Why?

Two completely different and completely unrelated stories caught my eye this morning.

The first is from Autoguide.  It revolves around a Texan couple who own 79 Dodge Vipers:

 

Although this picture looks like a load of Matchbox cars - they are real.  Whats the point?  Some of them even look identical - there are at least four white ones with blue Shelby Stripes.  The couple are asked the question in the video that accompanies the story but it was filmed in the Dodge factory so you can't actually hear the responses.

The second story is from Australian site caradvice.com.au and centres around a decision that police in the State of Victoria (ie Victorian Police) should no longer get involved in car chases unless there are special circumstances.  You may ask why - I know I did, especially when I read the first half of the article, a viewpoint by their correspondent Paul Maric interestingly titled, "Drunk and drug affected drivers given green light thanks to Victoria Police."  The second part of the article does give the opposing view though and I can now see where they are coming from.  The comments section at the end is very good too - I dread to think what sort of comments would have been appearing if the Mail ran the story.

Now a picture of Victorian Police:

Americans Are Poor Tippers

Actually they don't know what tippers are.

This is a Tipper:

According to this Car+Driver story, Americans call them "Dump Trucks".  This particular one is a Mercedes Benz Arcos and it is up for sale.  It will probably cost about £100K.  I won't be putting in a bid because it is in Bicester which is a long way to go from here and also I can't afford it and have absolutely no use for it whatsoever.

I probably could afford the one from the Car+Driver story though:

 

As you can see, it is also a Mercedes Benz Arcos and it will be about £150 when it goes on sale next month.

Mini-Orgasm

Nice story from lots of West Country News websites today such as The Western Daily Press. Apparently, a "fit" woman in her 30s got a bit bored in a traffic jam and decided to "relieve the tension" with a little help from a "Rampant Rabbit-style sex toy."

She was in a Mini (car not skirt - she was wearing trousers)

Anyway, the Earth moved, or, more precisely, the car moved and she drove into the back of one of these:

That is an M&J Seafoods van.  There is no mention of seagulls in the story.

But there will have been a strong fish smell.

Tighter Laws on Airguns Could Boost Car Recycling

What!?

Surely that title makes no sense.  It is from The Scotsman today.

At first I thought it was a misprint, after all, tighter laws on airguns could boost can recycling - meaning that the airgun enthusiasts wouldn't be shooting at them.

Or maybe it is this type of airgun:

After all, if you can't change your wheel after a puncture, then there would be a lot of cars ending up in the recycling yards.

But apparently it is neither - it is just that lots of different laws are being bundled together in the Scottish Parliament - much to the annoyance of The Scotsman's readership.

It annoyed me slightly in that I spent a couple of minutes reading a pointless article and a few more writing one.

And now you've just read one too.  There should be a law against that.

Grammar Knows Best

I admit that I am a bit of a Grammar-Nazi. I like my apostrophes to be in the right place.

So I was particularly pleased to read this story out of Associated Press this week.

Basically, an Ohio woman parked her pick-up in a place where a sign stated that certain types of vehicles cannot be parked longer than 24 hours, including "any motor vehicle camper, trailer, farm implement and/or non-motorized vehicle."

She overstayed her 24 hours.

She got a parking ticket.

Note that the sign says "motor vehicle camper" rather than "motor vehicle, camper"

Now, since her vehicle wasn't a "motor vehicle camper", her ticket was overthrown.

Good.

It also gives me an excuse to post this picture of a vehicle that was ten-a-penny when I was little but you don't see any more.

 

It's a Commer Campervan.

No Thanks.

Nice article in Autoguide today.

It makes a change from the sort of article you regularly get like this one from Fox.  Autoguide have taken the usual article stance of cars we want but can't have and replaced it with cars you don't want and still can't have anyway.

Cars like the Tata Nano:

This is a particularly apt photo because as well as showing how ugly the car is, it shows a group of people excited by it that you particularly wouldn't want to go for a drink with.  And the car is UKIP purple - UKIP being a group of people that you particularly wouldn't want to go for a drink with and who don't like foreign things - like Tato Nanos or the other cars in the list:
  1. Jiangling Landwind X6
  2. Tata Nano
  3. Mitsubishi Mirage Hello Kitty 40^th Anniversary Package
  4. Iran Khodro Samand Sarir
  5. Chery QQ
I suppose it is a bit unfair to put the Nano in there given that its remit was to provide safe transport for people who couldn't previously afford a car - but that picture is just vomit-inducing on so many levels.

Number 3 is obscene beyond belief.  Number 4 was a bit of a surprise because I didn't know that Iranians had moved on from rebadged Hillman Hunters.  And, as Autoguide say about number 5, why bother making a copy of an already rubbish car?

Now, dare I comment on American cars that I'm glad we don't have over here?  Probably not a good idea given some British cars of the past but I suppose the AMC Pacer gets a notable mention.  And besides, we are talking cars currently on sale - which does make the list a bit scary.