All you are going to get is older unskilled drivers. Start them off at
13 or 14 off road or on tracks, then by the time they are old enough for
a licence, they know how to drive!

It worked for me and my 14 year old is competent enough to drive around
in paddocks..........

On Jul 23, 10:16 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T.
Russotto) wrote:

Allstate ad says 6,000 teens never come back. So I guess 18 years
would a much safer age than 16.

The purpose of the system is to limit insurance companies' exposure to
risk while still providing them with their full premium for having a
teen driver in the household.  It works great for that.

I think that all depends on the 16 year old. I know 16 year olds who should
have the full right to drive. I also know much older adults who shouldn't be
allowed within 50 feet of a vehicle. Here in Ontario, we have a "Graduating
Licensing" program. At age 16 you start off with a G1, which allows you to
drive with someone with a full license only (with other restrictions as
well, such as no more then 2(?) other teenagers with you). A G2 means you
can drive alone, but there are time-of-day is a factors. A full G means you
can drive where you want, when you want, and with whom you want. Does this
system work? I can't really say.

"80 Knight" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message

It was said in jest, but it would weed out a lot of un-coordinated drivers.
The driving test in most states is rather easy and not representative of
real life.  Sure, it takes some time to develop some skills, but turning
loose a 16 year old with a 3000 pound hunk of iron traveling at 70 mph is
dangerous.  Of course, when I was 16 that was not a problem.

<Snip>

That I can probably agree with.

No offence Ed, but that's like making it a requirement to know how to hook
up your new HD-TV/DVD before you buy one (which most people don't). It's
rather pointless. If someone wants to drive a manual transmission car, sure,
they need to know what they are doing. For those who like there automatic's,
why bother them? Let them have what they want, the same as you can.

"Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message

You got that right.  And you have to watch for that light on the dashboard
that tells you when to shift.  What government agency came up with that dumb
idea?

Probably 10% of the people driving today should never have been given a
license in the first place.  Of the rest, a huge number would never pass the
test if they had to drive a standard.  Hmmm, that should be a requirement.

The average driver is better off with an automatic.  The don't have to
worry about shifting at the right time, starting off on hills, down
shifting for coming down steep hills, lugging the engine or riding the
clutch.  And it's hard to steer, shift, hold a cup of coffee and a cell
phone all at the same time!

But then there are a few oddballs like me who pretty much only drive
sticks... my last car with an automatic was also my first car, a
Studebaker Hawk.  My current car is a Jeep Cherokee and the clutch was
still working perfectly when the throwout bearing went out at 300,000 miles.

Jeff DeWitt

This is utter B.S. because the move to computerized automatics was to better
control the engine and shifting, since many people stay in loer gears too
long or bluntly don't know haw to drive a standard.  As for repairs, I had a
friend that priced a manual rebuild, and it was around $1400 at the time,
approaximately the same as for an automatic.
Roy

Actually, a modern computer-controlled automatic is probably better
than most stick drivers in terms of fuel economy.

However, automatics are more complex and a lot more expensive to
fix, and do not last as long as manuals due to the complexity.

Ted

The US is also a Hell of a lot bigger than Germany or Japan... and most
folks either don't like stick shifts or don't even know how to use them.

And the fact of that matter is that modern automatics are pretty damn
good and the gas mileage difference is pretty minor.

Jeff DeWitt

A more advanced society burns three times as much fuel as Germany and
Japan, and still gets no fun out of it? Funny.

Most of the world also bathes once a week or less too, but that doesn't
mean a more advanced society like ours needs to do the same thing.

Jeff DeWitt

LOL !

It's what most of the world already does.

Graham

GM Shifts to Manual Transmissions for Global Warming

Responding to growing concerns over global warming, General Motors
(GM) announced today that it would make all of its vehicles with
standard transmissions, starting in 2009. Manual transmissions
generally get better fuel mileage than automatics.

GM CEO Rick Wagoner described the initiative at a press conference at
the company headquarters in Detroit: "We've been coddling our lazy
fellow Americans for too long. It's time everyone started using their
left foot. This is what Jesus would do."

Wagoner said that manual transmissions typically get 2-3 mpg better
mileage than the same vehicle equipped with an automatic, and that in
some cases the difference can be as much as 5 mpg. GM plans to focus
on high-efficiency manuals to minimize the company's output of
greenhouse gases. Manuals are also generally considered more fun to
drive and less expensive to manufacture and maintain.

The GM announcement received a mixed reaction. The late Jerry Falwell
rose from his grave to insist that Jesus would have driven a large van
with an automatic, because he would need to carry so many of his
followers. Other religious leaders hailed the effort to reduce global
warming.

On the environmental side, NRDC President Frances Beineke applauded
the move and encouraged other auto manufacturers to follow suit.

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s8i21068

Well, it's all A SPOOF! You knew it, right? You know that, although
making a lot of sense, nothing will make the HUNGRY CORPORATIONS get
into a diet. Well, nothing but THE REVOLUTION...

http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=Coming+Soon%3A&l2=the&l3=Banana+Revoluti
on%21&l4=

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote