OMGImInPattaya

4 hours ago, Pdaz said:

Mostly cos I don't like the distraction and secondly because they seem at odds with driving here. The parking assist tells you when it "sees" a space on the passenger side of the vehicle if you are travelling under 30kph. Obviously when moving slowly in traffic here it constantly flashes a blue 'P' sign in the dash.  So I turn that off. There is a visual warning when the car judges you are too close to the car in front for your speed. Scooters and Thai drivers who just have to jump into your "safety" space set this off. The car will automatically slow and apply the brakes if enabled. But again traffic conditions here would cause it to be activated constantly. I never use cruise control so even though this cars is cruise control is variable speed and radar controlled I still leave it off.

I really prefer manual cars that require a lot of imput from the driver. So mostly I drive mine in the "sport +" setting which has the fastest throttle and steering response. I also leave the DSG in manual and change gear with the paddles.

I'm not keen on any of the auto driving functions as I believe they are just a sop to lazy drivers. If you can't park, corner or brake correctly you really shouldn't have a licence. Features like ABS and traction control are different and contribute to road safety and have been proven to save lives. Auto parking is just a gimmick.

You must find it quite ironic that those ultimate driving machines and the other German "driver's cars" like Benz and Audi all have these features.

On 7/23/2017 at 11:02 AM, JoshBe said:

 

Do you get any false alarms like the car slamming the brakes when a motorcycle cuts in front of you or something like that?

How is that a false alarm...the motorbike is either there or it isn't. 

I use my ADAPTIVE cruise-control all the time when on highways and motorways...even in heavy traffic. It makes driving a snip and much less fatiguing and I think it makes me more alert to road/traffic conditions not less.

If you'd be interested in a nice little SUV, first gen. Honda CRV, that's been well maintained with about 130k on it, PM me for details.

Yes, if you go within 1 year of the expiration date you can get the 5 year license. After that, you have to start all over again.

On 6/13/2017 at 3:04 PM, Aguda said:

I highly recommend every Honda owner checking if their VIN is in the recall. I just retired from working at a Honda dealer in the US. Last I heard seven people have died from the airbag sending shrapnel  (the airbag casing) into their necks and cutting their jugular vein. It takes about an hour to replace both, protect your own and your families  lives!

Not wanting to make light of the issue but peoples' perception/misperception of risk always facinates me. The defect in question causes a very very small (deminimus) number of the airbag inflators to shatter when deployed in an accident, which sometimes causes injury or death to vehicle occupants.  To repeat: Sometimes during an accident the inflators will splinter; and again sometimes an injury/death will occur...that's a double sometimes. To date, 7 deaths have been reported in the United States...out of what...millions of cars with the potentially defective airbags.

So to fix these cars, we're talking millions of road trips to and from dealer service departments. I would hazard a guess that there have already been, or certainly will be, many more people injured and killed (and I'm just counting car owners here) in accidents getting to and from these service repairs than if the inflators are just left intact. Just sayin'.

3 hours ago, Ace of Pop said:

Takata filed for Bankruptcy.So thats that.?


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

I'm not sure what you mean by your post because it has no effect on the recall and fixing of the airbag issue. The reason they filed was to have an orderly wind-down of the company (and the sale of assets to a successor corp. [already done]) and to set aside funds to continue with the airbag repairs.

I have recently bought a car that can take any of these fuels, as well as plain benzine. In general, considering the kilos per litre and price matrix, what the preferred fuel for a typical engine?

This explains allot.

1 hour ago, helpisgood said:

 

What!  The Second Amendment's use of the word "militia" has not been ignored by the US Supreme Court.  (I assume you are not referring to Diana Ross.)

 

In the case I had cited above for you, viz., DC v. Heller (2008), the Court discussed this use of "militia" in great length.  For example:

 

"Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it [the 2nd Amend.] protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service... Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."  [Emphasis added.]

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

 

Obviously, the justices went back and forth about how to interpret "militia" for purposes of the Second Amendment quite a lot. 

 

Do you bother to research this at all?  I already knew about Heller from the news.  But, just for fun, I entered "militia" and "second amendment" into Google and the first entry was a Wikipedia article which mentions Heller among other related US Supreme Court cases in the opening summary of the article. 

 

The Heller decision was a big victory for gun rights advocates in that for the first time the Supremes ruled that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms was an individual, not a collective [militia], right. That's the primary holding and legal importance of Heller.

39 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

 

Let's not get ahead of ourselves with, "a well regulated militia being necessary..." being the opening of that 2nd Amendment. Ah, that's right...inconvenient, let's just ignore...

 

It's been ignored by the Supremes as well  

Time for my European vacations...cheap as chips there now.

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

That is debatable. Gun murders decreased, but not murders in general.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425021/australia-gun-control-obama-america

 

I wouldn't even debate his point...Australians can make whatever laws they want and good for them. It's the same for Americans and I don't care what people do with the guns they're allowed to legally own.

5 minutes ago, Emster23 said:

".... no law abiding citizen who is not crazy has had their gun taken away.... hmm explains why Trump NRA fanboys want change

Millions have been denied the right to ever obtain them in states like California, Illinois, New York, and Washington DC.

3 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

The right to seek employment without prejudice is, try to follow the sentence to the end.

Youre mixing up allot of rights in your question so it's difficult to answer succinctly. Yes, background checks are allowed to vet the sutability, experience, and qualifications of job applicants.

As for seeking employment "without prejudice," I'm assuming you mean without being discriminated against. Contrary to your post, background checks and inquiry into someone's protected status is expressly prohibited because of their Constitutional protections.

Just now, Shawn0000 said:

 

But why?  It is also a constitutional right to be able to seek any employment without prejudice, yet there are background checks required for some jobs.  I don't see anyone campaigning to remove pedophile checks for teachers.

The right to employment isn't a Constitional right...try to follow the logic.

13 minutes ago, helpisgood said:

 

Constitutional rights are not absolute.   I think many know that one is not allowed to wrongly yell "Fire!" in a crowded cinema; yet, no one says that the right to freedom of speech is thus abridged.  

 

I am not sure of how best to do this, but surely laws that prevent the wrong people (mentally ill, violent criminal background, etc.) from getting firearms does not abridge any constitutional rights. 

The act of speaking does occur in many contexts...political, commercial, social, etc. As you point out, the right to "free speech" isn't absoute and may be regulated in certain circumstances. That's why regulations on what advertisers may claim about their products is allowed...because regulating commercial speech is legal. However, the right to political speech is absolute in the United States...not so for most of Western Europe, Canda, Australia, and the rest of the world.

As for firearms, an armed society is a polite society is my motto and there should few, if any, limitations on their ownership and use IMO.

43 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Can someone please explain calmly and logically why:

 

A) A move to reducing requirements for background checks

Except for California, no requirement for background checks to buy ammunition

For both A and B...one shouldn't have to pass a background check to exercise a Constitutional right.

33 is the latest count.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Investigators-search-debris-deadly-warehouse-fire-10690431.php

John who?

"What...me worry?"  

Another establishment domino falls and another brick in the European Union wall crumbles.

This sounds all good to me...nothing funnier than seeing a SJW or Democrat soil their clothes at the sight of an open carry sidearm or rifle when they pickup their morning Starbucks  

The one idea I've heard that I'm most in favor of is the Justice Department establishing a special gun rights division (like they have a dedicated civil rights division) to protect people's gun rights, and to go after states and localities that pass laws/regulations that infringe on the Second Amendment. As it stands now, it's up to private citizens and patriotic organizations like the NRA to sue these entities when they try to take away peoples' guns.

Lazada  

14 minutes ago, Rob13 said:

 

for example?

All their mischief in the South China Seas and not reining in their client state of North Korea for starters.

1 hour ago, dunroaming said:

 

Absolutely.  Who cares about the trillions of dollars the USA owes them or the fact that China is the major economic powerhouse in the world.   With Trump's grasp on world affairs  America can sleep easy!

There's that inane remark again about the "trillions of dollars" the US owes China...haven't you ever heard the sayin' "When you owe the bank $ 50,000, the bank ownes you...but when you owe the bank $50,000,000, you own the bank." I'll put this really simple for you...the United States ownes China.

And the only reason they're an "economic powerhouse" as you put it (many would argue instead that they're an economic basketcase) is because the US buys so much of the junk they manufacture, which could easily be sourced elsewhere . 

The Chinese muted reaction, blaming the Taiwanese for calling Trump, shows who holds the cards in this relationship.