I use U-Haul. Pickup trucks are pretty popular, and they have some at every location around here. Many locations are cool with you leaving your car there for the day, too.
In my area, renting any vehicle at the airport is more expensive than the same vehicle at other locations.
Aside: In my neighborhood there tends to be a lot of these large trucks parked on the street or in the drive. We get a lot of snow, so parking inside the garage is advantageous. Unfortunately, these trucks can't fit. They're too tall to make it inside. These houses were built in the late '80, so not terribly old.
The problem is the force of the airbag expanding rams the baby face-first into the passenger seat, and they are seriously injured or killed. Hence the big warning sticker.
Most (possibly all) European cars come with a switch to turn off the front passenger airbag. It's a legal requirement to use this switch appropriately in the UK, presumably in the same way it's a requirement for the driver to ensure all children are wearing seatbelts.
It should possibly also be used if a smaller child (under 12-ish) sits in the front seat, although I can't find an official recommendation on that — they're more keen to emphasize that children are safer in the back.
It seems in America, only trucks and sports cars without rear seats have this switch, but it is possible to have one fitted if you can justify it (i.e. several children).
I don't drive much, but every car I have ever driven (50 years with a driver's license) has had a little toggle on the rear-view mirror to put it into night-time mode. Is that insufficient?
It's actually the side mirrors which are the problem. I tend to glance at them frequently to maintain situational awareness, but that good habit is punished when a vehicle with elevated lights simply hovers in the lane next to you. Many times I have to actively adjust the mirror to a useless position just to keep from accidentally blinding myself.
Also note that some places restrict by law how much you can tow. For instance I heard in Canada most vehicles are limited to 220lbs. That's the govt basically guaranteeing SUV sales.
I love trucks. They're a lot of fun to drive (I have two 1990 JDM SUV for offroad camping. Especially to modify and add things like CB radios for convoys, bull bars for protection from trees and assholes who won't let you merge. My favourite modification was a turbo. At night in the bush, navigating some track, the turbo diesel whistle sounds so good, and gives more torque for the mud.
I think it's quite weird to hate a type of vehicle and want to prevent other people from accessing it. Just live and let live.
Well I'll be first to admit that my thing against trucks is a bit of knee jerk. To me they are big, loud, scary and expensive. I'm uncomfortable being around roads full of trucks, especially biking. Yet I know that a Mazda Miata will kill be just as well. And I can see the utility in a lot of situations. I've looked at them for camping in wilderness of western US too, I'll be honest, but realized that I would not be able to stretch out in any of them and quickly passed. Yet at the same time I just moved to a little city that identifies hard (to an unhealthy degree imho) with cowboy and military culture and it seems most vehicles are trucks. I honestly think this contributes to this city being universally looked down upon and ridiculed. Although the symbolism of the truck in this context is probably tightly enmashed with the real physical properties.
Utility depends on context. Emotions matter. Urbanism consists of emotional responses. Camping in wilderness is different.
I'm good with live and let live. But my SO's Honda Fit was just demolished by a modern truck who "didn't see her" despite having a clear line of sight down the road--but due to the relative slope, I suspect the Fit was obscured by the truck hood. She was in pain for 6 weeks. So where is live and let live?
Yes, can confirm. I have a 3" straight pipe direct from the turbo. The turbo acts as the muffler. I've heard a diesel without the turbo or muffler and it sounds like a bulldozer on meth.
However with just the turbo, at least on a 4.2L straight six, it sounds very nice (to me at least). Given the ability to breath and get the great away from the engine quickly the turbo can kick in earlier, mine is at 1500rpm or less. Gives more responsive power and cooler running. The turbo whistle sounds very nice.
There is no reason why anyone needs more that 64k of RAM.
GPUs use too much power, people just want to play games because they want to feel some emotion. Is not valid because it is not based on logic.
Hence we should ban GPUs and only allow on board graphics. The physical constraints of integrated typically mean that the power usage of such setups is naturally limited, and people won't be able to play games for silly emotional reasons because the frame rates would be too low.
We could take pushbikes off the road. It's too dangerous for our soft squishy bodies to not be encased in faux leather and crumple zones. Since most people need to get from a to b in a shorter time and potentially carrying goods, maybe its safer to remove cyclists from the roads for their own protection. After all its not just SUVs that pose a danger to cyclists. Don't worry though, we will still be able to ride our bicycles at dedicated bike parks where motorised vehicles aren't allowed.
Shit that sucks. I was rear ended by a station wagon in my my truck when I slowed down at a give way an he didn't. I'm 2300kgs so I hardly moved. He got a nice dent in his bumper from my towbar.
The gun thing isn't a circular problem tho since humans can pose a threat even without a gun. Even the difference between men and women puts the woman at a huge disadvantage. Thus a firearm becomes a force equalizer for her protection from the average unarmed man that could easily victimise her.
That’s not the point. It’s a circular problem because if you live in a country where the majority owns guns, your safety is obviously compromised if you don’t, to a degree it wouldn’t be in a country where almost no one did.
That women are on average less strong than men is just as irrelevant as any other existing difference in violence capital before involving guns, that’s not the point, and neither is the point that guns are “equalizers” because everyone understands this, the question is how the average rate of gun ownership affects itself (circular), and to me it’s pretty obvious and relatable: if everyone else has a gun then you’re exposed without one, if no one else has a gun then not having one is much more tolerable because the violence monopoly of the judiciary system can be upheld.
It is driven in part by side-impact crash testing. You need space for the side airbags and separation to allow the side impact bracing to begin to move the entire car sideways before impinging on occupant space.
I had a van in the past, they are awesome. Lots of space, stuff stays dry, great handling if you're in a model that sits you over the front wheels. You'd want decent bull bars for frontal impact protection tho.
Bull bars defeat the whole pedestrian safety benefit.
The EU and UK have strict limits on what's allowed, the type you see in Australia and the USA are banned. It's frustrating that the first website I find selling something similar lists the main benefit of bull bars as "styling".
I fully support the people who vandalize vehicles with bull bars parked in urban areas.
I don't think it is correct to vandalize a vehicle with a bullbar parked in an urban area. You don't know if they are just visiting from out of town.
How about I vandalize your house because I don't like your ring doorcam. Or vandalize your dog because it barked at me? If I caught someone vandalizing my pride and joy I'd vandalize their face.
Excusing vandalism of private property should always be opposed because you don't know what someone will excuse to vandalize your property. It's a very short sighted opinion.
If bull-bars are 'needed', the vehicle will already have scratches from off-road driving.
In some European cities, some off-road vehicles are already banned from urban areas, or require special permits. Currently I'm only aware of this applying to heavy(ish) commercial vehicles. It's not a given that any vehicle need drive anywhere, at the owner's convenience and society's detriment.
You might consider the effect of your vehicle on your family's faces, if you have a moment of inattention while driving near your home.
Needed and wanted. I want a full exo cage where the whole vehicle has a roll cage on the outside. Even more crash protection, plus it doubles as a roof rack and deck for taking in whatever wonderful view you just drove to.
I'm OK with not having off road vehicles in the city but then I have multiple vehicles so I could dedicate one to going to the city. Where as some people might only be able to have one. But then the only reason I would ever be in a city is to go to a hospital.
As my family are not mongoloids milling about in the street I'm sure their faces will be fine.
60 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 113 ms ] threadIn my area, renting any vehicle at the airport is more expensive than the same vehicle at other locations.
Most (possibly all) European cars come with a switch to turn off the front passenger airbag. It's a legal requirement to use this switch appropriately in the UK, presumably in the same way it's a requirement for the driver to ensure all children are wearing seatbelts.
It should possibly also be used if a smaller child (under 12-ish) sits in the front seat, although I can't find an official recommendation on that — they're more keen to emphasize that children are safer in the back.
It seems in America, only trucks and sports cars without rear seats have this switch, but it is possible to have one fitted if you can justify it (i.e. several children).
I don't drive much, but every car I have ever driven (50 years with a driver's license) has had a little toggle on the rear-view mirror to put it into night-time mode. Is that insufficient?
* https://hedgescompany.com/blog/2018/10/pickup-truck-owner-de...
I think it's quite weird to hate a type of vehicle and want to prevent other people from accessing it. Just live and let live.
Utility depends on context. Emotions matter. Urbanism consists of emotional responses. Camping in wilderness is different.
However with just the turbo, at least on a 4.2L straight six, it sounds very nice (to me at least). Given the ability to breath and get the great away from the engine quickly the turbo can kick in earlier, mine is at 1500rpm or less. Gives more responsive power and cooler running. The turbo whistle sounds very nice.
See the incredible myopic vision! The complete lack of tone awareness! An utter lack of sense of their surroundings!
All in one comment!
And the best thing: That's exactly how SUVs are driven! It's such a sublime comment.
GPUs use too much power, people just want to play games because they want to feel some emotion. Is not valid because it is not based on logic.
Hence we should ban GPUs and only allow on board graphics. The physical constraints of integrated typically mean that the power usage of such setups is naturally limited, and people won't be able to play games for silly emotional reasons because the frame rates would be too low.
Maybe you should get a truck?
(I'm not in America)
That women are on average less strong than men is just as irrelevant as any other existing difference in violence capital before involving guns, that’s not the point, and neither is the point that guns are “equalizers” because everyone understands this, the question is how the average rate of gun ownership affects itself (circular), and to me it’s pretty obvious and relatable: if everyone else has a gun then you’re exposed without one, if no one else has a gun then not having one is much more tolerable because the violence monopoly of the judiciary system can be upheld.
Yep, it's worth it. Question answered. for me at least.
The EU and UK have strict limits on what's allowed, the type you see in Australia and the USA are banned. It's frustrating that the first website I find selling something similar lists the main benefit of bull bars as "styling".
I fully support the people who vandalize vehicles with bull bars parked in urban areas.
https://www.truckman.co.uk/blog/post/are-bull-bars-legal
How about I vandalize your house because I don't like your ring doorcam. Or vandalize your dog because it barked at me? If I caught someone vandalizing my pride and joy I'd vandalize their face.
Excusing vandalism of private property should always be opposed because you don't know what someone will excuse to vandalize your property. It's a very short sighted opinion.
In some European cities, some off-road vehicles are already banned from urban areas, or require special permits. Currently I'm only aware of this applying to heavy(ish) commercial vehicles. It's not a given that any vehicle need drive anywhere, at the owner's convenience and society's detriment.
You might consider the effect of your vehicle on your family's faces, if you have a moment of inattention while driving near your home.
I'm OK with not having off road vehicles in the city but then I have multiple vehicles so I could dedicate one to going to the city. Where as some people might only be able to have one. But then the only reason I would ever be in a city is to go to a hospital.
As my family are not mongoloids milling about in the street I'm sure their faces will be fine.
Suffer from "car brain" is a great way to write off and invalidate the opinions of a large swathe of people who enjoy or have cars as a hobby.
I bet you'd crack the shits if people started talking about banning GPUs cos they use too much power and anyway, they're only used to play games.