<honda owner> wrote in message
news:3rmh939j9ro9vvehpfpokofbl3bml1ua0p@4ax.com...
>
> I couldn't have said it better Brian and I tried earlier. Thanks.

No problem, I am happy to help. {;^)

 

On 7/14/2007 9:54 AM E Meyer spake these words of knowledge:

> On 7/13/07 10:05 PM, in article pan.2007.07.14.03.05.09.605016@lan.invalid,
> "Dan C" <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:26:10 +0000, E Meyer wrote:
>>
>>> As far as I know, that is a American-mfr-only feature. Never encountered it
>>> on any Japanese cars. Personally, I find it irritating and useless. I
>>> would spend some time researching how to disable it if it showed up on any
>>> of my cars.
>>
>> Thanks for your opinion. I find it a useful feature, whether you do or
>> not.
>
> I'm curious - what do you find useful about it?
>
> As near as I can tell, all it does is force the emergency response team to
> have to break into the car to get you out after the crash.

Having your door locked can help to ensure that your door does not open
when you did not intend it to.

This can be very useful in the event of a crash.

It can also be useful in a situation where others may open your door
when you did not intend to have it opened, such as when you are in heavy
traffic in NYC.

As a result of these simple facts, I lock my door every time I get in
it, with the same automatic repetitiveness as buckling my seatbelt. If
it were automatically done, it would save me having to do it. I fail to
see why or how it can be a problem, or why it should even be a question.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of
ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always
avail themselves for their own purposes." –- Thomas Jefferson

 

On 7/14/2007 9:54 AM E Meyer spake these words of knowledge:

> On 7/13/07 10:05 PM, in article pan.2007.07.14.03.05.09.605016@lan.invalid,
> "Dan C" <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:26:10 +0000, E Meyer wrote:
>>
>>> As far as I know, that is a American-mfr-only feature. Never encountered it
>>> on any Japanese cars. Personally, I find it irritating and useless. I
>>> would spend some time researching how to disable it if it showed up on any
>>> of my cars.
>>
>> Thanks for your opinion. I find it a useful feature, whether you do or
>> not.
>
> I'm curious - what do you find useful about it?
>
> As near as I can tell, all it does is force the emergency response team to
> have to break into the car to get you out after the crash.

Having your door locked can help to ensure that your door does not open
when you did not intend it to.

This can be very useful in the event of a crash.

It can also be useful in a situation where others may open your door
when you did not intend to have it opened, such as when you are in heavy
traffic in NYC.

As a result of these simple facts, I lock my door every time I get in
it, with the same automatic repetitiveness as buckling my seatbelt. If
it were automatically done, it would save me having to do it. I fail to
see why or how it can be a problem, or why it should even be a question.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of
ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always
avail themselves for their own purposes." –- Thomas Jefferson

 

On 7/14/2007 9:54 AM E Meyer spake these words of knowledge:

> On 7/13/07 10:05 PM, in article pan.2007.07.14.03.05.09.605016@lan.invalid,
> "Dan C" <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:26:10 +0000, E Meyer wrote:
>>
>>> As far as I know, that is a American-mfr-only feature. Never encountered it
>>> on any Japanese cars. Personally, I find it irritating and useless. I
>>> would spend some time researching how to disable it if it showed up on any
>>> of my cars.
>>
>> Thanks for your opinion. I find it a useful feature, whether you do or
>> not.
>
> I'm curious - what do you find useful about it?
>
> As near as I can tell, all it does is force the emergency response team to
> have to break into the car to get you out after the crash.

Having your door locked can help to ensure that your door does not open
when you did not intend it to.

This can be very useful in the event of a crash.

It can also be useful in a situation where others may open your door
when you did not intend to have it opened, such as when you are in heavy
traffic in NYC.

As a result of these simple facts, I lock my door every time I get in
it, with the same automatic repetitiveness as buckling my seatbelt. If
it were automatically done, it would save me having to do it. I fail to
see why or how it can be a problem, or why it should even be a question.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of
ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always
avail themselves for their own purposes." –- Thomas Jefferson

 

"Dave Kelsen" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:46992ab2$0$4923$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> Having your door locked can help to ensure that your door does not open
> when you did not intend it to.
>
> This can be very useful in the event of a crash.
>

That advice is a generation or two out of date. Before the '60s there were
no significant standards for either door latches or door locks and door
locks could possibly improve door integrity in an accident. Since the
implementation of US NHTSA standards c. 1963 door locks were not relevant to
latch integrity. If you look at a lock in any car since the late 60s you
will see it only affects how the release levers actuate the latch and does
not affect the holding mechanism. In the NHTSA's study of Rollover
Mitigation http://tinyurl.com/2q9xc9 the report acknowledges the role of
door latches but not door locks in preventing partial ejection.

> It can also be useful in a situation where others may open your door when
> you did not intend to have it opened, such as when you are in heavy
> traffic in NYC.
>

That is useful. You should always lock your doors when people present more
of a threat than traffic and terrain do. Otherwise, my take is that we are
somewhat safer with the doors unlocked. As a first-aider, I dread the
thought of coming across a car fire with entrapment and finding the doors
locked or jammed. I can deal with other problems better if I don't lose time
trying to establish an exit route. And it is important to remember that
central locking and unlocking depends on electricity. If anything has
happened in the accident to kill power (like the battery was destroyed on
impact) rear doors are going to stay closed until somebody can get to the
locks manually... and much longer than that if child locks are active.

> As a result of these simple facts, I lock my door every time I get in it,
> with the same automatic repetitiveness as buckling my seatbelt. If it
> were automatically done, it would save me having to do it. I fail to see
> why or how it can be a problem, or why it should even be a question.
>

You are entitled to your opinion. I'm just glad none of my cars have the
"feature." Doing it manually when you feel it is valuable makes sense,
having the car do it stupidly does not.

Mike

 

"Dave Kelsen" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:46992ab2$0$4923$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> Having your door locked can help to ensure that your door does not open
> when you did not intend it to.
>
> This can be very useful in the event of a crash.
>

That advice is a generation or two out of date. Before the '60s there were
no significant standards for either door latches or door locks and door
locks could possibly improve door integrity in an accident. Since the
implementation of US NHTSA standards c. 1963 door locks were not relevant to
latch integrity. If you look at a lock in any car since the late 60s you
will see it only affects how the release levers actuate the latch and does
not affect the holding mechanism. In the NHTSA's study of Rollover
Mitigation http://tinyurl.com/2q9xc9 the report acknowledges the role of
door latches but not door locks in preventing partial ejection.

> It can also be useful in a situation where others may open your door when
> you did not intend to have it opened, such as when you are in heavy
> traffic in NYC.
>

That is useful. You should always lock your doors when people present more
of a threat than traffic and terrain do. Otherwise, my take is that we are
somewhat safer with the doors unlocked. As a first-aider, I dread the
thought of coming across a car fire with entrapment and finding the doors
locked or jammed. I can deal with other problems better if I don't lose time
trying to establish an exit route. And it is important to remember that
central locking and unlocking depends on electricity. If anything has
happened in the accident to kill power (like the battery was destroyed on
impact) rear doors are going to stay closed until somebody can get to the
locks manually... and much longer than that if child locks are active.

> As a result of these simple facts, I lock my door every time I get in it,
> with the same automatic repetitiveness as buckling my seatbelt. If it
> were automatically done, it would save me having to do it. I fail to see
> why or how it can be a problem, or why it should even be a question.
>

You are entitled to your opinion. I'm just glad none of my cars have the
"feature." Doing it manually when you feel it is valuable makes sense,
having the car do it stupidly does not.

Mike

 

"Dave Kelsen" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:46992ab2$0$4923$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> Having your door locked can help to ensure that your door does not open
> when you did not intend it to.
>
> This can be very useful in the event of a crash.
>

That advice is a generation or two out of date. Before the '60s there were
no significant standards for either door latches or door locks and door
locks could possibly improve door integrity in an accident. Since the
implementation of US NHTSA standards c. 1963 door locks were not relevant to
latch integrity. If you look at a lock in any car since the late 60s you
will see it only affects how the release levers actuate the latch and does
not affect the holding mechanism. In the NHTSA's study of Rollover
Mitigation http://tinyurl.com/2q9xc9 the report acknowledges the role of
door latches but not door locks in preventing partial ejection.

> It can also be useful in a situation where others may open your door when
> you did not intend to have it opened, such as when you are in heavy
> traffic in NYC.
>

That is useful. You should always lock your doors when people present more
of a threat than traffic and terrain do. Otherwise, my take is that we are
somewhat safer with the doors unlocked. As a first-aider, I dread the
thought of coming across a car fire with entrapment and finding the doors
locked or jammed. I can deal with other problems better if I don't lose time
trying to establish an exit route. And it is important to remember that
central locking and unlocking depends on electricity. If anything has
happened in the accident to kill power (like the battery was destroyed on
impact) rear doors are going to stay closed until somebody can get to the
locks manually... and much longer than that if child locks are active.

> As a result of these simple facts, I lock my door every time I get in it,
> with the same automatic repetitiveness as buckling my seatbelt. If it
> were automatically done, it would save me having to do it. I fail to see
> why or how it can be a problem, or why it should even be a question.
>

You are entitled to your opinion. I'm just glad none of my cars have the
"feature." Doing it manually when you feel it is valuable makes sense,
having the car do it stupidly does not.

Mike

 

"ACAR" <getoutanpush@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1184429175.989260.149360@g4g2000hsf.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Don't let these guys fool you, auto locks are found on European cars,
> too. I watched my mechanic break into a Porsche Cayanne the other day
> because of the auto locks timed out and locked the keys in the car.
>
>
>
Early Volvo 850s were Volvo's first attempt at totally computerizing a car.
One of the common complaints was that the door locks would become
demonically possessed, rapidly cycling, locking or unlocking at random, and
with a propensity to lock the doors when people got out to put gas in the
car! Buwahaahaahaa!

Mike

 

"ACAR" <getoutanpush@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1184429175.989260.149360@g4g2000hsf.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Don't let these guys fool you, auto locks are found on European cars,
> too. I watched my mechanic break into a Porsche Cayanne the other day
> because of the auto locks timed out and locked the keys in the car.
>
>
>
Early Volvo 850s were Volvo's first attempt at totally computerizing a car.
One of the common complaints was that the door locks would become
demonically possessed, rapidly cycling, locking or unlocking at random, and
with a propensity to lock the doors when people got out to put gas in the
car! Buwahaahaahaa!

Mike

 

"ACAR" <getoutanpush@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1184429175.989260.149360@g4g2000hsf.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Don't let these guys fool you, auto locks are found on European cars,
> too. I watched my mechanic break into a Porsche Cayanne the other day
> because of the auto locks timed out and locked the keys in the car.
>
>
>
Early Volvo 850s were Volvo's first attempt at totally computerizing a car.
One of the common complaints was that the door locks would become
demonically possessed, rapidly cycling, locking or unlocking at random, and
with a propensity to lock the doors when people got out to put gas in the
car! Buwahaahaahaa!

Mike

 

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 23:29:26 -0400, Joe LaVigne wrote:

>>> Did you think to look in the owner's manual?

>> Yeah, I did.

>>> It is there, but you have to set it...

>> It's not there. If you're gonna make smart-*** replies, be sure you're
>> right first, so you don't look like a fool in public.
>> Thanks anyway.

> Hey, look, you're just as much of an here as you are in the Ubuntu
> group... If you'd have bothered to look, I followed up directly to that
> post, and was the only one here who tried to actually address your
> question.

Yep, I saw your second reply later, after I saw/replied to the first one.
As for "addressing my question", you were completely wrong with your
answer, so it doesn't count for much.

> What a douche...

Yeah. Namecalling. Who's the , again?


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

 

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 23:29:26 -0400, Joe LaVigne wrote:

>>> Did you think to look in the owner's manual?

>> Yeah, I did.

>>> It is there, but you have to set it...

>> It's not there. If you're gonna make smart-*** replies, be sure you're
>> right first, so you don't look like a fool in public.
>> Thanks anyway.

> Hey, look, you're just as much of an here as you are in the Ubuntu
> group... If you'd have bothered to look, I followed up directly to that
> post, and was the only one here who tried to actually address your
> question.

Yep, I saw your second reply later, after I saw/replied to the first one.
As for "addressing my question", you were completely wrong with your
answer, so it doesn't count for much.

> What a douche...

Yeah. Namecalling. Who's the , again?


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

 

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 23:29:26 -0400, Joe LaVigne wrote:

>>> Did you think to look in the owner's manual?

>> Yeah, I did.

>>> It is there, but you have to set it...

>> It's not there. If you're gonna make smart-*** replies, be sure you're
>> right first, so you don't look like a fool in public.
>> Thanks anyway.

> Hey, look, you're just as much of an here as you are in the Ubuntu
> group... If you'd have bothered to look, I followed up directly to that
> post, and was the only one here who tried to actually address your
> question.

Yep, I saw your second reply later, after I saw/replied to the first one.
As for "addressing my question", you were completely wrong with your
answer, so it doesn't count for much.

> What a douche...

Yeah. Namecalling. Who's the , again?


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

 

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:54:34 +0000, E Meyer wrote:

>> Thanks for your opinion. I find it a useful feature, whether you do or
>> not.

> I'm curious - what do you find useful about it?

As some others have already explained some of the reasons, I'll just add
one more. I said in my original post that it was my daughter's car, she's
a college student, and it makes me feel safer knowing her doors are
locked, even if she doesn't always think to lock them (manually).

> As near as I can tell, all it does is force the emergency response team
> to have to break into the car to get you out after the crash.

I suppose that could happen, but thinking like that, you had better not
even go out the front door of the house. You might get hit by a bus.

As for breaking into the car, it's not very difficult to break a window,
especially for well-equipped emergency personnel.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

 

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:54:34 +0000, E Meyer wrote:

>> Thanks for your opinion. I find it a useful feature, whether you do or
>> not.

> I'm curious - what do you find useful about it?

As some others have already explained some of the reasons, I'll just add
one more. I said in my original post that it was my daughter's car, she's
a college student, and it makes me feel safer knowing her doors are
locked, even if she doesn't always think to lock them (manually).

> As near as I can tell, all it does is force the emergency response team
> to have to break into the car to get you out after the crash.

I suppose that could happen, but thinking like that, you had better not
even go out the front door of the house. You might get hit by a bus.

As for breaking into the car, it's not very difficult to break a window,
especially for well-equipped emergency personnel.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".