'62 Continental Tail lights

[frasern]

I was once stopped at a red light in my '67 and heard screeching, I was stopped for at least 30 seconds and still had my foot on the brake. Nothing I could do, had a row of cars ahead, thankfully, he stopped just in time, but really, there are 4 feet of brake light with 8 bulbs, and the car is as big as a house! How do you not see that!
Anyway, no amount of regulation will correct stupidity.

[Stuart M. Cohen]

CC,

I too love the ribbed bezels on the 65, and think they are great looking. Go for it!!

As for the purists having a heart attack, I have a 100% stock 63 sedan but do like a lot of the custom work being done out there. Would love to follow your project so please post pictures along the way.

[TonyC]

I empathize with Fraser on that. Anyone who claims to "not see" the lights on a '66/7/9, doesn't belong behind a steering wheel. On the other hand, if they don't see those brake lights because they never came on under braking power, well ...

Although I'm mostly purist, I am down with retrofits from other years if they make the subject car prettier or more practical without trade-offs. I mean, me for instance, among the many incorrect things I've done...

I'm running '67–9 wheel covers on a '66 because I like the big star better...and the covers I run are the radial variants, partially to reduce the chances of flying-saucer sightings and partially to no longer hawkeye tire techs when I go for tires. I also have '67 dash pad, door panels, ceiling trim, and steering wheel/column, because I think those parts just look better (the column, though, is kinda-sorta needed, as I am running a '67-spec transmission).
Plus, I have '69 head rests on my seat backs; not only do they look good, but they also will help save my neck, literally, should the scenario Fraser pointed out happen to me. It never has with Frankenstein, and I never want it to, especially if somebody's claim of not seeing brake lights was because they never went on when I braked, a problem I had been trying to address for a good dozen years but now seems to be cured at last (I hope it stays that way).

---Tony

[Dan Szwarc]

I was once stopped at a red light in my '67 and heard screeching, I was stopped for at least 30 seconds and still had my foot on the brake. Nothing I could do, had a row of cars ahead, thankfully, he stopped just in time, but really, there are 4 feet of brake light with 8 bulbs, and the car is as big as a house! How do you not see that!
Anyway, no amount of regulation will correct stupidity.

One cannot see any car when one is staring at one’s phone.

[TonyC]

Good point. We make lights larger and brighter, and put more of them in places that can't be missed, and we still come up with ways to do just that. If Bell only knew of the social pandemic he would unleash on the world with his invention, he'd have burned the blueprints...at least, I like to think so.

---Tony

[Lee]

Anyway, no amount of regulation will correct stupidity.

Don’t be too sure of that: https://www.transportation.gov/briefing ... w-vehicles
I know it doesn’t affect Canada, but we’ll be glad to send you mayor Pete when his term is up.

[Mike]

Anyway, no amount of regulation will correct stupidity.

Don’t be too sure of that: https://www.transportation.gov/briefing ... w-vehicles
I know it doesn’t affect Canada, but we’ll be glad to send you mayor Pete when his term is up.

"That’s why our proposed rule would require all cars to be able to stop and avoid contact with a vehicle in front of them up to 62 miles per hour."

That's some distance it'll be looking at at that speed.

[frasern]

I'll take Buttigieg, if you take Trudeau.
Yeah, I had heard a little about that proposal, and anything passed in the U.S. will soon be here. My prediction is people will just use that "safety" feature to free up more time to multitask behind the wheel.

[TonyC]

The more accommodations for irresponsibility they legislate, the more irresponsible we become. Every doo-dad they've put in since the late-'80s is testament to that.

Well, he ain't called "Butt-gieg" for nothin'...

---Tony

[LithiumCobalt]

Here he is *photo deleted*

[Suicidekid63]

Shouldnt this be in the war room and not here? Dont really give a fuck about politics. Plenty of places for that. This shit just ruins posts and forums. IMO

[LithiumCobalt]

Shouldnt this be in the war room and not here? Dont really give a fuck about politics. Plenty of places for that. This shit just ruins posts and forums. IMO

“Don’t give a fuck about politics”, but always the first to squawk about a post that you don’t like.

I will, however, concede that this forum is about Lincolns and should stay that way so I removed the joke in my previous post

[Suicidekid63]

but always the first to squawk about a post that you don’t like.

WTF are you talking about? I've always been helpful on this forum and have never "squaked" about shit, whatever that fucking means.