I'm Shocked that Ford Allows This

> Frankly, I'm shocked. Ford vehicles are LOADED with Cover-Your-Ass
> features, like requiring you to depress the clutch before the starter
> will engage, or requiring you to have your foot on the brake pedal
> before you can shift out of the "Park" position.

And your reason to defeat these useful safety features (which ALL modern
manufactures implement, not sure what your problem with Ford is) is exactly
what?

When I started out with older cars, I learned the hard way to always press
the clutch when starting. The occasional lurch from assuming it was in
neutral (hey, I LEFT it that way) was quite surprising. Nowadays I wouldn't
even know if a car can be started without the clutch pressed; it became
ingraned in me to always press it anyway.

On Sat, 7 May 2005, John Harlow wrote:

> > Frankly, I'm shocked. Ford vehicles are LOADED with Cover-Your-Ass
> > features, like requiring you to depress the clutch before the starter
> > will engage, or requiring you to have your foot on the brake pedal
> > before you can shift out of the "Park" position.
>
> And your reason to defeat these useful safety features (which ALL modern
> manufactures implement, not sure what your problem with Ford is) is exactly
> what?

1) There are lots of current and recent cars that do not have shift/brake
interlocks or clutch/starter interlocks, neither of which is required by
law, and

2) The ability to crank a manual-transmission vehicle with the clutch
pedal released can be very useful, as can the ability to shift out of park
without one's foot on the brake. Clutch/starter and shift/brake interlocks
are a nuisance and a hindrance; they're a "useful safety feature" only for
lazy people who refuse to pay attention to the many tasks involved in
safely operating a motor vehicle.

> When I started out with older cars, I learned the hard way to always
> press the clutch when starting.

Your own stupid fault for not paying attention to the task at hand.

> The occasional lurch from assuming it
> was in neutral (hey, I LEFT it that way) was quite surprising.

Only because you were not paying attention to the task at hand.

I have driven many, many miles in many, many cars without interlocks, and
never once have I "accidentally" cranked a car in gear or had any other
kind of incident. It must be because I take mental and physical control
when I get behind the wheel, rather than depending on gizmos and gadgets
to save me from having to use my brain.

Pity you're so mentally feeble that you can't manage to do likewise. Even
bigger pity if you're able but choose not to.

I agree that the interlocks are annoyances, but GEEZ Daniel! Who ****ed in
your Wheaties this morning? ;-)

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Sat, 7 May 2005, John Harlow wrote:
>
>> > Frankly, I'm shocked. Ford vehicles are LOADED with Cover-Your-Ass
>> > features, like requiring you to depress the clutch before the starter
>> > will engage, or requiring you to have your foot on the brake pedal
>> > before you can shift out of the "Park" position.
>>
>> And your reason to defeat these useful safety features (which ALL modern
>> manufactures implement, not sure what your problem with Ford is) is
>> exactly
>> what?
>
> 1) There are lots of current and recent cars that do not have shift/brake
> interlocks or clutch/starter interlocks, neither of which is required by
> law, and
>
> 2) The ability to crank a manual-transmission vehicle with the clutch
> pedal released can be very useful, as can the ability to shift out of park
> without one's foot on the brake. Clutch/starter and shift/brake interlocks
> are a nuisance and a hindrance; they're a "useful safety feature" only for
> lazy people who refuse to pay attention to the many tasks involved in
> safely operating a motor vehicle.
>
>> When I started out with older cars, I learned the hard way to always
>> press the clutch when starting.
>
> Your own stupid fault for not paying attention to the task at hand.
>
>> The occasional lurch from assuming it
>> was in neutral (hey, I LEFT it that way) was quite surprising.
>
> Only because you were not paying attention to the task at hand.
>
> I have driven many, many miles in many, many cars without interlocks, and
> never once have I "accidentally" cranked a car in gear or had any other
> kind of incident. It must be because I take mental and physical control
> when I get behind the wheel, rather than depending on gizmos and gadgets
> to save me from having to use my brain.
>
> Pity you're so mentally feeble that you can't manage to do likewise. Even
> bigger pity if you're able but choose not to.
>
>

On Sat, 7 May 2005, James C. Reeves wrote:

> I agree that the interlocks are annoyances, but GEEZ Daniel! Who ****ed in
> your Wheaties this morning? ;-)

John "Pwease don't let the automakers sell cars without devices to pwotect
me fwom my own stupidity" Harlow, as it seems. As a professional strident
sonofabitch myself, baseless amateur efforts like Harlow's are bothersome
to me -- number one. Number two, "I'm lazy and stupid so everyone should
have to have annoying interlocks in their cars" illogic is even more
bothersome.

> "Daniel J. Stern" wrote

> > On Sat, 7 May 2005, John Harlow wrote:

> >> > Ford vehicles are LOADED with Cover-Your-Ass features, like
> >> > requiring you to depress the clutch before the starter will engage,
> >> > or requiring you to have your foot on the brake pedal before you
> >> > can shift out of the "Park" position.
> >>
> >> And your reason to defeat these useful safety features (which ALL
> >> modern manufactures implement, not sure what your problem with Ford
> >> is) is exactly what?
> >
> > 1) There are lots of current and recent cars that do not have
> > shift/brake interlocks or clutch/starter interlocks, neither of which
> > is required by law, and
> >
> > 2) The ability to crank a manual-transmission vehicle with the clutch
> > pedal released can be very useful, as can the ability to shift out of
> > park without one's foot on the brake. Clutch/starter and shift/brake
> > interlocks are a nuisance and a hindrance; they're a "useful safety
> > feature" only for lazy people who refuse to pay attention to the many
> > tasks involved in safely operating a motor vehicle.
> >
> >> When I started out with older cars, I learned the hard way to always
> >> press the clutch when starting.
> >
> > Your own stupid fault for not paying attention to the task at hand.
> >
> >> The occasional lurch from assuming it was in neutral (hey, I LEFT it
> >> that way) was quite surprising.
> >
> > Only because you were not paying attention to the task at hand.
> >
> > I have driven many, many miles in many, many cars without interlocks,
> > and never once have I "accidentally" cranked a car in gear or had any
> > other kind of incident. It must be because I take mental and physical
> > control when I get behind the wheel, rather than depending on gizmos
> > and gadgets to save me from having to use my brain.
> >
> > Pity you're so mentally feeble that you can't manage to do likewise.
> > Even bigger pity if you're able but choose not to.

On Sat, 7 May 2005 19:00:25 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
> wrote:

>On Sat, 7 May 2005, John Harlow wrote:
>
>> > Frankly, I'm shocked. Ford vehicles are LOADED with Cover-Your-Ass
>> > features, like requiring you to depress the clutch before the starter
>> > will engage, or requiring you to have your foot on the brake pedal
>> > before you can shift out of the "Park" position.
>>
>> And your reason to defeat these useful safety features (which ALL modern
>> manufactures implement, not sure what your problem with Ford is) is exactly
>> what?
>
>1) There are lots of current and recent cars that do not have shift/brake
>interlocks or clutch/starter interlocks, neither of which is required by
>law, and
>
>2) The ability to crank a manual-transmission vehicle with the clutch
>pedal released can be very useful, as can the ability to shift out of park
>without one's foot on the brake. Clutch/starter and shift/brake interlocks
>are a nuisance and a hindrance; they're a "useful safety feature" only for
>lazy people who refuse to pay attention to the many tasks involved in
>safely operating a motor vehicle.
>
>> When I started out with older cars, I learned the hard way to always
>> press the clutch when starting.
>
>Your own stupid fault for not paying attention to the task at hand.
>
>> The occasional lurch from assuming it
>> was in neutral (hey, I LEFT it that way) was quite surprising.
>
>Only because you were not paying attention to the task at hand.
>
>I have driven many, many miles in many, many cars without interlocks, and
>never once have I "accidentally" cranked a car in gear or had any other
>kind of incident. It must be because I take mental and physical control
>when I get behind the wheel, rather than depending on gizmos and gadgets
>to save me from having to use my brain.
>

Wow, I am blown away by your position on this. It is so OPPOSITE of
your stand on amber turn lights.

When other have suggested pretty much the exact same position on amber
turn signals you denounce the for failing to fall in line with your
unproven assertions regarding the benefits of amber. Yet we know that
the interlocks you are railing against here have reduced the incidence
of "unexpected acceleration" situations but you are still against
them!

Astounding. I'm sure the irony will be lost on you.

>Pity you're so mentally feeble that you can't manage to do likewise. Even
>bigger pity if you're able but choose not to.
>

Again, the irony.....
--
New service to compete with paypal
Get $25 pre-registration bonus by
following this link
www.greenzap.com/25smackers4u

On Sat, 7 May 2005 16:51:09 -0400, "John Harlow" > wrote:

>
>> Frankly, I'm shocked. Ford vehicles are LOADED with Cover-Your-Ass
>> features, like requiring you to depress the clutch before the starter
>> will engage, or requiring you to have your foot on the brake pedal
>> before you can shift out of the "Park" position.
>
>And your reason to defeat these useful safety features (which ALL modern
>manufactures implement, not sure what your problem with Ford is) is exactly
>what?

The ability to crank an engine which will not otherwise start and use the
starter motor to move the car can be handy, such as if the car stalls on a rail
crossing with a train approaching.

The braking to shift out of park is just an annoyance that doesn't serve me the
least little bit, costs extra, and only serves the auto company that built the
car to protect them from lawsuits.

Dave Head

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...


> 2) The ability to crank a manual-transmission vehicle with the clutch
> pedal released can be very useful,

Is it possible to start cranking with the clutch depressed, then pop the
clutch while still cranking?

On Sun, 8 May 2005, Ashton Crusher wrote:

> >I have driven many, many miles in many, many cars without interlocks,
> >and never once have I "accidentally" cranked a car in gear or had any
> >other kind of incident. It must be because I take mental and physical
> >control when I get behind the wheel, rather than depending on gizmos
> >and gadgets to save me from having to use my brain.

> Wow, I am blown away by your position on this. It is so OPPOSITE of
> your stand on amber turn lights.

Not really, no. Not if you actually -- y'know -- think about it.

Perhaps you need a brain/keyboard interlock, Ashton.

Dave Head wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2005 16:51:09 -0400, "John Harlow" > wrote:
>
>
>>>Frankly, I'm shocked. Ford vehicles are LOADED with Cover-Your-Ass
>>>features, like requiring you to depress the clutch before the starter
>>>will engage, or requiring you to have your foot on the brake pedal
>>>before you can shift out of the "Park" position.
>>
>>And your reason to defeat these useful safety features (which ALL modern
>>manufactures implement, not sure what your problem with Ford is) is exactly
>>what?
>
>
> The ability to crank an engine which will not otherwise start and use the
> starter motor to move the car can be handy, such as if the car stalls on a rail
> crossing with a train approaching.

Yeah, and how often will that happen in a lifetime? Oh, forgot we're
talking about Fords, never mind...

>
> The braking to shift out of park is just an annoyance that doesn't serve me the
> least little bit, costs extra, and only serves the auto company that built the
> car to protect them from lawsuits.
>
> Dave Head
Ulf

Bill 2 wrote:
> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
> n.umich.edu...
>
>
>
>>2) The ability to crank a manual-transmission vehicle with the clutch
>>pedal released can be very useful,
>
>
> Is it possible to start cranking with the clutch depressed, then pop the
> clutch while still cranking?

No.

>
>
Ulf