|
New Electrical Regulations
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:28:02 +0100, "IMM" wrote:
"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. Not especially, except that your approach to a multitude of issues (and I don't mean political position) do not suggest that you have had a university education. ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
New Electrical Regulations
"Andy Hall" wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:28:02 +0100, "IMM" wrote: "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. Not especially, except that your approach to a multitude of issues (and I don't mean political position) do not suggest that you have had a university education. Do you mean all uni people vote Tory? --- -- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003 |
OT: Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
"derek" wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:31:08 +0100, "Mary Fisher" wrote: 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. They're fine in streets of houses. Which describes our estate. And our street is narrow and few people park their cars in their drives, yet drivers still drive up and down at far more than the 30 limit. People have been injured. Worse, people park their cars on the pavements, thus forcing pedestrians (yes, there are quite a lot because there's a nursery at the bottom of the street) to walk on the road. There are some near us "The Ingles" there are some near you http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/411797.stm There are quite a lot near us. The other week I drove along Spencer Place and it was a pleasure. The item you mention was in the streets where one of our daughters lives, it was a wonderful success and subsequent traffic calming has worked, it's a pleasure to walk round the Methleys now. There was another reason for the streets being congested, that's been eliminated after community action. It took a long time but it was worth it. They don't look like that anymore BTW. Turfing a cobbled street with Rolawn is a wasteful one off gimmick, good only for publicity photographs. No, you're wrong. It was born of desperation and achieved its purpose in the end. It was also a lot of fun. My neighbour even said he opposed it because it would bring down the value of his property. I wouldn't have thought so. No, it's daft to say that. However, I'm not happy about cushions, bus humps etc on "A" and "B" roads, like the main road through Gildersome, and my wifes perfectly standard Ford Escort in good working order used to "Ground out" (Bottom) with a very loud sick making *Crunch* on the square ones with sharp angles on Cemetery Rd Beeston. You wouldn't want *them* if you had owt like a Ford Escort. We've had an Escort and we have a scooter. I've never had a problem with any vehicle on the highest bumps (the ones at Templenewsam are the most vicious I've ever seen anywhere) because when we see them we slow right down. That is, they achieve their aim. God knows what they were ripping off the bottom of the car. Brake lines? Fuel Lines? or just underseal? You might find out the hard way, some time later one way or another. I doubt it. We don't want to have to repair vehicles for the sake of saving a few seconds. I wouldn't take all the "Reclaim the streets" rhetoric either, with all the humps, bumps, gates, and chicanes, it is still not safe for 3-4 year olds to play in the street unsupervised. They shouldn't be doing that anyway. Which is what they seem to imply about "Homezones". In truth I've never seen that claim. Not for 3-4 year olds. But for streets of houses back off the main roads I reckon they're beneficial. So do I. But boy racers protest. Middle aged boy racers say that they damage their vehicles, that their civil rights are infringed, that they haven't time to slow down in their busy lives. I say that if vehicles couldn't do more than 20 mph they'd be happy driving at that speed - providing the limit was 10 mph. You could query the council about the bottoming out problem, & mention the situation in Beeston. There was nothing wrong with SWMBO's (quite new) Ford Escort, perfectly standard, no flat tyres, no broken springs, no lowered suspension, (As if!) :-) . I've spent quite a lot of time with the planners about this matter. I wanted them to remove the tarmac from the cobbles at the bottom of the street, one of them said it would damage vehicles which were travelling at more than 20mph. But if the limit is 20mph ... ??????? Incidentally the cobbles were covered with black only when a Labour Lord Mayor was having his induction service at our local church. It was decided that U1 couldn't be risked. It had been OK for hoi polloi until then. I reckon that when - if? - the traffic calming is undertaken here it could be a Good Thing because they might fill in the holes in the road at the same time. If they don't they'll have to answer to me. Mary DG |
New Electrical Regulations
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:53:00 +0100, "IMM" wrote:
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. Not especially, except that your approach to a multitude of issues (and I don't mean political position) do not suggest that you have had a university education. Do you mean all uni people vote Tory? Point illustrated. I specifically excluded political position.... --- ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
OT: Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
"John Rumm" wrote
| 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? | (As with most suggestions of this type, they amount to nothing more than | unenforceable nonsense when placed under scrutiny) Didn't Nostradamus write that, a long time in the future, iron would float? Then we put a man on the moon. Then we started London congestion charging. It's only hard until it hasn't been done. Owain |
New Electrical Regulations
"Andy Hall" wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:53:00 +0100, "IMM" wrote: 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. Not especially, except that your approach to a multitude of issues (and I don't mean political position) do not suggest that you have had a university education. Do you mean all uni people vote Tory? Point illustrated. I specifically excluded political position.... I'm a uni person and I don't vote Tory - well not in million years would I do such a thing to the good people of this nation. --- -- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003 |
Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
"Andrew McKay" wrote in message ... 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 ;) The brainwashing is really showing now. --- -- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003 |
New Electrical Regulations
"Andrew McKay" wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:26:21 +0100, "IMM" wrote: More right wing scaremongering. The same old tune. We have had this for the past 5 bloody years. For 5 years the property market is about the crash - yarn, yarn, yarn. You have nothing to gain from voting Little Middle England. Nothing. Don't you believe it sunshine. How long have you been like this? --- -- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003 |
OT: Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:01:01 GMT, Richard Caley wrote:
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. Add the following locations to that: Center of traffic lights. Vehicles turning right not crossing behind each other. Entry slip roads onto motorways or other fast roads. Vehicles not indicating, looking or matching speed as they join. Lane 2 of any empty motorway. Vehicle traveling at 60mph. -- Cheers Dave. pam is missing e-mail |
OT: Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
In message , IMM
writes There was a case were the police stopped an old man in his trilby hat for going 50mph on the motorway. This one man was holding up all the other traffic and causing bunching. Bunching is very dangerous on motorways. He was told to up his speed or get off the motorway, even though he was above the minimum speed. he got off the motorway. He complained and the action of the police was upheld as safety was paramount. Old people and women, who drive slowly and then slam on for no apparent reason are major causes of accidents. They also just stick in the middle lanes of motorways again causing bunching in the outside lane. Technically they in the right if the slam on the brakes and they are hit from behind. They are not driving to the same mental rules as everyone else. You're not wrong there. It's not just the old, there are lots of people trundling along in a world of their own, pulling out without looking, they might have indicated, but ... -- geoff |
Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
In message , Richard Caley
writes In article , geoff (g) writes: a There are reckless drivers who speed. And there are quick assertive a drivers. Of course, anyone who considers themselves in class 2 is almost certainly really in class 1. g That's a rather stupid reply If you don't see why what I posted is true, you are probably in class 1. Inability to sanely judge one's own compitence is a common symptom of recklessness. And you make totally unfounded assumptions When permitted, I would quite happily drive at 130, , when I go through roadworks with a speed restriction e.g. on a motorway, I religiously stick to the speed limit. It's not unknown for me to have exceeded the speed limit at times, but I only do it when it's safe. -- geoff |
OT: Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
"Owain" wrote in message ... "John Rumm" wrote | 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? | (As with most suggestions of this type, they amount to nothing more than | unenforceable nonsense when placed under scrutiny) Didn't Nostradamus write that, a long time in the future, iron would float? Then we put a man on the moon. Then we started London congestion charging. It's only hard until it hasn't been done. In my experience if something is talked about long enough it happens. Mary Owain |
Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:57:14 +0100, Andrew McKay 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. If the insurance companies felt they could make more money baseing premiums on the driver and not the car they would change no matter the colour of the government. We must wait for a sensible party to occupy number 10 ;) Is that just before or after hell freezes over? -- Cheers Dave. pam is missing e-mail |
Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:48:21 +0100, derek wrote:
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. So why have the spent the money signing the site for a mobile camera near here. From my chats with the local constabulary the signs *had* to be there. This is a new site, I think it was there in time for Easter. I have yet to to see the mobile camera parked up. I drove out that way this morning. There are two signs, one oblong containing a small camera symbol and the text "traffic speed cameras". This is about 1.5 miles from the site and sort of describes the symbol. Then at .5 miles from the site, in either direction, is a large (approx 18" sq) camera symbol, no text. -- Cheers Dave. pam is missing e-mail |
New Electrical Regulations
"IMM" wrote in message ... "Capitol" wrote in message ... IMM wrote in message ... Yes most of the British people. After the stock markets near collapsed after 9-11 and a war, the UK economy is still one of the world's strongest with probably the strongest currency. 9-11 and the war hardly made an impact. Slightly off course and now near back on it. And if you believe that, then I'm sorry for you. You should feel sorry for yourself. Most small businesses are groaning under the weight of unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy, for the past 5 years, They always have done!!! No change there. no one in his right mind has set up a business in the UK. The tax system is out of control, Then introduce Land Value Tax. One tax only, the value of the land. Read this about your tax... We should soak the landowners by Antonia Swinson - New Statesman Monday 27th May 2002 Lloyd George favoured it; so did Churchill and Adam Smith. Denmark has one, as does Sydney, Australia. So why won't Gordon Brown have a land tax? How exhausting, expensive, maddening to live in a country where our destiny is to be squashed between a red-blooded feudal system and an even more rapacious market economy. So we have a Queen who receives a £50m tax-free bunce from her mother in a jubilee year, and much happy swapping of palaces, at a time when every news story apparently points to a population on the verge of a nervous breakdown: lousy infrastructure (Potters Bar just the latest spasm), an NHS where catching a hospital infection is a one-in-ten shot, and an education system that offers our children lower horizons than their parents had. Yet making connections with these increasingly sore subjects is at last allowing the revival of a political big idea which, since David Lloyd George was chancellor before the First World War, has dared not speak its name: land value taxation (LVT). If Tony Blair wants his place in history to be half as exciting as Lloyd George's - and if he wants Cherie to stop griping about how much they lost from selling the house in Islington before prices soared - now is the time to suggest LVT to the boy next door. This taxes the rental value of land annually, recognising that landowners, whether rural or urban, living in Cumberland or Islington, see their wealth rising not through their own efforts, but through the investment and activity of the local community. An office in the Hebrides has less rental value than one in Hampstead because of the huge difference in the numbers of people keen to live and work there. Local facilities provided by the taxpayer also create value; a house near a good state school attracts a 20 per cent premium. Owners of land near new infrastructure see values explode, yet none of these gains is returned to the community. LVT eliminates tax dodgers because you can't take land offshore. It also delivers speedy social and environmental benefits: our million empty homes would soon be occupied (and so would brownfield sites), for who would want to pay tax on an empty asset? And taxes on labour, employment, goods and services could be reduced. Pie in the sky? Perhaps not. Offshore property companies own huge tracts of undeveloped land in Liverpool: it helps their balance sheet collateral. The city council is lobbying Westminster to allow it to raise a land tax. In Edinburgh, businessmen propose that a suburban passenger railway could be wholly funded from the rising values of adjoining land. A property developer, Don Riley, in his book Taken for a Ride, estimated that surrounding land values along London's Jubilee Line rose by £1.3bn per station - untaxed gains that could easily have provided the £3.5bn costs of building the Tube line, which runs through some of the UK's most deprived areas. Economists' arguments against LVT are long rehearsed, much bolstered over the years by the considerable public relations finesse of the big landowners who have positioned themselves as custodians of the national heritage. They argue that it is not possible to separate building values from land for tax purposes. (Land speculators and property developers manage this beautifully.) LVT, they say, would not provide an adequate fiscal base for the welfare state - though no national statistical data has been given to support this. Then there is that little old lady in the big house who pays the same LVT as the millionaire next door. Finally, LVT is a violation of sacred property rights: that "Englishman's home is his castle" killer line. But LVT is not strictly a tax, rather a fee for benefits conferred by exclusive occupancy, and therefore no different in principle from a parking meter charge or a seat at the theatre, the price of which is dependent on its position. It is difficult not to smell a conspiracy in a country where landowners, roughly equivalent in number to the population of Aberdeen, control and own more than 90 per cent of the UK land mass (and receive around £4bn in subsidies). So in this transparent age of databases, the Treasury, astonishingly, keeps no records of the flow of income of landowners. Even the Land Registry contains details on only about 65 per cent of UK land - that sold since 1928. Yet, long before our digital age, such calculations were made, and the relics are to be found in the Public Record Office in Kew - dusty evidence of Lloyd George's bold though unsuccessful experiment to introduce land value taxation in the "people's Budget" of 1909. This budget brought the Valuation Office into existence. Scores of Inland Revenue valuers scoured the country, creating what has been dubbed the new Domesday Book. Long forgotten, these maps were discovered in the early 1990s by Professor Brian Short, then researching his book Land and Society in Edwardian Britain. In Edinburgh last month, a leading land reformer, Andy Wightman, came across the completed Scottish survey at the National Archives of Scotland, exact maps recorded in neat purple ink. Not that Lloyd George was the first fan of LVT. Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations (1776): "Ground rents are perhaps a species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them." In 1848, Lord Aberdeen judged LVT as the best means of paying for the colony of Hong Kong. Inadvertently, he unlocked the potential of one of the world's most dynamic economies. Then the American economist Henry George attracted a worldwide following in 1879 with Progress and Poverty, in which he called for an LVT of up to 90 per cent. His disciples included Mark Twain and Tolstoy. By the time Lloyd George introduced his "people's Budget", the merits of LVT were showing signs of becoming conventional wisdom. He did not actually propose a full-blooded land tax, merely a tax on sales of land. But for the landowning House of Lords, this was the thin end of a wedge for nationalisation. Winston Churchill, then president of the Board of Trade, proposed it and the Lords threw it out. As a result, in 1911, the Liberal government succeeded in putting through the Parliament Act, which henceforth limited the upper chamber's power to delay legislation. Then the First World War intervened. As the years went by, the growth in private home ownership caused British politicians to sideline the idea. Meanwhile a market dominated by speculators has created a climate where disinformation about green-belt preservation and hand-wringing over a shortage of housing for key workers abound. How extraordinarily blind we are. There is no shortage of bricks, mortar, builders or land: according to Kevin Cahill, author of Who Owns Britain, 99.9 per cent of us live on less than 9 per cent of the land mass - it's the other 0.1 per cent who have us in a neck lock. The charm of a land tax is that, unlike other forms of taxation, it stimulates economic activity rather than dampening it: what's the point of hanging on to land, waiting for it to go up in value, if you have to pay tax on it? The Centre for Land Policy Studies estimates that, under the current taxation system, the UK economy loses £881bn through tax avoidance, the black economy and lost output of goods and services. To raise £20bn for the NHS over the next three years will, the centre estimates, cost £63bn in what economists call dead-weight loss. Denmark has had land taxation since 1843, with 1 per cent of the value of both land and buildings taxed nationally, and up to 2.4 per cent of the land values taxed locally, with valuations every two years. Cities in the US, New Zealand and Australia raise local revenue from LVT; Sydney raises all its municipal revenues in this way. Yet, though the Liberal Democrats support the idea, the UK Treasury says it has "no plans" even to research LVT, and the Labour Party refuses to put it on its policy agenda. It wants, it says, the widest possible tax base (and you have to admit it's pretty wide when even those earning only £4,600 a year will pay the extra 1 per cent in national insurance contributions); when questioned on LVT, one Labour Party press officer called it "as daft as the window tax". Tony Blair has said he is determined to end poverty. LVT would be a means of providing painlessly for an old Labour-style public spending programme, as well as paying for an ageing population. How clearly this would demonstrate to wavering Mondeo Man and Worcester Woman that Iain Duncan Smith and his "we feel your pain" Tories are mere placemen of the Lord Cranbornes and myriad other descendants of the Plantagenet ascendancy. Antonia Swinson writes for Scotland on Sunday --- -- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 05/08/2003 |
Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:48:21 +0100, derek wrote: 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. So why have the spent the money signing the site for a mobile camera near here. From my chats with the local constabulary the signs *had* to be there. This is a new site, I think it was there in time for There was a case reported on the national news the other day where two off-duty cops had got off a (camera) speeding charge because the camera warning signs were incorrectly displayed (i.e. didn't conform to the Road Traffic Act or something). Easter. I have yet to to see the mobile camera parked up. I drove out that way this morning. There are two signs, one oblong containing a small camera symbol and the text "traffic speed cameras". This is about 1.5 miles from the site and sort of describes the symbol. Then at .5 miles from the site, in either direction, is a large (approx 18" sq) camera symbol, no text. |
Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
Andrew McKay wrote:
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. Hmmm, how about a credit system? Drive through one camera at 5mph *below* the speed limit and you get to drive through the next one at 5mph *over* without getting done - or even better, the Police/Govt should give us £60 everytime we pass a camera below the limit :-) Andrew Do you need a handyman service? Check out our web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk |
OT: Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
IMM wrote:
Old people and women, who drive slowly and then slam on for no apparent reason are major causes of accidents. Have you been following the same old dear I followed (after she pulled out in front of me) through Marlborough yesterday? At every pedestrian or pelican crossing she approached she braked if there was a pedestrian within 10 metres of the crossing. |
OT: Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
Mary Fisher wrote:
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. From an e-mail I received entitled "The Female Guinness Book Of Records": Car Parking The smallest kerbside space successfully reversed into by a woman was one of 19.36m (63ft 2ins), equivalent to three standard parking spaces, by Mrs. Elizabeth Simpkins, driving an unmodified Vauxhall Nova 'Swing' on 12th October 1993. She started the manoeuvre at 11.15am in Ropergate, Pontefract, and successfully parked within three feet of the pavement 8 hours 14 minutes later. There was slight damage to the bumpers and wings of her own and two adjoining cars, as well as a shop frontage and two lamp posts. And just look what happened when they opened a women-only car park in London: http://www.parish.nildram.co.uk/womensca.jpg |
OT: Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:01:01 GMT, Richard Caley wrote: 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. Add the following locations to that: Center of traffic lights. Vehicles turning right not crossing behind each other. Either crossing behind or in front is acceptable, according to the Highway Code. http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/16.shtml#151 Entry slip roads onto motorways or other fast roads. Vehicles not indicating, looking or matching speed as they join. Lane 2 of any empty motorway. Vehicle traveling at 60mph. |
OT: Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:36:22 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote: Center of traffic lights. Vehicles turning right not crossing behind each other. Some junctions make it simpler to pass in front. Entry slip roads onto motorways or other fast roads. Vehicles not indicating, looking or matching speed as they join. Don't forget the bozo's already on the motorway who stay in the inside lane at a lower speed when coming up to a slip road onto the motorway. Lane 2 of any empty motorway. Vehicle traveling at 60mph. Never mind the speed they are doing. And besides which, what the hell are you worried about? It's an empty motorway - you aren't there! ;) Andrew Do you need a handyman service? Check out our web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk |
OT: Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
"Mary Fisher" wrote in message t... "derek" wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:31:08 +0100, "Mary Fisher" wrote: 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. They're fine in streets of houses. Which describes our estate. And our street is narrow and few people park their cars in their drives, yet drivers still drive up and down at far more than the 30 limit. People have been injured. Worse, people park their cars on the pavements, thus forcing pedestrians (yes, there are quite a lot because there's a nursery at the bottom of the street) to walk on the road. There are some near us "The Ingles" there are some near you http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/411797.stm There are quite a lot near us. The other week I drove along Spencer Place and it was a pleasure. Was it a pleasure because of the road or what certain 'ladies' of that area were displaying 'on offer?' |
OT: Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
"James Hart" wrote in message ... 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/ Aren't the M180 and M181 in Lincs any more then? -- Woody |
OT: Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:30:00 +0000, parish parish_AT_ntlworld.com
wrote: IMM wrote: Old people and women, who drive slowly and then slam on for no apparent reason are major causes of accidents. Have you been following the same old dear I followed (after she pulled out in front of me) through Marlborough yesterday? At every pedestrian or pelican crossing she approached she braked if there was a pedestrian within 10 metres of the crossing. Let's hope she Devizes some improvements today :-) (Sorry, it's early in the morning) ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
OT: Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 06:32:33 +0100, Andrew McKay wrote:
Some junctions make it simpler to pass in front. The easy path cutting the corner and passing in front but then you can't see oncoming traffic properly due to the other car. That is why you should pass behind. You ought to see the looks you get if you pull far enough on to the central area (ie don't cut the corner) such that the other driver has to, correctly, pass behind. Don't forget the bozo's already on the motorway who stay in the inside lane at a lower speed when coming up to a slip road onto the motorway. The motorway traffic has right of way, that is why there is a Give Way line across the slip road and the requirement of the joining traffic to match speed be that speed 40mph or 90. Don't forget the bozo's in lane 1 travelling at Xmph who pull out into lane 2 with traffic travelling at Xmph + N (where N is a positive number) with no regard to the traffic in lane 2. Never mind the speed they are doing. And besides which, what the hell are you worried about? It's an empty motorway - you aren't there! ;) Touche. But we drive on the left in this country not the middle or right. -- Cheers Dave. pam is missing e-mail |
Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
In article , Andrew McKay (am) writes:
am No wait, Labour government in power. We must wait for a sensible party am to occupy number 10 ;) David Sutch is dead, he was by far the most sensible voice in UK politics, so don't hold your breath. -- Mail me as _O_ | |
OT: Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:50:31 +0000, parish wrote:
Either crossing behind or in front is acceptable, according to the Highway Code. http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/16.shtml#151 To quote that URL: = 151 You MUST stop behind the white 'Stop' line across your side of = the road unless the light is green. If the amber light appears you = may go on only if you have already crossed the stop line or are so = close to it that to stop might cause an accident. = Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 33 Doesn't seem particulary relevant... I think you mean rule 157. -- Cheers Dave. pam is missing e-mail |
New Electrical Regulations
"geoff" wrote in message ... In message , IMM writes "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. I didn't notice him asking for the latter. As always you make a statement but can't back it up. How many years is it now that you've sidestepped this direct question? Well here is my NI number HT 679023 K. Shoe size 7.5. --- -- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003 |
Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
In article , Andrew McKay
wrote: A decent carrot would be to reward people who drive less powerful motors. If you have a company car then your pay a lot less tax on a low CO2 car - I got a £60/pm tax cut from April 2002. There's no exact correlation between CO2 and power but in general CC drivers will pay a lot more for power (higher percentage tax band x higher price) -- Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm |
New Electrical Regulations
In message ,
Andrew McKay wrote: I recently posted an article on this forum in respect of the government introducing new regulations to require electrical work to be carried out by a registered electrician. From next April it will become law for electrical work to be undertaken only by said electricians (a bit like corgi for gas fitters). Just to return to topic for a nanosecond, and it's only a thought... but have you tried the meeja with this one? I only ask because I just heard the end of You and Yours and they are doing some items on DIY and wanted to know of DIY problems... in fact if you can make it convincing enough they may go a bit further than that if past performance is anything to go by. Now Y&Y may not be my favourite programme, but they do occasionally hit the right spot, and they've got exactly the right listenership... Something like http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/ I think. Hwyl! M. -- Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/ Don't fight technology, live with it: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ .... "Virtual" means never knowing where your next byte is coming from. |
Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:36:51 +0100, geoff wrote:
In message , Richard Caley writes In article , geoff (g) writes: a There are reckless drivers who speed. And there are quick assertive a drivers. Of course, anyone who considers themselves in class 2 is almost certainly really in class 1. g That's a rather stupid reply If you don't see why what I posted is true, you are probably in class 1. Inability to sanely judge one's own compitence is a common symptom of recklessness. And you make totally unfounded assumptions When permitted, I would quite happily drive at 130, , when I go through roadworks with a speed restriction e.g. on a motorway, I religiously stick to the speed limit. It's not unknown for me to have exceeded the speed limit at times, but I only do it when it's safe. And you have NEVER come across road works signs still in place long after the work has finished ? It is because of this lackadaisical approach to signage that the more intelligent amongst tend to use what is betwen our ears to assess situations as they arise instead of letting some nameless monolith make all decisions for us. Paul Mc Cann |
Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:08:17 +0100, John Rumm
wrote: stuart noble wrote: What does this have to do with speed cameras? I was under the impression that excessive speed was a major cause of accidents in built up areas. If this is not the case, and cameras are just another tax, then I claim my ?60 back. A cause yes - but I get the impression not a major cause. According to the police figures excessive speed is causal factor in 7.3% of cases - although they don't split these figures down by type of road as far as I can see, it does stand to reason that excess speed in a built up area with parked cars and lots of people is going to be a richer vein of accidents than on deserted motorways. Mixing pedestrians and traffic is a bad idea any ware. AKAICS You could lump the top 4 causes (excessive speed being 5th) into a category loosely termed "judgement errors". These are obviously harder to detect and "correct" than excess speed. (There are various separate categories for inappropriate speed in the prevailing conditions - most of these obviously are not going to be affected by cameras either). IMHO it is not 'excessive' speed that is the problem, buy inappropraite speed. This includes the pillock doing 30 mph in a traffic stream that is moving at 40mph. I mean what planet is he on that he is unaware of the traffic flowing all around him. I met a friend one day who was just off the phone to his daughter. She had the most amazing story of an accident which had happened right in front of her on a 3 lane dual carriageway. One car had passed her on the inside, the other on the outside and then both had attempted to occupy the empty space in front of her at the same time. Neither father or daughter could work it out. Paul Mc Cann |
Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:02:03 +0100, Paul Mc Cann
wrote: I met a friend one day who was just off the phone to his daughter. She had the most amazing story of an accident which had happened right in front of her on a 3 lane dual carriageway. One car had passed her on the inside, the other on the outside and then both had attempted to occupy the empty space in front of her at the same time. Neither father or daughter could work it out. There must be some analogy in there. One person trying to explain the situation in her left ear, one in her right ear, and the sound waves interfering destructively in the empty space inside her head ? -- John |
OT: Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
From an e-mail I received entitled "The Female Guinness Book Of Records": Well that must be the definitive tome. Car Parking The smallest kerbside space successfully reversed into by a woman was ... How do they know? It's nonsense. When I drove a very long car, a Humber Imperial (longer than our current Laguna estate but you'd probably not know the model), I always reversed into parking spaces, often only 2' longer than the car. It was measured by those (men of course) who couldn't believe their eyes because they couldn't have done it. I still do, of course, with the Laguna. It's far easier to reverse into any space than to drive into it. Mary And I've never damaged a car by reversing. Or even going forward, before you oh-so-wittily suggest it. |
OT: Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
The correct definition of a double yellow line was 'no waiting except for loading or unloading for longer than the working day.' The DoT did a survey and it showed that most people thought a double yellow meant no parking 24/7 - so in 1999 they changed it to mean exactly that. Except when the defining notice says differently. Mary -- Woody |
Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
Dave Liquorice wrote:
"The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002" That's the one, not the RTA. And the signs refered to above can be viewed at: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2002/02311395.gif In the case I was referring to the camera sign was integral with a speed limit sign, similar to the blue one in the above link but a large yellow rectangular sign with the speed limit above and the camera symbol below. The problem with it was that the camera symbol was on the yellow background and the entire sign had a black border. Apparently the camera symbol should have been on a white background (i.e. a white rectangle on the yellow background) and that white area *only* should have had the black border. So if you see signs they have to fit the placement, illumination etc regulations and there may be an operational camera. I haven't found anything that says cameras have to have signs, which I But, if this case doesn't get overturned if the Police appeal, then if there are signs then they must be correct else no-one can be convicted. guess is not surpriseing otherwise the systems fitted to patrol cars that can clock you on the move or the simple handheld "hair dryer" radar gun wouldn't have much use. |
OT: Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:30:00 +0000, parish parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote: IMM wrote: Old people and women, who drive slowly and then slam on for no apparent reason are major causes of accidents. Have you been following the same old dear I followed (after she pulled out in front of me) through Marlborough yesterday? At every pedestrian or pelican crossing she approached she braked if there was a pedestrian within 10 metres of the crossing. Let's hope she Devizes some improvements today :-) groan (Sorry, it's early in the morning) .andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
OT: Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:50:31 +0000, parish wrote: Either crossing behind or in front is acceptable, according to the Highway Code. http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/16.shtml#151 To quote that URL: = 151 You MUST stop behind the white 'Stop' line across your side of = the road unless the light is green. If the amber light appears you = may go on only if you have already crossed the stop line or are so = close to it that to stop might cause an accident. = Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 33 Doesn't seem particulary relevant... I think you mean rule 157. Yeah, OK. I just followed a link for traffic lights in the index; didn't notice that the rule numer was in the URL. |
Speed cameras (Was: New Electrical Regulations)
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 11:48:22 +0100, Tony Bryer
wrote: In article , Huge wrote: Indeed, I've (vaguely) heard of proposals to scrap premiums based on the car and only base them on the driver. There was a company that did this about 20-25 years ago (Alpha?). They went broke because the drivers with low risk cars could get better quotes elsewhere so they were left with the XR3's and BMW's Not quite true. I was insured with them and dove a Beetle at the time. Drove it into the side of an E Type Jaguar who injudiciously attempted to cross the road in front of me. We were both insured with them. My memory is that the other insurance companies convinced the government to keep raising the bar, (i.e.) the amount of funds required as indemnity to run an insurance company, to the point were the fledgling business couldn't comply. It always made more sense to me to insure the driver rather than the car. Paul Mc Cann |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter