In article ,
The Reid wrote:
When I was a kid we used to make our own chloroform. We were too middle
class to have heard of glue-sniffing.

I used to by ether and amyl nitrate to make up model aeroplane
fuel at about 15 or so. dont suppose you can now (possibly not
legally then?).

You can certainly buy amyl nitrate - but you might not like the places
that sell it. ;-)

--
*We are born naked, wet, and hungry. Then things get worse.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Reid wrote:
Dave Fawthrop wrote:

A tiny sniff of alcohol has significant effects on
driving/walking/cycling ability.

I see Dave missed the "in" from "insignificant" What a pillock
you are Dave.

I'd think so. The amount they found in my blood was something like 1/50th
of a unit. But I took the bus home to be sure. ;-)

--
* What do they call a coffee break at the Lipton Tea Company? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 11 May 2006 10:07:18 +0100, The Reid
wrote:

|Following up to vulgarandmischevious
|
|Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|
|A tiny sniff of alcohol has significant effects on driving/walking/cycling
|ability.
|
|I see Dave missed the "in" from "insignificant" What a pillock
|you are Dave.

No just an observer of the idiots who mess up their lives with drink :-(

They all deny that it has any effect, and also swear blind that they are
*not* alcoholics.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

On Thu, 11 May 2006 13:02:06 +0100, The Reid
wrote:

|Following up to Mike Barnes
|
|But as I say, as long as drivers keep a safe distance. Many a pile-up
|can be prevented.
|
|Of course. A pile-up is, by definition, a failure to keep a safe
|distance. :-)
|
|except for the ones who are asleep :-)

Sleep caused by alcohol?
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

The Reid wrote in
:

Following up to Adrian Tupper

Motor vehicle speed limits don't apply to human or animal powered
vehicles.

Interesting. Mind you, I'm not aware of any of these causing serious
accidents.

(but someone will no doubt find a story or a statistic)

cyclists sometimes hit pedestrians, often while jumping red
lights.

Yes, well that's already illegal and they deserve to be prosecuted.

You will see lots of animal related accidents at Pamplona
each year.

Trust you to come out with a load of bull like that :-)

--
Adrian

Remove packaging and take out insurance before emailing me

The Reid wrote in
:

Following up to Adrian Tupper

so you *would* support a 10 mph urban speed limit?

We already have 20mph in sensitive places and I don't think moving to
10mph is going to help. If it does, then I would rather the road is
closed completely and traffic is routed somewhere away from
pedestrians
as a 10mph road is next to useless for most.

I broadly agree. But I'm sure you see that you are therefore
agreeing with the utility argument, but just at a different
chosen trade off.

Very very few value statements work when tested in extremis. The
important thing in my mind is to challenge the drivers' mentality you
frequently see that the road is MINE. If they can't share it with
pedestrians and cyclists etc then a reduction in everyones' rights is
inevitable.

--
Adrian

Remove packaging and take out insurance before emailing me

The Reid wrote in
:

Following up to Adrian Tupper

but it will save lives without slowing journeys or
making driving a pain in the butt, I would have thought)

They may make money. It's not unusual for the limit to be 20mph
outside
schools and I think this is frequently ignored.

they are all 30 round here, not that that's the point. The
cameras I pass on one regular daily run are thusly
several on 50 dual (was 70 until recently,so you can picture the
layout)
one on steep downhill 30 (no particular hazards)
none outside schools, shopping centres or junctions where low
speed would be good.
I'm inclined to conclude they are placed where most people speed,
rather than protecting hazards to pedestrians. The downhill 30
seems designed to catch out relatively "innocent" people who fail
to brake enough for the downhill.

Yes, we have the like that around here too. Conspiracy theorists are
convinced it's more to do with raising revenues through fines.

I might as well have a rant about the one on the A303 while I'm
at it Picture up hill two lanes, down hill one lane (crawler lane
type layout) . At end of stretch of uphill 2 lane a blind brow.
If there's one spot in the whole country where high speed is
safer, its there. Overtake and get back in well before the brow
in case a lunatic is in wrong lane or there's some other hazard
over the hill. so what do they do? Put a speed camera on the safe
bit so people end up still overtaking when they get near the
brow. no doubt they noted accidents at that spot so concluded a
camera would cure the problem. A nice piece of concrete island
would cure it much better. the camera just has the effect of
stooping overtaking and moving overtakes somewhere less suitable.

Yes, I agree that cameras should be sited where they save most lives.
But then again I don't agree with breaking speed limits so I have little
real sympathy for those caught, frustrating though it must be,

--
Adrian

Remove packaging and take out insurance before emailing me

Dave Fawthrop wrote in
:

On Thu, 11 May 2006 13:02:06 +0100, The Reid dontuse@fell-
walker.co.uk
wrote:

|Following up to Mike Barnes
|
|But as I say, as long as drivers keep a safe distance. Many a pile-
up
|can be prevented.
|
|Of course. A pile-up is, by definition, a failure to keep a safe
|distance. :-)
|
|except for the ones who are asleep :-)

Sleep caused by alcohol?

How is that any different? You're either aware or you're not.

--
Adrian

Remove packaging and take out insurance before emailing me

The message
from Mike Barnes contains these words:

Of course. A pile-up is, by definition, a failure to keep a safe
distance. :-)

On someone's behalf, at least.

In any pile-up I'd expect at least some poor sods who left plenty of
room, stopped with several yards to spare, then got shoved into the
wreckage by the tit behind.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

The message
from Adrian Tupper
contains these words:

2-way traffic is different and residential areas
are very different.

Like the "Home Zone" recently made near here. All the pavements have
gone and pedestrians mix freely with the cars.

Does it work?

Well, if you're a car driver, yes. There's more room to drive and few
kids to worry about? Why so few kids? 'Cos where they previously had
grass areas to play on, and pavements to walk along they're now kept
indoors 'cos the drivers go too fast and the parents have more sense
than to let their kids take part in a bold experiment.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Following up to Dave Plowman (News)

I used to by ether and amyl nitrate to make up model aeroplane
fuel at about 15 or so. dont suppose you can now (possibly not
legally then?).

You can certainly buy amyl nitrate - but you might not like the places
that sell it. ;-)

it must have been an age of innocence.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Adrian Tupper

No, the blame is still on the undertaking driver for driving carelessly.

that's what I was trying to say.

If someone is doing 50mph in a motorway fast lane then it takes seconds
to undertake and pull in front into the huge gap that by definition must
exist in front of the slow driver.

that's not the sort of situation I'm talking about, there's no
huge gap, there isn't even a small gap:-

either there's a lot of traffic in L3 because a few people are in
L2 when they could be in L1 or
there is a long queue in L3 overtaking a vehicle in L2.

L3 will typically be doing about 70

The prat, undertakes in L1 or 2 and then *forces* his way into L3
when blocked by traffic in L1 or 2 from further undertaking. He
either thinks he has some right to get to the "front" by any
means or falsely believes all the other people in L3 don't in
fact want to go faster (actually they are waiting to overtake).
As the motorway is probably in the same condition ahead he
probably only makes a few hundred yards progress over other cars
and may be shut out by drivers like me[1], when they get a chance
and make no progress at all

1] by driving in "bursts" from beside one L2 car to the next L2
car, thus preventing undertaking unless L1 is empty (which it
often is as many drivers seem to just sit in the middle lane, the
original cause of this behaviour).
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Adrian Tupper

cyclists sometimes hit pedestrians, often while jumping red
lights.

Yes, well that's already illegal and they deserve to be prosecuted.

might happen sometimes I suppose.

You will see lots of animal related accidents at Pamplona
each year.

Trust you to come out with a load of bull like that :-)

(-:
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Adrian Tupper

Sleep caused by alcohol?

How is that any different? You're either aware or you're not.

Dave's just stupidly obsessed by alcohol. No Dave, not alcohol,
drowsiness, one of the commonest problems on motorways, normally
nothing to do with alcohol at all.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Adrian Tupper

I broadly agree. But I'm sure you see that you are therefore
agreeing with the utility argument, but just at a different
chosen trade off.

Very very few value statements work when tested in extremis.

I usually think the opposite, if it doesn't work when
extrapolated, its false.

The important thing in my mind is to challenge the drivers' mentality you
frequently see that the road is MINE. If they can't share it with
pedestrians and cyclists etc then a reduction in everyones' rights is
inevitable.

the undertaker prat cant even share it with other cars! But yes,
I agree, although I'm not sure its all that typical thinking
nowadays. But you have to wonder why Mercs have a sight on the
bonnet? :-)
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Adrian Tupper

The downhill 30
seems designed to catch out relatively "innocent" people who fail
to brake enough for the downhill.

Yes, we have the like that around here too. Conspiracy theorists are
convinced it's more to do with raising revenues through fines.

I don't think it is, its just a belief in arbitrary speed limits
for their own sake, irrespective of the danger at that place
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

On Thu, 11 May 2006 16:51:30 +0100, The Reid
wrote:


|No Dave, not alcohol,
|drowsiness, one of the commonest problems on motorways, normally
|nothing to do with alcohol at all.

Simply solved by a cup of coffee, and a walk to the Cafe in the service
area.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

In article ,
Dave Fawthrop wrote:
No just an observer of the idiots who mess up their lives with drink :-(

They all deny that it has any effect, and also swear blind that they are
*not* alcoholics.

A heavy drinker isn't necessarily an alcoholic. Addiction means you simply
*can't* stop without external help.

--
*I have plenty of talent and vision. I just don't care.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Mike Barnes" wrote in message
...
In uk.d-i-y, Adrian Tupper wrote:
But as I say, as long as drivers keep a safe distance. Many a pile-up
can be prevented.

Of course. A pile-up is, by definition, a failure to keep a safe
distance. :-)

My son was hit from behind and 3 cars behind him shunted. The police blamed
my son!! Fortunately the Insurance company didn't agree!

Ophelia

Guy King wrote in
:

The message
from Mike Barnes contains these
words:

Of course. A pile-up is, by definition, a failure to keep a safe
distance. :-)

On someone's behalf, at least.

In any pile-up I'd expect at least some poor sods who left plenty of
room, stopped with several yards to spare, then got shoved into the
wreckage by the tit behind.


Yes, that's the danger and that's why I think it's a serious offence.

--
Adrian

Remove packaging and take out insurance before emailing me

The Reid wrote in
:

Following up to Adrian Tupper

No, the blame is still on the undertaking driver for driving
carelessly.

that's what I was trying to say.

Sorry, I thought you were refering to the slow driver.


If someone is doing 50mph in a motorway fast lane then it takes
seconds to undertake and pull in front into the huge gap that by
definition must exist in front of the slow driver.

that's not the sort of situation I'm talking about, there's no
huge gap, there isn't even a small gap:-

either there's a lot of traffic in L3 because a few people are in
L2 when they could be in L1 or
there is a long queue in L3 overtaking a vehicle in L2.

L3 will typically be doing about 70

The prat, undertakes in L1 or 2 and then *forces* his way into L3
when blocked by traffic in L1 or 2 from further undertaking. He
either thinks he has some right to get to the "front" by any
means or falsely believes all the other people in L3 don't in
fact want to go faster (actually they are waiting to overtake).
As the motorway is probably in the same condition ahead he
probably only makes a few hundred yards progress over other cars
and may be shut out by drivers like me[1], when they get a chance
and make no progress at all

Yes, people like that should be done for careless driving.

ISTR an experiment where cars "raced" between two junctions of a busy
motorway. The car that hopped lanes arrived something like 30 seconds
ahead of the drivers who stayed in the same lane. i.e. was it worth it?

1] by driving in "bursts" from beside one L2 car to the next L2
car, thus preventing undertaking unless L1 is empty (which it
often is as many drivers seem to just sit in the middle lane, the
original cause of this behaviour).

--
Adrian

Remove packaging and take out insurance before emailing me

"Adrian Tupper" wrote in
message 9...
"Ophelia" wrote in
:


"Mike Barnes" wrote in message
...
In uk.d-i-y, Adrian Tupper wrote:
But as I say, as long as drivers keep a safe distance. Many a
pile-up can be prevented.

Of course. A pile-up is, by definition, a failure to keep a safe
distance. :-)

My son was hit from behind and 3 cars behind him shunted. The police
blamed my son!! Fortunately the Insurance company didn't agree!

I thought the driver behind was always at fault. Although I would argue
against that if it is soneone who has just pulled in front of me. But
I'm sure your son wouldn't do that!

Seems he was just tootling along just below the limit and they ran into him.
I have always heard
that anyone who runs into a car in front is at fault for not leaving anough
space between them. The insurance people say the the police are talking
nonsense and gave him a courtesy car immediately

"Ophelia" wrote in
. uk:


"Adrian Tupper" wrote
in message 9...
"Ophelia" wrote in
:


"Mike Barnes" wrote in message
...
In uk.d-i-y, Adrian Tupper wrote:
But as I say, as long as drivers keep a safe distance. Many a
pile-up can be prevented.

Of course. A pile-up is, by definition, a failure to keep a safe
distance. :-)

My son was hit from behind and 3 cars behind him shunted. The
police blamed my son!! Fortunately the Insurance company didn't
agree!

I thought the driver behind was always at fault. Although I would
argue against that if it is soneone who has just pulled in front of
me. But I'm sure your son wouldn't do that!

Seems he was just tootling along just below the limit and they ran
into him. I have always heard
that anyone who runs into a car in front is at fault for not leaving
anough space between them. The insurance people say the the police
are talking nonsense and gave him a courtesy car immediately

Good for them. I don't know what the police are thinking about.

--
Adrian

Remove packaging and take out insurance before emailing me

The message
from Adrian Tupper
contains these words:

On someone's behalf, at least.

In any pile-up I'd expect at least some poor sods who left plenty of
room, stopped with several yards to spare, then got shoved into the
wreckage by the tit behind.


Yes, that's the danger and that's why I think it's a serious offence.

Damned nearly happened to me last Friday. I rarely venture out in what
passes for rush hour in Telford, having no need, and now I know why!

First, as I joined the dual carriageway; matched speed nicely, line
myself up next to a slot in the traffic, check mirror and blind-spot
before actually moving out and find that the arsehole in the car behind
me on the sliproad is overtaking me and taking the slot I was about to
move into, leaving me with nowhere to go.

Second, as the dual carriageway becomes ordinary road, just as a
sliproad runs down and joins; car in front of me unaccountably stops to
allow someone coming down the sliproad to join. I stop. Car behind me
careers out of control past the inside of all three other cars onto the
nearside verge.

Third, three cars back from a skip lorry; sheet of metal about the size
of a single bed floats up from the skip and skitters all over the place.
I slow down because that's what the cars in front are doing. Car behind
me (not the same one that ended up on the grass, though this is only
about half a mile later) can be heard taxing the ABS nicely and slides
past me grazing the kerb.

It was the first really pleasant spring evening, which happened to be a
Friday and I guess people were in a hurry to get home.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

"David P" wrote in message
...
On 06 May 2006, wrote:

"David P" wrote in message
...
[...]

No, you safer using cold water for drinking and cooking.

Hot water contains more lead because the water sits around more and
lead enters hot water faster.

Besides, why would you risk burns with hot water when cold is right
there?


Er, you have missed a couple of things. The water from the hot water
tap is not so hot as to burn.

The cold water tap, as I said, is from a tank.

A wooden tank.

And for the hot water, it is never a good idea to get used to using it to
brush teeth. You don't want to get in the habit of using hot water to brush
teeth, because other places (.e.g, a friend's house) might have hotter hot
water.

Jeff

Guy King wrote in
:

The message
from Adrian Tupper
contains these words:

On someone's behalf, at least.

In any pile-up I'd expect at least some poor sods who left plenty
of
room, stopped with several yards to spare, then got shoved into the
wreckage by the tit behind.


Yes, that's the danger and that's why I think it's a serious offence.

Damned nearly happened to me last Friday. I rarely venture out in what
passes for rush hour in Telford, having no need, and now I know why!

First, as I joined the dual carriageway; matched speed nicely, line
myself up next to a slot in the traffic, check mirror and blind-spot
before actually moving out and find that the arsehole in the car
behind
me on the sliproad is overtaking me and taking the slot I was about to
move into, leaving me with nowhere to go.

Second, as the dual carriageway becomes ordinary road, just as a
sliproad runs down and joins; car in front of me unaccountably stops
to
allow someone coming down the sliproad to join. I stop. Car behind me
careers out of control past the inside of all three other cars onto
the
nearside verge.

Third, three cars back from a skip lorry; sheet of metal about the
size
of a single bed floats up from the skip and skitters all over the
place.
I slow down because that's what the cars in front are doing. Car
behind
me (not the same one that ended up on the grass, though this is only
about half a mile later) can be heard taxing the ABS nicely and slides
past me grazing the kerb.

It was the first really pleasant spring evening, which happened to be
a
Friday and I guess people were in a hurry to get home.

It sounds comical, Guy. I'd be lucky to witness all of that in one year
let alone one short journey. Or do you have a greater proportion of
incompetent drivers in Telford than the rest of us?

I'll beware next time I'm down that way - probably early July.

--
Adrian

Remove packaging and take out insurance before emailing me

Following up to Dave Plowman (News)

They all deny that it has any effect, and also swear blind that they are
*not* alcoholics.

A heavy drinker isn't necessarily an alcoholic. Addiction means you simply
*can't* stop without external help.

Dave (the other one I assume your making the mistake of talking
to) works with alkies and cant see that the majority of people
are not like that.
For the record Dave F, I dont think alcohol has no effect and Ive
never met anybody who did, however the small amount you mentioned
doesnt, but why am I bothering? Youre too pig headed to ever hear
anything you didnt already "know".
--
Mike Reid
"Think on lad, tha' can always tell a Yorkshireman, but not much"
"http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" (Spain, walking)
see website for email

Following up to Guy King

Like the "Home Zone" recently made near here. All the pavements have
gone and pedestrians mix freely with the cars.

Does it work?

Well, if you're a car driver, yes. There's more room to drive and few
kids to worry about? Why so few kids? 'Cos where they previously had
grass areas to play on, and pavements to walk along they're now kept
indoors 'cos the drivers go too fast and the parents have more sense
than to let their kids take part in a bold experiment.

Its a pity that's not working, it obviously depends on people not
hiding indoors. Only lunatic drivers will go fast with no idea
where people are going to be, I was hoping that idea might be a
winner. Segregation often seems such a failure. People struggling
with heavy shopping harassed by yobs on skateboards and then
there's the street entertainers.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Adrian Tupper

that's what I was trying to say.

Sorry, I thought you were refering to the slow driver.

nobody should be encouraged to drive faster than they feel they
cam cope with but they should use the leftmost lane available.
Unfortunately they don't, probably partly lack of skills, lack of
thought and in the case of a person I discussed it with in real
life, laziness and selfishness.

Yes, people like that should be done for careless driving.

dangerous driving IMHO. Careless is for mistakes, dangerous for
intentional, but I'm not a lawyer and as I wouldn't want speeding
on motorways to be dangerous driving I'm stuck with intentional
dangerous manoeuvres being careless I suppose. These people are
the worst drivers I see apart from those in towns on mobiles
paying little attention to what they are doing. Confiscate the
phone on the spot I say.

ISTR an experiment where cars "raced" between two junctions of a busy
motorway. The car that hopped lanes arrived something like 30 seconds
ahead of the drivers who stayed in the same lane. i.e. was it worth it?

Its worth maintaining a good average speed, but in any sort of
traffic nothing you do makes a significant difference at all. The
best thing is too smooth the traffic by letting people out/merge
etc. I average nearly 70 on London Aberdeen, not by doing stupid
things in traffic, but by going fast on empty roads (I don't set
off in the rush hour of course). I'm much more likely to be fined
than the lunatics, because I'm breaking the speed limit, about
the only motoring offence anybody does anything much about
nowadays. On that run I will probably see two patrol cars, they
don't do a lot, maybe cause a rolling road block for a while.
There will be a "safety camera" on a bridge in Cumbria, fining
people for doing 85 on a empty road, which I think is utterly
pointless. I think you can drive like a total prat nowadays, as
long as you stay within the speed limit and don't crash, nobody
will stop you. The combination of that, congestion and lane
hogging are IMHO lowering the standard of motorway driving.
But traffic police are expensive and speed cameras make a profit,
so that's the way it will be policed in future.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Ophelia

Seems he was just tootling along just below the limit and they ran into him.

then there's no way he can be at fault unless maybe stopping
without good reason on a no stopping allowed road.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

On Fri, 12 May 2006 12:02:01 +0100, The Reid
wrote:

|Following up to Dave Plowman (News)
|
| They all deny that it has any effect, and also swear blind that they are
| *not* alcoholics.
|
|A heavy drinker isn't necessarily an alcoholic. Addiction means you simply
|*can't* stop without external help.
|
|Dave (the other one I assume your making the mistake of talking
|to) works with alkies and cant see that the majority of people
|are not like that.
|For the record Dave F, I dont think alcohol has no effect and Ive
|never met anybody who did, however the small amount you mentioned
|doesnt, but why am I bothering? Youre too pig headed to ever hear
|anything you didnt already "know".

Pot, Kettle Black :-(
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

In article ,
The Reid wrote:
A heavy drinker isn't necessarily an alcoholic. Addiction means you
simply *can't* stop without external help.

Dave (the other one I assume your making the mistake of talking
to) works with alkies and cant see that the majority of people
are not like that.

Then he really should learn about the subject. A few open AA meetings
would be a start - as well as reading some of the vast amount available
from a search.

--
*Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The message
from Adrian Tupper
contains these words:

It sounds comical, Guy. I'd be lucky to witness all of that in one year
let alone one short journey. Or do you have a greater proportion of
incompetent drivers in Telford than the rest of us?

Actually, they're mostly OK, it was because it was so out of the
ordinary that it stuck in my mind.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

"The Reid" wrote in message
...
Following up to Adrian Tupper

that's what I was trying to say.

Sorry, I thought you were refering to the slow driver.

nobody should be encouraged to drive faster than they feel they
cam cope with but they should use the leftmost lane available.
Unfortunately they don't, probably partly lack of skills, lack of
thought and in the case of a person I discussed it with in real
life, laziness and selfishness.

Yes, people like that should be done for careless driving.

dangerous driving IMHO. Careless is for mistakes, dangerous for
intentional, but I'm not a lawyer and as I wouldn't want speeding
on motorways to be dangerous driving I'm stuck with intentional
dangerous manoeuvres being careless I suppose. These people are
the worst drivers I see apart from those in towns on mobiles
paying little attention to what they are doing. Confiscate the
phone on the spot I say.

ISTR an experiment where cars "raced" between two junctions of a busy
motorway. The car that hopped lanes arrived something like 30 seconds
ahead of the drivers who stayed in the same lane. i.e. was it worth it?

Its worth maintaining a good average speed, but in any sort of
traffic nothing you do makes a significant difference at all. The
best thing is too smooth the traffic by letting people out/merge
etc. I average nearly 70 on London Aberdeen, not by doing stupid
things in traffic, but by going fast on empty roads (I don't set
off in the rush hour of course). I'm much more likely to be fined
than the lunatics, because I'm breaking the speed limit, about
the only motoring offence anybody does anything much about
nowadays. On that run I will probably see two patrol cars, they
don't do a lot, maybe cause a rolling road block for a while.
There will be a "safety camera" on a bridge in Cumbria, fining
people for doing 85 on a empty road, which I think is utterly
pointless. I think you can drive like a total prat nowadays, as
long as you stay within the speed limit and don't crash, nobody
will stop you. The combination of that, congestion and lane
hogging are IMHO lowering the standard of motorway driving.
But traffic police are expensive and speed cameras make a profit,
so that's the way it will be policed in future.
--
A few years ago, my B-I-L was pulled over for going at 91mph. The cop told
him that if he'd been going at 90mph, they wouldn't have stopped him - he
just pushed them a bit too much. After that, he set the speed warning
thingy in his BMW to ping at 89mph. I understand that things are more
restrictive now and the cops wouldn't be so generous.
Graham

Following up to graham

A few years ago, my B-I-L was pulled over for going at 91mph.
The cop told
him that if he'd been going at 90mph, they wouldn't have stopped him - he
just pushed them a bit too much. After that, he set the speed warning
thingy in his BMW to ping at 89mph. I understand that things are more
restrictive now and the cops wouldn't be so generous.

the safety cameras will I think do you for 70 + 10% + 2 = 82.
Your "indicated" is likely to be very slightly more.
A patrol car probably doesn't want the aggro for 83 mph.
100mph (30+) will earn serious aggro.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

In article ,
The Reid wrote:
Following up to graham

A few years ago, my B-I-L was pulled over for going at 91mph.
The cop told
him that if he'd been going at 90mph, they wouldn't have stopped him - he
just pushed them a bit too much. After that, he set the speed warning
thingy in his BMW to ping at 89mph. I understand that things are more
restrictive now and the cops wouldn't be so generous.

the safety cameras will I think do you for 70 + 10% + 2 = 82.
Your "indicated" is likely to be very slightly more.
A patrol car probably doesn't want the aggro for 83 mph.
100mph (30+) will earn serious aggro.

I know of someone getting a ticket for 32mph in a 30mph limit.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In uk.d-i-y, The Reid wrote:
the safety cameras will I think do you for 70 + 10% + 2 = 82

70 + 10% + 2 = 79

--
Mike Barnes

The Reid wrote:
Following up to Adrian Tupper
[snip]
nobody should be encouraged to drive faster than they feel they
cam cope with but they should use the leftmost lane available.

The same goes for people who *choose* not to go faster. There are
other reasons, apart from "not feeling able to cope" for going
slower than the limit.


Unfortunately they don't, probably partly lack of skills, lack of
thought and in the case of a person I discussed it with in real
life, laziness and selfishness.

This is true for many people.


Yes, people like that should be done for careless driving.

dangerous driving IMHO.

Rubbish. People who want to drive faster should be able to
deal with slower drivers in a safe manner. If they can't,
they should not be on the road.


ISTR an experiment where cars "raced" between two junctions of a busy
motorway. The car that hopped lanes arrived something like 30 seconds
ahead of the drivers who stayed in the same lane. i.e. was it worth it?

No. The Highway Code says you shouldn't do this. A following
policeman will Have Words.

In uk.d-i-y, John Cartmell wrote:
I know of someone getting a ticket for 32mph in a 30mph limit.

Is it possible that he was doing something else wrong? From ACPO's
guidelines:

The guidance to police officers is that it is anticipated that,
other than in the most exceptional circumstances, the issue of
fixed penalty notices and summonses is likely to be the minimum
appropriate enforcement action as soon as the following speeds have
been reached:

Limit Fixed Penalty Summons
20 mph 25 mph 35 mph
30 mph 35 mph 50 mph
40 mph 46 mph 66 mph
50 mph 57 mph 76 mph
60 mph 68 mph 86 mph
70 mph 79 mph 96 mph

This guidance does not and cannot replace the police officer's
discretion and they may decide to issue a summons or a fixed
penalty notice in respect of offences committed at speeds lower
than those set out in the table. Moreover, in particular
circumstances, driving at speeds lower than the legal limit may
result in prosecution for other offences, for example dangerous
driving or driving without due care and attention when the speed is
inappropriate and inherently unsafe.

http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/polici...ment_guideline
s_web_v7_foi.doc

--
Mike Barnes

Following up to John Cartmell

the safety cameras will I think do you for 70 + 10% + 2 = 82.
Your "indicated" is likely to be very slightly more.
A patrol car probably doesn't want the aggro for 83 mph.
100mph (30+) will earn serious aggro.

I know of someone getting a ticket for 32mph in a 30mph limit.

that's very unusual as the chief constables recommendation for
the margin gives (thinks)......35 mph. Or probably an indicated
36+.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap