From: Savageduck on
On 2009-11-15 15:53:44 -0800, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said:

> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:14:46 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Yes, stagecoaches and horse-drawn buggies were always driven from the
>>> right. I've never seen any picture showing otherwise.
>> Strange....I wonder why their replacement automobiles were developed to be
>> operated from the left side?
>
> Y'all keep thinking about the brakes and the right-hander needing to
> be on the right side of a stagecoach to apply the brakes. Most
> vehicle traffic in those days was wagons. Wagons with teams of horses
> or oxen didn't have or need brakes. The teams were controlled by
> reins. The driver sat behind the left horse so he could use his whip
> with his right arm. Sitting on the left side required that he have
> vision of traffic coming at him. That's what started us driving on
> the right.

Most of the ox wagons had a heavy screw which pushed a shoe against the
wheel rim. It was adjusted and set when running downhill to stop the
wagon from running into the team of oxen. They did not need a driver
operated brake to slow the wagon down.
For extreme downhill stretches such as coming down mountain passes,
they would also lash brake poles or branches to the wheels to stop them
from rotating. The ox wagons would literally skid down those mountains.

As for the left or right side for traffic flow goes, I believe you have
to look to marine rules of the road where you would leave approaching
traffic on your port side and overtake to their port side.
This is one of the reasons boats without a center helm are still right
hand drive, or starboard today. That goes back to Viking days when the
steering oar, or steorbord was mounted on right. It came to mean the
side from which the ship was steered. That way you can check clearance
when overtaking to the port.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: Bill Graham on

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ea71g59a28u7rn30talvgln9emia7d2clf(a)4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:10:36 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:jq41g5tka6k3u0futaov24hrmg3tpmg2vm(a)4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:14:46 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Yes, stagecoaches and horse-drawn buggies were always driven from the
>>>>> right. I've never seen any picture showing otherwise.
>>>>Strange....I wonder why their replacement automobiles were developed to
>>>>be
>>>>operated from the left side?
>>>
>>> Y'all keep thinking about the brakes and the right-hander needing to
>>> be on the right side of a stagecoach to apply the brakes. Most
>>> vehicle traffic in those days was wagons. Wagons with teams of horses
>>> or oxen didn't have or need brakes. The teams were controlled by
>>> reins. The driver sat behind the left horse so he could use his whip
>>> with his right arm. Sitting on the left side required that he have
>>> vision of traffic coming at him. That's what started us driving on
>>> the right.
>>> --
>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>>
>>OK, but I would think that brakes would be a great help....What do you do
>>when you are going down a steep incline? Your wagon would be pushing up
>>against the heels of the rear of your team.
>
> Not so. A team is hitched to a center bar (the tongue), and the
> center bar is connected to the wagon. That bar maintains the distance
> between the wagon and two rear animals no matter what the incline.
>
>
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

You got me there....I guess I don't understand how the tongue is connected
to the horse....there must be a strap around his rear end and across his
chest......

From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:fZednUem8613A53WnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:YpadnXQtebCZDp3WnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>> news:VKqdnV9VoYc69J3WnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4aff9d4d(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4afe7080$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:r48sf5hvnn2lu320s5prvsp7agi8aar9ff(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> As a unit of liquid measure, the cup is what it is and does not
>>>>>>>>> have any
>>>>>>>>> particular relationship to the amount of coffee you're served in a
>>>>>>>>> cup.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then if the unit "cup" doesn't have a relationship to a cup of
>>>>>>>> beverage
>>>>>>>> then what is the specific benefit of having that unit "cup" instead
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> using e.g 1/4 liter?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> jue
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None. It's just a slang term. Actually, when it comes to a cup of
>>>>>>> coffee, it's usually closer to 1/4 liter than a cup, which is 1/4 of
>>>>>>> a quart. You have to remember that the world is 99% housewives, and
>>>>>>> only 1% engineers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A metric cup *is* 1/4 of a liter.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The most common coffee cup used here in the US is the Corning,
>>>>> "Correll Ware" cup, and it is almost exactly 250 cc's.
>>>>
>>>> Well, there you go. You're already used to one common metric measure.
>>>
>>> Most conversions are easy enough, even if pointless. Just looking at
>>> focusing scales makes it obvious that 10 ft. is about 3 m, and it's easy
>>> to remember that 1 kg is about 2.2 lbs. How many ounces in a kilogram or
>>> grams in a pound is more difficult, but it's hard to imagine why anyone
>>> would ever want to know.
>>>
>>> The bothersome one is Fahrenheit to Centigrade (or Celsius as they've
>>> decided to call it for some silly reason), or vice versa of course.
>>> Probably most people who've developed B&W film know that 68 F = 20 C,
>>> but since the conversion is non-linear it's not something that you can
>>> approximate instantly in your head.
>>>
>>>
>> I can't agree that it's, "non linear". Both scales are straight lines
>> that happen to cross at -40 degrees.
>
> Yes, they are linear in that way. What I meant was that converting one to
> the other is not a simple matter of multiplication or division, as is the
> case with kilograms and pounds. "Non-linear" was perhaps not the best way
> of describing that.
>
>> People learn the important conversions for the work they do. Most nurses
>> know that 98.6 F is 37 C for example.
>
> I doubt most nurses do know that, since Fahrenheit is still used for body
> temp, or was the last I knew. But anyway *knowing* 98.6 F is 37 C would
> not mean they could do the conversion. I've worked with a lot of nurses
> over a period of 30+ years and I can tell you with confidence that most of
> them couldn't do the conversion and get an accurate result.
>
> Just *one* of my doctors' offices has switched to metric scales, and that
> was only in the last year or so. The others still weigh you in good ol'
> pounds. The one that did switch, after I commented that I liked the look
> of my weight much better in kilograms, the nurse came back in a few
> minutes and told me what it was in pounds. When I asked if she'd done that
> in her head she said No, and produced a *table* showing the equivalents. I
> had already done the conversion in my head, which after all is just a
> matter of multiplying by 2.2. Now if a nurse can't do that in her head but
> needs a printed table for it, she sure as hell can't convert C to F or
> vice versa.
>
>
>
That's right.....Today, they don't even use classic thermometers....They
have an electric gun with a digital readout they stick in your ear, and it
reads the infra red photons emanating from your ear. It also converts from F
to CO at the touch of a button.....The machines are fast taking away our
ability to do simple arithmetic.

From: Neil Harrington on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2009111515591582327-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2009-11-15 15:09:32 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:
>
>>
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>> news:TumdnbSxOMgAFmLXnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:qrKdnVfcUtJk02LXnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:2009111406385244303-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>>> On 2009-11-14 04:27:19 -0800, "Wilba" <usenet(a)CUTTHISimago.com.au>
>>>>> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>>> Savageduck said:
>>>>>>>> Wilba said:
>>>>>>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Wilba said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Years ago I read that left-hand drive is safer overall, because
>>>>>>>>>>> when a
>>>>>>>>>>> person is startled they tend to raise their non-dominant hand to
>>>>>>>>>>> protect
>>>>>>>>>>> their head. If at the time they are steering a car on the left
>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>> road, 9 out of 10 will therefore sverve into oncoming traffic.
>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently the effect is statistically significant.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It seems we left our history far behind. Have you ever noticed
>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> good old Wells Fargo stage coach driver sat, ...on the right,
>>>>>>>>>> shotgun
>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> the left.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't see many of them 'round these here parts. :- )
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note the driver on the left.
>>>>>>>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Concord_stagecoach_1869.png
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, that was the right, the shot gun was on the left.
>>>>>>> Now I don't know my left from my right!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I worked that out. :- )
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder why they did it that way, since the driver is on the ejector
>>>>>> side...? Maybe the convention pre-dates the widespread use of
>>>>>> repeating
>>>>>> rifles.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it was a case of right handed shotgun shooters out numbering
>>>>> left handed shooters. That way they wouldn't have to replace a driver
>>>>> every time a left handed guard blew the driver away. Maybe a
>>>>> qualification for shotgun guards was to be right handed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe there was a rule of the road that stagecoach robbers had a "rob
>>>>> from left side" only sense of etiquette. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Savageduck
>>>>>
>>>> Maybe it had something to do with which side the shells were ejected
>>>> from when the rifle action was worked....It would be very annoying to
>>>> the driver if the hot shell casings were ejected into his face while he
>>>> was trying to get away from the bad guys.....
>>>
>>> I think most Winchester lever actions eject more or less straight up.
>>> Marlins I believe have always ejected to the right, but most of the
>>> rifles in stagecoach days were surely Winchesters.
>>>
>> Straight up wouldn't be too bad. The operator would learn to tilt the
>> weapon in the right direction before working the action, so the empty
>> shells would go where he wanted them to go.....Also, it would be just as
>> easy to shoot for both left and right handers.....
>
> ...but remember accurate fire from a moving, rough riding stagecoach with
> a rifle would be a rare thing.
> There was a reason the favored weapon was a shotgun. Many of those guards
> used a Greener 10 gauge, loaded with OO buck, that is a heavy load of
> lead. Greener also developed the first decent choke for shotguns and self
> ejector, making the lighter 12 gauge practical. It was the most copied
> design for double barreled shotguns until John Moses Browning

John Mose Browning, not Moses. Probably it's a common mistake.

> made his innovations and introduced the Winchester 1893 pump, perfecting
> it with the 1897.
>
> You might say Greener was Britain's contribution to the American West.

Are you sure those guards used Greeners? There were American 10-ga. shotguns
too, and I would think that Greeners would be pretty expensive for that
purpose -- though not nearly as expensive as the "London-made" guns of
course.


From: Savageduck on
On 2009-11-15 16:40:50 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:

> On 2009-11-15 15:53:44 -0800, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:14:46 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, stagecoaches and horse-drawn buggies were always driven from the
>>>> right. I've never seen any picture showing otherwise.
>>> Strange....I wonder why their replacement automobiles were developed to be
>>> operated from the left side?
>>
>> Y'all keep thinking about the brakes and the right-hander needing to
>> be on the right side of a stagecoach to apply the brakes. Most
>> vehicle traffic in those days was wagons. Wagons with teams of horses
>> or oxen didn't have or need brakes. The teams were controlled by
>> reins. The driver sat behind the left horse so he could use his whip
>> with his right arm. Sitting on the left side required that he have
>> vision of traffic coming at him. That's what started us driving on
>> the right.
>
> Most of the ox wagons had a heavy screw which pushed a shoe against the
> wheel rim. It was adjusted and set when running downhill to stop the
> wagon from running into the team of oxen. They did not need a driver
> operated brake to slow the wagon down.
> For extreme downhill stretches such as coming down mountain passes,
> they would also lash brake poles or branches to the wheels to stop them
> from rotating. The ox wagons would literally skid down those mountains.
>
> As for the left or right side for traffic flow goes, I believe you have
> to look to marine rules of the road where you would leave approaching
> traffic on your port side and overtake to their port side.
> This is one of the reasons boats without a center helm are still right
> hand drive, or starboard today. That goes back to Viking days when the
> steering oar, or steorbord was mounted on right. It came to mean the
> side from which the ship was steered. That way you can check clearance
> when overtaking to the port.

BTW Tony, note the brake shoe on this ox-wagon;
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Ox_wagon_at_Aliwal_North.jpg

and on this Conestoga wagon;
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Transport_Wagon_USArmyTransMuseum_DSCN7458.JPG>

--


Regards,

Savageduck