name.
Well I like the idea of a Bonneville with a 750cc motor
and all the King's horses and all the King's Men, and this
isn't the only one on the planet so it's back to Square One
for the time being.
SQ
don (Calgary)
Good choice. There is always a better deal and a better bike waiting
for you around the next corner.
S'mee
Smart decision...better to walk away.
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:39:04 -0800, Sean_Q_ <no.s...@no.spam> wrote:
> >Well I like the idea of a Bonneville with a 750cc motor
> >and all the King's horses and all the King's Men, and this
> >isn't the only one on the planet so it's back to Square One
> >for the time being.
>
> Good choice. There is always a better deal and a better bike waiting
> for you around the next corner.
Speaking of which, I happen to have this classic 1967 Honda CL-90, and
I believe it could be acquired by its next owner.... for the right
price....
BrianNZ
Unfortunately, I never see the better deal until the day after I have
paid for my latest purchase. :( Karma? :)
don (Calgary)
Hah, I remember those. One of my high school chums had one. We used to
take turns riding it around the block until one dumb ass (not me) rode
it into a rock garden in front of an apartment building. Looking back
that was probably the first bike I ever rode.
I am sure you will find someone willing to part with a few bucks to
buy a piece of their past.
don (Calgary)
I call it buyers remorse.
That said I usually get pretty lucky with the used cars and bikes I
buy.
Sean_Q_
>> There is always a better deal and a better bike waiting
>> for you around the next corner.
>
> Speaking of which, I happen to have this classic 1967 Honda CL-90, and
> I believe it could be acquired by its next owner.... for the right
> price....
http://www.flickr.com/photos/benadamx/2766110982/
It seems to be the scrambler version of my first bike
(Honda S-90):
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1965_Honda_S90.jpg
SQ
The Older Gentleman
> On top of that, the reg papers aren't in his name; the owner
> of record has it registered out-of-province (Alberta), so it
> looks like there'd be some problems getting it into my name.
That's a problem in Canada? Interesting. Why? Is it the same in the US,
with out-of-state vehicles?
The Older Gentleman
> Speaking of which, I happen to have this classic 1967 Honda CL-90, and
> I believe it could be acquired by its next owner.... for the right
> price
<fx: dribbles>
Mark Olson
> Sean_Q_ <no....@no.spam> wrote:
>
>> On top of that, the reg papers aren't in his name; the owner
>> of record has it registered out-of-province (Alberta), so it
>> looks like there'd be some problems getting it into my name.
>
> That's a problem in Canada? Interesting. Why? Is it the same in the US,
> with out-of-state vehicles?
My experience has been, unless the vehicle in question really is some
sort of very valuable collector's item, it's not worth trying to
convince a relatively disinterested party three states/provinces
distant that they need to properly execute a title transfer document.
If there's *any* sort of discrepancy whatsoever on the title, and you
happen to draw one of the "by-the-book" clerks, you can be chasing
an affidavit to be signed by the seller, and once they've gotten your
money it can be damned difficult convincing them it's in their interest
to get the title legally conveyed to you.
There's the occasional exception to this rule- I had a clerk suggest
to me that she just happened to see the seller go around the corner
of the building, and he might just be waiting out there to sign the
affidavit form, wasn't that a happy coincidence? I had to sharply
interrupt myself before I threw away that golden opportunity since
the fellow lived a good 50 miles away.
Sean_Q_
>> On top of that, the reg papers aren't in his name; the owner
>> of record has it registered out-of-province (Alberta), so it
>> looks like there'd be some problems getting it into my name.
>
> That's a problem in Canada? Interesting. Why? Is it the same in the US,
> with out-of-state vehicles?
Imagine if you had to apply (and pay) for a new driver's license
just because you moved from Devon to Somerset. Also, all your
vehicles have to be inspected (at your expense) before you can
get your new Somerset license plates. Of course, Somerset has all
different rules about vehicle registration (the plates stay with
you, while in Devon they stay with the vehicle). And if the girl
behind the little window doesn't like the way you part your hair
she might charge you sales tax on all your bikes (never mind that
you've already paid the Devon sales taxes when you bought them).
Hmmm... I hope no one in your govt reads this -- might give them
some new tax grab ideas.
SQ
'06 Zuk S40 / '85 Dnepr MT-11 / the usual debris field
TOG@Toil
That's just insane. I mean, the US is one country, right? Albeit a big
one. In Britain (yes, OK, the size of a single US state, I know),
selling a vehicle is simple.
We have a document called the V5, otherwise known as the logbook.
Buyer and seller fill out the 'change of ownership' section of the
form, each putting down their full name and address, both sign and
date it, and then the seller posts it off to the central records
office in Swansea, south Wales. The buyer retains a small tear-off
strip as proof of the signing.
And that's it. Within a few days, a couple of weeks maximum, the buyer
receives a new V5 with his details on it, and Swansea's computers have
the change of ownership recorded.
No need for witnesses, affidavits, and no sales tax is payable on used
vehicles[1].
Number plates stay with the vehicle for all its life, although you can
change them for a 'personal plate' (a number whose characters seem to
spell out your name or something - it's a UK oddity that some of these
change hands for huge sums).
Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands are the exceptions: vehicles
brought in from these places to the mainland have to be re-registered
with a 'mainland' number plate. But that's about it.
There's an interesting kicker in that the V5 records the details of
the 'registered keeper' and notes that this may not actually be the
legal owner (covering things like finance loans[2] etc).
In France, vehicles always had to be registered in the
'departement' (county) in which the owner resided, and so any move to
a different departement required a re-registration, but even the Frogs
have decided to ditch this silly system in favour of a UK-type one.
Not sure about other places like Germany or Italy, though in Italy
outstanding finance on a used vehicle can be a real hassle. Timo knows
more about this.
[1] Dear old KrustyUS recently assured everyone that it was....
[2] The law here is quite simple, really. If you buy a vehicle, in a
private transaction, and it's still under a finance agreement, as an
innocent purchaser, the finance company cannot repossess the vehicle
from you. In practice, proving this is a bit tricky, and it doesn't
apply to vehicles that are stolen or under a contract lease or hire
agreement. For a few quid you can do an online or phone check before
purchasing. If you buy from a dealer, you *automatically* get good
title as the law sensibly says it's for the dealer to check for
outstanding finance and ensure it's settled before selling the vehicle
on.
Mark Olson
> No need for witnesses, affidavits, and no sales tax is payable on used
> vehicles[1].
There is a legal fiction in this country, according to our constitution,
that our states are sovereign states for some purposes. When it suits
the state, and the federal government, it is basically true. Vehicle
licensing and titles are a situation where this applies. Drivers licenses
are issued by the states and have different requirements as well, but the
feds are trying to standardize them into a national identity card now,
which is probably going to happen eventually.
I can't speak for all state or provinces, only my own. Normally, a
title transfer is a simple process, no affidavit or witness is involved.
Like your V5, our title certs have a tear-off section for the buyer's
details that the seller keeps as proof of sale, in case the buyer
fails to complete the transfer[1]. As the buyer, if there isn't a lien
against the title, I will have the seller sign it and I take it to the
registrar's office alone. 99% of the time that is fine. If there is
anything even slightly dodgy about the title that will need an official
stamp or an explanation, I will either walk away or insist that the
seller and I go to the registrar together, and only after I see the
state's representative take the fees and apply their stamps will I hand
over the cash. Tales of woe from people who fail to think this through
are common. Usually it only has to happen once before they wise up and
refuse to pay for a vehicle without a clear title. Note that this does
not prevent many bikes from being offered for sale without titles along
with the advice that a replacement title is "easy to get". Sure it is,
that's why there's so many without them being offered.
Yes, we do have to pay tax on the value of used vehicles sold by private
parties. Just a fact of life. Offsetting trades only pay tax on the
difference which is why they are so popular with idiots on Craigslist.
[1] This happened to me as a seller more than once, which is why I no
longer sell to anyone who refuses to accompany me to the registrar's
office to do the transfer there and then.
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
> The Older Gentleman wrote:
Heh. Good one. Good clerk!
Timo Geusch
> Not sure about other places like Germany or Italy, though in Italy
> outstanding finance on a used vehicle can be a real hassle. Timo knows
> more about this.
In Germany, you have to reregister the vehicle every time you move from
one Landkreis (roughly equivalent to a county) to another one. You'll
need new plates as well. Plates don't usually stay on the car although
if you're moving within the same admin area (ie same town or Landkreis)
you'll probably get to keep them. At least they'll put the correct
emissions & T�V (safety inspection) stickers on the new plates so you
don't have to get them inspected.
Oh, and all of this requires your personal presence and as the plates
are considered a legal document you basically queue for quite a while,
reregister and get a piece of paper that allows you to get plates made,
come back with the plates only to find that lunch hour has broken out,
wait out lunch hour, get the plates stickered up, finally get home by
4pm or later if you've got one of the proto-bureaucrats.
It's a lot easier in the UK...
--
Morini Corsaro 125 | XL250 Motosport | R1150RT | 3 1/2 Sport
Laverda SF2 BOTAFOF #33 TWA#10
The UKRM FAQ: http://www.ukrm.info/faq/
"Je profite du paysage" - Joe Bar
S'mee
> <To Mark as well>
>
> That's just insane. I mean, the US is one country, right? Albeit a big
> one. In Britain (yes, OK, the size of a single US state, I know),
> selling a vehicle is simple.
Sort of...even the average (slept through civics class and history)
troglodyte american thinks that.
It is not necessarily so...what america IS is a represenative
republic. Now it used to be you could leave, but after the recent war
of northern agression (americas first revolution/civil war) it was
determined by the oldest method of all (you know trial by combat) the
like the Mafia "once you're in...you're never out".
Essentially<sic> it is 50 large countries bound together with a bit of
sheepskin into one big republic which like herpes you can't get out
of. But don't feel bad, lots of americans think it's one big
democracy... News flash! it isn't and never was a democracy...it's
represenative republic EXACTLY how the framers of the constitution
meant it to be.
sheesh...I expect people from places like great britan to NOT know
this but the number of americans that don't is bordering on 99% it's
fucking embarassing...it's right up there with people not understand
that it's not scotch if you can't taste the damned peat! ;^)
Sean_Q_
> That's just insane. I mean, the US is one country, right? Albeit a big
> one.
You musta snoozed through that awkward part of history class
where the teacher broke the disagreeable news that the US
(at least the eastern part) used to be 13 British colonies
who got so teed off with Mad King George that they formed
a Rebel Alliance. It was called the "Continental Congress"
which later grew into an entity now known as [drum roll please]
the "Federal Government". Theoretically, it had powers only
as specified explicitly by the Constitution; the States being
sovereign in everything else. Which is why there is such
a confusing (and conflicting) (and seemingly chaotic)
set of rules and regs. The motorcycle helmet laws for example.
Curiously enough, Canada came into being not by a dramatic
revolutionary war starring Mel Gibson (unless you count
a few dozen disgruntled farmers meeting in a tavern and then
marching down the main street of Toronto) but by an act
of the UK Parliament, the British North America Act.
Despite this, we still ended up with a US-style arrangement
with a Federal Government and "Provinces". The wealthiest
Provinces subsidize the poorest (Martime) and the most
tantrum-throwing (Quebec).
SQ
TOG@Toil
> TOG@Toil wrote:
> > That's just insane. I mean, the US is one country, right? Albeit a big
> > one.
>
> You musta snoozed through that awkward part of history class
> where the teacher broke the disagreeable news that the US
> (at least the eastern part) used to be 13 British colonies
> who got so teed off with Mad King George that they formed
> a Rebel Alliance. It was called the "Continental Congress"
> which later grew into an entity now known as [drum roll please]
> the "Federal Government". Theoretically, it had powers only
> as specified explicitly by the Constitution; the States being
> sovereign in everything else. Which is why there is such
> a confusing (and conflicting) (and seemingly chaotic)
> set of rules and regs. The motorcycle helmet laws for example.
Thanks, and to S'mee and Mark, because I didn't know this at all.
Oddly, they didn't teach us American history at school, apart from the
little bit when you stole the colonies from our glorious King ;-) And
poured decent tea into some harbour....
J. Clarke
> On 16 Dec, 16:27, Sean_Q_ <no.s...@no.spam> wrote:
>> TOG@Toil wrote:
>>> That's just insane. I mean, the US is one country, right? Albeit a
>>> big one.
>>
>> You musta snoozed through that awkward part of history class
>> where the teacher broke the disagreeable news that the US
>> (at least the eastern part) used to be 13 British colonies
>> who got so teed off with Mad King George that they formed
>> a Rebel Alliance. It was called the "Continental Congress"
>> which later grew into an entity now known as [drum roll please]
>> the "Federal Government". Theoretically, it had powers only
>> as specified explicitly by the Constitution; the States being
>> sovereign in everything else. Which is why there is such
>> a confusing (and conflicting) (and seemingly chaotic)
>> set of rules and regs. The motorcycle helmet laws for example.
>
> Thanks, and to S'mee and Mark, because I didn't know this at all.
> Oddly, they didn't teach us American history at school, apart from the
> little bit when you stole the colonies from our glorious King ;-) And
> poured decent tea into some harbour....
As another piece of the puzzle, except where it explicitly ascribed a power
to the Federal government or explicitly restricted a power of the States,
the Constitution had little effect on the internal affairs of the states.
To take one example, it is fashionable today to believe that the First
Amendment provision "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" was intended to
guarantee religious freedom to all. It wasn't. It was there to ensure
that the Federal government would not interfere with the official state
religions in Massachussetts, Connecticut, and a couple of other colonies.
It wasn't until after the Civil War, when the Fourteenth Amendment,
containing the provision "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws" was enacted, that the Constititution was extended in
any significant way into a restriction on the activities of the states.
This has been an ongoing process in which a Constititutional provision is
"incorporated" by a ruling of the Supreme Court. The first such was in
1897, when the Supreme Court ruled that the Just Compensation clause of the
Constitution applied to the states, the "establishment clause" guaranteeing
freedom of religion was incorporated in 1947, but the entire Bill of Rights
has not yet been so incorporated (there is a case before the Supreme Court
at this time which argues in favor of such blanket incorporation).
Vito
right to arms, several jurisdictions are claiming that the 2nd only applies
to the federal gummymint. Also a couple states have laws saying that fedgov
cannot regulate things produced and used within the state. Be fun to see
how it plays out.
don (Calgary)
I am not sure of the distance between Devon and Somerset, but would it
be fair to speculate you could drive it in a couple of hours?
As opposed to needing a full day and then some to drive across Ontario
or North South in Alberta, BC, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
Canada is a large and diverse country. Hell we don't even speak the
same language in parts of this wonderful land.
When I moved from BC to Alberta it was no big deal changing my drivers
license and vehicle registration. All that was required was a vehicle
inspection and one trip to the motor vehicle office. There was a fee
for both, but had I sent my plate back to BC, I could have got a
refund on the unused portion of the BC fee.
For the non Canadians in this group, the Provinces have jurisdiction
over most traffic laws, driver licensing and vehicle registration.
Personally I like it that way. There are significant regional
differences in our country. While most point to Quebec as being a
unique society, the same can be said for other regions of the country.
Alberta is the closest thing to a non regulated region we have in
Canada. Even Alberta regulations, when compared to the States, would
appear to be oppressive, but at least we do not have a Provincial
sales tax, government auto insurance or annoying annual vehicle
inspections. If our vehicle and licensing laws were harmonized across
the country, the most stringent regulations currently in place would
apply to all.
Thank you, NO!
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
I am grateful for our annual state-mandated safety inspections. With
the sheer number of cars on the road in northern Virginia, and the
power and speed and size of those cars, I am glad that someone is
looking at their tire tread and their brake pads yearly, and mandating
that worn-out components be replaced. On a motorcycle, I don't need
any more risk added to that of a properly maintained 7,000 pound SUV
bearing down on me from behind!
Ditto our semi-annual emission inspection. I still remember comig
back to noVa from Virginia Tech in rural southhwestern Virginia in
1977, having run everyday the previous school year, and having to stop
and retch after less than a mile of running in Fairfax city's miasma
of smog.
There are times when government regulation is a good thing.
I am reminded of that now each time I enter a Fairfax County
restaurant or bar... I no longer have to hold my breath walking to
the no-smoking section, since they are all now smoke-free since 1
December, Hallelujah!
don (Calgary)
The foothills are a windy area. All of our smog blows east to places
like Winnipeg! Sorry Bob. <g>
>
>There are times when government regulation is a good thing.
Alberta has been a fairly affluent area for a few decades now. We
don't have a lot of junkers on the road. I wouldn't know how to
quantify it, but I would be very surprised if a significant number of
traffic accidents were caused by poor vehicle maintenance. Other
Provinces may be different and mandatory inspections there might have
some value.
The other variable is our winters. Trust me 35 below zero weather will
cull out the junkers better than a vehicle inspection. ;-)
>
>I am reminded of that now each time I enter a Fairfax County
>restaurant or bar... I no longer have to hold my breath walking to
>the no-smoking section, since they are all now smoke-free since 1
>December, Hallelujah!
We have been non smoking for a few years now. Although I smoked, three
packs a day for 25 years, I am glad I do not have to breath second
hand smoke where ever I go.
Here's an example of over regulation. Quebec recently introduced
mandatory winter tires for all vehicles. Not all season but dedicated
winter tires. Now for some vehicles winter tires are a necessity if
you want to get around safely, but not for all. My truck is four wheel
drive and has reasonably aggressive tires. With the four wheel drive,
limited slip dif and anti lock brakes I have no problem navigating in
winter conditions. Winter tires would add cost to my driving without
providing additional value. Now the XJ6 needs winter tires to go
anywhere in the snow.Currently it has summer tires on it and only gets
used when the roads are clear and dry. If I had to use it during the
crappy conditions I would put on the winter tires. With goofy
regulations based on a date, not road conditions I would have to put
winter tires on it, if I wanted to drive during the 70% of winter when
our roads are clean and dry.
I prefer making my own choices and not being forced to buy winter
tires when I don't need them.
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
> I prefer making my own choices and not being forced to buy winter
> tires when I don't need them.
Our regulation is winter tires or mud & snow (all season radials
qualify) mounted IF you get your vehicle stuck in a designated Snow
Emergency Route. If you don't have them, you will be ticketed and
towed. Otherwise, 2mm tread on any tire of your choice, but don't
get stuck!
don (Calgary)
I am sure we have a regulation regarding tread depth, but it's not a
concern for me. I don't like flat tires or even worse slow friggin
leaks. Just try to find a functioning air compressor at a service
station during an Alberta winter.
The only exception I would make to my comments about mandatory vehicle
inspections would be commercial vehicles. Some companies, especially
the small ones, have pretty crappy trucks. A few times a year the
truck cops will set up check stops to inspect commercial vehicles. I
see a lot of those crappy vehicles parked on the side of the road
waiting for a tow truck, after the cops have had a look at them.
S'mee
> On 16 Dec, 16:27, Sean_Q_ <no.s...@no.spam> wrote:
>
> > TOG@Toil wrote:
> > > That's just insane. I mean, the US is one country, right? Albeit a big
> > > one.
>
> > You musta snoozed through that awkward part of history class
> > where the teacher broke the disagreeable news that the US
> > (at least the eastern part) used to be 13 British colonies
> > who got so teed off with Mad King George that they formed
> > a Rebel Alliance. It was called the "Continental Congress"
> > which later grew into an entity now known as [drum roll please]
> > the "Federal Government". Theoretically, it had powers only
> > as specified explicitly by the Constitution; the States being
> > sovereign in everything else. Which is why there is such
> > a confusing (and conflicting) (and seemingly chaotic)
> > set of rules and regs. The motorcycle helmet laws for example.
>
> Thanks, and to S'mee and Mark, because I didn't know this at all.
> Oddly, they didn't teach us American history at school, apart from the
> little bit when you stole the colonies from our glorious King ;-) And
> poured decent tea into some harbour....
actually we convinced you it was uneconomical to stay much less KEEP
the colonies. 8^) We just out lasted you in every way possible. 8^)
Anyway that tea was stale and of LOW quality even by prison standards
of the era.
Sean_Q_
bike wrench... he sez it looks ok as far as he can tell
so the project might still be a go. If I can get
the papers into my name before I lay out the cash.
Anything else I should know?
