On 1/30/2010 4:17 AM, Dave D wrote:
>
> Oh, that would be just "ducky". A large portion of the vehicle operators
> these days can't even concentrate on their operation at all, let alone with
> cell phones, iPods, iTouch, iWhateverelse and you want them to have a HUD in
> their vehicle, eh. Disaster looking for a place to happen!!!!!

It's unfortunate that you incorrectly translated what I said into what
you wrote above. I believe that by your tone you are one of the many
that find the attention level required to control a vehicle too far
beyond your capabilities. Better take the bus, Dave. :^)

 

"Dave D" <dtdodson@acsalaska.net> wrote in
news:4b63eb2a@news.acsalaska.net:

>
> "Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in message
> news:hjucm8$d8p$1@news.datemas.de...
>> On a side note, a friend I worked with ten some odd years ago had a
>> GM product that had a HUD on the windshield, it was digital and
>> rather nice once you became used to looking through the speedometer's
>> readout at what was outside the vehicle.
> Oh, that would be just "ducky". A large portion of the vehicle
> operators these days can't even concentrate on their operation at all,
> let alone with cell phones, iPods, iTouch, iWhateverelse and you want
> them to have a HUD in their vehicle, eh. Disaster looking for a place
> to happen!!!!!
>
> DaveD
>
>
>
It's still better than them having their heads(and attention) down in the
instrument cluster.Fighter pilots learned that long ago.
you could put the HUD display off to one side,not directly in front of the
driver's forward view.

The biggest problem with drivers is that their minds are not on the subject
of DRIVING,but on other things.
To them,driving is the -secondary- task.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

 

On 30 Jan 2010 06:51:48 GMT, Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com>
wrote:

>On 2010-01-30, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On 01/28/2010 01:57 PM, Joe wrote:
>>> On 2010-01-28, Bob<rgsros@notme.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Haven't looked at them in showrooms yet, but have pulled up pix from the
>>>> various web sites.
>>>>
>>>> Thought I was interested in a 2010 Civic.
>>>>
>>>> The first thing that caught my eye was the Speedometer.
>>>> Digital ?
>>>> Are they kidding !
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, the one thing that should always be analog is the Speedometer.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, am willing to admit that this possibly dates me as old fashioned.
>>>>
>>>> So, let me ask:
>>>>
>>>> - do you folks "like" a digital Speedometer ?
>>>> - find that it is something you (just) get used to ? Or,...?
>>>
>>> I have an '06 Si. When I bought it, I wasn't sure if I'd like it or
>>> not, but it works great, is very accurate,
>>
>> digital != accurate. accuracy depends on calibration, tire wear, etc.
>> and modern dial gauges are driven by exactly the same integrator as digital.
>
>I didn't say it did. What I DID say, though, was that my digital IS
>accurate, as tested by me. Repeatedly.


Just curious, how did you test it?

 

On 01/29/2010 10:51 PM, Joe wrote:
> On 2010-01-30, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On 01/28/2010 01:57 PM, Joe wrote:
>>> On 2010-01-28, Bob<rgsros@notme.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Haven't looked at them in showrooms yet, but have pulled up pix from the
>>>> various web sites.
>>>>
>>>> Thought I was interested in a 2010 Civic.
>>>>
>>>> The first thing that caught my eye was the Speedometer.
>>>> Digital ?
>>>> Are they kidding !
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, the one thing that should always be analog is the Speedometer.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, am willing to admit that this possibly dates me as old fashioned.
>>>>
>>>> So, let me ask:
>>>>
>>>> - do you folks "like" a digital Speedometer ?
>>>> - find that it is something you (just) get used to ? Or,...?
>>>
>>> I have an '06 Si. When I bought it, I wasn't sure if I'd like it or
>>> not, but it works great, is very accurate,
>>
>> digital != accurate. accuracy depends on calibration, tire wear, etc.
>> and modern dial gauges are driven by exactly the same integrator as digital.
>
> I didn't say it did. What I DID say, though, was that my digital IS
> accurate, as tested by me. Repeatedly.
>

and what i'm saying is that there's no reason it would be any /more/
accurate than a dial gauge, especially not an electronic dial gauge
working off the same integrator.

bottom line, lcd displays are cheaper these days. their use is simply
about bean counting, not accuracy.

 

On 01/30/2010 06:25 AM, Guy wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2010 06:51:48 GMT, Joe<joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-01-30, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> On 01/28/2010 01:57 PM, Joe wrote:
>>>> On 2010-01-28, Bob<rgsros@notme.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> Haven't looked at them in showrooms yet, but have pulled up pix from the
>>>>> various web sites.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thought I was interested in a 2010 Civic.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first thing that caught my eye was the Speedometer.
>>>>> Digital ?
>>>>> Are they kidding !
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO, the one thing that should always be analog is the Speedometer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, am willing to admit that this possibly dates me as old fashioned.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, let me ask:
>>>>>
>>>>> - do you folks "like" a digital Speedometer ?
>>>>> - find that it is something you (just) get used to ? Or,...?
>>>>
>>>> I have an '06 Si. When I bought it, I wasn't sure if I'd like it or
>>>> not, but it works great, is very accurate,
>>>
>>> digital != accurate. accuracy depends on calibration, tire wear, etc.
>>> and modern dial gauges are driven by exactly the same integrator as digital.
>>
>> I didn't say it did. What I DID say, though, was that my digital IS
>> accurate, as tested by me. Repeatedly.
>
>
> Just curious, how did you test it?

that's easy - simply super-glue a retard to the hood of your honda by
the tongue. when he flies off, you know you're doing precisely 72.6 mph
- the point at which wind force exceeds bond strength.

look about you guy - if there's anyone approaching with super-glue in
their hand, they want you for something...

 

On 1/30/2010 10:25 AM, Guy wrote:
>
> Just curious, how did you test it?

I tested mine with the help from friends in both the HRM Police and the
RCMP.

 

Guy wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2010 06:51:48 GMT, Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-01-30, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> On 01/28/2010 01:57 PM, Joe wrote:
>>>> On 2010-01-28, Bob<rgsros@notme.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> Haven't looked at them in showrooms yet, but have pulled up pix from the
>>>>> various web sites.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thought I was interested in a 2010 Civic.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first thing that caught my eye was the Speedometer.
>>>>> Digital ?
>>>>> Are they kidding !
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO, the one thing that should always be analog is the Speedometer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, am willing to admit that this possibly dates me as old fashioned.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, let me ask:
>>>>>
>>>>> - do you folks "like" a digital Speedometer ?
>>>>> - find that it is something you (just) get used to ? Or,...?
>>>> I have an '06 Si. When I bought it, I wasn't sure if I'd like it or
>>>> not, but it works great, is very accurate,
>>> digital != accurate. accuracy depends on calibration, tire wear, etc.
>>> and modern dial gauges are driven by exactly the same integrator as digital.
>> I didn't say it did. What I DID say, though, was that my digital IS
>> accurate, as tested by me. Repeatedly.
>
>
> Just curious, how did you test it?

My old GPS would display a MPH reading and it matched my speedometer in
two different vehicles, but my current GPS on my phone does not have
this capability.

 

On 2010-01-30, Guy <void@void.com> wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2010 06:51:48 GMT, Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I didn't say it did. What I DID say, though, was that my digital IS
>>accurate, as tested by me. Repeatedly.
>
>
> Just curious, how did you test it?

2 Different GPS' as well as mile markers and time recording. All
showed the exact same speed as each other during different tests, so I
am confident in the speedo.

--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

 

On 2010-01-30, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 01/29/2010 10:51 PM, Joe wrote:
>> On 2010-01-30, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> On 01/28/2010 01:57 PM, Joe wrote:
>>>> On 2010-01-28, Bob<rgsros@notme.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> Haven't looked at them in showrooms yet, but have pulled up pix from the
>>>>> various web sites.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thought I was interested in a 2010 Civic.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first thing that caught my eye was the Speedometer.
>>>>> Digital ?
>>>>> Are they kidding !
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO, the one thing that should always be analog is the Speedometer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, am willing to admit that this possibly dates me as old fashioned.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, let me ask:
>>>>>
>>>>> - do you folks "like" a digital Speedometer ?
>>>>> - find that it is something you (just) get used to ? Or,...?
>>>>
>>>> I have an '06 Si. When I bought it, I wasn't sure if I'd like it or
>>>> not, but it works great, is very accurate,
>>>
>>> digital != accurate. accuracy depends on calibration, tire wear, etc.
>>> and modern dial gauges are driven by exactly the same integrator as digital.
>>
>> I didn't say it did. What I DID say, though, was that my digital IS
>> accurate, as tested by me. Repeatedly.
>>
>
> and what i'm saying is that there's no reason it would be any /more/
> accurate than a dial gauge, especially not an electronic dial gauge
> working off the same integrator.

And what I'm saying, again, is that you're arguing against something
that nobody said, just to try to sound like the smartest guy in the
room, apparently.

>
> bottom line, lcd displays are cheaper these days. their use is simply
> about bean counting, not accuracy.

Bottom line, LCD displays are bright, easy to read, and easier to
place in tight spots. They make sense, once you get past the
nostalgia of it all.

--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

 

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9D1059D435B6jyaniklocalnetcom@216.168.3.44 ...
> "Dave D" <dtdodson@acsalaska.net> wrote in
> news:4b63eb2a@news.acsalaska.net:
>
>>
>> "Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in message
>> news:hjucm8$d8p$1@news.datemas.de...
>>> On a side note, a friend I worked with ten some odd years ago had a
>>> GM product that had a HUD on the windshield, it was digital and
>>> rather nice once you became used to looking through the speedometer's
>>> readout at what was outside the vehicle.
>> Oh, that would be just "ducky". A large portion of the vehicle
>> operators these days can't even concentrate on their operation at all,
>> let alone with cell phones, iPods, iTouch, iWhateverelse and you want
>> them to have a HUD in their vehicle, eh. Disaster looking for a place
>> to happen!!!!!
>>
>> DaveD
>>
>>
>>
> It's still better than them having their heads(and attention) down in the
> instrument cluster.Fighter pilots learned that long ago.
> you could put the HUD display off to one side,not directly in front of the
> driver's forward view.
>
> The biggest problem with drivers is that their minds are not on the
> subject
> of DRIVING,but on other things.
> To them,driving is the -secondary- task.
>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> localnet
> dot com
Thank you Jim. That was my point exactly.
Daved

 

"Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in message
news:hk1bjh$s08$1@news.datemas.de...
> On 1/30/2010 4:17 AM, Dave D wrote:
> >
>> Oh, that would be just "ducky". A large portion of the vehicle operators
>> these days can't even concentrate on their operation at all, let alone
>> with
>> cell phones, iPods, iTouch, iWhateverelse and you want them to have a HUD
>> in
>> their vehicle, eh. Disaster looking for a place to happen!!!!!
>
> It's unfortunate that you incorrectly translated what I said into what you
> wrote above. I believe that by your tone you are one of the many that find
> the attention level required to control a vehicle too far beyond your
> capabilities. Better take the bus, Dave. :^)

What you believe is totally WRONG. As far as the bus is concerned, I drive,
rather drove that vehicle for many thousands of miles, ergo I believe that
my attention level is quite sufficient to operate nearly any vehicle on the
road today, avoiding idiots that have their heads stuck in a cell phone or
texting to their friends instead of devoting the requisite attention to
vehicle operation. If you don't agree, then you had best be the one riding a
bus!!!!
DaveD

 

On 1/31/2010 6:02 AM, Dave D wrote:
>
> What you believe is totally WRONG. As far as the bus is concerned, I drive,
> rather drove that vehicle for many thousands of miles, ergo I believe that
> my attention level is quite sufficient to operate nearly any vehicle on the
> road today, avoiding idiots that have their heads stuck in a cell phone or
> texting to their friends instead of devoting the requisite attention to
> vehicle operation. If you don't agree, then you had best be the one riding a
> bus!!!!

That is only your opinion and as such (while you are able to have your
opinion), it isn't based on any factual knowledge. A person with their
head held upright and their eyes moving horizontally is able to take in
more than a person who is constantly glancing away from the outside of
the vehicle to check on speed, rpm and other information that can be
displayed on the windshield. It's been proven over the years.

 

"Dave D" <dtdodson@acsalaska.net> wrote in
news:4b655542$1@news.acsalaska.net:

>
> "Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in message
> news:hk1bjh$s08$1@news.datemas.de...
>> On 1/30/2010 4:17 AM, Dave D wrote:
>> >
>>> Oh, that would be just "ducky". A large portion of the vehicle
>>> operators these days can't even concentrate on their operation at
>>> all, let alone with
>>> cell phones, iPods, iTouch, iWhateverelse and you want them to have
>>> a HUD in
>>> their vehicle, eh. Disaster looking for a place to happen!!!!!
>>
>> It's unfortunate that you incorrectly translated what I said into
>> what you wrote above. I believe that by your tone you are one of the
>> many that find the attention level required to control a vehicle too
>> far beyond your capabilities. Better take the bus, Dave. :^)
>
> What you believe is totally WRONG. As far as the bus is concerned, I
> drive, rather drove that vehicle for many thousands of miles, ergo I
> believe that my attention level is quite sufficient to operate nearly
> any vehicle on the road today, avoiding idiots that have their heads
> stuck in a cell phone or texting to their friends instead of devoting
> the requisite attention to vehicle operation. If you don't agree, then
> you had best be the one riding a bus!!!!
> DaveD
>
>
>

some folks -think- they can "multitask" behind the wheel and do it
safely,but it's only their imagination.They don't see how they affect the
traffic flow and others around them. It's narcisstic,or MFFY.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

 

"Bob" <rgsros@notme.invalid> wrote in message
news:hjsu8k$tka$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Hello,
>
> Haven't looked at them in showrooms yet, but have pulled up pix from
> the various web sites.
>
> Thought I was interested in a 2010 Civic.
>
> The first thing that caught my eye was the Spedometer.
> Digital ?
> Are they kidding !
>
> IMHO, the one thing that should always be analog is the Spedometer.
>
> Anyway, am willing to admit that this possibly dates me as old
> fashioned.
>
> So, let me ask:
>
> - do you folks "like" a digital Spedometer ?
> - find that it is something you (just) get used to ? Or,...?
>
> Any other 2010's have a digital Spedometer, or is the Civic the only
> one ? Think this is a trend ?
>
> Any thoughts on this would be most appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Bob

I've seen a few digital speedometers...to busy for my tastes,
especially at night. In my business, the last thing you want to see
are numbers in a digital display constantly changing.

 

"Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in message
news:hk3u2u$otj$1@news.datemas.de...
> On 1/31/2010 6:02 AM, Dave D wrote:
>>
>> What you believe is totally WRONG. As far as the bus is concerned, I
>> drive,
>> rather drove that vehicle for many thousands of miles, ergo I believe
>> that
>> my attention level is quite sufficient to operate nearly any vehicle on
>> the
>> road today, avoiding idiots that have their heads stuck in a cell phone
>> or
>> texting to their friends instead of devoting the requisite attention to
>> vehicle operation. If you don't agree, then you had best be the one
>> riding a
>> bus!!!!
>
> That is only your opinion and as such (while you are able to have your
> opinion), it isn't based on any factual knowledge. A person with their
> head held upright and their eyes moving horizontally is able to take in
> more than a person who is constantly glancing away from the outside of the
> vehicle to check on speed, rpm and other information that can be displayed
> on the windshield. It's been proven over the years.

No, that has not been proven!!!! What has been proven is - that after a
period of TRAINING a person will do as you say. Unfortunately, a goodly
fraction of the vehicles on the road today are being operated by persons who
have NEVER been trained in such a manner...That was my original point.

DaveD
>