On 19 Aug 2003 11:59:26 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

"Christian McArdle" writes:
Also whats to stop someone doing some work in 2005 and if/when asked about
certification saying it was completed in 2003 before the regulations?

The fact that cable colours are changing. It's goodbye to red and black,
hello to brown and blue.

Given how long a drum of cable lasts me, I should be OK until about 2027.

Not that you'll be legally allowed to use such a thing, or perhaps even
possess it, by then :-(

--
John

In article , Richard Caley
MY_FIRST_NAME @ MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk says...
In article , Martin Angove (ma) writes:

ma someone who passes me at 20mph over the speed limit is quite
ma likely to get in the wrong lane at the next roundabout and exit the
ma darned thing without signalling (just an example, but you get the
ma idea).

Now, there is where they should be making money. Stick cameras on
roundabouts and any car which doesn't follow the protocols as layed
down in the highway code gets impounded, crushed, sold as scrap and
the money donated to the closest A&E.

Since that seems to be most of them, it would do wonders for traffic
congestion too.



Can we do the same to those plonkers who bugger about with their number
plates to make them read something else? Pleeeaaassseee??? ;-)

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 11:08:05 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:10:37 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Andrew McKay
wrote:
Do you have a source for these figures please?

http://www.dti.gov.uk/homesafetynetwork/ may help but at a quick
glance I couldn't see electrocution mentioned.

When you look at the figures for deaths from falls then you would
probably ban all DIY work to staircases!

Or allow people proper access to land and build bungalows.


Oh, no....

Do you try to turn every conversation into a tirade about this?

It is the truth.

That may or may not be the case, but it isn't related to Electrical
Regulations. Do you have any comment on the Government's
mismanagement of that?

Get real!!!! On crime/juvenile delinquency. It is blamed
on not having a stable home base as the parents are out at work.

Quite possibly.

Only 7% of
households have the mother at home all day. Ever thought why? The parents
are out trying to pay a hefty mortgage because the land amount to 2/3 of the
valve of the tiny roof over their heads.

That may be one factor. Another is that women, not unreasonably,
want to pursue a career.

There are amazing detrimental
knock on effects of creating an artificial land shortage.

Why don't you
ever think.

I do, and on a broad range of topics, as opposed to banging on about
one hobby horse the whole time.

Lateral thinking has passed most of the population by.

On that I agree with you.




---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 11:08:05 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

When you look at the figures for deaths from falls then you would
probably ban all DIY work to staircases!

Or allow people proper access to land and build bungalows.


Oh, no....

Do you try to turn every conversation
into a tirade about this?

It is the truth.

That may or may not be the case,

It is the case.

Get real!!!! On crime/juvenile
delinquency. It is blamed
on not having a stable home base
as the parents are out at work.

Quite possibly.

Most certainly in 90% plus of cases.

Only 7% of households have the mother
at home all day. Ever thought why? The parents
are out trying to pay a hefty mortgage because
the land amounts to 2/3 of the value of the
tiny roof over their heads.

That may be one factor.

it is THE major factor!!!!

Another is that women, not unreasonably,
want to pursue a career.

How many? Get real mate. The vast majority of women are not career women,
they want to be old fashioned mums at home.

There are amazing detrimental
knock on effects of creating an
artificial land shortage.

Why don't you
ever think.

I do,

Not enough and not deep enough and not lateral enough.

The biggest problem we have in the UK is the land problem. It cascades into
a multitude of sins. Free up the land and planning system and we all
benefit. That is YOU too.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"Andrew McKay" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:12:26 +0000, parish parish_AT_ntlworld.com
wrote:

A couple of months ago I passed a very sick looking camera on the A46
Batheaston bypass (east of Bath). Apparently someone had stacked a load
of tyres around the base, dowsed them in petrol, and torched it :-)

I have to admit that although I am very law-abiding there is some
satisfaction when I read stories like this.

It comes down to the carrot and stick approach really. The stick is
getting the fine and points on your license after the event. A decent
carrot would be to reward people who drive less powerful motors.

Or a law that prevents cars going over the limit.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:30:56 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

snip

Another is that women, not unreasonably,
want to pursue a career.

How many? Get real mate. The vast majority of women are not career women,
they want to be old fashioned mums at home.

Jeez, you really are an old-time socialist, aren't you! Can't have
these women going out to work, next thing you know they'll be
expecting to be able to vote ... :-)

Julian


--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:30:56 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

snip

Another is that women, not unreasonably,
want to pursue a career.

How many? Get real mate. The vast majority of women are not career
women,
they want to be old fashioned mums at home.

Jeez, you really are an old-time socialist, aren't you! Can't have
these women going out to work, next thing you know they'll be
expecting to be able to vote ... :-)

The majority of mums don't want to go out and work, and quite rightly so.
That is the case!!!!


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:47:47 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

snip

Common
sense (what our laws are supposed to be based on; common law) says they are
in the wrong.

Which particular cereal packet did you get this particular nugget of
wisdom from?? My dictionary says that common law is that "derived
from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes" - nowt to do
with "common sense" ...

Julian

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:47:47 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

snip

Common
sense (what our laws are supposed to be based on; common law) says they
are
in the wrong.

Which particular cereal packet did you get this particular nugget of
wisdom from?? My dictionary says that common law is that "derived
from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes" - nowt to do
with "common sense" ...

Look in another dictionary then, not a Kellogg one. The common in common law
comes from common sense.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:09:25 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:47:47 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

snip

Common
sense (what our laws are supposed to be based on; common law) says
they
are
in the wrong.

Which particular cereal packet did you get this particular nugget of
wisdom from?? My dictionary says that common law is that "derived
from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes" - nowt to do
with "common sense" ...

Look in another dictionary then, not a Kellogg one. The common in common
law
comes from common sense.

The definition I quoted is from the Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th
edition (I don't have a 10th edition to hand but I doubt that it is
much different). "Common" has a similar meaning in "common sense" and
in "common law", but it is not the case that one phrase is derived
from or otherwise related to the other.

Just for once, stop digging ...

I am not the one who went to a dictionary. Duh!!


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"Simon Gardner" [dot]co[dot]uk wrote in message
...
In article ,
Julian Fowler wrote:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:47:47 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

snip

Common
sense (what our laws are supposed to be based on; common law) says they
are
in the wrong.

Which particular cereal packet did you get this particular nugget of
wisdom from??

Hahahaha. You should see his physics.

Have you lost any weight yet?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

stuart noble wrote:

A burglary usually means a trip to Argos to get a new DVD player (unless of

Tell that to Tony Martin....

Wiping peoples' remains off the highway is altogether more serious. I'd
rather not see those bunches of flowers tied to lamp posts everywhere I go.

What does this have to do with speed cameras?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Some independent statistic might help with perspective. The UK
unequivicolly has one of the lowest rates of road traffic fatalities
in the world.

This German website uses the OECD stats and breaks it down by road
type, age and passenger miles.

http://www.bast.de/htdocs/fachthemen...glish/we2.html

British roads are by far the safest.

For example, motorways - UK has 2.1 fatalities per billion km - next
lowest is Seden at 2.5 and no-one else is near. Incidentally, I never
want to travel on a Turkish motorway (50).

Across all roads, the UK is 7.5, Sweden and Norway next with 8.3.
Again, I'd give Turkey a miss (73).

This is from the late 90s but a quick trawl of the Internet shows that
the rate is similar today.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ats_022248.pdf
shows fatalities up to 2001. Pretty static for the four years to 91 at
circa 3400 despite significant falls before then. Injuries dropping
slowly (less steeply than in earlier years). Government figures show a
rise in Q1 2003 for UK fatalities. Indeed the latest UK government
figures show the fatality rate is stubbornly at this level.

Indeed, the overall casualty rate is pretty static also. Average is c
320k casualties in 1992 it was 310k, 306k in `93 in 2002 it was 302k
in 2001 it was 313k.

Over the last 10 years the number of cameras has increased
exponentially. "Cameras cut crashes". Hmmm, really. Perhaps in
specific cases but at a national level?

IMHO, there is pretty much no case for putting cameras on motorways or
extra-urban roads - the accident rates there are very, very low.

Looking at the outrageously high rates for London per 100k km (17+ -
more than 2 times the national average, 3 times the welsh rate) I'd
say stick all the cameras there and leave the rest of us alone! ;o)

A.

Andrew McKay wrote:

getting the fine and points on your license after the event. A decent
carrot would be to reward people who drive less powerful motors.

This seems to make the assertion that the less power somehow equals
saftey. Other factors remaining the same, I would expect the oposite to
be true.

If someone came and stole 50 bhp from your freelander would that make
your driving safer?

A responsible driver with consistent driving style, will be safer in a
higher performance car. The better car will go faster yes - but it will
also be required to have better breaks, tyres, and suspension. These
should help you to: stop better, avoid obsticals while retaining
control, speed match with traffic on slip roads etc, and overtake more
safely.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:00:05 +0100, "stuart noble"
wrote:


Huge wrote in message ...
Trivialising the upset many people suffer from having their private space
violated is no way to get your argument considered seriously.
I think this is a myth. Most people are thoroughly ****ed off by all the
damage they do for so little gain but I don't know anyone, including women
that live alone, that have lost sleep over it.

I do. My mother and my father in law both lived on their own and were
both old and feeble. Both got burgled by some one who broke in.
Neither were ever the same again, and both died within 2 years. In the
last couple of weeks it was announced researchers have discovered
there is a correlation between an old person experiencing a burglary
and dying within the next 2 years.

From my mother he stole a 10 year old £90 plastic telly, and from
father in law they took nothing of any financial value at all but they
took his WW2 medals.

Protecting the ill gotten gains of people with too much money is quite
rightly not a police priority. They should be allowed to get on with what we
pay them for, which is......filling in forms and compiling statistics.


No Comment.

3 Years ago on the street next to the one where I was born a couple of
useless druggies noticed an old lady took her dog for a walk at the
same time every day. So one day they waited 'till she'd gone and broke
in. Trouble was she came back early so they hung her with the dog lead
from the back door knob.

DG

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:30:56 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



Get real!!!! On crime/juvenile
delinquency. It is blamed
on not having a stable home base
as the parents are out at work.

Quite possibly.

Most certainly in 90% plus of cases.

I'm not sure how you can put a number on a societal issue like this.


Only 7% of households have the mother
at home all day. Ever thought why? The parents
are out trying to pay a hefty mortgage because
the land amounts to 2/3 of the value of the
tiny roof over their heads.

That may be one factor.

it is THE major factor!!!!

... or on that.


Another is that women, not unreasonably,
want to pursue a career.

How many? Get real mate. The vast majority of women are not career women,
they want to be old fashioned mums at home.

I'm completely real. Virtually all women that I know view both their
careers and childraising importantly, as do most men.

The issue of major importance is day and after school care, but this
is not a financial one from their perspective but availability.



There are amazing detrimental
knock on effects of creating an
artificial land shortage.

Why don't you
ever think.

I do,

Not enough and not deep enough and not lateral enough.

Remember that I am the one with the university education.....


The biggest problem we have in the UK is the land problem. It cascades into
a multitude of sins. Free up the land and planning system and we all
benefit. That is YOU too.

It would be possible to construct an argument in the direction of
almost any hobby horse you like by selective use of information.

After all, a cow is a quadruped, so all four legged animals must be
cows.....

I don't have the same angst or enthusiasm regarding land
redistribution as you do

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , John Rumm (jr) writes:

Lifetime bans and car confiscation for the first serious or the second
minor breach of the `guide' would make life better for everyone sane.

jr If you think the prospect of most of the British public driving
jr uninsured and without a license would be "better" that is!

Hard to drive after your car is confiscated a few times.

--
Mail me as _O_
|

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:30:56 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



Get real!!!! On crime/juvenile
delinquency. It is blamed
on not having a stable home base
as the parents are out at work.

Quite possibly.

Most certainly in 90% plus of cases.

I'm not sure how you can put a number on a societal issue like this.


Only 7% of households have the mother
at home all day. Ever thought why? The parents
are out trying to pay a hefty mortgage because
the land amounts to 2/3 of the value of the
tiny roof over their heads.

That may be one factor.

it is THE major factor!!!!

.. or on that.


Another is that women, not unreasonably,
want to pursue a career.

How many? Get real mate. The vast majority of women are not career
women,
they want to be old fashioned mums at home.

I'm completely real. Virtually all women that I know view both their
careers and childraising importantly, as do most men.

The issue of major importance is day and after school care, but this
is not a financial one from their perspective but availability.



There are amazing detrimental
knock on effects of creating an
artificial land shortage.

Why don't you
ever think.

I do,

Not enough and not deep enough and not lateral enough.

Remember that I am the one with the university education.....

So am I.

snip drivel


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 17:37:24 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



Why don't you
ever think.

I do,

Not enough and not deep enough and not lateral enough.

Remember that I am the one with the university education.....

So am I.


From which university and in which subject?



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , says...

Ahh!!!!!! The Economist!! Not that right wing rag. My, oh my. How long
have you been a brainwashed Tory.


To repeat my question of a few days ago, why is it that you believe
everything Campbell tells you, but everybody else is brainwashed?

Bear in mind tho that the local police said that when they put a
mobile camera on the A643 outside the school entrance all the speeders
they caught were locals. :-))

I'm trying to work out where you are.

The planners want us to have pillows (or is it cushions?) and 'gated'
streets with a 20mph limit. I'm all for it and assumed everyone would be but
they're not. My neighbour even said he opposed it because it would bring
down the value of his property.

Mary
Chapeltown


DG

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:50:01 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Or a law that prevents cars going over the limit.

There are times when being able to boot past the limit can save lives.

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:49:54 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

If someone came and stole 50 bhp from your freelander would that make
your driving safer?

Hell, I have 50bhp under the bonnet? Where are they hiding that then?


Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk

On 19 Aug 2003 16:19:52 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Indeed, I've (vaguely) heard of proposals to scrap premiums based on
the car and only base them on the driver.

Interesting - I haven't heard of that before but it sounds reasonably
sensible.

No wait, Labour government in power. We must wait for a sensible party
to occupy number 10

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk

derek wrote in message ...
3 Years ago on the street next to the one where I was born a couple of
useless druggies noticed an old lady took her dog for a walk at the
same time every day. So one day they waited 'till she'd gone and broke
in. Trouble was she came back early so they hung her with the dog lead
from the back door knob.
Legalise the drugs then. Too many vested interests for that to ever happen.
Turning the have-nots against one another is a classic ploy. Little old
ladies and useless druggies unite!

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:00:34 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


Speed may not be a major cause of accidents, but it sure as heck makes
what might be a close shave or a minor bump into something much much
worse.

Absolutely.

I don't think it's reasonable to say a "Minor Bump", (fender bender)
can be turned into a catastrophic accident by any reasonably
proportional increase in speed. Take the ACPO guidelines (7% + 3mph,
is it?). It might, just, reasoning by chaos theory, but by the same
token the extra speed might just make the difference in clearing the
junction before "Reginald Mole - Husband" (remember him?) reverses
out of his drive into the main road without looking.


And your evidence is...

16 years of driving. The drivers I have most problems with are not those
who obey traffic rules, it is those who don't, and in my personal
experience, someone who passes me at 20mph over the speed limit is quite
likely to get in the wrong lane at the next roundabout and exit the
darned thing without signalling (just an example, but you get the idea).

I've been driving far longer than sixteen years but my experience has been
exactly the same.

I can see that someone who is in enough of a hurry to chose to break
speed limits (his 1st priority is speed) might well find he then
can't get back into the correct lane at roundabouts/junctions.

Far more people are just plain incompetant. For instance I notice that
people who dither, or hesitate when the traffic moves off do not
hesitate to drive through the red light if there hesitation has caused
them to miss the green phase of the lights. It's the 5 or 6 cars
behind them that get disadvantaged. I suppose they have to do this if
they hesitate and dither everytime the car has to start moving or
they'd never get anywhere.

I know several women who will drive round and round supermarket car
parks until they find a pair of spaces "nose to tail" (Or worse, find
a parking space that has free spaces *all around it*) . so they can
drive in and through, so they don't have to reverse either in or out.
Don't tell me they're competant to be on the road

The number of people who mis-manage joining a motorway amazes me. I
frequently encounter people reversing back down the on - ramp because
they've taken the wrong one. Instead of joining the motorway and
coming off at the next exit and rejoining in the opposite direction.

IIRC the recent carnage on the motorway involving tank transporters
was caused by incompetant driving within the speed limits.

The Great Heck incident was caused by bad driving not exceeding the
speed limit. The recent level crossing incident on the main line
(fruit pickers in a minibus) was caused by bad driving at low speed.

The Fatal accident on the Romney, Dymchurch, and Hythe miniature
railway was caused by someone who drove slowly past the waiting cars
at the level crossing into the path of a miniature train. A miniature
train that probably had the mass of about 50 cars!

Ive seen an ambulance driven by a Ca 22 year old girl stationary at
the end of a motorway slip road on the eastbound A58(M) at a point
where it is in a deep cutting with limited visibility consulting a
very large road map, with all the cars barrelling down the sliproad
behind her accelerating to match the speed of the traffic on the
motorway (50 mph, camera monitored) and screeching to a halt when they
realised she's actually parked, like something out of a Tom/Jerry
cartoon. Ambulance drivers are supposed to be "professionals" who have
extra training and are even permitted to break speed limits. However,
once again speeding not an issue.

Last week I came across a character joining the westbound A58(M) in
Leeds from The Claypit Lane Gyratory. The 2 lane sliproad diverges
into 2 single lanes seperated by double white lanes and cross
hatching, the left lane diverts to the left to avoid a bridge
stanchion and joins the motorway 150m further along. This guy had only
driven down the left lane to the very last possibility before stopping
and trying to cross about 8 feet of double white lines and force
himself into the traffic on the right hand lane, speeding not an
issue.

Hey, I could go on...

Enough?


Anyone can drive fast. It takes a responsible person to drive safely.


It takes more than that otherwise they'd could do away with the
driving test and just give licences to "responsible" people.

I strive to drive my car the way my mother used to use her sewing
machine. Effectively, competantly, with precision. Oh, and legally as
well. :-)

DG

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:52:26 +0100, Andrew McKay
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:07:21 +0100, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

Earth stays green/yellow, BTW.

Thank goodness they didn't let John Prescott in on that decision then!

Andrew


It would be black and blue then :-)


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:52:56 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

I would agree that having the Bank of England in control of interest
rates was a good move, but only places it in line with most other
countries. Brown is largely ineffectual, so fortunately has not done
significantly damaged the economy.

You will like this story which appeared today then:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030819/80/e6hhm.html

Quote:

"A rapid deterioration in the public finances, sluggish economic
growth and a controversial planned change in the Bank of England's
inflation target are adding up to an enormous headache for Britain's
long-serving finance minister Gordon Brown.

The chancellor, currently holidaying in his native Scotland, may have
thought that getting the government's decision not to join the euro
out of the way in June would smooth his way to a relatively untroubled
second half of 2003.

But it is not to be. There is a growing sense in the City that Brown,
who has enjoyed a charmed life since taking the job when Labour swept
to power in 1997, may be losing the plot."

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk

..
"Reginald Mole - Husband" (remember him?)

No. You're making an assumption.



Far more people are just plain incompetant.

Or even incompetent. Some can't be bothered to use a spell checker, how can
we trust them to drive well?



I know several women who will drive round and round supermarket car
parks until they find a pair of spaces "nose to tail"

That's funny, I notice that men can't seem to reverse into a space. Or even
their drives. And certainly not parking spaces no matter how large.


Don't tell me they're competant to be on the road

Don't tell me they're competEnt to be on the road.

In fact, when someone makes irrelevant judgements of people's driving
because they don't have willies in which to keep their brains it makes me
not bother to consider the rest of their posts.

Mary

"John Rumm" wrote in message
news
stuart noble wrote:

A burglary usually means a trip to Argos to get a new DVD player (unless
of

Tell that to Tony Martin....

Wiping peoples' remains off the highway is altogether more serious. I'd
rather not see those bunches of flowers tied to lamp posts everywhere I
go.

What does this have to do with speed cameras?

--

Indeed what do speed cameras have to do with D-I-Y??


--
Woody

"derek" wrote in message
news [snip]
IME people intentionally driving 20 mph over the limit are simply
likely to continue doing just that. It's what they do and they have a
whole range of reason . People in the wrong lane / not indicating
/hesitating/puzzling over their task come into a different category
called "Incompetants", they are incapable of doing any better, I've
seen about 40 instances today. Most of them seem to adopt abnormal
postures sitting at the wheel sitting bolt upright gripping the wheel,
white knuckled, hanging on for dear life, and have facial features
that would be taken as indicating "Low grade intelligence" (Think Mr
Bean) elsewhere. A great many simply don't know where they are, or
where they are going (seriously).

Ah, we are into the CLODS and BOLOC area methinks
CLODS - the Centre-Lane Owner-Drivers Society
BOLOC - the British Off-Side Lane Owners Club


--
Woody

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:20:08 +0100, "stuart noble"
wrote:


derek wrote in message ...
3 Years ago on the street next to the one where I was born a couple of
useless druggies noticed an old lady took her dog for a walk at the
same time every day. So one day they waited 'till she'd gone and broke
in. Trouble was she came back early so they hung her with the dog lead
from the back door knob.
Legalise the drugs then. Too many vested interests for that to ever happen.
Turning the have-nots against one another is a classic ploy. Little old
ladies and useless druggies unite!


Haven't seen a better idea.

DG

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:44:11 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:47:30 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

er, all cameras (even temporay ones) do have signs a few hundred
yards before them. They have to.

Not in these parts they don't - they will have a sign as you enter
an area with cameras - but it may be miles from the actual camera -

If it is literally miles then report it to the relevant roads
department, don't wine in here. I don't know the recommended distance
but it's not 1 mile let alone miles.


That's just rubbish. The camera might well be a mobile camera (van)
that's not there 99.95% of the time.

I don't believe there is any legal requirement for warning signs at
all, and where there are signs I don't believe there is any legal
requirement for there to be cameras.

There is a funding initiative which has requirements for conspicuous
cameras etc but that's all it is. In the absence of properly
conspicuous cameras/signs a NIP would still be a legal NIP. They would
just be in contravention of the terms of their funding scheme and
would just get an administrative slap on their wrist (A black edged
memo).

Signs indicating the start/end of the *speed limit* are something
else. :-)

DG

In article , John Rumm (jr) writes:

Hard to drive after your car is confiscated a few times.

jr Borrow someone else's.... (or at least their registration) ;-)

They do that already.

jr Hey why not tie it into sat nav and GPS speed sensing etc, you could
jr have the car automatically shop you the moment you go over the speed
jr limit.

Don't be such a soppy liberal. A poison dart shooting out of the
steering wheel would seem to be the absolute minimum.

jr That would pretty soon get everyone off the road - you
jr included. Fancy that?

Wouldn't affect me.

--
Mail me as _O_
|

derek wrote:

Far more people are just plain incompetant. For instance I notice that
people who dither, or hesitate when the traffic moves off do not
hesitate to drive through the red light if there hesitation has caused
them to miss the green phase of the lights. It's the 5 or 6 cars
behind them that get disadvantaged. I suppose they have to do this if
they hesitate and dither everytime the car has to start moving or
they'd never get anywhere.

Can I add to those the people who drive up to a roundabout, stop and then
look to see if anything is coming. If only they'd look as they're
approaching then they'd be able to make better progress by not having to
stop and then set off again.

I know several women who will drive round and round supermarket car
parks until they find a pair of spaces "nose to tail" (Or worse, find
a parking space that has free spaces *all around it*) . so they can
drive in and through, so they don't have to reverse either in or out.
Don't tell me they're competant to be on the road

That's not just limited to a few women though, there's a multi storey car
park not too far from here that has 3 bays between each pillar and you can
guarantee that the first people to park will always go for the middle bay
and drive in forwards. To me it's easier to back in to one next to the
pillars as there's less chance of anyone knocking doors into you and you get
an easier drive out of the space because you're facing the right way.

The number of people who mis-manage joining a motorway amazes me. I
frequently encounter people reversing back down the on - ramp because
they've taken the wrong one. Instead of joining the motorway and
coming off at the next exit and rejoining in the opposite direction.

Don't see any of that round here (Lincolnshire) because we don't have any
motorways (I lie a little there, there is some about 60m away), which raises
another question, how are we supposed to learn how to use them? I didn't
even get out of a 30mph limit on my driving test never mind getting onto
anything like a busy dual carriageway or the like. It's laughable really
when the powers that be decide that the current driving test is capable of
determining whether a person is safe to be on the roads or not.

--
James...
http://www.jameshart.co.uk/

John Rumm wrote:
Richard Caley wrote:
jr If you think the prospect of most of the British public driving
jr uninsured and without a license would be "better" that is!

Hard to drive after your car is confiscated a few times.

Borrow someone else's.... (or at least their registration) ;-)

Having said that it would be a damn good way of dealing with people
who wind you up - report they cut you up a couple of times on the
road and poof! You could vape their entire livelihood.

Hey why not tie it into sat nav and GPS speed sensing etc, you could
have the car automatically shop you the moment you go over the speed
limit. That would pretty soon get everyone off the road - you
included. Fancy that?

I'm game for that if it means a worthwhile decrease in road tax, insurance
etc.

(As with most suggestions of this type, they amount to nothing more
than unenforceable nonsense when placed under scrutiny)

Or too sensible to be acted on.

--
James...
http://www.jameshart.co.uk/

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 17:37:24 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



Why don't you
ever think.

I do,

Not enough and not deep enough and not lateral enough.

Remember that I am the one with the university education.....

So am I.


From which university and in which subject?

Why? Do you want my home address and shoe size too. Duh!! You know I
really don't care about what place you went to learn to read, or anyone
else's either.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"Andrew McKay" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:07:21 +0100, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

Earth stays green/yellow, BTW.

Thank goodness they didn't let John Prescott in on that decision then!

Our Little Middle Englander is at it again.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:52:26 +0100, Andrew McKay
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:07:21 +0100, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

Earth stays green/yellow, BTW.

Thank goodness they didn't let John Prescott in on that decision then!

Andrew


It would be black and blue then :-)

oh good one!


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:23:47 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Gary Cavie" wrote in message
m...
In article , says...

Ahh!!!!!! The Economist!! Not that right wing rag. My, oh my. How
long
have you been a brainwashed Tory.

To repeat my question of a few days ago, why is it that you believe
everything Campbell tells you, but everybody else is brainwashed?

I don't believe everything Campbell tells me, although after today I have a
lot of respect for the man. BTW, Cambell is not the Labour Party. I can
smell a brainwashed Tory Little Middle Englander a mile off.



Have I missed something? Has he resigned, or better still been fired?



---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl