Geeto67

most new cars have bluetooth integration where you can operate your phone from the steering wheel without taking your eyes off the road (it will even read txts to you). I'm not talking about only '15 cars here, most of the rentals I have driven for work for the last 2 years had them. It takes 15 minutes to setup properly and yet most of the people I know with this functionality don't use it. go figure. People are just stupid and lazy. I set it up for my father in his volt last time I was in NY, he's 71 so he wasn't going to use it without a setup and a tutorial but now it's the only way he uses his phone in the car. As for riding bikes - well it ain't driving a car. If you can't devote all your concentration and focus to operating a motorcycle (and I mean everything) then it is probably not for you. It is not the place to just sit in the saddle like a sack of potatoes and contemplate the nice weather. If you can be situationally aware at all times however, managing the risk of riding is not difficult even in today's traffic. from 2006-2011 I rode into Manhattan on 30+ year old motorcycles nearly every weekday and never had an issue - ohio traffic? cakewalk. But I couldn't think about my day or what am I going to have for lunch on the way it - it was always Where am I, where do I need to be, what are the cars around me doing, etc....

was the car black and was the guy an older shorter dude and kind of balding and gray? If so I have seen that car a few different times in the autozone parking lot on sawmill next to the chick-fil-a. I spoke to him once last year in that autozone parking lot. It's a killer car if we are thinking of the same one (I didn't notice the plate).

Could have fooled me. Actually to be honest I am a little disappointed more people didn't throw the bullshit penalty flag when I recommended someone pay me for my time to help them loose an internet argument. I mean it's pretty ridiculous, come on. Still doesn't mean I am wrong, but I know when someone starts spending their time reading old posts from me on other forums from 2005 it's a pretty good sign to punch out before I start coming home to boiled bunny rabbits (that's a "Fatal Attraction" reference for you youngins). Thank god he doesn't read CafeRacer.net, I'm intentionally an unbearable asshole there because it is hysterical to me and the regulars on there I know in person...oh wait he does.

you are obviously butt hurt about this in real life so it isn't fun any more. How about this - you win the internet. All of it. 1) maybe I have and maybe I haven't. From this conversation I get the feeling where you think I contradicted myself you might not be understanding some part of the process or the nuances of how something worked. I could write a 50 volume encyclopedia on how much the average Americana doesn't know or understand about their legal system. I blame the educational system in this country (and obama just because). 2) it doesn't make a lot of sense to you. You want to be an advocate for something pick a side and make a well reasoned argument. I have yet to hear one that would stand up to scrutiny but the bones are there. I've stated my position quite clearly - everyone's at fault (including obama). 3) I have an internet stalker. I am touched. I think you can know as much about me from the internet as you could from reading a biography of Bea Arthur. 4) I attempted to make a joke because it is all funny to me. Even the arguing is sport. Just because it wasn't funny to you doesn't mean it wasn't funny to me. But I have an awful sense of humor. What's the other old joke? People become mental health professionals to save money, cops to avoid going to jail, and lawyers because as long as they are going to derive pleasure from pissing people off by being argumentative they might as well get paid for it (no disrespect to actual police or mental health professionals - I didn't write it, it really is an old joke). I didn't say it was in good taste. not that my finances are any of your business but it's not a matter of affording anything but rather justifying the expense. It's easier to say I can't afford something than it is to say I have discussed it with my wife and we agreed spending on a toy without selling off something else runs contrary to our current financial long term goals at this point in time. I already have more toys than I have room to keep them. As to my wife's Audi last I checked I bought it, my name is the only one on the title, I pay all the maintenance, and I can use it on the weekends to go to C&C, she just drives it to work. Again not that it is any of your business. I have a vehicle that runs great, I don't need to buy anything, but, like I imagine most of the people on here, I get hot flashes of desire to own kitschy cool junk cars to play around with like crap with salvage titles. I absolutely want to rebuild my Jeep because whatever you guys put on the roads here causes rust to grow faster than at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean, but as far as need? nope not a need, just a burning sensation in my loins to own a BMW e34 wagon, or an Audi GT coupe, or a subaru 2.5RS coupe or whatever the flavor of the hour is. But Like I said, you are taking this way too seriously right now so it isn't fun anymore. enjoy being champion of the internet, it was a hard won victory but yes you can haz cheesburger!!!!!you earned it.

not at all. if anything I probably owe you guys a coffee for all the good trolling I get out of this place. By the way I've seen your BMW in two places now but I keep missing meeting you in person somehow. I really have been making an effort to meet more people in person since this board is kinda fun.

I was wondering when someone would point that out.

Call it a cop out if you want. I still am more credible. the point of giving my personal opinion is so that it isn't confused with legal advice. If you want my professional advice with citations it costs me money, if you want to pay that cost I'm happy to do the work. Otherwise, I'll just rely on the fact that I know you are not more saavy than me in an industry I have been practicing for over a decade. The law is gray. no way around that, it's a fact. Call it a cop out if you want but if it wasn't there wouldn't really be a need for attorneys, judges, etc...It is how our legal system works and if you don't want to accept that I don't know what to tell you. If you want to live in a world that is black or white contrary to that you have to expect you are going to be wrong about stuff sometimes. You are talking about different situations. A lot of this stuff turns on nuances. You are right that in the instance of cars in the intersection turning left in the normal flow of traffic perpendicular traffic does have to wait till the intersection is clear. However, that applies to that circumstance. In this circumstance what you have is a disruption to the normal flow of traffic which changes the fact pattern. By your logic if the rule was hard and fast gridlock would bring all the traffic in major cities to a halt. When you are looking at "fault" in the accident for the purpose of civil damages you have to look at it big picture not small picture. What were all the circumstances that lead to the accident and how did they contribute. In this case we have a car illegally in the intersection, we have a motorcyclist who is not excising caution and may not be conceding right of way, we have a motorist who is not paying attention, we have a disruption of traffic flow. If there was a fatality in this accident the family of the motorcyclist would likely sue the the driver of the honda and the municipality for failing to properly control the intersection (if this is a common pile up which I am thinking it is). Would they win? who knows, cases like these would usually settle. Is the honda at fault? in the totality of the circumstances you can make a really good case for it. Is the municipality at fault? if they know about this traffic condition and didn't do anything to prevent it there is also a good case for it. Is the motorcyclist at fault - yeah but I wouldn't say 100% because that is just stupid because you need all these factors to come together to have the accident. Take the honda or the back up out of the equation and you don't have the accident as easily as if the motorcyclist had not been a dumbass. get it? the bankruptcy comment is just me taking the piss as the English say. you thought you were being all tough guy "calling me out" or some shit so I was basically saying if you can't afford to pay my fee cuz you are broke I do bankruptcy filings as well. You may not find it funny but I laughed at my own joke. So sue me. Also I don't really do bankruptcy filings so nobody PM me if you are actually needing someone.

I drop my kid off down town (town street) and then take 670 to 270 to go to Easton. I am usually doing this between 8:00 and 9:00. What traffic?

Blocking the box is standing in the intersection without the expectation to turn left. He's in the intersection, not moving, and being an obstruction to traffic and he remains there after the light is no longer in his favor. He's blocking to box. It doesn't matter if he intended to or not he's there being an obstruction to traffic, he's blocking the box, end of story. If the car in front of him broke down or had an accident maybe he could claim an exception due to immediate and extenuating circumstances, but this isn't a hard concept - whether he intends to block it or not he blocked it, and so did the other cars in front of him. you other option is to stop before you enter into the intersection. It's what you are expected to do. Let's be realistic fore a second, we've all been in a similar situation before: traffic is crawling along for whatever reason and you get fed up and you try to press your luck by entering into the intersection so you don't get caught by the traffic light. That wasn't fast moving traffic that came to a stop immediately and caught people short, that was a bunch of people stuck in a high volume area going slow and either being pissed off that things are going so slow and not making good choices or generally being inattentive because they are stuck in traffic and killing time. Dude isn't turning left, all the circumstances point to him tying to beat the light. You can make up a million excuses for him to be there, but let's be real, he's in that intersection to beat the light. no argument here. Dude wasn't thinking clearly. you and I have different stereotypes of motorcyclists. Actually that is a t-bone impact the honda hit him. Any ins company looking at the damage is going to say the car hit the motorcycle because the motorcycle damage is on the side and the car damage is on the front. He moved into the path of a moving car, but if you want to be semantically technical about it the car hit him. Don't confuse the physics of impact with the fault. He exercised poor decision making. I agree with drivers ed, but I also think the honda driver should go as well. Being situationally aware is also a responsibility of operating a motor vehicle and he contributed to a dangerous situation. Did he contribute as much? probably not but it takes two to have an accident and everybody in this situation made poor decisions. As for never being allowed to ride a bike again - Do you think people should get the death penalty for all their mistakes? dude made a mistake and it cost him a bike and probably some soft tissue pain. Hopefully he learned a lesson and will be more careful.

Does intention matter? When the video starts you can already see traffic blocking the intersection including the Honda. This isn't a question of whether he intended to block the intersection - the intention question come later when you try to figure out whether it was his intention to turn right all along and I submit that it was not because he's already perpendicular to the lane he would have turned right, this is whether he had a right to be standing in that intersection and based on what I see he did not. Since you are a LEO, if you came upon this situation without the accident component - just a bunch if cars blocking an intersection what would you do? Nothing? Clear the intersection and Direct traffic or call in someone to direct traffic to prevent the dangerous situation from getting worse? Cite everyone in that line of cars blocking the intersection? What if you came upon this situation while responding to a call and couldn't get through?

By the way, citing the letter of the statute is not how law is practiced. What every real lawyer knows and most keyboard lawyers don't is that actual enforcement of the law is the statute plus the body of case law, and any areas of ambiguity are opportunities for the lawyer to make a case and help flesh out law. If your lawyer just stated the letter of the statute in practice and then stated his argument as to why it is in your favor without case law support you would be completely right to fire him for incompetence. As an attorney I have to be careful what I say everywhere because it can accidentally create a client relationship. If I startvresearching stuff and providing advice beyond mere exposition and you take that advice - well let's just say the law is fuzzy in this area and move on. Lawyers don't know this stuff off the top of their heads, they have to research it like everyone else, and westlaw and lexis cost money. If mensen wants real legal advice in this he can pay my costs to look it up and I'll give him client service like I would any other client. If not he can look it up himself the old fashioned way at the library using actual books (hint: as an inexpirenced law student this takes about a week to do). For now he can take my opinion as someone who has practiced in the field and knows the ambiguities and external factors of the practice. Incidentally, the best "keyboard lawyers" I see are usually convicts serving time (more than 3 years) as they have the time and the motivation to give themselves law school educations. So if you are a bad keyboard lawyer don't sweat it, it just means you aren't doing a 10 year bid somewhere.

Sorry, I got busy. So here is the issue: the law is never black or white, but always shades of gray. The only one who can actually determine fault is a judge. Everything we say, everything the cops say, before that is all opinion and accusation. If you are asking who should be cited in the case for a violation, the answer is they both should be. The Honda for illegally blocking the intersection and the motorcycle for either, depending on what camp you fall in, failing to yield or Failing to proceed with caution. Just because it won't "make a good case" for some external factor is not an indication that a law wasn't broken. If a ticket is issued at an accident scene by an officer that didn't witness the accident it is usually almost meaningless, they write them so they can justify their report and give the insurance companies something to work off of, but if you receive one fight it, it will usually be tossed because the officer didn't witness the accident. Why do we care who is at fault? Because that determines who pays who damages for their vehicle. If you asked me to represent the biker in a civil case (remember accidents are mostly a civil matter) could I make a good case for contributory negligence on the part of the Honda my answer would be yes I could easily. Would it be 50/50? Probably not, but it wouldn't be 90/10 either (if I had to guess I could probably get 70/30). But as no one was severely injured I probably wouldn't have to because insurance would take care of it (assuming both parties have insurance). So let's talk about how insurance would handle it. As you know your insurance company subrogates your rights and handles the case with the other drivers insurance company. But the insurance company isn't driven by principles of right and wrong, they are driven by money. Cases like these with gray areas of fault are often split, however if the damages are really low (which the they look like they might be) the companies might just agree to split it 50/50 just to keep things moving and so they don't have to get tied up in negotiating a settlement or court paperwork, or they might bundle it with other cases as part of a negotiation to settle with the other ins company, or they might just figure its is not even worth it to fight and one pays the other's damages. Remember it is the insurance company's motivation to fix or replace your vehicle and do it spending as little money as possible. If this were a case with more damages (I.e someone was seriously injured or died) actual fault would matter more, but there is less than $10k in damage total to both vehicles even if the bike is a write off so from personal experience this is how I see the two insurance companies handling it: they review the case and ask if each wants to take care if their own insured (50/50). This works in the favor of the Honda drivers insurance company because he has less damage and it might be small enough that it's in the best interest for that company to just accept it because it's cheaper than wasting resources to continue to fight the other ins company for reduced or zero negligence. However they just as easily could have used this case as leverage for settling another case, if the two carriers are big enough they have multiple cases together they could settle the claims in bulk where they pair it with another bad case and everything averages out. Or if honda guys insurance is sufficiently stubborn bike guys insurance might just take the hit if it is not worth it. This is assuming both vehicles have collision coverage which they very well might not. If one or neither has collision coverage then the game is different, if neither has coverage then it becomes how cheap can I really get out of this and the bikers insurance would likely pay for the Honda bumper because that is the least amount of money one can spend on this case. If one party has insurance and one does not the party without collision insurance then the insurance company with no collision liability is going to fight harder because they can reduce their exposure significantly. I don't know if Ohio has this law, but in NY if you are driving illegally without insurance then any accidents are usually treated as your fault. If the biker was left permanently injured (I.e he lost a body part or something) or killed, well then this case might go a lot differently and fault would actually be a deciding factor as there would likely be a wrongful death suit. As it stands both people are morons, both people contributed to this accident situation, and as someone said before we all lose because both are going to continue driving.

well he is a flight risk...once he orders his new engine overnight from japan. Still, that sport bike guy they caught in upstate NY for 193mph back in 2012 was released on a $1500 bond.

So, are we going to see it at C&C anytime soon? would love to check it out in person.

I do filing for bankruptcy too if you can't afford to hire me to prove you wrong.

I get paid for that kind of work. I accept checks, cash, and credit cards via paypal. :dumb: This 1000%.

prove it. (with proper citations and relevant case law). I'll wait.

There is this thing, I think it is called the Hot Rod Power Tour, that would disagree with you. I think what you are trying to say is I prefer not to drive an old car to florida because I like blue tooth and GPS and seats that both heat, cool, and massage your butt. But let's be realistic here - if they make 500 hellcats how many are going to get driven to florida? 2? 5? 10?. Or is it just having the option to do it even if you or anyone else never actually does it that has the value? And why can't you drive your kids around in a BB camaro? my father had a 1969 Z/28 and I got driven around in it as a kid before he sold it. If it is a "safety thing" I get it. old cars don't have airbags, door beams, etc...some people don't feel it is safe to drive one everyday. I can't see any other reason why if it is not the safety issue though. If the car is being used as a toy then the risk of an accident is greatly reduced, and I would hope that if you have kids in your car you would have enough restraint not to do a smokey rolling burnout down a crowded residential street. By whom? MOPAR engineers? Let's be honest about that black key for a second. Nobody is going to use that. my father's ZR1 has the same "Valet key" and in 25 years he's used it maybe twice. We are gearheads, let's be honest with ourselves - the whole point of buying the hellcat is to wrestle 707 (which by the way isn't really wrestling, it's a modern car and probably quite docile) down the street and then walk with swagger from the car to the bar while nearby women's ovaries clang like sleigh bells at the sight of your manful stride - or at least that how it is in our heads. I would call myself a pussy for using that black key, and so would probably every other hellcat owner who has one. You don't buy the all wood rawlings autograph series bat just to bunt, you buy it to swing for the fences every stinking time. I don't, but everything depreciates. Even the BMW 1series M took 3 years to appreciate. MY Ducati took 5 years to appreciate and at one point you could have bought them for 50% of their value. Even the Ford GT depreciated a little before it picked back up. Yes the Hellcat is a pretty special car. It is not the only special car out there however. It will be collectible, but if you follow the first year SRT challenger (which they also said all these things about) it will retain some value and depreciate some and then kinda just sit there until the next wave of appreciation comes along. There are patterns to this stuff, you can look at the marketplace for an example. If I had to guess, 2 years of inflation while MOPAR fills orders and gets back on line, then 3 more of deflated prices in the used market, and then when people have moved on to the next thing you'll see some stagnant pricing. as far as being the last mass produced....blah blah blah well they said that about the corvette ZR1 a couple of years ago. And about the dodge viper in 1994, And about the Zr1 in 1990, and the 1989 kawasaki zx10, and the 1979 cbx six cylinder and the 1970 LS6 chevelle SS. It is the automotive equivalent of those people that used to walk around with signs that said "the end is nigh".

Fixed it for you. A fox body mustang feel like a plush couch compared to some of the 60's musclecars. Comfort is not a priority. Hellcat, Scat Pack, your GT, heck even a 1989 honda civic with a rip in the seat and 200K miles wins over some of those old sleds. you don't buy a 1960's chevelle/mustang/GTO/roadrunner and expect to be swaddled in seats made of whale penis. You expect a mattress spring to poke you in the balls and to have a thin layer of sweat from a Naugahyde seat. The real question is, since we are talking about cars that are invariably toys, why do you want your toy to be comfortable? Part of the experience of hitting a baseball with a wood baseball bat is feeling the reverberation when you connect - same kind of thing: the rawness is part of the fun. As far as smelling like shit when you drive it, that's probably something to do with your personal car and not the car it self. I find it hard to believe that every 1985 Mustang GT made its owner's smell like shit from new. This probably depends on your definition of fun. Some people like riding tractors. Some people like riding old tractors. There is even a magazine for those people. I'm pretty sure every old car is not like your fox body. in fact I don't even consider fox bodies old cars though they are now older to me than 1960's cars were to me in high school and we considered 60's cars old cars. Just remember in 1985 almost everybody who bought a 1985 GT daily drove it. Modern therapy can do wonders these days. even without drugs. Kidding (mostly). Some people just like new cars. I get it. It's not a "dick attitude" to have that you don't like a used car but I wouldn't exactly call it mainstream. If you feel inferior driving a used car - man that's your hang up. Enjoy your new hellcat or 392, you are part of the demographic it was made for. Every car is going to be different. Some cars will be great and some cars will suck. you got a lemon GT500 and that's too bad but I would hardly call it representative of the entire production run of GT500s. If you buy a hellcat and you drive it every day then I applaud you but again you would not be in the majority of owners buying these cars. Just because you do something doesn't mean everyone follows suit. I know people that baby their new challenger R/Ts as collectible and there is literally nothing special about those cars. On the flip side I passed by the guy with the Ferrari FF today in pouring rain so...Buy the hellcat, daily the fuck out of it, and first round will be on me. You'll probably be the only one (on this forum anyway) to collect on that. For the record I think it is awesome that you daily your GTR. It's a nissan, that's what it was meant for.

Actually you would be wrong about this. If the car in the intersection is not able to clear but is there as an obstruction (like if they are broken down, or there is an accident, or in this case just plain stupid) the proper course of action is to proceed with caution if possible. If you want to make the argument that the biker did not proceed with caution I agree with you he did not. If you are making the argument that by law the intersection should remain gridlocked, well I can't support that as a matter of law or common sense. In this case there was an, albeit small, window of travel for the motorcyclist to proceed and not contribute to the problem. It is withing the judgement of the rider to determine whether it is safe to proceed and how to proceed with caution and in this case the motorcyclist exercised extremely poor judgement. My question is, where was the white honda going to go? The cars in front of him hadn't started moving so why was he moving at all? Either he recognized he had done something improper and was trying to undue it or he was going to try and stop the motorcyclist from passing between him and the car in front (which he was already tailgating). At that point by being in the intersection (along with all those other morons) he was unnecessarily creating a dangerous situation. regardless of who got cited for what after the fact each party owes their share of stupid to this situation and that is probably how the insurance company is going to take it. split the liability, honda dude gets a new bumper, biker dude gets a writeoff.

This. +1. It's called "blocking the box", is illegal in most states (including this one) and is the #1 contributor to grid lock. given the number of fucks given to other traffic laws in this city (hint: 0) I'm not surprised most people don't know this (and also what a yield sign means, or how to merge, or that the left lane is the passing lane, or what that flashy light and clicky sound are when they move one of the stalks on the steering column). In NY they actually paint a grid pattern on the intersection and will have revenue collectors...oops I mean officers that will write tickets for getting caught in the intersection. I have no sympathy for people who are not situationally aware enough to realize they are actually causing a dangerous gridlock situation. I'm not saying the motorcyclist is not at fault either, it's very much his fault. I've shot the gap many times, the way to proceed is slowly, honking your horn, and make eye contact with the driver you are passing in front of before you pass in front of his car. normally I would recommend going behind the white Honda but I don't think there was room for him to do so without ending up on the sidewalk. So everybody is stupid, everybody pays the toll for being stupid, nobody died, and hopefully one pissed off squid learned a lesson about how to proceed through a crowded intersection. Nobody died so I guess it was a good day.

So don't let it collect dust. Drive the wheels off of it. If your response is to look at an old car and think it should not be used as a car then I don't know what to say, but then again I owned a new car in the 1990s and instead drove a 1967 GTO as my daily because it was more fun. I even drove that car in a blizzard to a springsteen concert in buffalo NY in 1997. People who let old cars collect dust without use get no sympathy from me. They were someone's daily driver at some point. Fixed it for you. there are plenty of cars where the depreciation is quite manageable (cough...any 10 year old subaru...cough) and some where the depreciation makes the car an amazing value for the quality (cough....VW CC...cough). There are even appreciating cars like the BMW 1M or any 60's muscle car. But none of them are a hellcat and I get that. As far as cars getting wrecked, stolen, scratched...well it's a car, that's kinda the risk you sign up for. I was not light on my GTO, ever. I broke it, I fixed it, I was lucky i wasn't killed in it a few times. I don't know where you get this idea that just because something is old you have to baby it. That sheet metal is 1/8th inch thick, you have to hit something hard to dent it. When I was in the fire department in NY (Vol.) the car had wig wags and I used to use it to respond to fire calls because with a blue light I had (sorta) license to drive like an asshat at 3am. so buy one with a crate motor already installed. There are plenty like that built to a high build quality. The nice thing about anything custom is you get all the new parts the P/O bought at 80% off and all the labor for free. Plus crate motors have transferrable warranties if you buy them from OEM (Chevy, MOPAR, etc). Ok, it's a chebbie but for the price of a SRT 392 you can get a 500+hp 502 ci Fuel injected finished car with A/C, power locks, leather, etc... with a style that can best be described as "panty dropping": http://www.ebay.com/itm/Chevrolet-Chevelle-Malibu-1972-chevrolet-chevelle-502-fuel-injection-pro-touring-show-winning-resto-/141603643029?forcerrptr=true&hash=item20f83c1e95&item=141603643029&pt=US_Cars_Trucks This was just the easiest one for me to find, and yes I know it's a slushbox but so is the charger. There are others out there you just have to look. So you don't get traction control, ABS, or any of that other nanny stuff, big deal. Do you really need it? Edit: here is a cheaper one with a manual trans - http://www.ebay.com/itm/Chevrolet-Chevelle-Super-Sport-/321690810882?forcerrptr=true&hash=item4ae6443a02&item=321690810882 There is something to be said for that. I wouldn't know I haven't bought a new car since 1995 but not for lack of means, merely desire. But then again Dodge wasn't selling challenger Hellcats back then. I can also tell you from dealing with the service department for Jeep that MOPAR warranties are almost worthless, or at least only as good as your nearest competent dealer which for me might as well have been on the moon. My father used to call the new car premium "the price you pay to be the first to fart into the seat". He buys new cars all the time so I guess it's worth it to him. I can wait 5 years and get all the same stuff used with a warranty from CarMax at a fraction of the price. There will just be a lot of strange farts in the seat when I do. I can live with that. BTW, I'm still waiting to meet the person that DDs a hellcat anything. I see a ton of people who don't own one who will say they would DD it (including myself) but really I just want to meet the one guy who bought one and decided every stinking day he is going to wrestle 700 hp down the street. Then I would like to buy him a beer. Maybe there is one dude in southern california who DDs one but that's it. most people who buy them know they bought a toy.

Who cares, there is no third pedal and you put it in D when you are feeling lazy. Doesn't matter if there are little elf clones of Aryton Senna inside the case working the gear sets at the speed of light. At the end of the day it's video game driving. The way I see it there are are only three situations where one of these transmissions is preferable: 1) you are in a high level amateur, semi-pro, or professional competition (including bracket drag racing and F1 which seem to be the too big uses for this tech), 2) you are unable to drive stick because of some physical limitation, and 3) you don't want to feel inferior because you can't drive stick as well as your peers and you are a tech head so you are going to rely on the "I'm into technology" aspect to hide the fact your daddy didn't love you enough to teach you how to work three pedals like a man. There is a 4th reason where you just don't care about cars, driving experience, or other people's opinion but I am going to guess that is nobody on this forum.

I've only ever had experience with the Dakota and they are pretty stout. Every old Dodge Ram has been either rotted into the ground or a falling apart piece of crap. Usually the former - the truck literally disintegrates around the drive-train. I had a buddy with an 06 and at the first sign of trouble he dumped it and never looked back. Has anybody mentioned the Nissan Frontier yet? I'm a huge fan, I just don't think you'll find one within your mileage/money requirements.

I have to say I have been eyeballing those Chevy S-10 ZR5 crew cabs I see around here lately. I had a 1995 S10 blazer and it was a decent enough truck with a 4.3 vortech six. The only downside is there never was a manual trans offered with them at all. Manual Transmissions were offered with the ZR2 extended cabs but good luck getting a child seat in an S-10 extended cab. the ZR5 crew cab is blazer interior with a bed big enough to carry one motorcycle (if you put it sideways with the gate open). They did make the S-10 crew cab non ZR5 models but it is easier to find a ZR5 and you'll probably use the standard two package. I absolutely love the 1989-1998 fullsize Chevrolet trucks but the biggest issue with them is the automatic transmissions. After 100K miles it isn't if but when. Everything else will last you 200K plus however. Also they do rust, but not horrible - it's not hard to find a later 96+ Z71 in good shape and if you get it in stick it gets rid of the auto trans issue.