Croc

That burger isn't properly cooked inside.

You want to Terrain-ize the Acadia? Wow...now I seriously question your taste level and market acumen. I like the Terrain, but the Acadia is perfect and appeals to its demographic with current styling. From that standpoint, I almost wish the front clip of the Terrain weren't so severe, but if they are going for men, then fine, they'll get them. The Acadia, as a family vehicle, needs to retain mainstream, softer styling.

Someone just got killed by a red light runner at the edge of USC two weeks ago. Red light runners are common here, and with the massive number of students crossing here daily, at all hours, I want a red light camera. Because of the 3-way signal and diagonal pedestrian crossing cycle, they should even prohibit right turns on red, and camera angle those too. There's a real and pressing safety issue here, and it needs to be addressed. Speed is more about driver skill. Red light running is stupidity. And before anyone jumps on me for OMG I WAS AT A BROKEN RED LIGHT ONCE TEH HORROR........if you stop for a few seconds, it doesn't flash on you. It only detects and tickets light runners.

I'm sorry, but very little of this makes any sense. The social safety net is in place so people have the freedom to live in CA. Anyone hiring illegal labor is breaking the law, so your whole argument that the laws are incentivizing illegal labor is bunk. That's an enforcement issue, not a problem with the law. The minimum wage isn't higher than elsewhere, in fact CA isn't much above the federal level, and most certainly not at a "living" wage. And you think everyone should have completely unbridled access to guns? Wow, I can't even respond to that. Sure, let's make it even easier for the crazies to get them and blow people up for cutting them off on the freeway. Or shooting up our schools. Yeah, that sounds like a righteous plan! Heaven forbid you have to wait 10 days to get your firearm...what's the hurry? Who or what do you need to shoot so immediately you cannot wait 10 days??

I'm all for red light cameras. But speed sensing cameras? Insidious.

It's a pretty "just" state too...at least within the legal framework. It's interesting that the state has a lot of "protection" laws for the environment, minorities, and other underserved populations/causes, yet the localities try so hard to skirt the laws whenever they can. Very interesting dichotomy.

Any road with 10,000+ accidents in 5 years in a stretch has a design problem. That averages out to 5/day. I don't know how many miles/km you're talking about, so 5/day could either be pretty bad, or ok. Now you say there's a lot of bumper-bumper...no one is going 80/130 in bumper-bumper traffic. I'm really not feeling you provided an objective assessment of the road, but more of a "too many people are going faster than I'm comfortable going" attitude. The Santa Monica freeway can be very congested in LA, with stops and crawling at 25-30 during large portions of the day...but then you can easily go 80 during even periods of moderate traffic. And a lot of people do. It's posted is 65, which is not unreasonable for its age or design. The only places on it that have a high accident rate are those that are not up to current design standards and feature forced weaving...so totally expected.

No, Iowa isn't. There's a reason they have the first D primaries in the election cycle.

It varies state to state, actually.

Yeah, 80 is no big deal here. Sorry, Shadow, no road deficiencies, maybe just some driving deficiencies.

Disagree, almost entirely. If speeding is such a problem with over 10,000 accidents in less than 5 years, then I think it is pretty obvious that this stretch of road is poorly designed. If traffic is able to go that quickly, and it is deemed a problem, then maybe one lane per direction should be converted for truck use, bus use, carpool only, etc. in a way to reduce capacity and increase congestion to a point that people are driving at a safe speed? Of course, I have no idea what those speeds you listed are, and for all I know 130kph could be no biggie at all, and you're just whining. I have no clue--but if the problem is widespread, the design of the highway is lacking.

Going under the speed limit when conditions do not permit is being a traffic hazard, and can warrent a ticket. But unless there are "slow traffic keep right" signs, there is no obligation to go faster the further left your lane is.

QFT. Yeah, flash-to-pass is legal in many states (hence the owner's manual reference), but it isn't widely done, and most people think you're just being a jackass.

Or in LA we put on our turn signals and just start moving over in between two cars (when you almost have it, but not quite) and usually the person slows and lets you in. Or they honk and they don't, but the next guy will. You can also use your BRAKES and get in behind someone else instead of in front of them.

Sorry, dude, but yeah, you were actually the jackass on the road. You're telling me you could not get over for 1-2 miles, that traffic was bumper-bumper on either side of you but the person in front of you was going too slowly at 50? Makes no sense. In LA I can get over 2-3 lanes in 1/4 mile under the heaviest traffic conditions. Sounds to me that you were just impatient, and in the process revealing some racist tendancies. Not cool. And unless there are signs plastered everywhere "Slower traffic keep right" there are no separate speed limits for each lane on a freeway.

I think this is a really nicely done vehicle. Color me impressed.

You have Google, don't you?

Haha no, I'm well aware you are against any government regulation what-so-ever (or so it seems)...I thought the implication was that you felt like the government was attempting in some way to regulate speech. I guess I overthought it, or something... No worries.

Camino, with all due respect, the impression I get from your repeated replies of "it can't...it just can't because it can't" is the same impression I get from any GM lifer talking about how GM can't do this for Buick because they have to do it for Cadillac, or why GM can't do something for Pontiac because it steps on Chevrolet, or they can't give Pontiac competitive product because they just gave it all to Saturn. When you close your mind to the possibilities that may exist beyond the comfort zone of "the way things have always been," you really limit your options. I'm just sayin'... ...and this is my last word on this.

He works for BMW now. GM has corporate ADD and changes its mind rapidly about these kinds of things...I don't doubt PCS has some inside info that is still relevant, but how long is that going to last? He isn't going to be "in the know" much longer, if he ever really was. Anyone can post fantastic projections of the future on an anonymous message board, and credibly with enough grains of truth behind them. Of course, why would someone post things online if they are really that well-connected, knowing that their employment will be in jeopardy when (not if) GM finds out.

Don't be snide. Your argument only holds water if the assumption is that the present sales channel structure will hold, and GM has already been thinking about switching it up. Remember the idea floated a few months ago to add SAAB to Cadillac-HUMMER? Nothing is set in stone, especially where dealers and sales channels are concerned.

Of course we have. But there is a difference between playing with a 99c Bic lighter and playing with a flamethrower--one just is not prudent any way you look at it.

I don't get what the big deal is...?

Exactly--or not. But at this point it is all purely speculative. There is not sufficient proof to definitely say that Buick and GMC will die without Pontiac, just like there isn't enough proof to definitively say Pontiac is going the way of the Dodo. Oakland went away and the rest of GM soldiered on. Oldsmobile went away and other brands didn't catastrophically suffer directly because of that. Pontiac is not some kind of lynchpin for half of GM's "volume" sales channels.

Yes, and you also have a right to be offended, and being America, you have the choice to exercise either one of your rights at whim. I don't know why you seemingly inserted a non-sequitor about government regulating speech--the 1st Amendment is pretty well-worn legal territory, so I don't know why you're bringing it up as if it were up for debate...?