A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The dangers of DRLs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #311  
Old July 15th 05, 01:04 AM
223rem
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

C.H. wrote:

> a performance coupe - not gonna work.



OK. But it is a sports, not a performance coupe.
Ads
  #312  
Old July 15th 05, 01:40 AM
James C. Reeves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> I am sure that GM has gained about the same percentage because of people
> who like and want automatic headlights and DRLs. Law of averages.


Why? People can get auto headlamps and DRLs on many other brands, if they
want them. So that item by itself isn't a selling point. However, if they
don't want them, they have no choice but to look elsewhere.

>> Yes, there are many areas of waste. Those other areas are not part of
>> the topic of discussion.

>
> Of course they are. You claim that this safety device uses some 'huge
> number' energy. I say that that the numbers in reality are small compared
> to the numbers even wasted on things like A/C and loud stereos.


And you would be correct. I just said let's compare and gave the numbers I
knew. You offered some numbers that I basically agreed with for the
automatics. We did the comparison. So we're done...aren't we?

>> This is one of the DRL issues you say doesn't exist.

>
> It doesn't. The gasoline consumption of a car doesn't increase measurably
> for having both front turn signals on all the time.


It does increase consumption "measurably". GM petetioned the EPA in the mid
1990's to exempt DRLs when doing the EPA mileage rating tests. The rule is
that all electrical systems that function as a part of the normal and
typical operation of the vehicle must be functioning during EPA mileage
tests. GM applied and won the exemption for DRLs. GM cars are tested with
the DRLs off...even though that isn't the way they are designed. I doubt
that GM would have done that if the influence of DRLs on fuel consumption
was not measureable and adversely impacting the numbers (this not meeting
CAFE). Basically, your assertion is incorrect.

> IOW the gas
> consumption is only a fraction of a percent of the total gas consumption
> of the same car. In other words your big numbers are meaningless because
> you forgot to put them in relation to the total gas consumption.
>
>>> My car gets somewhere between 20 and 30mpg depending on driving
>>> conditions. If my two 21 watt front turn signals were not constantly
>>> lit it would get somewhere between 20.001 and 30.001mpg. Yes, the
>>> number is big but only total idiots are impressed by big numbers
>>> without references.

>>
>> Yes I suppose you're right. My guess is your numbers are exagerated a
>> bit to the low side and the numbers I provided are more accurate in
>> comarison.

>
> US drivers use about 130,000,000,000 gallons of gas per year. your
> 450,000,000 are about 0.3 percent of this consumption. So I would get
> between 20.06 and 30.06 mpg without my DRLs.


That's better! :-)

> In other words, your big number means nothing whatsoever because you did
> not put it into the proper relation.


It's how you look at it. Let's have some fun with this. If the average car
uses 600 gallons per year, (15,000 miles @ 25MPG), the effect of adding DRLs
is the same as adding nearly 1-million more cars on the road. That would be
the consumption of the number of cars one would expect from a small city.
One can trivialize the number by breaking it down to it's smallest
constituent.

For example. Some people look at a cup of Starbucks coffee every day as a
$3.00 a day expense. Others see that $3.00 a day invested over a lifetime
as a potential million dollar decision. Guess what type of person usually
retires at 50...not the one with the Starbucks philophosy. Or the bank
bookkeeper years ago that skimmed all the fraction-cent interest
calculations off of all the accounts and imbezzeled quite a tidy sum.

It's the little things, all taken together that add up to quite a bit.

There is resonable and inexpensive technology that will make DRLs more
efficient. Implementing DRLs should not be equillivent to adding the fuel
consumption of a million more cars on the road if it can be helped.

>>>> Since you made the claim that automatic transmissions waste fuel, I
>>>> assumed you knew what the numbers were.
>>>
>>> I do. Somewhere between 1 and 3 miles less to the gallon of gas.

>>
>> That is probably about right, based on EPA ratings I've seen for the
>> same cars with the the two different transmission types.

>
> In other words, you waste about thirty times as much energy per mile
> driven with your automatic transmission as I use up with my DRLs.


30 times is the number huh? You didn't pad that a bit, did you?

> I think it's time you learned how to drive a stick and junked your
> automatic.


Huh, I've owned several cars with manual transmissions over the years.
Shoot, I learned to drive on my dad's Volkswagen Karman-Ghia. Why would I
need to learn again? But to the point. Since I needed a midsize sedan,
it's really tough to find one with a manual these days (in the US). I agree
that they should be available (which I've said earlier).

>> For example, on the GM large trucks, one can cycle the dome light 4
>> times (on-off-on-off) and that will signal the BCM to completely disable
>> the DRLs AND the auto headlamps...but only for that one ignition cycle.

>
> That actually might work if not the bozos too stupid to switch on the
> light by themselves were the same control freaks, who are likely to switch
> off DRLs and auto headlights because they feel a certain body part
> shrinking if they can't decide when to turn on the lights themselves.
>
> I suggest something along the lines of press the trip odo reset, turn the
> light switch and cycle the dome light four times


To make it a bit more difficult, I bet. ;-)

>>> I thought you did because you loftily (and quite wrongly) declared the
>>> GTO as a failure.

>>
>> I never said "failure". I said sales numbers were poor. The last I
>> looked that model hadn't even sold 3000 units. Of course ~6000 still
>> isn't all that great.

>
> It more than meets GMs projected numbers, i.e. they are selling all the
> cars they get.


Well let's hope the sales pickup continues (across the board).

>> I think my 67 model had 67K (maybe more) in sales. That's 10 times
>> sales this year...and that was almost 40 years ago.

>
> The 6000 were for half a year. And it was well known by GM that the GTO
> fills a niche, albeit a lucrative one.


I would say 12000 /yr. is quite respectable then. Especially in this
environment. I still think it's about $4-5K overpriced though. But so is
the Charger SRT-8.

>> Making DRLs options instead of mandates won't make a success out ot it,
>> but it will bring in some additional percentage of sales, I'm sure.

>
> On the contrary, it would cost lives.


Right. I'm curious as to your opinion as to why, after 15 years of studying
DRL's, the NHTSA as so far refused to make them mandatory? That is a
unusually long time, even for the NHTSA. Hint, the answer in in the body of
research documents.

Now, the lean is toward making them mandatory, if they can get work through
the remainng issues with them (that you say don't exist, I know).

>>> He described how to lose and regain control, not how to induce and
>>> sustain a controlled skid. Even Nate acknowledged that 'it is possible
>>> to regain control after this maneuver' which clearly confirms that even
>>> Nate sees the maneuver as a loss of control instead of a controlled
>>> skid.

>>
>> He said "destabalize". Control isn't lost if the maneuver has reliably
>> provided the added directional control (and the operative word is
>> control) that was required for the avoidance maneuver. Nate's maneuver
>> would work.

>
> Even Nate admitted that it is only 'possible to regain control', IOW
> control _is_ lost, unlike when doing a controlled skid with accelerator or
> parking brake modulated by a skilled foot/hand.


He didn't use the phrase 'possible to gain control'. His exact quote:

'Turn, quick jab of brakes to unsettle the chassis,
then recover as appropriate. Not saying that
it's a good idea, but it's still not difficult.'

Just make stuff up as you go, huh?

>> I guess it is...since it does work. Even if you follow your logic of
>> explaining Nate's maneuver (control was momentarily lost and then
>> regained). If one reliably regains during that manuever, control was not
>> really ever lost in the first place since the intended result of
>> avoidance was acheived as expected.

>
> In most cases where someone attempts a maneuver like that it ends with
> either running out of road or crashing into the obstacle before
> 'regaining' control.


Do it doesn't. It can certaintly. But the term "likely" is quite a
stretch.

> The number of accidents where a controlled skid helps
> avoid a crash is small to begin with and your experiment in losing and
> 'potentially regaining' control is even worse.


It is a smaller number of the total emergency maneuvers one finds themselves
needing to do...agreed Knock on wood, it has always worked. Perhaps some
of that luck you mentioned..heh?

