Locate an Auto Repair Shop in Davis Station, South Carolina

Davis Station, SC Car Consumer Discussions

Just pay up!

by vcheng on Fri Mar 27 05:22:24 PDT 2009

Here is the complete article that makes for some interesting reading. What about due process? All she got was an apology with NO consequences for the camera operator or the police, and then only when she had to undertake the effort to prove her innocence! So where is the incentive? To improve safety or to increase revenue? And there are thousands upon thousands more like her, accused by an inherently faulty system that cannot work as we are always told it works. Trust this? BAH! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1164824/Teenager-gets-speeding-ticket--c- - - - - - ar-parked-outside-house-asleep-bed.html Teenager gets speeding ticket... while her car was parked outside her house and she was asleep in bed By Fay Schlesinger Last updated at 4:13 PM on 25th March 2009 When Emily Davies parked her car outside her house and went to bed at 10pm as usual, she had no reason to believe Merseyside Police would be on her case. But by the following morning they had given her a £60 speeding fine - even though her car had not moved an inch. The 'model' driver, 19, was apparently flashed by a speed camera travelling seven miles over the speed limit in a 30mph zone. But her R-reg Fiat Punto was parked in a bay while Miss Davies was fast asleep in bed, she says. The teenager was allegedly clocked speeding outside her home in Old Swan, Liverpool, on March 10. She received a speeding ticket in the post from Merseyside Police Camera Partnership last week. The police only realised their blunder after she went to the local police station to dispute the charge. The registration plate on Miss Davies's stationary car is believed have appeared in the frame with a speeding vehicle which triggered the camera. An over-zealous operator noted the number and a fine was duly sent out to the innocent motorist. She had been held up as a model driver when she passed her driving test first time with just one minor error two years ago. Her RAC instructor described her as his 'star pupil'. Miss Davies, a clinical receptionist at Fazakerley Hospital, in Liverpool, said: 'I looked at the letter and began to question myself. I was shocked because I'm such a careful driver and I never speed. 'I knew there was no way I'd be out at 10.22pm on a week night. I realised they'd made a mistake. When I first disputed the claim, I was told that mistakes are never made. That's just not true. If this has happened to me, it must be happening to other people. It's a waste of time and money and things should be changed.' A spokesman for Merseyside Road Safety Camera Partnership said: 'All I can say is Merseyside Police make a sincere apology. There was a failure on the operator's side. 'She will be getting a letter of apology and the matter will be cancelled.' Captain Gatso, the self-styled campaigns director for Motorists Against Detection, said: 'This is yet another example of the unfairness of speed cameras. Inordinate sums of money and swathes of technology are invested in policing by camera. 'Mistakes happen again and again. As is demonstrated by a motorist 'speeding' while in fact parked and doing 0mph, cameras offer absolutely no discretion or common sense.' The AA has revealed that thousands of motorists have been wrongly accused of speeding because of glitches in the controversial speed camera system. Mistakes range from registration numbers being misread to the dates and times of the alleged offence being wrong. Drivers have been accused of breaking the speed limit when they were miles away in another county. Others received fixed penalty notices for speeding even though they were abroad on holiday when the offence was said to have been committed. Nationally, around two million motorists a year receive a £60 fine from 8,000 speed cameras.

Re: EPA estimates [stalnaker]

by wvgasguy on Thu Jan 17 09:31:13 PST 2008

Where in WV do you live? I live in Jane Lew. I have several normal trips I take and they are of various lengths. I do garage my car, not heated but probably stays 40F to 50F in the winter depending on how cold it is outside. I don't have to use the car for work. From my house into Weston on 2 lane Rt 19 is about 4 miles. I do this one often. It is pretty level and I have no problems getting 40+ with a cold car. From my house to my church in Lost Creek is about 13 to 15 miles. If I go up Rt 19 and the back way (2 lane / 45 mph) I can get 47 in summer and 39+ in winter on that trip. If I get on the interstate at Jane Lew and get off at Lost Creek (driving a little under the limit) I get 38 to 40 and it doesn't seem to vary much due to the cold. Snow and rain / wind does hurt hard. Driving from Weston to Hurricane on I79 (hilly) and I64 (relatively flat) I have gotten as much as 42 and as little as 35. The 35mpg trip was done at about 80 mph with little reguard to economy. The 42 mpg trip was allowing the car to slow on steep grades and on steep downhills I did not brake and exceeded the limit significantly (this thing rolls easy). Driving to Buckhannon is an experience. It is 4 lane but there is a steep grade going east. Going to Buckhannon (about 12 - 15 miles) I will get between 36 to 37, but by the time I do my return trip I'm back at 39 overall. You can pretty much coast half the way back to Weston. My most frequent trip is to Clarksburg (50 miles round trip). Depending on driving style I get no lower than 35 (fast old style driving), seldom lower than 36 (cold or rain) and 90% of the time better than 37 (with just a little thought about what I'm doing). With a little thought and effort I can always get 38 to 39 round trip. I experimented once on the backroads and made a couple of laps around the Weston-jackson Mill_Jane Lew Loop and drove almost 50 miles and had 48mpg. Remember thought that this is a 25 / 35 /45 mph road loop. In Nags Head (all flat) I drove 300 miles at 45 mpg in mild to heavy traffic However I know that somone new to the hybrid will do differently. My son took the car to Charleston and got 32 mpg. Thought he had done something great and was surprised when I chewed him out ;o) One time for an experiment I drove up Rt 19 to jane Lew, took the back road past Davis Station to Lost Creek and went up Mt Clair Road to Clarksburg. With no traffic and doing really stupid slow driving I got 57 mpg. Just had to see what it was capable of. I have found that the sweet spot for my car is driving on rolling slopes at about 50 mph. The engine running keeps the battery charged and for every up there is a down. The rolling resistance on this is incredible and it appears if you're going fast enough to use the momentum uphill that the battery boost helps significantly if you don't push it hard, yet going down the small slopes the gage drops to 60 and the overall is excellent. I know my driving style and the effort I give is not for everyone. However I enjoy the challenge and find it entertaining to see just how I can do. I don't think I lose much time by driving just under the limit. I find that driving under the limit keeps me from getting packed up with clusters of cars, which is why I normally drove fast. Now instead of catching up with them and slowing down, I simply let them pass. On a trip to Charleston it probably only cost me 10 minutes. I still find myself sitting behind the folks that passed me on the exit ramps. DISCLAIMER: My wife averages about 2 mpg lower than me. Overall FE after 39,000 miles is 37.6 and that includes several trips to Charleston and Ohio by her. Even then she would get 36 to 37 mpg. But her long milage trips add a lot of weight to the overall FE numbers. I keep a lot of records to track this including calculating a corrected FE based on odometer error and computer error. My lifetime average based on the computer is about 38.2 My lifetime calculation based on manual calculations (miles and gallons) is just over 37. If you use your computer to track FE you're probably not doing as well as you think and if you crank it out long hand you actually doing better than you think. Spent a lot of time and blogging on GreenHybrid to develop this. Not sure why oter than I wanted to see if I could come close to driving this for free after all the tax credits. By the way I hope you took the $3750 WV tax credit last year (it ran out though on June 1, 2006 which is why I insisted my dealer give me the first one). My total tax credit is $6350 and on top of that my dealer gives me free tires ;o)

Transport Canada to Change Auto Import Rules!

by rnewburg on Sat Dec 15 05:35:41 PST 2007

All should read "Canada Gazette Part 1 December 1, 2007" T/C has put the wheels in motion to change the import rules with regard to "vehicle Immobilizers" They have really done a "fast track" on this one, posting the changes sought on Dec. 1st with only a 15 day comment period with a promise to impliment the amenment almost right away. Some one there is listening and dong the right thing - DEMOCRACY AT WORK!!! An approved immobilizer can be installed for $400.00. To: 'davisda@tc.gc.ca' Subject: Canada Gazette Part I December 1, 2007 Daniel B. T. Davis Chief Regulations and Standards Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate Transport Canada 330 Sparks Street, 8th Floor, Tower C Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5 Telephone: 613-998-1956 Fax: 613-990-2913 Email: Davisda@tc.gc.ca I wish to submit my comments on the following highlighted section of the proposed amendment. THIS IS LIKE PUTTING THE FOX IN CHARGE OF THE CHICKEN COOP!!!! THE PROVINCES LICENSE AUTO MECHANICS FOR GOOD REASON AND IF SAID MECHANIC CERTIFIES THAT HE HAS SATISFACTORILY INSTALLED AN APPROVED IMMOBILIZER SYTEMS, APPROVED to National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC-S338-98, THAT IS ALL THAT SHOULD BE REQUIRED. Regardless of what the manufacturer says, the world will figure out how to meet the requirements of the CAN/ULC-S338-98 standard, IF YOU WILL ALLOW THEM TO! The alternative is to let the corporations control the world - - no fair! entitled Automobile Theft Deterrent Equipment and Systems: Electronic Immobilization (May 1998), published by the Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada CONFORMING (4.1) For the purposes of subsection 7(2) of the Act, a vehicle that has been sold at the retail level in the United States and that has not been certified by the manufacturer as conforming to subsection 114(4) of Schedule IV to these Regulations may be imported into Canada despite not being certified to conform to subsection 114(4) if (a) the vehicle was fitted at the time of manufacture with an electronic immobilization system; or (b) unless the manufacturer has indicated in writing that the vehicle cannot be fitted with an immobilization system, the person importing the vehicle states in their declaration that the vehicle (i) will be fitted with an immobilization system that conforms to National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC-S338-98, entitled Automobile Theft Deterrent Equipment and Systems: Electronic Immobilization (May 1998), published by the Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada, before it is presented for registration under the laws of a province, and (ii) will be taken, within 45 days after its importation, to an inspection station authorized by the registrar of imported vehicles to carry out an inspection function to determine that the vehicle has been made to conform to the standard.

Transport Canada Proposed Amendment to Safety Standards

by mdbuffy on Sun Dec 02 21:02:54 PST 2007

I hope those of you who have e-mailed any Member of the Government including but not limited to the Transport Minister or Mr. Davis of Transport Canada and have stated that you are in agreement with the proposed amendment with respect to CMVSS114 or are considering the proposed Amendment will consider your position after reading the following: I believe that the amendment appears to have be drafted with the interests of the the auto manufacturers as the primary purpose. Of course those with “a car with no country” will be taken care of. It is within the power of the Government of Canada to correct their mistake immediately and not have the people with “a car with no country” waiting for weeks or maybe months depending on the lobbying effort mounted by the various stakeholders. The proposed Amendment is a quick fix to placate those who have created this website and get relief for Transport Canada from thousands of irate Canadians. These people were simply seeking what was their right in the first place. I believe that unless political pressure is brought to bear on the Government, Transport Canada and the automakers will have the status quo notwithstanding the proposed Amendment being adopted. In my humble opinion,this is not acceptable as: The average Canadian is not going to import a motor vehicle. Most will be looking to be provided with delivery and financing at a Canadian dealership near their home. However, the proposed Amendment does not provide Canadian dealers with access to the U.S. vehicles with immobilizers to a US standard. They will have vehicles that are priced to what the closed Canadian market will bear so anyone who wants to purchase in Canada will pay the higher Canadian price. Dealers will not bring cars into Canada if they have to buy them at the “retail level” as stated in the proposed Amendment. This is unfair to those Canadians who wish to purchase locally and to the dealers of Canada. Manufacturers preventing their US dealers from selling new 2008 vehicles to Canadians makes the change in the immobilizer standard irrelevant excepting for those who had already bought vehicles and could not license them because of Transport Canada changing the rules. The proposed Amendment by Transport Canada giving Canadians the right to import vehicles with immobilizers to the US standard will be of little benefit if the manufacturers will not allow them to buy the cars. This is an example of one Canadian’s experience: “I saw your post on Corvette Forum. In October of 2007 I purchased a new vehicle from a GM dealer in Tennessee. I was dealing with the owner of the dealership and he knew I was Canadian and from Canada. I paid for the vehicle via bank draft which was cashed and I arranged transport for the vehicle. I was then told by the dealer that the local GM Representative advised him that it was against GM policy to sell to Canadians and he was forced by GM to refund my money. I have a bill of sale, a copy of the bank draft, and a copy of the dealership check for the refund that GM forced him to pay.” The proposed amendment: Para. (4.1) “that has been sold at the retail level in the United States and” raises a few questions: 1. Does the word “retail” prevent the purchase of a new or used vehicle from: a. an individual in the United States b. a wholesaler in the United States? c. an wholesale auction in the United States? (e.g. dealer auctions like Manheim / Adessa or Great Lakes Auction) d. a retail auction in the United States? (like Barrett-Jackson or the many other auctions where new and used vehicles are auctioned to individuals) e. a franchised dealer of an auto company in the United States who is willing to sell for less than MSRP or on a wholesale basis 2. Notwithstanding the Sherman Act (anti-competition) in the United States, what impact does the amendment have on the conduct of the manufacturer who does business in Canada with respect to coercing or contractually obligating their dealers in the United States to not sell new cars to Canadians. If this is the case, any requirement for a sale “at retail” would not permit an individual from purchasing a new car from a U.S. dealer. What do we expect Transport Canada to do to rectify this situation…turn it over to the Canadian Competition Board? 3. Does “at the retail level” restrict a Canadian dealer who wants to import new or used vehicles from the US for sale to his customers. Most Canadians will not go to the U.S. to import a car as they have heard about the nightmare of those with “cars without a country” and many simply do not want to take the effort, have the financial resources and accordingly would prefer the convenience of having a Canadian dealer do it all for them. Some dealers have been offering this service to their customers who want or have found used cars in the US. Regulations should not penalize the dealers. Dealers should, if there is any benefit to importing new or used vehicles, be able to benefit from it and pass at least part of the benefit on to their customers. Proposed Amendment sponsored by Transport Canada: REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY REGULATIONS (IMPORTATION OF VEHICLES - SECTION 12) AMENDMENT 1. Section 12 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (see footnote 11) is amended by adding the following after subsection (4): (4.1) For the purposes of subsection 7(2) of the Act, a vehicle that has been sold at the retail level in the United States and that has not been certified by the manufacturer as conforming to subsection 114(4) of Schedule IV to these Regulations may be imported into Canada despite not being certified to conform to subsection 114(4) if (a) the vehicle was fitted at the time of manufacture with an electronic immobilization system; or (b) unless the manufacturer has indicated in writing that the vehicle cannot be fitted with an immobilization system, the person importing the vehicle states in their declaration that the vehicle (i) will be fitted with an immobilization system that conforms to National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC-S338-98, entitled Automobile Theft Deterrent Equipment and Systems: Electronic Immobilization (May 1998), published by the Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada, before it is presented for registration under the laws of a province, and (ii) will be taken, within 45 days after its importation, to an inspection station authorized by the registrar of imported vehicles to carry out an inspection function to determine that the vehicle has been made to conform to the standard. If you have not already read it, you may be interested in the following which appeared on the www.carswithoutborders.com website: “I am happy to announce that I think we are flying to Michigan to pick up our truck next week. All of this hoopla is regarding an immobilizer device. We had the US dealer check our truck and give us that part number. For the GMC Sierra 2500HD Duramax t

Re: 2006 GX Fuel Mileage [ses_209]

by d_link on Mon Jul 23 13:57:14 PDT 2007

Currently, the Sacramento Florin Perkins station, Davis station, Vacaville station, and Stockton station are all 3000 psi maximum. A new compressor and 24-hour station is supposed to be open in September at the Florin Perkins location.

Two 2007 Completely Undisguised CRVs

by miamicrv1 on Thu Jun 22 11:50:06 PDT 2006

Long story short. I'm at the corner of Davie and Burrard in Vancouver BC and I see 2 2007 CRVs parked with their windows down at a corner gas station. Both were an attractive metallic silver blue not unlike the BMW X3 but lighter and nicer. The good news is that after many disappointments, Honda I think will exceed everyones expectations. The vehicles are beautiful. The word I would use is harmonious in every way. There are no squared off edges or awkward angles. The interior is the best I've seen on any Honda and nicer then most Acuras as well. The rear end is really a thing of beauty and the side silloette makes the BMW X3 look 10 years out of date. The front is interesting. There are actually 3 prominent parts. The hood actually comes down over the edge and surrounds the Honda logo which is part one. Then there is a section of horizontal black plastic slats which is indented a bit which is part 2. Finally there is black bumper with symetrically spaced bulges in it which makes part 3. The interior is beautiful. There is aluminum trim everywhere. The nicely designed gear shift sits at the low end of the center stack with a a small nav/information screen above it and radio and HVAC above that. Completely new seats and a speedometer pod with attractive fonts on all the guages. This vehicle will challenge not only the RDX but the BMW X3 and blows the RAV4 away in it's more sensual high quality appeal. They've gone back to the CRV's original design DNA, meaning it's simplicity and updated and upgraded in every way. The height of the vehicle is several inches lower but does not look small in it's overall dimensions. The engine sounded like a 4 cyclinder version of an Infinity FX when they took off. All in all....a package that is impressive. Sorry I was on the way to my gym and had no camera with me.