Cars and Driving [split]

Brainformation is about the information in your brain and the way it's perceived. This forum specialize in the exchange of ideas and thoughts that do not fit into our special interests categories.

Cars and Driving [split]

Postby Kellemora » 16 Aug 2014, 10:52

Hi Icey

Most of our roads here are now covered in blacktop, which is basically a mixture of tar and gravel, then compressed with a heavy roller to make it flat. It is a cheap alternative to concrete, but has a much shorter lifespan. Something I didn't mention the other day was Temperature of the road surface, especially on blacktop, the higher the temp, the farther you skid.

Don't get me going on the drivers down here. But I will say something about the stupid, idiotic, government planners who ILLEGALLY mark the driving lanes, which I've mentioned before.

As far as tires go. Normally, the harder the rubber, the higher priced the tire. Because they know the harder the rubber, the longer it takes to wear them out. So although the cost to manufacture a tire does not vary by much, the price them based on how long before you buy another set. If you buy a tire that will last 60 thousand miles instead of 35 thousand miles, it will cost you double the price of the 35 thousand mile tire. If you jump up to a 100 thousand mile tire, it is double the price of the 60 thousand mile tire.
So technically, you are not saving any money by moving to a higher priced, and harder rubber, therefore more dangerous, tire.

Your front tires (on a real car) are the tires that control steering and stopping. It is MOST IMPORTANT to have the greatest friction bond with the road on this pair of tires. If you lose that friction bond with the road, you have no steering or stopping power. The rear tires merely give the traction to move the vehicle. If these back wheels lose their friction bond with the road, you still have your steering and stopping ability.

It is VERY EASY for the Drive Wheels to LOSE the friction bond with the road. I patch of oil, rain, snow or ice, over acceleration, etc. On a real car, this only means your back tires spin, but you still have steering and braking via your front pair of tires. The softer the tire, the BETTER the friction bond to the road.

Then they came along with these HAZARDOUS Front Wheel Drive Cars. They moved the Drive Wheels to the Front of the car. The most illogical and unsafe place to put them. Drive Wheels are the FIRST to break the friction bond with the road. When this bond is broken on your steering and braking set of tires, you can stick your head between your legs and kiss your rear end goodbye.

Not only the above problem, but there are others just as serious as well. A higher rate of mechanical failure of the steering system. The front wheels must Pivot in order to steer the car. Ball joints, tie rod ends, steering knuckles, A-frame bearings, and springs. ALL SUFFER EXTREME LOADS when the front wheels become the drive wheels. Tires that on a real car just roll along with everything in the steering and axle system fairly well balanced, when they become the drive wheels, the A-frame bearing loading is increased, the pressure on the tie rods is increased, and on all the steering components, a thousand times greater than on a real car.

Now, most of these Front Wheel Drive cars are being shipped with extremely high durometer (hard rubber) tires as standard equipment. Which means the chance of losing your friction grip with the road is increased exponentially. Thus the chance of losing control of your car is increased by the same proportion.

The car manufacturers keep adding more and more computerized systems to your cars to help overcome the many hazardous deficiencies of their front wheel drive death traps. This not only raises the cost of the car, but also means when one of these computerized systems fails, the cost to replace it is financially disastrous.

I have no idea why anyone who cares about their own life, their family, or the lives of those they may kill, take the high risk of driving a front wheel drive vehicle. It's like playing Russian roulette every time you drive, OR are on the road near any front wheel drive vehicle.
They should have NEVER been allowed on the roadways in the first place.
The only reason they are was because of PAYOLA to Poly-TICK-ians.
And people believed ALL the FALSE ADVERTISING used to promote the early models.

TTUL
Gary
User avatar
Kellemora
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Jul 2012, 18:52
Location: From St. Louis, current Knoxville, TN

Re: Human Obsolescence

Postby Ice.Maiden » 17 Aug 2014, 17:47

What about 4 wheel drives Gary? We have a 4 x 4, but ask me what sort of tyres 're on it and I wouldn't have a clue. All I know about these vehicles's that hardly anyone drives them on the terrain or weather conditions they were made for. Wonder if it actually does the tyres some kind of harm by using them to tootle 100 yards along a smooth tarmacked road during a school run? Believe me, people DO do this over here!
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Human Obsolescence

Postby Kellemora » 18 Aug 2014, 12:28

Hi Icey

I have a four-wheel drive Blazer. Not too much call to kick it into all-wheel drive down south here. But it does come in handy the many times I've found the need to use it.

I wouldn't really want a full-time all-wheel drive vehicle though, although I know many are going in that direction.
They may be set-up considerably different than four-wheel drive vehicles, thus reducing the strain on the drive system somewhat.
The few I have looked at, although all-time four-wheel drive, were still basically front wheel drive vehicles which engaged the rear wheels as secondary drive wheels. This type I would not have at all.

I've seen some crazy set-ups called and sold as four-wheel drive when they were not even close.
I pulled a Saab out of one of our storm drainage ditches a couple years ago. It had All-Wheel-Drive on a plate affixed to the car. If it really was four-wheel drive, he could have pulled out of the ditch with no problem.
The rear drive was exactly like a conventional car without posi-traction. The wheel without traction is the one that would spin. It may have had something like posi-traction on the front wheels, because the one in the mud spun as did the one up on the gravel shoulder, but neither had enough bite to pull him out. Although his back left wheel was still on pavement, it never turned or applied any driving power.

On a conventional car, if you jack up one of the rear wheels, even though the other wheel is on the ground, the car won't go anywhere. The wheel with the least resistance is the one that spins. So you could put your car in gear and use that wheel to drive a sawmill if you wanted to, hi hi...

On a car with posi-traction, the wheel with the most friction is the driving wheel. So if you jack up one wheel off the ground, the other will run the car right off the jack. Posi-traction normally uses BOTH rear wheels to drive the car, allowing one to coast when you make a turn. So it is not like a live solid axle, which would make it hard, and dangerous to make a turn, because it will cause a loss of friction on the front tires. In other words, push you straight when you wanted to turn.

A TRUE four-wheel drive vehicle, has posi-traction on both pairs of wheels. If you jack up the front of the vehicle, and one of the rear wheels, you will still drive off the jack. Same thing if you jack up the back and one of the front wheels, you will still drive off the jack. Because the wheel with the most friction is the one that will pull when the others don't.
But one does not want to drive on dry pavement while the four-wheel drive is engaged. If all four tires are not exactly the same size, due to inflation or wear, it will add undue stress to the drive train.

I've not yet seen a full-time all-wheel drive vehicle that passes the standard four-wheel drive test. So I assume, they are like a conventional car on both the front and rear axles. The wheels with the least amount of friction are the wheels that will spin. In other words, you won't be able to drive a car with only one wheel on the ground off the jack stands, even if they claim it is four-wheel drive.

TTUL
Gary
User avatar
Kellemora
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Jul 2012, 18:52
Location: From St. Louis, current Knoxville, TN

Re: Human Obsolescence

Postby Ice.Maiden » 18 Aug 2014, 15:01

Ours's a Land Rover Discovery - 4 x 4. Excellent for steep muddy lanes and cart tracks, but these're the sort of vehicles that women use on their local school runs. After that, the cars aren't used much, which seems a waste of money to me. Much of it's just for the fact that they own one.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Human Obsolescence

Postby Kellemora » 19 Aug 2014, 11:57

I had to have mine, I pulled some heavy trailers on and off construction job sites.
It is not as large as most I see on the road, it's only an S-10 size.
Tahoe and Suburban are both considerably larger and higher.
About the size they are now calling Station Wagons again.
It's also only a little six-cylinder engine. Nothing like the Muscle Cars I drove most of my life.

TTUL
Gary
User avatar
Kellemora
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Jul 2012, 18:52
Location: From St. Louis, current Knoxville, TN

Re: Human Obsolescence

Postby Ice.Maiden » 19 Aug 2014, 12:46

Hi Gary.

I think men and women like different cars for different reasons. Tbh, I'm not particularly attracted to flashy things. So long as a vehicle's reliable - and a decent colour, LOL - I'm not too fussed. We've had some motors chosen partly for the aesthetics, but the novelty's worn off now. Having said that, I'd still like a Roller! : )
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Human Obsolescence

Postby Kellemora » 20 Aug 2014, 11:46

I hear ya Icey.
This is why I still drive my old '97 Blazer.
I just wish the hailstorm didn't give it such a customizing job.
I had a new motor put in it about 3k miles ago, because I still cannot find a newer vehicle with the features I have in this one.
User avatar
Kellemora
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Jul 2012, 18:52
Location: From St. Louis, current Knoxville, TN

Re: Human Obsolescence

Postby Ice.Maiden » 20 Aug 2014, 15:08

If it works, and you like it Gary, then hang onto it. Some of the older cars're still fine, and at the end of the day, so long as it gets from A to B with no hassle, then why change it?
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Human Obsolescence

Postby Kellemora » 21 Aug 2014, 13:54

I love it. But it does need some very expensive electronics parts, I'm getting buy without buying right now.
It's just a shame the hail beat it to death.
TTUL
Gary
User avatar
Kellemora
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Jul 2012, 18:52
Location: From St. Louis, current Knoxville, TN

Re: Human Obsolescence

Postby Ice.Maiden » 21 Aug 2014, 15:54

I know, I can remember you saying about it, and hail can do a lot of damage can't it?

Still, if you love the car, expensive as replacement parts might be, it's still cheaper than buying a brand new one! Sentiments can get attached to vehicles as well.

A very few years ago, we bought not one, but two Ford Probes. It was just because you don't see many of them these days, so we thought - one each as run-abouts. Don't laugh, but it WAS a stupid idea. The engine in one of them blew up. It was replaced ... at a cost of more than what the car was bought for! The second one staggered on for a bit, until one day, trails of black smoke emitted from the exhaust. I don't mean a bit, but a heck of a lot!! It made me laugh, but the car was useless after that. It went for scrap, and a Probe owner bought the other for spare parts!
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Human Obsolescence

Postby Kellemora » 22 Aug 2014, 12:23

I've had more than my share of lemons over the years.
Each of them were a Kryzler product, which is why I will never by another of their products.
They burned me bad twice, and moderately a third time. As they say, three strikes and your out!

I put a lot of money into my wife's Jimmy, but it was just getting too old. Plastic parts turned brittle, and since I don't work on them myself. It could get expensive real fast.
The Blazer she has now has a brand new engine, and as of last week, a new flex plate to hold the torque converter. Everything else on it is just fine.
Like her other car, mine is showing signs of age in the plastic parts now, and the electronics too.
As hard as I have driven that car, everyone is surprised it held up. But then too, I paid for better parts when I bought it, where there were options available. It does make a difference. Also nearly doubled the price too.
Can't afford that nonsense these days.

TTUL
Gary
User avatar
Kellemora
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Jul 2012, 18:52
Location: From St. Louis, current Knoxville, TN

Re: Human Obsolescence

Postby Ice.Maiden » 23 Aug 2014, 16:38

We've got our eldest son a Peugeot for his birthday early next year. He doesn't know it yet, but they seem pretty reliable from what we've heard from other owners.

The actual make of car doesn't bother me personally, unless .... it's a Skoda.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Human Obsolescence

Postby Kellemora » 24 Aug 2014, 14:33

That's cool, I always had to buy my own. Made my son buy his own also. Although I signed the loan papers for him.

TTUL
Gary
User avatar
Kellemora
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Jul 2012, 18:52
Location: From St. Louis, current Knoxville, TN

Re: Human Obsolescence

Postby Ice.Maiden » 24 Aug 2014, 17:39

I think that's probably a good lesson in life Gary, but our son's at school and not out earning, as such. He'll pass his test quickly, and then want to get out on the road, so because this car was a bargain, we snapped it up while it was on offer. He'll be so delighted.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Human Obsolescence

Postby Kellemora » 25 Aug 2014, 09:35

Perhaps the way I worded that, it made me sound like a meany.

Living on the farm with tons of old cars around, I've always HAD the use of a vehicle I could call my own.
I may have mentioned the old '46 Ford Deluxe I pulled out of a storage barn and restored. I couldn't take it on the road, but used it on our farm, and to take the kids to school since I was only 14. Driving tractors since I was 12. So when I turned 16, it's not like I didn't have a car at all.
As a Freshman in High School, we were not allowed to drive ourselves to school, they didn't allow it. So I took the bus that year. Saved up my money from working after school and bought a '62 BelAire. Dad paid my car insurance IF, I dropped my three siblings off at school on my way to school. This worked out great, because our school system start times were set-up for this very reason. So older kids could drop their younger siblings off at school on the way.

Although I was living in a subdivision when my kids got old enough to drive. The girls had use of my car (I used my trucks for work), and the boys had use of my wife's older car. But only for necessary stuff, not just tooling around. They had to buy their own car for that purpose.

Because of all the trucks and cars, I carried Fleet Insurance, which was a little cheaper until the kids started driving. Fleet Insurance premiums are based on driver ages. Before the kids were driving, I was only covered for drivers over 25 years old. After I started hiring workers under that age, I changed it to drivers over 21 years old, which upped the rates a little. When I wanted to drop the age all the way down to 16, it would have become unaffordable to carry Fleet Insurance, so we split the policy into vehicle types. Trucks and two cars were drivers over 21, and the two oldest cars were drivers under 21, with liability only on those two cars. Because they were still all under one main policy, it was still much cheaper than insuring all the vehicles separately. Even after I sold all but two of the trucks and got rid of the employees.

Car insurance is really like a gimmick anyhow. I learned this when I was working for MRTC. I was like 19 or 20 when I started working there. I had not reached 21 when my insurance would go down.
In Missouri, rather than having a law that says we must have "Insurance" from an "Insurance Provider." Our is called a "Financial Responsibility" law. Many states are like this! Rather than buy Insurance, you can buy a Surety Bond. The amount of the Surety Bond you must have, is dependent on age, and your type of vehicle. If you have a loan on your vehicle, you may need two surety bonds, one held by the lender.

As a Perk to Employee's, MRTC provided a Surety Bond for us, in the valuation we needed. No cost to us per se. Unless we had to use it. But it was still a taxable perk on our income taxes. When you are under 21 years old, your car insurance is HIGH, even with no tickets or accidents. It is hard to come up with those premiums every six months too. If I figured out how much per working hour, forty hour week, fifty working weeks a year, my insurance cost calculated that way was close to forty cents per hour. So when the company says they will cover your car insurance for you for only twenty-five cents per hour no recourse, or for free with recourse. You JUMP on the twenty-five cents per hour reduction in pay. Recourse meant if you had to use the bond, you had to pay back a percentage of what you used of it. The amount was based on one-half the interest earned on the bond for the company. Which went to the company, not to you, hi hi... After all, it IS their money tied up.
Since I never had an accident, I probably would have been safe not taking the twenty-five cent pay reduction, which amounted to around 500 bucks a year. But when I turned twenty-one, they changed my pay deduction to only fifteen cents. But I also got a few raises, the one at this time was like a whole dollar-fifty raise. Actually a dollar-forty, because ten cents of that was part of the deduction I no longer paid.

OK, rambling again.

TTUL
Gary
User avatar
Kellemora
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Jul 2012, 18:52
Location: From St. Louis, current Knoxville, TN

Re: Human Obsolescence

Postby Ice.Maiden » 25 Aug 2014, 15:26

Hi Gary, and no, I never thought you sounded like a meanie. You were fortunate to have old cars knocking around, and so obviously you'd learn to drive quickly and then have the use of a vehicle.

You have to be 17 over here to take your test and be able to drive on the road, but a disabled person can start learning a year before then, due to possible difficulties, so I'm sure that the extra time helps many of them.

You're right about insurance. It costs a fortune for new young drivers. My son was eyeing up a car which was classed as a sports model, with a 2 point something litre engine. The insurance would've been horrendous, so we took the matter out of his hands and got him something more reasonable. Even so, it's going to be pretty steep for the first year.

Here, kids who can drive're allowed to take their cars to school and park up in the staff area, but not too many of them own cars at 17, unlike in the US where it seems that all the kids're on the road asap. For a start, most youngsters take approved lessons so that they're "roadworthy". These can be up to £25 an hour round here, so it's not unusual for kids to have 20 or more.

The tests themselves're done in 2 halves - the theory done on computer, and the practical out on the road. Both last for about half an hour, and one of several test routes can be dished out on the day, so a driver probably isn't familiar with the one he/she gets picked to do. If a person fails the theory part, they can't take the practical bit until they've managed the first.

The actual driving covers the usual things which're expected of road users - negotiating roundabouts, traffic lights, junctions, hill starts, parallel parking, reversing and so on. Then they're asked one or two questions about the working of the car itself. They now want to know if drivers know where to put the oil in, and what certain internal lights indicate. If, after all that, they score above a certain amount, they've passed.

My son's been driving round on private property, so he's pretty much used to the gears, braking, pulling off, blah blah. He'll maybe have half a dozen lessons to get him used to being in traffic, but we'll see. If his instructor feels that he needs a bit more tuition, he'll have it, but the boy's a quick learner, and I don't envisage any difficulties.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Human Obsolescence

Postby Kellemora » 26 Aug 2014, 11:08

Hi Icey

I was already driving for like five years, when the insurance companies started giving a deduction if you had drivers ed, or obtained a drivers certificate from an accredited driving school. I did the math and figured I would save about 200 bucks a year over the next three years, so paying 150 bucks for the school would be worth it.
I already held a lower class chauffeurs license, with air-brakes and tandem. Which would have reduced my insurance without taking the class, had I known. I took the class and brought the certificate to my insurance company. They always make a copy of your license. This is when I learned taking the class would only reduce my insurance by like twelve dollars per year, over and above holding a commercial license.
My insurance would have gone down when I turned twenty-one, and again when I turned twenty-five, if I had no accidents.
It would take twenty-four years to recover the cost of taking the driving school at those rates. Basically twelve dollars the first three years and only five dollars the next twenty-one years.
A couple of years later, I upped my chauffeurs license to Class A with all endorsements, including hazmat for a few years. In my state, you had to retake the hazmat exam every six months, so I dropped it, since I never carried anything rated hazmat.
If you held a Class A license, your personal car insurance was already at their lowest price.

One thing I wished, even when I was young, was everyone would have to be re-examined at least every five years on the outside. In other words, take their driving test over again.
Plus, certain types of moving violations would require taking your driving test over again also.

After moving south, I think retaking your driving test should be an annual event.

Would you believe my mother never took any type of driving test?
Although the Drivers License Law was enacted in 1903, no test was involved, you just applied for a license.
My mom started driving in 1940 or '41. All she had to do was go in and pay 25 cents to get her license.
An actual examination did not come about until 1952, but not implemented until 1953.
Everyone who already held a license, unless revoked, only had to renew their license.

One of my uncles, probably most of my uncles, never had a test either.
However, I did have one uncle who had his license taken away for a year.
After the year was up, he went to take the test, without studying the book.
He failed the written test so bad, his suspension was extended for three more months.
This time he studied the book, and passed the written test. He had no problem with the driving part of the test. After all, he was one of our tractor-trailer drivers for over thirty years.

His problem was, he answered most of the questions using common sense and real life driving habits.
There isn't much logic to many of the questions on a drivers test, since they are based on how the laws are written.
He does have a good point about how illogical some of the questions are too.
If four cars approach a 4-way intersection, one at each stop sign. No one can legally proceed through the intersection. The law reads, the person to your right has the right of way. Since this same law applies to all four drivers, whichever driver goes first is in violation of the law, as he did not let the driver to his right go first.
My uncle said it best. Whoever got their first goes first, and everyone else follows a car at a time in counterclockwise rotation. Now that's more logical, he would say.

TTUL
Gary
User avatar
Kellemora
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Jul 2012, 18:52
Location: From St. Louis, current Knoxville, TN

Re: Human Obsolescence

Postby Ice.Maiden » 26 Aug 2014, 12:46

LOl - I agree about logic. I can remember being asked about breaking distances at certain speeds. I couldn't remember, so said I'd give the car ahead as much room as possible. I was allowed it, despite the answer not being the one they were looking for. : )

I definitely agree with you about drivers being made to take their tests again - say every 5 years. I'm sure a lot'd fail, because they get into bad habits, but the constant revenue'd probably keep other costs down a bit. What we pay for diesel and petrol per litre's ridiculous.

I can remember one of my relatives who'd never taken his driving test either. They didn't need to back in the day, but back then, there were far less vehicles on the roads of course. I think it's sensible to take one, and also to have proper lessons before being allowed to go into traffic.

Yesterday, we saw a horrible incident. A car was coming towards us, and all of a sudden the driver veered onto our side of the road and was heading straight for us. He just managed to swerve back over in time. Had we been able to get his number, we'd have reported him. He was using his mobile and simply lost concentration, but there could've been an awful accident. Idiot.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Human Obsolescence

Postby Kellemora » 27 Aug 2014, 10:21

You wouldn't believe the number of things that used to be against the law, that were removed from the books by pressure from automakers.
Normally it is next to impossible to get a law removed, but as technology advanced, some of the old laws interfered with new technology.
Here is one example: It was illegal to have a TV set in the front of a car positioned such that it was view-able by the driver. It was how they Defined TV set, as any device having a viewing screen and producing a changing image. They couldn't say any device producing a changing image, because it would make all of the gauges in your car a device with producing a changing image.

This is how they got the law changed. When they wanted to replace the analog gauges using display needles, to screens displaying an image of the gauges, or directly showing digits on a screen.
Once this law was rescinded, it opened the door for dash mounted items with digital displays. If you recall, no radios for music, or broadcast transmitters, like a ham radio or CB could have a digital display if used in a car. This is why they all had analog dials with the numbers printed on the dial and light behind the dial to see them.

Within a year after changing the law, almost all radios went to digital display, along with car dashboards, and guess what, mini-TVs wound up back on the dash too. Heck, I had one for when I sat in rush hour traffic, but I kept it on the floor out of view, just because of the law. If we started moving, I turned it off.

Drivers need to remain alert, but I fear the way they write laws, they may wipe out almost all communications in the process. No more two-way radios in a car will more than likely be the outcome, in trying to stop texting while driving. Which never made sense to me from day one anyhow.
With the technology we have today, and Cell Phones all having GPS built into them. One solution would be to use GPS coordinates to determine if the Cell Phone was moving faster than lets say 10 mph and cause it to shut-off the texting feature. I think it should still be able to work in audio mode. A passenger in the front seat could still be showing texts to the driver, from the back seat too, so I would be OK with all texting or viewing the display screen while the car is in motion should be blacked out. Of course the hackers will probably find a way around that too.

I thought it was hilarious when they passed a law that receivers could not pick up the 800 mHz cell phone band. By the time the law was passed, cell phones had already changed how they work. It also did not apply to any licensed radio operator. The main devices locked from receiving the 800 mHz band were Scanners. Most were easily defeated by snipping a single wire. The funny thing about the whole charade is they cannot write a law against international treaties. In other words, the law could NOT say a person could not receive that band if they had the equipment to do so. If the signal passes through your house, you can claim it, hi hi...
But it goes much deeper than that. I know of No One with a Cell Phone that holds a License to Transmit on it. They are using it under another License Holder, and the device must be Type Accepted so it remains under the control of the License Holder.
Only certain bands are set aside for public use, everything else must have a licensed operator. Provisions in the law allow for multiple users under a license holder on some frequencies.

I'll stop here before I get into some of the things these non-license holders complain about, when they have right to complain at all.

TTUL
Gary
User avatar
Kellemora
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Jul 2012, 18:52
Location: From St. Louis, current Knoxville, TN

Re: Human Obsolescence

Postby Ice.Maiden » 27 Aug 2014, 12:02

Well, in a nutshell, I don't agree with texting whilst driving, watching a TV screen - or even using a hand-held mobile phone. The latter, whether for texting or making calls's illegal over here anyway, but plenty ignore it. A couple of seconds of losing concentration could mean all the difference between driving into the back of a vehicle in front of you, or, as the guy yesterday proved - a possible fatal accident.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Next

Return to Brain Information

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

cron