If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. > > |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Toyota, Nissan sales up 25% while GM and Ford are down | Dan J.S. | Driving | 7 | May 9th 05 01:38 PM |
William Clay Ford Jr. - Not your great-grandfather's Ford. | Grover C. McCoury III | Ford Mustang | 8 | April 24th 05 09:04 PM |
Ford Motor Shifts Gears? | [email protected] | Ford Mustang | 16 | April 2nd 05 02:56 AM |
Great News For The Ford Faithful! | [email protected] | Ford Mustang | 0 | March 29th 05 05:04 AM |
Ford Posts Profit, Autos Disappoint Again | Grover C. McCoury III | Ford Mustang | 1 | January 20th 05 06:05 PM |