> TIA, SQ
> '06 Zook S40 / '85 Dnepr MT-11 / various conversation pieces
-
S'mee
> I took some pix of this bike and emailed them to my
> bike wrench... he sez it looks ok as far as he can tell
> so the project might still be a go. If I can get
> the papers into my name before I lay out the cash.
>
> Anything else I should know?
You do have permission from SWMBO'd correct? Other than that the only
thing I can think of is...admit you are crazy as the rest of us who
own or have rebuilt a basket case. (I've got three myself, one could
be a runner in a weekend of HARD work)
Ever fabbed new pipes from scraps and photo's? If so you are keeping
up with me. 8^)
TOG@Toil
> I am sure we have a regulation regarding tread depth, but it's not a
> concern for me.
<snip>
> Alberta has been a fairly affluent area for a few decades now. We
> don't have a lot of junkers on the road. I wouldn't know how to
> quantify it, but I would be very surprised if a significant number of
> traffic accidents were caused by poor vehicle maintenance. Other
> Provinces may be different and mandatory inspections there might have
> some value.
>
This strikes me as a classic example of the: "Well, other people
should have this law applied to them, but not me/us..."
Mandatory vehicle inspections, of one sort or another, are usually a
very, very good thing. Brakes fail, tyres burst, structures weaken,
lights go pop, suspension leaks, other stuff just breaks.
Yes, there are people, like you and I and others, who have a
responsible attitude to machinery and others who take the piss. And
there are others who are simply ignorant and assume that because the
car was serviced 11,000 miles ago, and the intervals are 12,000 miles,
it'll be OK.
True, there's no easy and accurate way to quantify how many accidents
are *caused* by poor maintenance, but that's a meaningless statement.
You can be sure, though, that it's a *contributory factor* in a great
many (there's very rarely one simple cause of a crash, as any accident
investigator will tell you) and severity of injuries will vary as well
due a number of factors. EG: if the brakes were working 100%, the
vehicle might have scrubbed another 5mph off the impact speed, and
that would have made the difference between life and death. If the
tyres had been in better condition, same applies. Und so weiter.
If you don't have some sort of tech safety inspection, there will be
more and nastier crashes. Very simple.
In Britain, all cars and motorcycles over three years old must have an
annual check (we call it the MOT test - stood for Mnistry Of Transport
in the old days, and oddly, the name has stuck, even on the official
paperwork). It's pretty basic: tyres, lights, brakes, structural
stuff. There's an emissions test for cars but not bikes (yet).
Heavy goods vehicles and buses have to have this done once they're one
year old, not three.
Sure, I trust myself to keep my vehicles roadworthy and safe (I might
ride like a total twat, mind....) but I know others don't. I'd never
argue against this sort of fundamental safety issue just because "I do
it properly". 'm happy with a regulation applied to all.
YMMV (and obviously does).
don (Calgary)
<totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On 17 Dec, 00:44, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I am sure we have a regulation regarding tread depth, but it's not a
>> concern for me.
>
><snip>
>
>> Alberta has been a fairly affluent area for a few decades now. We
>> don't have a lot of junkers on the road. I wouldn't know how to
>> quantify it, but I would be very surprised if a significant number of
>> traffic accidents were caused by poor vehicle maintenance. Other
>> Provinces may be different and mandatory inspections there might have
>> some value.
>>
>
>This strikes me as a classic example of the: "Well, other people
>should have this law applied to them, but not me/us..."
Not at all, Alberta is an affluent Province. One of the things I
noticed when I moved hear was how few beaters were on the road. More
important, the regulations are applied evenly and equally in our
Province. What they do in Ontario, Quebec or the UK is of little
concern to me.
>
>Mandatory vehicle inspections, of one sort or another, are usually a
>very, very good thing. Brakes fail, tyres burst, structures weaken,
>lights go pop, suspension leaks, other stuff just breaks.
>
>Yes, there are people, like you and I and others, who have a
>responsible attitude to machinery and others who take the piss. And
>there are others who are simply ignorant and assume that because the
>car was serviced 11,000 miles ago, and the intervals are 12,000 miles,
>it'll be OK.
>
>True, there's no easy and accurate way to quantify how many accidents
>are *caused* by poor maintenance, but that's a meaningless statement.
>You can be sure, though, that it's a *contributory factor* in a great
>many (there's very rarely one simple cause of a crash, as any accident
>investigator will tell you) and severity of injuries will vary as well
>due a number of factors. EG: if the brakes were working 100%, the
>vehicle might have scrubbed another 5mph off the impact speed, and
>that would have made the difference between life and death. If the
>tyres had been in better condition, same applies. Und so weiter.
>
>If you don't have some sort of tech safety inspection, there will be
>more and nastier crashes. Very simple.
Then you should be able to provide statistical evidence indicating
Alberta has more and nastier crashes than the Provinces that have
mandatory vehicle inspections. Very simple.
>
>In Britain, all cars and motorcycles over three years old must have an
>annual check (we call it the MOT test - stood for Mnistry Of Transport
>in the old days, and oddly, the name has stuck, even on the official
>paperwork). It's pretty basic: tyres, lights, brakes, structural
>stuff. There's an emissions test for cars but not bikes (yet).
>
>Heavy goods vehicles and buses have to have this done once they're one
>year old, not three.
>
>Sure, I trust myself to keep my vehicles roadworthy and safe (I might
>ride like a total twat, mind....) but I know others don't. I'd never
>argue against this sort of fundamental safety issue just because "I do
>it properly". 'm happy with a regulation applied to all.
>
>YMMV (and obviously does).
Yes it does. Given the choice, and within reason, I will choose less
government regulation every time. Alberta does quite nicely without
mandatory vehicle inspections. I am sure our accident stats are
similar to other Provinces. I don't see a bunch of old beaters on the
road, or more appropriately broken down on the side of the road.
Doug Payne
> As opposed to needing a full day and then some to drive across Ontario
I'd say. From my place in southern (not eastern) Ontario to the Manitoba
border is almost exactly 2,000 km, assuming I stay in Ontario the whole
way. I'm sure someone will pipe up and say "piece of cake, I could do
that in day no problem", I know I sure as hell can't; I've tried. 1,000
km days are pushing it for me.
Bob Mann
news:n5pii5988pdb3p85t...@4ax.com:
> Alberta is the closest thing to a non regulated region we have in
> Canada. Even Alberta regulations, when compared to the States, would
> appear to be oppressive, but at least we do not have a Provincial
> sales tax, government auto insurance or annoying annual vehicle
> inspections. If our vehicle and licensing laws were harmonized across
> the country, the most stringent regulations currently in place would
> apply to all.
>
While many of us are very annoyed with our mandatory government
insurance, we also have among the best coverage and lowest rates in the
country - for cars.
Many locals have purchased property in Arizona and could probably insure
their vehicles there at lower cost but the coverage is weak.
By the time you get equivalent cpverage and service levels you are paying
as much or more.
Likewise, so I have been told, in Alberta.
We have drive up claim centres or free towing included, everyone is
covered against everyone else regardless of fault and the level of
coverage the other person might have.
We know that everyone who is on the road legally is insured.
It works.
Bikes OTOH are way OTT with rates but we are also covered very well.
We also have no annual vehicle inspections. They did it for a while but
it cost more than it was worth and, like everything else here, they
thought they could do it better than service shops and made it free to
encourage its use. We just have to have an inspection when the vehicle is
registered on purchase.
Harmonizing regulations in this country usually means whatever Ontario
does except in Quebec.
--
Bob Mann
Cap'n, ah need moor pow'r.
Bob Mann
>
> The foothills are a windy area. All of our smog blows east to places
> like Winnipeg! Sorry Bob. <g>
Don't worry, we have some of the cleanest air in the country.
The wind has 1000 miles to pick up speed before blowing it into Ontario
and Minnesota.
>
> Alberta has been a fairly affluent area for a few decades now. We
> don't have a lot of junkers on the road. I wouldn't know how to
> quantify it, but I would be very surprised if a significant number of
> traffic accidents were caused by poor vehicle maintenance. Other
> Provinces may be different and mandatory inspections there might have
> some value.
I've seen junkers there.
In any society there are those on the edge. When you pay so much more for
a home somethiong else often has to give.
>
> The other variable is our winters. Trust me 35 below zero weather will
> cull out the junkers better than a vehicle inspection. ;-)
Now that is probably more of a reason although keeping a car loose helps.
>
> We have been non smoking for a few years now. Although I smoked, three
> packs a day for 25 years, I am glad I do not have to breath second
> hand smoke where ever I go.
That was a godsend for me. I think I am allergic to cigarette smoke.
I don't miss it at all.
>
> Here's an example of over regulation. Quebec recently introduced
> mandatory winter tires for all vehicles. Not all season but dedicated
> winter tires. Now for some vehicles winter tires are a necessity if
> you want to get around safely, but not for all. My truck is four wheel
> drive and has reasonably aggressive tires. With the four wheel drive,
> limited slip dif and anti lock brakes I have no problem navigating in
> winter conditions. Winter tires would add cost to my driving without
> providing additional value. Now the XJ6 needs winter tires to go
> anywhere in the snow.Currently it has summer tires on it and only gets
> used when the roads are clear and dry. If I had to use it during the
> crappy conditions I would put on the winter tires. With goofy
> regulations based on a date, not road conditions I would have to put
> winter tires on it, if I wanted to drive during the 70% of winter when
> our roads are clean and dry.
Quebec has much different winter conditions than we do as well as
different terrain. They are not the only place with winter tire regs.
Finland for example requires studded winter tires IIRC.
It isn't so much the navigating or getting going, it's the stopping.
My Jeep has a similar or better system than your Dodge but I went right
through an intersection last winter with the anti-lock clicking away for
almost a full block. Some winter tires now can be used all year round.
>
> I prefer making my own choices and not being forced to buy winter
> tires when I don't need them.
>
What you (or anyone else) think you need may not be realistic.
Someone else may think that they don't need anything more than bald cheap
summer tires and a BAC of .24 is fine.
Some regulation is needed.
TOG@Toil
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:11:32 -0800 (PST), "TOG@Toil"
>
>
>
> <totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >On 17 Dec, 00:44, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >> I am sure we have a regulation regarding tread depth, but it's not a
> >> concern for me.
>
> ><snip>
>
> >> Alberta has been a fairly affluent area for a few decades now. We
> >> don't have a lot of junkers on the road. I wouldn't know how to
> >> quantify it, but I would be very surprised if a significant number of
> >> traffic accidents were caused by poor vehicle maintenance. Other
> >> Provinces may be different and mandatory inspections there might have
> >> some value.
>
> >This strikes me as a classic example of the: "Well, other people
> >should have this law applied to them, but not me/us..."
>
> Not at all, Alberta is an affluent Province. One of the things I
> noticed when I moved hear was how few beaters were on the road.
>
different can of worms.
>
>
>
> >Mandatory vehicle inspections, of one sort or another, are usually a
> >very, very good thing. Brakes fail, tyres burst, structures weaken,
> >lights go pop, suspension leaks, other stuff just breaks.
>
> >Yes, there are people, like you and I and others, who have a
> >responsible attitude to machinery and others who take the piss. And
> >there are others who are simply ignorant and assume that because the
> >car was serviced 11,000 miles ago, and the intervals are 12,000 miles,
> >it'll be OK.
>
> >True, there's no easy and accurate way to quantify how many accidents
> >are *caused* by poor maintenance, but that's a meaningless statement.
> >You can be sure, though, that it's a *contributory factor* in a great
> >many (there's very rarely one simple cause of a crash, as any accident
> >investigator will tell you) and severity of injuries will vary as well
> >due a number of factors. EG: if the brakes were working 100%, the
> >vehicle might have scrubbed another 5mph off the impact speed, and
> >that would have made the difference between life and death. If the
> >tyres had been in better condition, same applies. Und so weiter.
>
> >If you don't have some sort of tech safety inspection, there will be
> >more and nastier crashes. Very simple.
> Then you should be able to provide statistical evidence indicating
> Alberta has more and nastier crashes than the Provinces that have
> mandatory vehicle inspections. Very simple.
>
And you could prove it doesn't. Just about impossible for either of
us, so don't be silly.
>
>>
>
>
> >In Britain, all cars and motorcycles over three years old must have an
> >annual check (we call it the MOT test - stood for Mnistry Of Transport
> >in the old days, and oddly, the name has stuck, even on the official
> >paperwork). It's pretty basic: tyres, lights, brakes, structural
> >stuff. There's an emissions test for cars but not bikes (yet).
>
> >Heavy goods vehicles and buses have to have this done once they're one
> >year old, not three.
>
> >Sure, I trust myself to keep my vehicles roadworthy and safe (I might
> >ride like a total twat, mind....) but I know others don't. I'd never
> >argue against this sort of fundamental safety issue just because "I do
> >it properly". 'm happy with a regulation applied to all.
>
> >YMMV (and obviously does).
>
> Yes it does. Given the choice, and within reason, I will choose less
> government regulation every time. Alberta does quite nicely without
> mandatory vehicle inspections.
And would do better with them.
>I am sure our accident stats are
> similar to other Provinces. I don't see a bunch of old beaters on the
> road, or more appropriately broken down on the side of the road.
How could you tell, just from looking at it as you pass, whether a car
has defective brakes, steering or other safety-critical cmponents?
Just asking.
TOG@Toil
> "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote innews:ejuii5pll4pfrbe3f...@4ax.com:
>
> > I prefer making my own choices and not being forced to buy winter
> > tires when I don't need them.
>
> What you (or anyone else) think you need may not be realistic.
> Someone else may think that they don't need anything more than bald cheap
> summer tires and a BAC of .24 is fine.
> Some regulation is needed.
>
TOG@Toil
> We also have no annual vehicle inspections. They did it for a while but
> it cost more than it was worth and, like everything else here, they
> thought they could do it better than service shops and made it free to
> encourage its use.
That's interesting. Here the checks are just done by any independent
garage or service centre that has invested in the right testing kit
and has been granted ministry approval to do the testing. They are
regularly and frequently monitored by 'blind' testers, to ensure
they're doing a good job. And if they aren't, they lose their testing
entitlement, which is a severe financial blow.
J. Clarke
The state of Florida used to have mandatory safety inspections. After a
while they figured out that it was mainly a way for safety inspectors to
collect graft and wasn't having a measurable effect on safety and gave it
up. And this was with state owned and state operated inspection facilities.
TOG@Toil
>
> The state of Florida used to have mandatory safety inspections. After a
> while they figured out that it was mainly a way for safety inspectors to
> collect graft and wasn't having a measurable effect on safety and gave it
> up. And this was with state owned and state operated inspection facilities.
I'm sort of not surprised, seeing as it was a state-owned thingy.
Like I said, ours are privately-owned and run, usually within
exisiting garages.
It costs a lot of money to become an MoT tester. You need all the kit,
floor laid out just so, but it's a sure-fire earner. First, there's
the fees for each test (about £50 for a car and £30 for a bike, but
testers are allowed to discount if they want to.
And then there's remedial work - typically, people will ask for a
vehicle service and an MoT test at the same time, and it's a pretty
safe bet that if you pulled a dozen cars at random off the road, at
least one would have a non-functioning head or tail light. So you make
money on sales of service parts as well: brakes, lights, tyres, etc.
People will always pay because it's needed - no MoT, the vehicle's not
allowed on the road.
You do get some graft - there are some dodgy testers about. But the
Ministry vets them by sending in anonymous testers with vehicles to be
checked. And if you fail something that should not have failed, or
pass something that should not have passed, or (worse still) take a
bribe, your ticket is at risk. Too many dodgy passes, or fails, and
just one bribe, and you lose it. That's a significant investment, and
a sure-fire income source lost. So people don't generally mess about.
It's all computerised. The vehicle is logged in via a link to the
Ministry's computer, and the test must take a specifed time, so cannot
be logged out until that time has passed. This is to avoid testers
giving a vehicle a cursory glance and a kick of the tyres, in order to
push through as many as possible in a day (and that certainly used to
happen).
In short, the system works, is honest, and is trusted by pretty much
everyone. If you try and sell a vehicle without an MoT, it'll be
harder and will definitely command a lower price than one with.
J. Clarke
The state I'm in now has a requirement for a safety inspection as a
condition of issuance of title for vehicles older than IIRC 3 years, but no
requirement for inspection for renewal of registration. There is a
requirement for an emissions inspection but there is no safety inspection
performed at that time.
I haven't seen any statistics anywhere that show a difference between states
with mandatory periodic safety inspection and those without.
Vito
"TOG@Toil"
| >If you don't have some sort of tech safety inspection, there will be
| >more and nastier crashes. Very simple.
|
| Then you should be able to provide statistical evidence indicating
| Alberta has more and nastier crashes than the Provinces that have
| mandatory vehicle inspections. Very simple.
<snip>
I'd like to see what such evidence shows. I have mixed emotions on
inspections ever since I almost crashed a coworkers car because he hadn't
mentioned that the brakes needed to be pumped thrice to stop the car.
Afterward, he explained that the car was due for inspection in a month or so
and the inspector always found some thing to fix so he was waiting for then.
Vito
"Bob Mann" <bob...@mtsremove.net> wrote.....
| We have drive up claim centres or free towing included, everyone is
| covered against everyone else regardless of fault and the level of
Florida is similar but I'm suspicious. In states that do not have "no
fault" insurance different laws apply to the person at fault and thus his
insurer than apply to one's own insurer. If I damage your property I am
liable for fixing it as it was before the damage and my insurer must pay for
that level of repair. OTOH my insurer only need pay for a repairs to my car
that would satisfy a mythical "reasonable man" and since claims agents do
not get rewarded for fairness that can be shoddy - depending of course on
the company. I hope I never need to find out how 'no fault' works.
Vito
| The state I'm in now has a requirement for a safety inspection as a
Maryland was like that. A week after buying a used van I found a plug
disconnected and plugged it in. My brake warning light came on. Trouble
shooting disclosed an empty reservour in the master cylinder because the
line to the rear wheels was broken. I'd been driving on front brakes alone.
The inspection station said "tough shit!" so I found the state employee who
licensed them and complained. He said the same thing. Flustered I asked
wtf do we pay for inspections if they don't even check the brakes. He
looked at me like I was a child and explained "Why, in order to get tags of
course."
The Older Gentleman
> I haven't seen any statistics anywhere that show a difference between states
> with mandatory periodic safety inspection and those without.
I'd be surprised if any exist.
A safety inspection is worthless if it seems to be as perfunctory and
open to abuse as you say, mind.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
don (Calgary)
Knowing someone would bitch and whine if I used more definitive
language is why I said a day and then some.
The point is this is one very large country and regional laws and
regulations make sense. We have several unique societies within this
country and personally I like it that way.
Putting in place oppressive national regulations designed to meet the
lowest common denominator in an isolated region penalizes the
reasonable and responsible and would contribute to creating a vanilla
society.
don (Calgary)
<bob...@mtsremove.net> wrote:
>While many of us are very annoyed with our mandatory government
>insurance, we also have among the best coverage and lowest rates in the
>country - for cars.
>Many locals have purchased property in Arizona and could probably insure
>their vehicles there at lower cost but the coverage is weak.
>By the time you get equivalent cpverage and service levels you are paying
>as much or more.
>Likewise, so I have been told, in Alberta.
I have to disagree with you here Bob. I just did a calculation on your
government auto insurance site and the rate for my truck came back
almost 40% higher than what I pay here with private insurance. I used
very similar coverage. At least as similar as the questions on the
site allow. I used the highest discount levels available for driving
record and installed immobilizer.
My rate for full coverage came to $1025.00
The rate for base coverage was $859.00
My cost in Calgary is $735.00 for full coverage and the base rate is
$435.00 +/-
For fun I did my car, once again using all the cheapest variables and
my cost came to $989,00. I pay less than $450,00 here albeit for less
coverage, but at least I have the option for less coverage here.
Here is the Manitoba calculator. Anyone can do a comparison
http://www.mpi.mb.ca/Irc/intro.asp?Lang=0
I used R3A 0J5 as the postal code.
There is no doubt auto/truck insurance is far cheaper here with
private insurance.
don (Calgary)
<totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On 17 Dec, 13:38, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:11:32 -0800 (PST), "TOG@Toil"
>>
>>
>>
>> <totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >On 17 Dec, 00:44, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> I am sure we have a regulation regarding tread depth, but it's not a
>> >> concern for me.
>>
>> ><snip>
>>
>> >> Alberta has been a fairly affluent area for a few decades now. We
>> >> don't have a lot of junkers on the road. I wouldn't know how to
>> >> quantify it, but I would be very surprised if a significant number of
>> >> traffic accidents were caused by poor vehicle maintenance. Other
>> >> Provinces may be different and mandatory inspections there might have
>> >> some value.
>>
>> >This strikes me as a classic example of the: "Well, other people
>> >should have this law applied to them, but not me/us..."
>>
>> Not at all, Alberta is an affluent Province. One of the things I
>> noticed when I moved hear was how few beaters were on the road.
>>
>Ah, so a separate law for the wealthy is what you want. That's a
>different can of worms.
What an ass. You are just trolling for an argument.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Mandatory vehicle inspections, of one sort or another, are usually a
>> >very, very good thing. Brakes fail, tyres burst, structures weaken,
>> >lights go pop, suspension leaks, other stuff just breaks.
>>
>> >Yes, there are people, like you and I and others, who have a
>> >responsible attitude to machinery and others who take the piss. And
>> >there are others who are simply ignorant and assume that because the
>> >car was serviced 11,000 miles ago, and the intervals are 12,000 miles,
>> >it'll be OK.
>>
>> >True, there's no easy and accurate way to quantify how many accidents
>> >are *caused* by poor maintenance, but that's a meaningless statement.
>> >You can be sure, though, that it's a *contributory factor* in a great
>> >many (there's very rarely one simple cause of a crash, as any accident
>> >investigator will tell you) and severity of injuries will vary as well
>> >due a number of factors. EG: if the brakes were working 100%, the
>> >vehicle might have scrubbed another 5mph off the impact speed, and
>> >that would have made the difference between life and death. If the
>> >tyres had been in better condition, same applies. Und so weiter.
>>
>> >If you don't have some sort of tech safety inspection, there will be
>> >more and nastier crashes. Very simple.
>
>> Then you should be able to provide statistical evidence indicating
>> Alberta has more and nastier crashes than the Provinces that have
>> mandatory vehicle inspections. Very simple.
>>
>And you could prove it doesn't. Just about impossible for either of
>us, so don't be silly.
It was your statement. I would think the stats would be readily
available and you should be able to support it. Of course you might be
right thinking there would be more and nastier crashed is basically
silly.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> >In Britain, all cars and motorcycles over three years old must have an
>> >annual check (we call it the MOT test - stood for Mnistry Of Transport
>> >in the old days, and oddly, the name has stuck, even on the official
>> >paperwork). It's pretty basic: tyres, lights, brakes, structural
>> >stuff. There's an emissions test for cars but not bikes (yet).
>>
>> >Heavy goods vehicles and buses have to have this done once they're one
>> >year old, not three.
>>
>> >Sure, I trust myself to keep my vehicles roadworthy and safe (I might
>> >ride like a total twat, mind....) but I know others don't. I'd never
>> >argue against this sort of fundamental safety issue just because "I do
>> >it properly". 'm happy with a regulation applied to all.
>>
>> >YMMV (and obviously does).
>>
>> Yes it does. Given the choice, and within reason, I will choose less
>> government regulation every time. Alberta does quite nicely without
>> mandatory vehicle inspections.
>
>And would do better with them.
I doubt it. There is no tangible evidence we would be.
>
>>I am sure our accident stats are
>> similar to other Provinces. I don't see a bunch of old beaters on the
>> road, or more appropriately broken down on the side of the road.
>
>How could you tell, just from looking at it as you pass, whether a car
>has defective brakes, steering or other safety-critical cmponents?
>Just asking.
So you suggest, absent of any available evidence, either statistical,
visual or historical, we should implement mandatory vehicle testing,
just because.....we can?
As I have noted in other messages Albertans choose less government and
less regulation. We have way too much regulation imposed on us by the
federal government and our wacky municipal governments. We neither
want or need more needless regulations.
Our little corner of the world functions so much better than most and
probably better than yours. We kinda like it that way.
don (Calgary)
<bob...@mtsremove.net> wrote:
>"don (Calgary)" <hd....@telus.net> wrote in
>news:ejuii5pll4pfrbe3f...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>
>> The foothills are a windy area. All of our smog blows east to places
>> like Winnipeg! Sorry Bob. <g>
>
>Don't worry, we have some of the cleanest air in the country.
>The wind has 1000 miles to pick up speed before blowing it into Ontario
>and Minnesota.
I guess I need to apologize to Mark then.
Sorry bud! ;-)
>
>>
>> Alberta has been a fairly affluent area for a few decades now. We
>> don't have a lot of junkers on the road. I wouldn't know how to
>> quantify it, but I would be very surprised if a significant number of
>> traffic accidents were caused by poor vehicle maintenance. Other
>> Provinces may be different and mandatory inspections there might have
>> some value.
>
>I've seen junkers there.
>In any society there are those on the edge. When you pay so much more for
>a home somethiong else often has to give.
It's all relative Bob. We make more here. We are taxed less here. Our
starter homes sell for more here allowing us to move up easier.
For fun this morning on my way to work I watched for rusty vehicles,
vehicles with body damage, vehicles blowing blue smoke and I didn't
see one. They all looked reasonable new and well cared for.
I can't say as I looked for junkers the few times I have been in
Winnipeg, but I can tell you I see tons more when I go into BC.
>
>>
>> The other variable is our winters. Trust me 35 below zero weather will
>> cull out the junkers better than a vehicle inspection. ;-)
>
>Now that is probably more of a reason although keeping a car loose helps.
>
>
>>
>> We have been non smoking for a few years now. Although I smoked, three
>> packs a day for 25 years, I am glad I do not have to breath second
>> hand smoke where ever I go.
>
>That was a godsend for me. I think I am allergic to cigarette smoke.
>I don't miss it at all.
I am sure you don't. I still let folks smoke in my house, but rarely
do people who smoke come over. The few who pretty much don't even ask
to smoke inside.
>>
>> Here's an example of over regulation. Quebec recently introduced
>> mandatory winter tires for all vehicles. Not all season but dedicated
>> winter tires. Now for some vehicles winter tires are a necessity if
>> you want to get around safely, but not for all. My truck is four wheel
>> drive and has reasonably aggressive tires. With the four wheel drive,
>> limited slip dif and anti lock brakes I have no problem navigating in
>> winter conditions. Winter tires would add cost to my driving without
>> providing additional value. Now the XJ6 needs winter tires to go
>> anywhere in the snow.Currently it has summer tires on it and only gets
>> used when the roads are clear and dry. If I had to use it during the
>> crappy conditions I would put on the winter tires. With goofy
>> regulations based on a date, not road conditions I would have to put
>> winter tires on it, if I wanted to drive during the 70% of winter when
>> our roads are clean and dry.
>
>Quebec has much different winter conditions than we do as well as
>different terrain. They are not the only place with winter tire regs.
>Finland for example requires studded winter tires IIRC.
Studded tires here rip up the roads making lifecycle maintenance way
too expensive. I am not even sure if studs are legal in Calgary. I
have never seen studs offered as an option when I have bought tires.
>It isn't so much the navigating or getting going, it's the stopping.
>My Jeep has a similar or better system than your Dodge but I went right
>through an intersection last winter with the anti-lock clicking away for
>almost a full block.
You could do that with any tires. Even the best equipment can't
mitigate the icy conditions we sometimes get.
>Some winter tires now can be used all year round.
>>
>> I prefer making my own choices and not being forced to buy winter
>> tires when I don't need them.
>>
>
>What you (or anyone else) think you need may not be realistic.
>Someone else may think that they don't need anything more than bald cheap
>summer tires and a BAC of .24 is fine.
>Some regulation is needed.
And we do have regulations against bald tires and other safety
equipment violations.
Insurance companies require some vehicles to be inspected. Police can
take vehicles off the road if they are unsafe and they do.
As for BAC levels the Calgary cops run check stops twelve months of
the year and along with education programs our streets are kept safer
every year from drunk drivers.
We seem to have a comfortable balance in Alberta, one that works quite
well for us.
don (Calgary)
Actually we are having a discussion.
Now that you mention it though, you do seem to be trolling for another
argument.
don (Calgary)
wrote:
>The few who pretty much don't even ask
>to smoke inside.
The few who _do_ pretty much don't even ask
I need a proof reader. <g>
BrianNZ
> I hope I never need to find out how 'no fault' works.
>
>
Like all insurance.....first off, the decline the claim, then make you
fight for a reduced payout. F%@k insurance....biggest con out there.
J. Clarke
> J. Clarke <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> I haven't seen any statistics anywhere that show a difference
>> between states with mandatory periodic safety inspection and those
>> without.
>
> I'd be surprised if any exist.
>
> A safety inspection is worthless if it seems to be as perfunctory and
> open to abuse as you say, mind.
That was Florida. Other states have or have had other programs, allowing
the potential for a variety of studies to be performed.
Bob Mann
What is full coverage there vs full coverage here?
I have heard it go both ways. I have been told that Alberta insurance is
cheaper (by someone in the auto industry) but I have also been told it is
more expensive (by a mormal consumer).
There are probably a lot of "it depends" going on.
I believe it requires some shopping around.
don (Calgary)
<bob...@mtsremove.net> wrote:
>
>What is full coverage there vs full coverage here?
I am not an insurance guy so you are getting my understanding of the
coverage.
Full coverage includes PL & PD with 2 mil coverage. That is the bare
minimum required in Alberta and covers damage that I might do to
someone elses property, including medical if I injure someone. We do
have the option of limiting our coverage to PL & PD. That is the
coverage I have on the Jaguar. The Jaguar isn't worth enough to pay
for collision and comprehensive, to replace it if I am at fault. I
don't make a habit of playing bumper cars with my vehicles so I don't
consider it a big risk. Vandalism and hit and run are concerns, but
once again considering the value of the vehicle and the probability of
suffering a loss I think I am better off without the additional
coverage. Our penalties for driving without insurance are so draconian
we do not have many uninsured drivers.
On top of PL & PD full coverage includes collision and comprehensive.
I believe they use the term "All Perils" which provides coverage to my
vehicle if I am at fault in a crash. I am covered for hit and run or
if my vehicle is damaged but an uninsured driver. I am covered for
vandalism, hail, fire, that kind of stuff. I have loss of vehicle
coverage, meaning if my car is out of commission due to an insurance
claim they will provide me with a rental. I am covered if I am driving
someone elses car, which is handy when I am renting a car. I don't
have to buy the car rental insurance.
My deductible is $1,000.00. That is not an option under your plan.
The highest deductible allowed in the online estimator was $500.00
I believe I am covered for everything except glass. It's cheaper here
to replace a windshield every three years than it is to buy the glass
insurance. Once again, here we have those options.
>I have heard it go both ways. I have been told that Alberta insurance is
>cheaper (by someone in the auto industry) but I have also been told it is
>more expensive (by a mormal consumer).
>There are probably a lot of "it depends" going on.
>I believe it requires some shopping around.
It is very easy to determine what insurance costs in Manitoba. I did
that. I can assure you I have never paid an annual premium over
$1,000.00 per year, per vehicle. I have paid up to $900.00 when I had
a few points on my license and an at fault accident on my record.
Of course we do have the option of shopping around here. I am able to
combine all of my policies, home, bikes, cars and package them up to
lever the best deal. Are you able to do that in Manitoba? I didn't see
an option for a two car discount. I have that with my insurance
provider. I think it is worth 10%. I am not sure if I get a two bike
discount. I know the HD costs more to insure than the Venture.
As it turns out I have my vehicles with one company and my home with
another. My bottom line price was better splitting the package.
My bike insurance is billed to me in seven equal payments, beginning
in March and ending in Sept. My car and home insurance are paid
monthly. There is no discount for paying up front and no interest
charged on the premium.
Now I haven't shopped my insurance package around for a few years.
There might be better deals out there and I suspect I could find some
that are more expensive.
At the end of the day Alberta with private insurance allows for
competition and provides me with an option to choose the best deal
suited to my needs.
The Older Gentleman
> Putting in place oppressive national regulations designed to meet the
> lowest common denominator in an isolated region penalizes the
> reasonable and responsible and would contribute to creating a vanilla
> society.
Incest is more common in isolated regions and societies.
Therefore incest should not be banned.
Discuss.
This is, admittedly, an extreme view but illustrates why you're wrong.
You're still clinging to the "In my part of the world we are wealthy and
we behave so we don't need legislation, and I don't care what happens
elsewhere in my country."
That's just plain *wrong*. Or anarchy.
The Older Gentleman
> >Ah, so a separate law for the wealthy is what you want. That's a
> >different can of worms.
>
> What an ass. You are just trolling for an argument.
No. It's *precisely* what you have said. Your state is more wealthy,
ergo there are fewer clunkers around, ergo you don't need mandatory
inspections, while other poorer states with more clunkers might.
Quote;
"Alberta has been a fairly affluent area for a few decades now. We don't
have a lot of junkers on the road. I wouldn't know how to quantify it,
but I would be very surprised if a significant number of traffic
accidents were caused by poor vehicle maintenance. Other Provinces may
be different and mandatory inspections there might have some value."
Endquote
Once again, you're now putting a different spin on plain English. If you
want to explain how that means something else, though, I'm perfectly
willing to accept that you might have phrased it wrong and meant
something else.
> It was your statement.
Replying to your above.
> I would think the stats would be readily available and you should be
> able to support it.
Really? Detailing severity of injuries? I doubt it. So do you.
Because....
Quote:
" I wouldn't know how to quantify it,"
Endquote
But you're better placed to. I wouldn't know where to start and cba
anyway. It's perfectly reasonable to infer that badly maintained
vehicles will be involved in more crashes, all other factors being
equal, than well-maintained ones, and that the human damage will be
worse.
That's certainly a more reasonable inference than: "I'm wealthy and
don't need inspection, but others might."
Consider: what sort of aircraft is more likely to crash? A
well-maintained one or one whose maintenance has been skimped? It is
*exactly* the same. Again, if you think differently, I'm open to
persuasion.
The Older Gentleman
The Older Gentleman
Hm. We're back to this thing about different laws in different states,
aren't we?
I can see that a system that's open to abuse is effectively worthless.
And I don't think an entirely state-run system is necessarily the way to
go.
Having it regulated by the state, and put into practice by private
garages, as in Britain, seems as good a way as any. It's the way they do
in Switzerland, as well, I think (BICBW).
Whether ones like regulation or whether one doesn't, though, to assume
that there is no correlation between vehicle safety condition and
crashes is asinine (not that you are, I hasten to add). Slack
maintenance inevitably means a higher failure rate. A higher failure
rate will mean more crashes.
I think the aircraft example I posted elsewhere in this thread is
probably the best example: nobody would ever argue that well-maintained
aircraft crash as frequently as badly-maintained ones, so why should it
be different for cars? Or, indeed, all transport machines, ships and
trains included?
Nobody *wants* to be controlled by legislation, but in many cases you
*do* have to cater to the lowest possible denominator in the name of
safety. Otherwise what are speed limits for?
"I always respect them, so they're not needed." doesn't work as an
argument, and I can't really see any difference between speed limit
legislation and mandatory technical safety checks.
Bob Mann
No.
There are no multi-vehicle discounts.
I have $200 deductible and $1,000,000 libility plus full comprehensive.
Remember the Sunny deer incident? That wouldn't happen here.
There are some advantages to taking the lower deductible as far as
additional coverage is concerned. Can't recall off the top of my head but
it was discussed a few days back at the parts counter at work.
Glass used to be one of them. The deductible was waived altogether with
$100 deductible and in half with $200. Everyone else paid the full
deductible. For glass repair we just go to a repair shop and they bill
the insurance.
While easy to determine what insurance costs in manitoba, and we all pay
the same without having to chase from one company to the other, it is not
so easy in Alberta.
For instance, you can't tell me what you would pay if you had my
coverage. Maybe that's where the tales of more expensive insuarance come
from.
People move from Manitoba to Alberta and seek the same coverage and end
up paying more?
I agree about the copmpetition but it is also good to know that you are
gettingthe best local deal you can without having to shop it around.
I don't think MPI does home insurance any more but even when they did it
was still just a straight schedule.
J. Clarke
The issue is not whether or not "badly maintained vehicles" "crash more
often", the issue is whether there are enough crashes caused by badly
maintained vehicles to justify legislation requiring inspection. I live in
a state with no inspection law. We have a fatality rate of .9 per 100,000.
Neighboring states, all of which have inspection laws, have .8, .8, and 1.0.
Virginia and West Virginia and North Carolina (three adjacent states) have
inspection laws and fatality rates of 1.3, 2.1, and 1.6 respectively.
Maryland, Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Georgia, that
surround them and have no inspection law, have 1.1, 1.1, 1.7, 1.8, 2.1, and
1.5 respectively. I could go on but the point is that there's no clear or
obvious relationship between inspection laws and fatal accidents.
> Nobody *wants* to be controlled by legislation, but in many cases you
> *do* have to cater to the lowest possible denominator in the name of
> safety. Otherwise what are speed limits for?
In the US they're mostly a tax and a way for politicians to "Do Something"
without actually doing anything. Most people ignore them most of the time
and the cops don't do anything about it unless the violation is extreme.
However in some localities a local doesn't get busted if he's going 100 in a
school zone while an out of towner gets busted for 1 mph over the limit on a
long downhill with a speed limit change from 65 to 35 and the 35 sign hidden
behind a bush.
> "I always respect them, so they're not needed." doesn't work as an
> argument, and I can't really see any difference between speed limit
> legislation and mandatory technical safety checks.
The Germans and the Manxmen seem to do fine without speed limits on most
roads. And there's no proven correlation with safety--the Germans have a
lower fatality rate on the unlimited Autobahns than the US had on the 55 mph
limited Interstates, and when a speed limit was instituted in Montana the
fatality rate _increased_.
So the notion that we need speed limits to be safe isn't necessarily true,
any more than is the notion that we need mandatory safety inspections in
order to be safe. Do you _really_ think that gatzos accomplish anything
other than annoying people and raising revenue?
The Older Gentleman
> The issue is not whether or not "badly maintained vehicles" "crash more
> often", the issue is whether there are enough crashes caused by badly
> maintained vehicles to justify legislation requiring inspection.
Now *that* probably hits the nail on the head.
It's not just crashes, though. It's the differing severity of the
injuries suffered. If someone hits a solid object 10mph faster than they
would have done with properly functioning brakes and/or tyres, the
injuries *will* be worse. But this is next to impossible to quantify.
>I live in
> a state with no inspection law. We have a fatality rate of .9 per 100,000.
> Neighboring states, all of which have inspection laws, have .8, .8, and 1.0.
> Virginia and West Virginia and North Carolina (three adjacent states) have
> inspection laws and fatality rates of 1.3, 2.1, and 1.6 respectively.
> Maryland, Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Georgia, that
> surround them and have no inspection law, have 1.1, 1.1, 1.7, 1.8, 2.1, and
> 1.5 respectively. I could go on but the point is that there's no clear or
> obvious relationship between inspection laws and fatal accidents.
I doubt, as I've said before, that there are any hard and fast figures
to be analysed anyway. Too many variables.
And as we've both said, inspections and their systems have to be *good*
or the exercise is pointless.
>
> > Nobody *wants* to be controlled by legislation, but in many cases you
> > *do* have to cater to the lowest possible denominator in the name of
> > safety. Otherwise what are speed limits for?
>
> In the US they're mostly a tax and a way for politicians to "Do Something"
> without actually doing anything. Most people ignore them most of the time
> and the cops don't do anything about it unless the violation is extreme.
> However in some localities a local doesn't get busted if he's going 100 in a
> school zone while an out of towner gets busted for 1 mph over the limit on a
> long downhill with a speed limit change from 65 to 35 and the 35 sign hidden
> behind a bush.
Here we're talking about poor application of a law, though - exactly the
same as poor application of technical inspections. Otherwise, yes.
>
> > "I always respect them, so they're not needed." doesn't work as an
> > argument, and I can't really see any difference between speed limit
> > legislation and mandatory technical safety checks.
>
> The Germans and the Manxmen seem to do fine without speed limits on most
> roads.
Actually, the mileage of unrestricted roads in both cases is very small.
Most German autobahns carry speed limits these days.
> And there's no proven correlation with safety--the Germans have a
> lower fatality rate on the unlimited Autobahns than the US had on the 55 mph
> limited Interstates, and when a speed limit was instituted in Montana the
> fatality rate _increased_.
Yes, I can believe this.
>
> So the notion that we need speed limits to be safe isn't necessarily true,
> any more than is the notion that we need mandatory safety inspections in
> order to be safe. Do you _really_ think that gatzos accomplish anything
> other than annoying people and raising revenue?
The Gatso thing is a different kettle of fish, and one objection to them
is that they don't contribute anything to road safety in the 'unsafe
vehicle' or 'driving while under the influence' categories, neither cof
which can be determined from a camera image.
Let's return to the aircraft analogy. Do you agree that poorly
maintained and inspected aircraft are more likely to have accidents that
well-maintained and inspected ones? If not, why not?
And if so, then what's the difference in terms of road vehicles (except
that the casualty count per crash will be wildly different)?
S'mee
Gentleman) wrote:
> don (Calgary) <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
> > Putting in place oppressive national regulations designed to meet the
> > lowest common denominator in an isolated region penalizes the
> > reasonable and responsible and would contribute to creating a vanilla
> > society.
>
> Incest is more common in isolated regions and societies.
>
> Therefore incest should not be banned.
>
> Discuss.
>
> This is, admittedly, an extreme view but illustrates why you're wrong.
> You're still clinging to the "In my part of the world we are wealthy and
> we behave so we don't need legislation, and I don't care what happens
> elsewhere in my country."
>
> That's just plain *wrong*. Or anarchy.
>
Now you are just starting a fight not an argument...
anyway he was doing something people from europe and GB are guilty
of...applying their situation, roads and terrain to people half way
around the world.
Come ride our North American roads for a year... Then tell me the non-
commercial vehicles NEED inspection. That 90% of the roads outside of
a urban/town/village area NEED a posted speed limit.
S'mee
Gentleman) wrote:
> Let's return to the aircraft analogy. Do you agree that poorly
> maintained and inspected aircraft are more likely to have accidents that
> well-maintained and inspected ones? If not, why not?
Mr. Corrigan <sic I think> would disagree...he leaked fuel all the way
from New York to Dublin stepped out and proclaimed "what? This isn't
california? Oh shit...that means I'm late for dinner" Mr. Corrigans
plane was NOT well maintained by todays standard and by the standards
then...marginal.
I could pro'lly take you on a walk through of small airports and find
many aircraft that meet the letter of the law as far as maintinence
goes. Then again I'd trust a Piper PA-2 Cub or Tiger Moth with NO
maintinence (I'll bring my own duct tape and bailing wire) than a
airliner with barely legal maintinence.
You were just trolling...
Mark Olson
> Let's return to the aircraft analogy. Do you agree that poorly
> maintained and inspected aircraft are more likely to have accidents that
> well-maintained and inspected ones? If not, why not?
>
> And if so, then what's the difference in terms of road vehicles (except
> that the casualty count per crash will be wildly different)?
At the risk of pointing out the bleeding obvious- if a car engine
fails, or a wheel falls off it generally just rolls or skids to a
stop without anyone getting hurt. Can't say the same about an
aircraft engine or wing.
Not every failure of a car component results in a fiery crash,
despite what is portrayed on The Simpsons.
The Older Gentleman
Er, yes, I'm aware of this.
Nevertheless, would you not agree that the basic tenet is the same?
And to state more of the bleedin' obvious, a car with one wheel missing
is more likely to hit something unplanned :-)
The Older Gentleman
> anyway he was doing something people from europe and GB are guilty
> of...applying their situation, roads and terrain to people half way
> around the world.
Um, wrong. See below.
>
> Come ride our North American roads for a year... Then tell me the non-
> commercial vehicles NEED inspection. That 90% of the roads outside of
> a urban/town/village area NEED a posted speed limit.
Exactly. You could argue that speed limits are unnecessary. And you'd be
wrong, because there will always be people who can't use speed
correctly.
The fact that speed limits exist in practically every country where
vehicles are used does not suggest that this basic assumption is wrong.
The Older Gentleman
> Come ride our North American roads for a year... Then tell me the non-
> commercial vehicles NEED inspection.
I should have taken you up on this. Are you saying that they're all
perfectly safe and that there aren't any which are dethtraps?
Mark Olson
> Mark Olson <ols...@tiny.invalid> wrote:
>> Not every failure of a car component results in a fiery crash,
>> despite what is portrayed on The Simpsons.
> Nevertheless, would you not agree that the basic tenet is the same?
Sure- but the point is, you need to assess whether the effort you
expend doing inspections returns sufficient benefits.
It appears that you have already decided that point, while others
are willing to consider the possibility that while benefits do
exist, they're not significant enough to justify the expense.
My state does not have periodic vehicle inspections, nor does it
have emissions checks. There used to be emissions checks at state
owned facilities that were run by a private contractor. It was an
inconvenience to the motoring public and they did catch a few
egregious polluters, but the millions spent did not result in a
measurable difference in air pollution, so we did the sensible
thing and abolished it.
You might as well use the argument 'if it saves just *one* life, it's
worth it' or even better, 'think of the children!'. There are costs
to doing the "right" thing, and sometimes it does make sense to
assess whether it's really worth it.
Eiron
> Not every failure of a car component results in a fiery crash,
> despite what is portrayed on The Simpsons.
Unless it's a Pinto.
Doesn't The Simpsons mock such Hollywood cliches?
--
Eiron.
J. Clarke
> S'mee <steven...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> anyway he was doing something people from europe and GB are guilty
>> of...applying their situation, roads and terrain to people half way
>> around the world.
>
> Um, wrong. See below.
>>
>> Come ride our North American roads for a year... Then tell me the
>> non- commercial vehicles NEED inspection. That 90% of the roads
>> outside of a urban/town/village area NEED a posted speed limit.
>
> Exactly. You could argue that speed limits are unnecessary. And you'd
> be wrong, because there will always be people who can't use speed
> correctly.
And they disobey the speed limits, so how does the speed limit help?
> The fact that speed limits exist in practically every country where
> vehicles are used does not suggest that this basic assumption is
> wrong.
However it also does contridict the view that the purpose of speed limits is
revenue. As for example is secured by the Gatsos in the UK.
J. Clarke
I agree, but don't agree that we should inspect cars because we inspect
airplanes. There's a lot more things that can go wrong with an airplane and
one doesn't have the option of pulling over to the side of the road and
calling the auto club when one of those things does go wrong.
> And if so, then what's the difference in terms of road vehicles
> (except that the casualty count per crash will be wildly different)?
Once again, you can't stop an airplane on the shoulder of the road and call
the auto club. And once again there's a lot more that can go wrong with an
airplane. And we don't inspect all airplanes, at least not in the US.
Mark Olson
> Mark Olson wrote:
>
>> Not every failure of a car component results in a fiery crash,
>> despite what is portrayed on The Simpsons.
>
> Unless it's a Pinto.
Owned one. Tough contender vs. the Renault Dauphine for
Worst. Car. Ever.
> Doesn't The Simpsons mock such Hollywood cliches?
You don't say!
J. Clarke
> S'mee <steven...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Come ride our North American roads for a year... Then tell me the
>> non- commercial vehicles NEED inspection.
>
> I should have taken you up on this. Are you saying that they're all
> perfectly safe and that there aren't any which are dethtraps?
I want to see statistics that show that these supposed "deathtraps" are a
signficant problem.
J. Clarke
Even a Pinto. Has to be rear-ended in just the right way. I should know, I
and my Volvo executed one once--drunk driver, all over the road, no matter
what I did to dodge he matched my move, hit him head on. Did not go well
for the drunk, but no fiery crash.
The Older Gentleman
> >> Not every failure of a car component results in a fiery crash,
> >> despite what is portrayed on The Simpsons.
>
> > Nevertheless, would you not agree that the basic tenet is the same?
>
> Sure- but the point is, you need to assess whether the effort you
> expend doing inspections returns sufficient benefits.
Yes, I agree there.
>
> It appears that you have already decided that point, while others
> are willing to consider the possibility that while benefits do
> exist, they're not significant enough to justify the expense.
Now you've raised the point, as has Clarkey, I agree absolutely.
This wasn't the point raised by Don, however, earlier. In short, you've
made a cogent point and I agree completely with it.
The Older Gentleman
> And they disobey the speed limits, so how does the speed limit help?
If nothing else, at least it indicates that in some cases going very
fast might not be a good idea.
>
> > The fact that speed limits exist in practically every country where
> > vehicles are used does not suggest that this basic assumption is
> > wrong.
>
> However it also does contridict the view that the purpose of speed limits is
> revenue. As for example is secured by the Gatsos in the UK.
Again, I agree completely with what you say about Gatsos. They're used
for revenue raising and little else. Proper enforcement of road safety,
by human beings, was better.
I hate the sodding things. Gatsos, not human beings.
The Older Gentleman
I doubt you'll find that much has been done. Too many variables, as I
said before.
don (Calgary)
<bob...@mtsremove.net> wrote:
>
>No.
>There are no multi-vehicle discounts.
>I have $200 deductible and $1,000,000 libility plus full comprehensive.
>Remember the Sunny deer incident? That wouldn't happen here.
I don't believe it would happen with my insurance here either.
>
>There are some advantages to taking the lower deductible as far as
>additional coverage is concerned. Can't recall off the top of my head but
>it was discussed a few days back at the parts counter at work.
>Glass used to be one of them. The deductible was waived altogether with
>$100 deductible and in half with $200. Everyone else paid the full
>deductible. For glass repair we just go to a repair shop and they bill
>the insurance.
Most glass shops here waive the deductible if you have glass coverage.
Since I rarely have to replace a windshield, probably more by blind
luck than anything else, I choose to save on my insurance and buy a
new windshield every once in a while. It works out cheaper for me. Now
if you drive more kilometers, especially on the highway, you might
find glass insurance is a better investment. My point is it is good to
have the option, as opposed to requiring all drivers to have the
coverage.
>
>While easy to determine what insurance costs in manitoba, and we all pay
>the same without having to chase from one company to the other, it is not
>so easy in Alberta.
>For instance, you can't tell me what you would pay if you had my
>coverage. Maybe that's where the tales of more expensive insuarance come
>from.
>People move from Manitoba to Alberta and seek the same coverage and end
>up paying more?
I am sure I could shop around for the highest rate, for coverage I
don't want or need, and come up with a rate the same or higher than
the one quoted through the Manitoba on line estimator, but why would I
want to?
Regardless, the minor differences between my coverage and the Manitoba
quote I received did not account for the almost 40% increase over what
I now pay.
>
>I agree about the copmpetition but it is also good to know that you are
>gettingthe best local deal you can without having to shop it around.
I like being able to shop around. I do it when I purchase any
significant item. Why would I not want to do that with insurance?
Especially if I can save 30% off the purchase price.
>I don't think MPI does home insurance any more but even when they did it
>was still just a straight schedule.
How does your insurance program deal with drivers license demerit
points. I noted there was a classification related to driving record
in the on line estimator. Is that the only cost associated with
driving record? When I lived in BC with ICBC, I believe we paid on our
drivers license for demerit points. It's been a long time and I could
be wrong.
The Older Gentleman
> >There are some advantages to taking the lower deductible as far as
> >additional coverage is concerned. Can't recall off the top of my head but
> >it was discussed a few days back at the parts counter at work.
> >Glass used to be one of them. The deductible was waived altogether with
> >$100 deductible and in half with $200. Everyone else paid the full
> >deductible. For glass repair we just go to a repair shop and they bill
> >the insurance.
>
> Most glass shops here waive the deductible if you have glass coverage.
>
> Since I rarely have to replace a windshield, probably more by blind
> luck than anything else, I choose to save on my insurance and buy a
> new windshield every once in a while. It works out cheaper for me. Now
> if you drive more kilometers, especially on the highway, you might
> find glass insurance is a better investment. My point is it is good to
> have the option, as opposed to requiring all drivers to have the
> coverage.
Deductible is what we call "excess", I take it? The first �100, $100,
whatever of the claim, that you pay yourself?
Windscreen insurance is pretty much unversal here - just included in the
premium. I suppose there's an opt-out somewhere, but I've never used it.
I've had one windscreen replaced under insurance over the years: stone
thrown up by a car in front which totalled the screen.
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> >Ah, so a separate law for the wealthy is what you want. That's a
>> >different can of worms.
>>
>> What an ass. You are just trolling for an argument.
>
>No. It's *precisely* what you have said. Your state is more wealthy,
>ergo there are fewer clunkers around, ergo you don't need mandatory
>inspections, while other poorer states with more clunkers might.
So in your opinion, if due to regional affluence, or other factors,
Alberta has fewer clunkers, and has no demonstrated problem with
passenger vehicle mechanical safety, we should implement the same
mandatory inspection procedures that are in place, thousands of miles
away, in a region less affluent, that has significantly more clunkers
on the road, and has a problem with passenger vehicle mechanical
safety.
Is that a regulation for the wealthy or a regulation directed to the
regional, practical use of passenger vehicles?
You are the one making this statement. Please back it up with
something more than your reasonable inference. If you can't or choose
not to, I will just disregard it.
>
>That's certainly a more reasonable inference than: "I'm wealthy and
>don't need inspection, but others might."
>
>Consider: what sort of aircraft is more likely to crash? A
>well-maintained one or one whose maintenance has been skimped? It is
>*exactly* the same. Again, if you think differently, I'm open to
>persuasion.
That is a silly comparison. The probability of a crash with serious
consequences is far more likely with a mechanical failure in an
aircraft, than if an automobile parking brake is not functioning
properly. Apples oranges.
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> Putting in place oppressive national regulations designed to meet the
>> lowest common denominator in an isolated region penalizes the
>> reasonable and responsible and would contribute to creating a vanilla
>> society.
>
>Incest is more common in isolated regions and societies.
>
>Therefore incest should not be banned.
>
>Discuss.
>
>This is, admittedly, an extreme view but illustrates why you're wrong.
>You're still clinging to the "In my part of the world we are wealthy and
>we behave so we don't need legislation, and I don't care what happens
>elsewhere in my country."
>
>That's just plain *wrong*. Or anarchy.
Incest! That is the best you can do to support your position. It is a
silly and dare I say ignorant analogy. Try again.
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> >There are some advantages to taking the lower deductible as far as
>> >additional coverage is concerned. Can't recall off the top of my head but
>> >it was discussed a few days back at the parts counter at work.
>> >Glass used to be one of them. The deductible was waived altogether with
>> >$100 deductible and in half with $200. Everyone else paid the full
>> >deductible. For glass repair we just go to a repair shop and they bill
>> >the insurance.
>>
>> Most glass shops here waive the deductible if you have glass coverage.
>>
>> Since I rarely have to replace a windshield, probably more by blind
>> luck than anything else, I choose to save on my insurance and buy a
>> new windshield every once in a while. It works out cheaper for me. Now
>> if you drive more kilometers, especially on the highway, you might
>> find glass insurance is a better investment. My point is it is good to
>> have the option, as opposed to requiring all drivers to have the
>> coverage.
>
>Deductible is what we call "excess", I take it? The first �100, $100,
>whatever of the claim, that you pay yourself?
>
>Windscreen insurance is pretty much unversal here - just included in the
>premium. I suppose there's an opt-out somewhere, but I've never used it.
>
>I've had one windscreen replaced under insurance over the years: stone
>thrown up by a car in front which totalled the screen.
Glass coverage is an identifiable line item in our insurance
cost/policy. With my driving habits I replace a windshield maybe once
every ten years. The cost of that replacement is a fraction of what
ten years of coverage would cost. I choose to pay for the replacement
as opposed to the coverage. I like having that option.
Now please do not equate the severity of getting a crack in my
windshield with something like, oh say, incest. They are not the same.
LOL
The Older Gentleman
> So in your opinion, if due to regional affluence, or other factors,
> Alberta has fewer clunkers, and has no demonstrated problem with
> passenger vehicle mechanical safety, we should implement the same
> mandatory inspection procedures that are in place, thousands of miles
> away, in a region less affluent, that has significantly more clunkers
> on the road, and has a problem with passenger vehicle mechanical
> safety.
>
> Is that a regulation for the wealthy or a regulation directed to the
> regional, practical use of passenger vehicles?
Well, I have seen no evidence to back up your statements, but I refuse
to believe that you have no problem with vehicle safety and all vehicles
are perfect while other states' are dodgy.
However, I will accept Mark's point that where the risk is so small, you
can make a case for it.
>
> You are the one making this statement. Please back it up with
> something more than your reasonable inference. If you can't or choose
> not to, I will just disregard it.
Well, OK. You provide accurate data to prove that "Other provinces may
be different" and we'll take it from there. As I said, we both feel that
such records will be hard to find.
> >
> >Consider: what sort of aircraft is more likely to crash? A
> >well-maintained one or one whose maintenance has been skimped? It is
> >*exactly* the same. Again, if you think differently, I'm open to
> >persuasion.
>
> That is a silly comparison. The probability of a crash with serious
> consequences is far more likely with a mechanical failure in an
> aircraft, than if an automobile parking brake is not functioning
> properly. Apples oranges.
No, it's a perfectly valid comparison. If you fail to maintain a vehicle
(air, sea, road, rail) properly you increase the risk of failure and
damage, injury or death.
Just because an aircraft might kill 500 people in crashing and a car
might kill half a dozen doesn't alter that.
OK: let's make it even simpler, then. Do you think there is a greater
likelihood of a crash, or increased severity of injuries in a crash, in
a *car* that has been badly maintained than in one that has been well
maintained? And if not, why not?
Now this is germane to this whole discussion, and it's a very simple
question. Or rather, two questions, so let's hear it.
The Older Gentleman
OK, I have deliberately chosen an extreme example to make a point. It's
still an example. And it's not ignorant, unless you think it doesn't
happen in remote and isolated communities.
So.... let's make it even simpler. Bicycles are supposed to be ridden
with lights at night, in London[1].
In the Shetland Islands, then, is it reasonable not to have this
legislation?
[1] Big city, lots of cars and roads
[2] About as far north as you can get in the British Isles, very
remote, not many vehicles and roads.
The Older Gentleman
> Glass coverage is an identifiable line item in our insurance
> cost/policy. With my driving habits I replace a windshield maybe once
> every ten years. The cost of that replacement is a fraction of what
> ten years of coverage would cost. I choose to pay for the replacement
> as opposed to the coverage. I like having that option.
Yes, I can see that. Depends on the risk. Some vehicle glass is
frighteningly expensive to replace, mind.
>
> Now please do not equate the severity of getting a crack in my
> windshield with something like, oh say, incest. They are not the same.
> LOL
You're the one who decided to make this comparison. Bit of a
non-sequitur, really.
Timo Geusch
> don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> Glass coverage is an identifiable line item in our insurance
>> cost/policy. With my driving habits I replace a windshield maybe once
>> every ten years. The cost of that replacement is a fraction of what
>> ten years of coverage would cost. I choose to pay for the replacement
>> as opposed to the coverage. I like having that option.
>
> Yes, I can see that. Depends on the risk. Some vehicle glass is
> frighteningly expensive to replace, mind.
Usually not the windscreen, though.
--
Morini Corsaro 125 | XL250 Motosport | R1150RT | 3 1/2 Sport
Laverda SF2 BOTAFOF #33 TWA#10
The UKRM FAQ: http://www.ukrm.info/faq/
"Je profite du paysage" - Joe Bar
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> Putting in place oppressive national regulations designed to meet the
>> lowest common denominator in an isolated region penalizes the
>> reasonable and responsible and would contribute to creating a vanilla
>> society.
>
>Incest is more common in isolated regions and societies.
>
>Therefore incest should not be banned.
>
>Discuss.
>
>This is, admittedly, an extreme view but illustrates why you're wrong.
>You're still clinging to the "In my part of the world we are wealthy and
>we behave so we don't need legislation, and I don't care what happens
>elsewhere in my country."
>
>That's just plain *wrong*. Or anarchy.
Sorry folks I just had to come back to this one.
INCEST * ANARCHY
***********
This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath
of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers
and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together...
mass hysteria!
**********
ROTFLMAO
Comparing a malfunctioning parking brake or a crack in a windshield
not being inspected and regulated, to incest and anarchy made me think
of that classic exchange from one of my favorite movies.
LOL Neil, if nothing else you are good for a little comic relief.