>> Have you ever seen those driver competitions where one of the tasks is
>> to run the car up to a parrallel parking space and skid around 360
>> degrees into the space.

>
> None of them uses the brake to induce the maneuver, because that's much
> too unprecise.


The cameras on the steering wheel and pedals (inset to the main screen to
show what the driver was doing) showed otherwise. They do indeed use the
brakes.

>> The better the driver aligns the car in the marked off space wins that
>> part of the competion. Well, the skid "appears" quite out of control.
>> But if the driver puts the car where it belongs...it's hard to say he
>> didn't really have control, can you?

>
> That's why they don't simple 'unsettle the car with the brake and then
> hope they regain control'.
>>> Why should I trust a self proclaimed maniac, who tries dangerous stunts
>>> in totally unsuitable vehicles?

>>
>> And the conclusions derived are based on what? Since I've manages to
>> avoid quite a few mishapes why ths conclusion?

>
> ROTFLMFAO. You claim to know that ABS has never saved my hide, but
> seriously want to tell me that your control loss maneuver has saved yours?
> Not a chance. Not one.


I'm not surprised you don't believe it.

>>>> Pure speculation on your part.
>>>
>>> No. The naked and ugly truth.

>>
>> I'm surious about something. You've stated here that the preferred
>> beaking methos, even on non-ABS systems is to mash the brake. Not
>> you're saying perople don't have the balls to "get off the brake".

>
> If you need to steer of course you have to get off the brake. And ABS
> makes that unnecessary, which is good for the large majority of drivers,
> who don't have the balls to get off the brake when moving towards an
> obstacle at a speed that makes an impact likely even under braking.


Then why do the statistics show a "zero sum" advantage, if this is so?

>>> Rear wheel ABS doesn't count. And apparently you never really drove the
>>> ABS cars to the limit or you wouldn't tell the nonsense you are
>>> telling.

>>
>> How it is nonsense?

>
> ABS keeps a car controllable under full braking. As you admit yourself you
> can only brake very gingerly


I'm sure I did not use the words "very gingerly".

I agree that if one is inclined (by training or otherwise) to mash the
brakes, ABS will help those people.

> in low friction situations, having to
> maintain a healthy margin to make sure you don't lose control. And still
> have to severely limit steering input because your wheels already are
> close to the lockup point.


Then why hasen't it been the problem for me that you say it should be? And
why do the statistics for the rest of the driving population seem to also
indicate the same as my experience?

> So you have a car that is not braked at an optimal rate, cannot be
> maneuvered easily and safely and you are telling me that this is safer
> than a system that not only provides a near optimal deceleration rate
> under low-friction conditions but also keeps the car maneuverable and
> automatically compensates for the loss of friction due to the lateral
> component introduced when steering the car?


I didn't say "safer". I said it is apparently it's "good enough". The
statistics indicate that neither is safer over the other since the rates of
accidents are the same for both. (stated many times..you miss it?)
Becides, what other explanation is there? The statistics show a zero-sum
advantage. It doesn't intuitavely make sense, that is for sure. Apparently
real world situations and results can defy what one would think makes sense.
That probably explains why the experts have not yet been able to determine
why ABS hasen't had any positive impact to accident statistics.

>>> Face it, both these jalopies don't give you any idea what ABS is really
>>> like. And concerning the Malibu, you hated it and sold it off as fast
>>> as possible. No believable testbed either.

>>
>> So ABS aren't effective on some of the most common vehicles on the road?
>> Is that what you're saying?

>
> No, these cars already handle and brake so bad that you are not really
> able to gage the impact of ABS on safety.


I see.

>>> No, I merely am able quite well to judge my own driving. You on the
>>> other hand judge my driving by two situations you don't even know just
>>> from a handful of typed words. Either you are suffering from a
>>> superiority complex in its final stage or you are a very stupid person.
>>> Of course I will not exclude the possibility that both is the case.

>>
>> I haven' judged your driving at all.

>
> Oh yes, you have. You even claimed to know better than I do whether ABS
> saved my skin in situations you don't even know.


I apologize. It just seemed to me like you are a very competent driver.
I've never been called to task for complimenting a person ot their abilities
before. I'll make sure I'll never do that to you again.

In any event, why would you personally be a stastical anomoly? I know you
thought the ABS saved you..and you obviously believe they did. Howeve, I
bet they really didn't (if the statistics are correct). But, in reality,
neither of us really know for sure since the event can't be played back
exactly the same way using both scenarios. So you believe what you want,
and I will believe what I want. Those reading can believe what they want.
I'm fine with that.

>> I did. They had the required hours of professional instruction, Both
>> the wife and I completed the mandatory driving log (which is quite a fe
>> w more hours of vaious types of driving). You do have the ability to
>> understand that more there an be more than one instructor. Plus, I
>> looked over the instructional materials.

>
> I am so impressed... not. Driving instruction is a case for professional
> instructors exclusively. Parents only botch things when left to something
> they have no proper training in.


That can certaintly be true.

> You are an excellent example for that.


And the results don't speak for themselves? The daughter has driven about
120K miles so far and my son has driven about 70K miles so far. So the
basis for your conclusion that they received such bad instruction from me
are based on what oter factors? (Yes I know, luck accounts for it all)

>>>> So, it's best to mash the brakes on a non-ABS vehicle and and lock up
>>>> the front wheels so one can't control the car.
>>>
>>> As long as you are braking in a straight line: Yes.

>>
>> And the obstacle you are trying to avoid in front of you dictates that
>> you'd better not stay in that straight-line-wheel-lock-skid.

>
> That's why you have to get off the brakes in time to maneuver around it.
> With this method you not only make sure you impact with the least possible
> speed if you don't make it around the obstacle, but also significantly
> improve your chances of actually making it around the obstacle over
> your 'gingerly braking and then trying to make the evasive maneuver with
> a much higher speed and possible even under further gingerly braking'.


Not locking the wheels at all provides a longer opportunity for control and
improves the chances of avoidance. Like I've said, sometimes I don't even
touch the brakes at all. It depends on how "close" and "urgent" the
situation is. Just one second of wheel lock amounts to several feet that
one could be steering to avoid the obstacle. Not to mention that it
provides directional control earliest in the maneuver where just a few
degrees of direction change will yield the largest opportunity to "miss" the
obstacle. Lock and wait later to gain the steering back and one require a
more drastic change in direction.

>>> In a curve: Try to make the stretch you are braking on as straight as
>>> possible and still hit the brakes hard. If you get too close to the
>>> outer limit of the curve, release and steer toward the center of the
>>> curve. Repeat. Sound complicated?

>>
>> It isn't al all complicated. Donce it hundreds of times over the years.
>> Why do you think that common situation is so complicated?

>
> Because if you have done it that way hundreds of times I want to know why
> you instead taught your kid to brake gingerly.


Again with the "gingerly". where did I use that word?

Anyway, the maneuver required depends largely on the circumstances of the
situation one finds themselves in. Like I said earlier, sometimes I keep
off the brake completely...never touch it...just steer like hell. Other
times, hard braking is required while maintaining full steering control (no
wheel lock...what you call "gingerly, I suppose). Yet other times a drastic
and immediate directional change is required that can only be accomplished
by a quick controlled breaking maneuver to kick the back end around a bit
(basically using both your steering to direct the front and brief skids to
direct the back. The 1st two manuevers can be done with ABS or without.
The last manuever is not possible with ABS (at least I've never been able to
do it).

> Face it, braking gingerly is for situations where braking merely serves to
> stop at a traffic light or such.


I agree, that is the situation for braking gingerly...which is not the type
of braking I've been referring to. Unless you brake damn hard at stoplights!

> In an emergency situation braking hard and getting off the brakes
> when steering input is required is by far the better strategy.


Steering input is required always. You increase your chances of missing a
object if you begin steering at the earliest possible time. If you brake
and lock the wheels first, you've taking away your steering control at the
time it will be the most effective. Why in the world would you do that?

>>> Yes, it is. Still the only way to get brake distances in curves that
>>> even come close to ABS.

>>
>> Yes, ABS will do better in curves (at the limits, as you say). I agree.
>> However, the added ability ABS provides apparently isn't necessary (or
>> needed) if ABS systems are not statistically reducing accident rates.

>
> ABS systems are reducing real accidents.


You read the same Q&A sheet and links from it that I did. Your assertion is
patently false. Why do you state something contrary to what you've read.

> The numbers are fudged by the initial problem of people
> believing the first ABS ads about a miracle brake.


I'm sure the advertisements didn't use the term "miracle brake".

What is even more interesting here in this comment is that you actualy
believe you know why, even though those that study such things so far do not
know. How is it that you are so good at coming to definitive conclusions
when those that are more knowledgeable in the subject can't?

> But since then the numbers have steadily and quite heavily declined.


What numbers have declined?

> You are a perfect example for why ABS is so necessary. You are not quite
> sure about the correct way to decelerate a car in an emergency situation
> and thus taught your kids total nonsense about gingerly braking and
> whatnot and claim you yourself brake hard and release when you have to add
> steering input. ABS solves that problem, brake hard, steer and you will
> make it around the obstacle.


Results, concentrate on results. Statistics, concentrate on statistics.
All are contrary to the conclusion you just made. (Yes I know, it's all
luck..even for those millions of people that are part of the
statistics..which is everybody, including you)

> And one valuable lesson: Never believe any insurance statistics and
> believe their interpretations even less.


Especially if they don't fit your world of beliefs, it seems.

>>> Only on ice and snow or severely different-friction pavement soft
>>> braking is required with non-ABS cars. Of course the brake distances
>>> are horrible unless you want to risk losing control but that's the
>>> price you pay for your arrogance.

>>
>> So far the 89 years of combined driving experience of the people I
>> mentioned doesn't indicate otherwise?

>
> No. I can list a whole bunch of total bozos who get into a situation where
> someone else saves their hide on a daily basis and who at the same time
> claim a clear driving record. A clear driving record says you are lucky,
> nothing more.


And that "luck" is consistent over 89 years of driving experience? Tell me
how anyone else can influence one using maneuvers to avoid a fixed object?
There is only one person in control of resolving that situation...no one
else.

>> If the statistics indicate that that likelihood of "paying the price"
>> is of zero difference betwen the two, how is arrogance factored in?

>
> Statistics are the most elegant form of lying.


Yes, when they don't fit your world, I suppose it is.

Do you have a reason why the highway safety people would conclude that ABS
has not shown to reduce accidents? Because if they did, wouldn't they want
to promote them so to influence more people to get them and thus save money
in fewer claims payouts. Your statement doesn't make sense.

> It's funny how you basically confirm my opinion about ABS and it's effect
> but let yourself be so influenced by this insurance bull**** that you end
> up not believing your own reasoning. What a pity.


Uhm, my reasoning and experience supports the insurance data. What have you
been reading in this thread?

>>>> The danger also existes of a uncontrolled shid as well. You are
>>>> seriously joking, right?
>>>
>>> An uncontrolled **** is what you will likely do in your last seconds
>>> when you realize that ABS would have saved your ass.

>>
>> Well, I can hardly wait for this first time experience.

>
> I on the other hand hope that you will never get in this situation.


Me too!!

>> I will keep a extra pair of undies in the car for just such a occasion.

>
> I doubt they will benefit you much when the coroner comes to pick you up.


Mom always said, have a clean pair of underwear for the doctor...I guess the
coroner is close. :-)

>> Since the statistics indicate that I have no more likelyhood of being
>> in the sutuation you describe, no matter which type of brake system I
>> have, forgive me if I don't hold my breath in anticipation.

>
> Statistics indicate that most people, who never have been in an accident,
> eventually get into one. As they say, there are two types of
> motorcyclists, the ones who have been down and the ones who will be. Same
> goes for cars.


Okay. How is that relevant though?



  #313  
Old July 15th 05, 02:42 AM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:04:13 +0000, 223rem wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>
>> a performance coupe - not gonna work.

>
> OK. But it is a sports, not a performance coupe.


Whether sports or performance, it's fast.

Chris
  #314  
Old July 15th 05, 02:55 AM
223rem
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

C.H. wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:04:13 +0000, 223rem wrote:
>
>
>>C.H. wrote:
>>
>>
>>> a performance coupe - not gonna work.

>>
>>OK. But it is a sports, not a performance coupe.

>
>
> Whether sports or performance, it's fast.
>
> Chris



A Mustang or a GTO are 'sports'.
A Ferrari or Porsche are 'performance'.
There is more to performance than a big
engine.
  #315  
Old July 15th 05, 04:12 AM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 01:55:26 +0000, 223rem wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:04:13 +0000, 223rem wrote:
>>
>>>OK. But it is a sports, not a performance coupe.

>>
>> Whether sports or performance, it's fast.
>>

> A Mustang or a GTO are 'sports'.
> A Ferrari or Porsche are 'performance'. There is more to performance than
> a big engine.


Where did you get that definition from?

Btw, the GTO's australian brethren make very capable racecars...

Chris
  #316  
Old July 15th 05, 06:59 AM
Bernard Farquart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"223rem" > wrote in message
m...

>
> A Mustang or a GTO are 'sports'.
> A Ferrari or Porsche are 'performance'.
> There is more to performance than a big
> engine.


I always considered a Porsche or Ferrari to be
"sports" cars while less manuverable cars are just
"sporty"

Although my 928 is really a GT car, not a sports car at all.

Bernard


  #317  
Old July 15th 05, 07:37 AM
223rem
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

C.H. wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 01:55:26 +0000, 223rem wrote:
>
>
>>C.H. wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:04:13 +0000, 223rem wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>OK. But it is a sports, not a performance coupe.
>>>
>>>Whether sports or performance, it's fast.
>>>

>>
>>A Mustang or a GTO are 'sports'.
>>A Ferrari or Porsche are 'performance'. There is more to performance than
>>a big engine.

>
>
> Where did you get that definition from?
>
> Btw, the GTO's australian brethren make very capable racecars...
>
> Chris


Which one would you choose: GTO or Mitsubishi Lancer Evo?
Why?
  #318  
Old July 15th 05, 07:59 AM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 06:37:59 +0000, 223rem wrote:

> C.H. wrote:


>> Btw, the GTO's australian brethren make very capable racecars...
>>

> Which one would you choose: GTO or Mitsubishi Lancer Evo? Why?


For what purpose?

Chris
  #319  
Old July 15th 05, 08:06 AM
223rem
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

C.H. wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 06:37:59 +0000, 223rem wrote:
>
>
>>C.H. wrote:

>
>
>>>Btw, the GTO's australian brethren make very capable racecars...
>>>

>>
>>Which one would you choose: GTO or Mitsubishi Lancer Evo? Why?

>
>
> For what purpose?
>
> Chris


Driving enjoyment, what else?
  #320  
Old July 15th 05, 08:45 AM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 07:06:10 +0000, 223rem wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>> For what purpose?
>>

> Driving enjoyment, what else?


Definitely the GTO. The Evo's seating position for me is awkward, I am not overly fond of small turbocharged
four-bangers but love V8s, specifically the LSx and the AWD is largely
pointless for street driving around here.

Chris
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Enable Caravan Daytime Running Lights (DRL's) Option ls_dot1 Chrysler 11 May 26th 05 01:49 AM
Disable DRL'S on 2002 S-10 Pete Technology 41 May 24th 05 04:19 AM
Disable DRL'S on 2002 S-10 Daniel J. Stern Driving 3 May 24th 05 04:19 AM
Why no rear lights with DRLs? Don Stauffer Technology 26 April 26th 05 04:16 AM
Chevy Tahoe DRls? BE Driving 0 March 28th 05 03:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.