All our lights around here are horizontal.

I disagree.

I don't mind LEDs, but I'm tired of the eyebrows, and I hate seeing each dot of light.

Indeed, in nearly all cases, it's merely making the lines of the car look decent without adding much cost. My opinion changes when you really need to see out that space, but can't.
Generally, I treat complaints about DLO the same as hard plastics—an indicator that the reviewer has the wrong priorities.

I agree on the manual mode configuration, but there's a more glaring problem with the standard PRNDL layout. Law requires reverse and drive be separated, and that's great, but it is plain stupid to have toshift through reverse when you aren't going to back up. The solution is to have P and D in different directions.…

I prefer the solution that prevents cars and pedestrians from occupying the same space. No pedestrians crossing your path = no pedestrian collisions = no need for excessive safety features.

Duh, this is Lost IRL.

Not a bad fan theory. But it lacks a reason that Harry could then no more die, so it's not entirely workable (not that such a thing is necessary in the HP universe). Also, one could easily contend that V did kill Harry in the forest, thus freeing him from that fate.

I think Mazda's take rate for manuals is well above the industry average. IIRC, about 15% of 3s are selected with a manual.

It's a concept. Look at the Minagi & Takeri concepts' interiors. There are a lot of parallels with this one's.

1. Nice job dropping the entire point of my response—that what you think is the law is NOT the law in most places in the US. I conclude your think it should be the law, and you base that on the thinking it improves traffic flow.

That's nice. I have no interest in commuting at 100 mph, and I have even less interest in anyone else around me doing it, either. The simple, hard facts prove that any time you have a speed differential between cars, you create a hazard, regardless of how well-trained drivers are.

It is only the rule of the road if the law encodes it, which it does _not_ in the majority of US states. Do not assume the law is the same everywhere, because it is not, and that means expectations of drivers is also not the same.

All laws against passing on the right (when in an actual lane of traffic) should be utterly deleted from existence. Each lane is its own flow of traffic with its own behavior. (E.g., sometimes left lanes back up because of people turning, or right lanes need to be kept open so people can turn/merge/exit more easily.)…

It's funny how everyone seems to think that every road works the same way. In my area, there is no such thing as a 'passing lane' nor a 'fast lane.' Traffic is sufficiently heavy that all lanes are needed to move traffic, and any attempt to reserve a lane for passing would grind everything to a halt.

No. That other traffic isn't some sort of projectile that you must stay in front of to be 'safe.'

Certainly, this is a concern, but it's not really any different than the concern about hydraulic brakes. Before they became commonplace, who would have thought they could have been nearly as reliable as they are?

Also, I just don't buy this claim:
"If applied to a current engine, it will provide 30 percent more power and torque, and up to 50 percent better economy."

"Christian said it can run diesel or gas. You can't mix them together and expect it to work, but maybe two separate tanks depending on what you want to do."

Yes, "quick" is the better word for acceleration while "fast" is better for describing top speed. The idea of counting is a decent method because there could be a biological reaction associated with a time limit; however, the 60 mph end speed is arbitrary, so that doesn't work.