In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
That's why the residential speed limits were introduced. So that
emergency stops can be performed at the point of someone crossing the
road unware of the potential collision heading their way.

When did the 30 mph limit come into force? Anyone know?

I *think* the '20s.

Reaction time is presumably the same, but stopping distance must have
halved.

I doubt the stopping distance from 30 has changed a great deal. From
higher speeds, yes. Of course you can ignore the HC distances - they have
always been very conservative.

--
*OK, who stopped payment on my reality check?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
That's why the residential speed limits were introduced. So that
emergency stops can be performed at the point of someone crossing the
road unware of the potential collision heading their way.

When did the 30 mph limit come into force? Anyone know?

I *think* the '20s.

1934, the same year that driving tests were introduced. (Alright I cheated
it was a question in the pub quiz last week)

Reaction time is presumably the same, but stopping distance must have
halved.

Not for someone who passed their test in 1934!

Adam

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Adrian C wrote:

Dave wrote:

On another subject, when did pelican crossings have their sounds for the
blind, telling that it was safe to cross, get removed. They have the
knobbly flag stones but no way to let them know it is safe to cross.


That's why the residential speed limits were introduced. So that
emergency stops can be performed at the point of someone crossing the
road unware of the potential collision heading their way.

Though at higher speeds there are no problems of this nature in other
countries. In Cairo in Egypt, to cross the road on a busy road you just
cross. The drivers will expertly drive about ye and Him above will look
after ye. We have some catching up to do - chicken/dodgems on the M25
anyone?

:-)

Smiley noted, but this/these crossings are on the A6, the town bypass. The
train station is on the wrong side of the road for the visually impaired.

Dave

I think you'll find that *most* of the crossing control boxes have a little
tactile indicator underneath the box that rotates when the green man is
showing. The blind person (me) just touches a finger to the indicator and
when it rotates it's safe to cross.
HTH

Iain

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:40:37 +0100, Dave
wrote:

geoff wrote:

In message , PeterMcC
writes

Mark wrote in


snip


I wish they would fine drivers around where I live for parking on the
pavement. I'm fed up with having to walk my small children on the
road when taking them to school.


And it makes it so dangerous for the cyclists.

What cyclists ?

They all ride on the pavement around here

Our local council has put cycle lanes on some footpaths that were never
designed to have them. All the white lines were put down along with
pedestrian and cycle symbols, but guess who got the lampposts in the
middle of the path.

Sounds like a thread from urc!

On another subject, when did pelican crossings have their sounds for the
blind, telling that it was safe to cross, get removed. They have the
knobbly flag stones but no way to let them know it is safe to cross.

The noise upsets Mrs Sproggins' cat in No 25, so they switched it off.

It doesn't work for the hard of hearing so they changed it.



Sounds are switched off when there are more than one crossing in close
proximity, i.e. at a crossroads, as it can be difficult to know which
particular one is bleeping.
HTH

Iain

swarfmaker wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
Adrian C wrote:

Dave wrote:

On another subject, when did pelican crossings have their sounds for the
blind, telling that it was safe to cross, get removed. They have the
knobbly flag stones but no way to let them know it is safe to cross.

That's why the residential speed limits were introduced. So that
emergency stops can be performed at the point of someone crossing the
road unware of the potential collision heading their way.

Though at higher speeds there are no problems of this nature in other
countries. In Cairo in Egypt, to cross the road on a busy road you just
cross. The drivers will expertly drive about ye and Him above will look
after ye. We have some catching up to do - chicken/dodgems on the M25
anyone?

:-)
Smiley noted, but this/these crossings are on the A6, the town bypass. The
train station is on the wrong side of the road for the visually impaired.

Dave

I think you'll find that *most* of the crossing control boxes have a little
tactile indicator underneath the box that rotates when the green man is
showing. The blind person (me) just touches a finger to the indicator and
when it rotates it's safe to cross.
HTH


Following this thread, I checked this out this afternoon. Exactly as
described. Amazing!

Now I can chat away or set to thinking about something while waiting for
the green man and know I will not miss it. :-)

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

Dave Baker wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
That's why the residential speed limits were introduced. So that
emergency stops can be performed at the point of someone crossing
the road unware of the potential collision heading their way.

When did the 30 mph limit come into force? Anyone know?

I *think* the '20s.

Reaction time is presumably the same, but stopping distance must
have halved.

I doubt the stopping distance from 30 has changed a great deal. From
higher speeds, yes. Of course you can ignore the HC distances - they
have always been very conservative.

Assuming a vehicle with brakes good enough to lock the wheels then the
stopping distance, at any speed, will be a function of the tyre grip.
The percentage difference with better modern rubber will be the same
at any speed. A 1g stop from 30 mph (about the best a modern car can
do) is almost exactly 30 feet. 50 years ago a 0.75g stop might have
been more realistic which would be 40 ft. Of course modern disc
brakes are also less likely to fade at high speed than drum brakes of
yore.

Servo's & ABS would make a difference as well surely?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Wed, 14 May 2008 07:53:10 UTC, "PeterMcC"
wrote:

Sorry - I did use an ironic typeface when I wrote it but Usenet just shows
up in plain text

Cars parking on the pavement make it dangerous for the cyclists - geddit?

Personally, anything that makes pavements dangerous for cyclists is fine
by me! I do all I can.... :-)

Our local plod - big dave is on a crusade, he hides and leaps out at
them, giving them a stern talking to

unfortunately, despite being six foot six, he's still a bit too nice to
scare the ****s out of them


--
geoff

On Wed, 14 May 2008 21:05:12 UTC, geoff wrote:

In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Wed, 14 May 2008 07:53:10 UTC, "PeterMcC"
wrote:

Sorry - I did use an ironic typeface when I wrote it but Usenet just shows
up in plain text

Cars parking on the pavement make it dangerous for the cyclists - geddit?

Personally, anything that makes pavements dangerous for cyclists is fine
by me! I do all I can.... :-)

Our local plod - big dave is on a crusade, he hides and leaps out at
them, giving them a stern talking to

unfortunately, despite being six foot six, he's still a bit too nice to
scare the ****s out of them

Next time one of them comes down the pavement while I'm out there, I'm
tempted to step back at the last minute ("didn't see you") and force
them to swerve into the wall.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

The Medway Handyman wrote:

Servo's & ABS would make a difference as well surely?



Servos - no. If you can lock the wheels, you can lock the wheels; the
servo just makes it less work. Old drum brakes BTW had a "self-servo"
effect; discs don't. That and the heavier weight of a modern car means
they are more necessary.

ABS - yes, a little - when the road is wet, but NO when it's dry.
Mostly ABS will let you swerve *and* brake which was once the preserve
of experts.

The highway code distances apparently fit a Discovery - half a G. (no I
haven't done the arithmetic). I'd expect well over a G for a good car.
One of those low slung ones that has to crawl over speed humps.

Andy

In article ,
Dave Baker wrote:
Assuming a vehicle with brakes good enough to lock the wheels then the
stopping distance, at any speed, will be a function of the tyre grip.
The percentage difference with better modern rubber will be the same at
any speed. A 1g stop from 30 mph (about the best a modern car can do)
is almost exactly 30 feet. 50 years ago a 0.75g stop might have been
more realistic which would be 40 ft. Of course modern disc brakes are
also less likely to fade at high speed than drum brakes of yore.

1g at 30 mph was achievable by some cars 50 years ago. Motor/Autocar of
the period will confirm. Many modern cars on good rubber exceed this. It's
braking from high speed where modern cars excel over older ones, really.

But from 30 mph on dry roads the stopping distance certainly hasn't halved
- nothing like it. The difference might be more in the wet, though.

--
*A cubicle is just a padded cell without a door.

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

In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Assuming a vehicle with brakes good enough to lock the wheels then the
stopping distance, at any speed, will be a function of the tyre grip.
The percentage difference with better modern rubber will be the same
at any speed. A 1g stop from 30 mph (about the best a modern car can
do) is almost exactly 30 feet. 50 years ago a 0.75g stop might have
been more realistic which would be 40 ft. Of course modern disc
brakes are also less likely to fade at high speed than drum brakes of
yore.

Servo's & ABS would make a difference as well surely?

They might take some of the effort and skill out of the equation - but
that's all.

--
*Middle age is when it takes longer to rest than to get tired.

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

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
Assuming a vehicle with brakes good enough to lock the wheels then the
stopping distance, at any speed, will be a function of the tyre grip.
The percentage difference with better modern rubber will be the same
at any speed. A 1g stop from 30 mph (about the best a modern car can
do) is almost exactly 30 feet. 50 years ago a 0.75g stop might have
been more realistic which would be 40 ft. Of course modern disc
brakes are also less likely to fade at high speed than drum brakes of
yore.

Servo's & ABS would make a difference as well surely?

Servos merely reduce pedal effort and travel for a given brake line
pressure. They don't make brakes any more powerful and they reduce feel
which is why race cars generally don't have them. A non-servo system would
have a bigger mechanical advantage at the master cylinder but the net result
is the same.

ABS certainly helps if different tyres have different grip levels i.e while
cornering or on a non homogenous road surface but in perfect conditions it
can actually increase stopping distances. Maybe not so much with modern
systems but early ones weren't so good at extracting the maximum from the
available tyre grip.

As an aside, many years ago, 20 maybe, I was doing a project in the Unipart
auto parts business as a consultant. One day I was out at a test track
looking at brake pad material test procedures which were very thorough.
Turned out the two test drivers that day were the same ones who had driven
the Granada in the Ford adverts for ABS when it came out in the 80s I think
it was and they related a few stories. If you recall the advert the car was
driving down a country road when a tractor lurches out of a farm gate in
front of it, the driver brakes and swerves at the same time and supposedly
effortlessly manoeuvred round the front of the tractor and went on his merry
way. It was meant to demonstrate how a non ABS car would just have slid
straight into the tractor being unable to both brake and swerve
simultaneously. Whether it even needed to brake is another matter.

Of course it was all very carefully choreographed with the vehicles moving
at exact speeds and to precise timing marks so they could just avoid each
other. With all the cameras set up the word was given to go, the Granada
comes barreling down the road, the tractor moves out on queue, the car
driver hits the brake pedal, the ABS does FA constructive and the Granada
does indeed slide straight into the side of the tractor and get written off.
Red faces all round from the Ford technicians and that isn't the take you
got to see of course.

Then there was the Renault situation they told me about in the early days of
Renault ABS systems. A French woman driving through Paris in the rain has a
crash in which she describes the car as just sailing on as if the brakes had
completely failed. Renault test the car exhaustively but can't find anything
wrong with it. It stops quite normally in every situation they try it in.
They conclude she was lying and trying to cover up some mistake of her own.
Then another similar case comes in but again they can find nothing wrong. It
stumps all concerned for ages until someone finally spots that the accidents
are only happening on cobbled streets. It transpires that at a very specific
speed and size of cobblestone the ABS is switching the brakes on and off at
exactly the same frequency that the car is traversing the cobbles. Every
time it tries to brake the tyres are actually just between cobbles, have no
grip, lock up and the system releases the pressure again just as the tyre
does get some grip back on the next cobblestone. Maybe it was an urban myth
but they made it sound quite convincing.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...
The highway code distances apparently fit a Discovery - half a G. (no I
haven't done the arithmetic).

The Highway Code distances are calculated based on 0.667G. If a Discovery
can only manage 0.5G in good conditions then I certainly don't ever want to
be in or near one.


I'd expect well over a G for a good car.
One of those low slung ones that has to crawl over speed humps.

On normal road tyres 1g is very much the limit for most cars. A few might
just exceed it on very good rubber but not by much. Race slicks are another
matter but you tend not to see those much on road cars!
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines

wrote in message ...
On 14 May,
Andy Champ wrote:

I'd expect well over a G for a good car.

Maximum coefficient of friction (without using glue) is 1. Maximum
retardation, therefore =1G. Anything more is a figment of imagination.

Nonsense. A very old and long since disproved old wives tale. Slick race
tyres have a coefficient of friction against tarmac of about 1.3 and Top
Fuel drag cars on wrinkle wall slicks leave the line at close to 4g.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines

In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Wed, 14 May 2008 21:05:12 UTC, geoff wrote:

In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Wed, 14 May 2008 07:53:10 UTC, "PeterMcC"
wrote:

Sorry - I did use an ironic typeface when I wrote it but Usenet just shows
up in plain text

Cars parking on the pavement make it dangerous for the cyclists - geddit?

Personally, anything that makes pavements dangerous for cyclists is fine
by me! I do all I can.... :-)

Our local plod - big dave is on a crusade, he hides and leaps out at
them, giving them a stern talking to

unfortunately, despite being six foot six, he's still a bit too nice to
scare the ****s out of them

Next time one of them comes down the pavement while I'm out there, I'm
tempted to step back at the last minute ("didn't see you") and force
them to swerve into the wall.

Oh, I'm always doing that





--
geoff

dennis@home wrote:

Yes it was. It was in a bay off the road ... with the nearside wheel
outside the box

So it wasn't off road.

It was by the standards of most reasonable people.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

"Dave Baker" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On 14 May,
Andy Champ wrote:

I'd expect well over a G for a good car.

Maximum coefficient of friction (without using glue) is 1. Maximum
retardation, therefore =1G. Anything more is a figment of imagination.

Nonsense. A very old and long since disproved old wives tale. Slick race
tyres have a coefficient of friction against tarmac of about 1.3 and Top
Fuel drag cars on wrinkle wall slicks leave the line at close to 4g.

Race tyres do use glue!
That is why they don't last very long as the rubber glue sticks to the
surface and wears rapidly.

Having said that the coefficient of friction can exceed one due to the way
the rubber interlocks with the rough surface, but I doubt you would get
acceptable millage from a tyre that gave much above one.

There is also the issue of weight transfer as the car pushes more than half
its weight onto the front on braking which will complicate things a bit.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
news:m7OdnV7Az82Y4rbVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet...
dennis@home wrote:

Yes it was. It was in a bay off the road ... with the nearside wheel
outside the box

So it wasn't off road.

It was by the standards of most reasonable people.

Who mentioned reasonable people?
It appears "reasonable" people around here can't grasp the idea that on the
pavement is still on the road even after some not very subtle hints (like
its still on the public pavement so its on the road).

"Owain" wrote in message
et...

I thought the knob underneath rotated so the deaf/blind could tell when it
was safe to cross.

That is partly true, why would a deaf person need an aid as they could see
the green man!!

Cheers

John

Dave Baker wrote:

The Highway Code distances are calculated based on 0.667G. If a Discovery
can only manage 0.5G in good conditions then I certainly don't ever want to
be in or near one.

ISTR half a G is the HGV MOT limit.

On normal road tyres 1g is very much the limit for most cars. A few might
just exceed it on very good rubber but not by much. Race slicks are another
matter but you tend not to see those much on road cars!

Brake balance matters. Most cars lock the fronts far too early; those
that don't (like mine) can do better than most.

I was working on a project where we had a recording accelerometer nearly
10 years ago. I saw 1.2G on it on an ordinary Rover saloon. Without ABS.

Andy

wrote:
Maximum coefficient of friction (without using glue) is 1. Maximum
retardation, therefore =1G. Anything more is a figment of imagination.


Any good bike will hit 60 in 2.5 seconds.

60MPH is 26.8m/s. So that's 10.72 m/s/s.

1 G is 9.81m/s/s.

So bikes are a figment of your imagination.

Andy

dennis@home wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
news:m7OdnV7Az82Y4rbVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet...
dennis@home wrote:

Yes it was. It was in a bay off the road ... with the nearside
wheel outside the box

So it wasn't off road.

It was by the standards of most reasonable people.

Who mentioned reasonable people?
It appears "reasonable" people around here can't grasp the idea that
on the pavement is still on the road even after some not very subtle
hints (like its still on the public pavement so its on the road).

Have you been sniffing glue again?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Thu, 15 May 2008 20:22:47 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

wrote:
Maximum coefficient of friction (without using glue) is 1. Maximum
retardation, therefore =1G. Anything more is a figment of imagination.


Any good bike will hit 60 in 2.5 seconds.

60MPH is 26.8m/s. So that's 10.72 m/s/s.

1 G is 9.81m/s/s.

So bikes are a figment of your imagination.


Maximum *retardation* is stopping. What's the 60-0 time like?

And I think you'll find the massive downforce on the front wheel under
heavy braking gives you pretty good grip on tarmac. The bike effectively
'weighs' more than it actually does, which affects the equations
significantly in terms of how much 'stop' you can get from the tyres.

"PCPaul" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 May 2008 20:22:47 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

wrote:
Maximum coefficient of friction (without using glue) is 1. Maximum
retardation, therefore =1G. Anything more is a figment of imagination.


Any good bike will hit 60 in 2.5 seconds.

60MPH is 26.8m/s. So that's 10.72 m/s/s.

1 G is 9.81m/s/s.

So bikes are a figment of your imagination.


Maximum *retardation* is stopping. What's the 60-0 time like?

And I think you'll find the massive downforce on the front wheel under
heavy braking gives you pretty good grip on tarmac. The bike effectively
'weighs' more than it actually does, which affects the equations
significantly in terms of how much 'stop' you can get from the tyres.




maximum braking,. just before you go over the top and kill someone.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"PCPaul" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 15 May 2008 20:22:47 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

wrote:
Maximum coefficient of friction (without using glue) is 1. Maximum
retardation, therefore =1G. Anything more is a figment of imagination.


Any good bike will hit 60 in 2.5 seconds.

60MPH is 26.8m/s. So that's 10.72 m/s/s.

1 G is 9.81m/s/s.

So bikes are a figment of your imagination.


Maximum *retardation* is stopping. What's the 60-0 time like?

And I think you'll find the massive downforce on the front wheel under
heavy braking gives you pretty good grip on tarmac. The bike effectively
'weighs' more than it actually does, which affects the equations
significantly in terms of how much 'stop' you can get from the tyres.




maximum braking,. just before you go over the top and kill someone.

oh do **** off

--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"PCPaul" wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 15 May 2008 20:22:47 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

wrote:
Maximum coefficient of friction (without using glue) is 1. Maximum
retardation, therefore =1G. Anything more is a figment of imagination.


Any good bike will hit 60 in 2.5 seconds.

60MPH is 26.8m/s. So that's 10.72 m/s/s.

1 G is 9.81m/s/s.

So bikes are a figment of your imagination.


Maximum *retardation* is stopping. What's the 60-0 time like?

And I think you'll find the massive downforce on the front wheel under
heavy braking gives you pretty good grip on tarmac. The bike effectively
'weighs' more than it actually does, which affects the equations
significantly in terms of how much 'stop' you can get from the tyres.

maximum braking,. just before you go over the top and kill someone.

oh do **** off

Maxie, you said with such panache! Such a star. Fantastic.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Wed, 14 May 2008 21:05:12 UTC, geoff wrote:

In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Wed, 14 May 2008 07:53:10 UTC, "PeterMcC"
wrote:

Sorry - I did use an ironic typeface when I wrote it but Usenet just
shows
up in plain text

Cars parking on the pavement make it dangerous for the cyclists -
geddit?

Personally, anything that makes pavements dangerous for cyclists is
fine
by me! I do all I can.... :-)

Our local plod - big dave is on a crusade, he hides and leaps out at
them, giving them a stern talking to

unfortunately, despite being six foot six, he's still a bit too nice to
scare the ****s out of them

Next time one of them comes down the pavement while I'm out there, I'm
tempted to step back at the last minute ("didn't see you") and force
them to swerve into the wall.

Oh, I'm always doing that

Fantastic Maxie! So public spirited. What a man.

"geoff" wrote in message
...


oh do **** off

Why don't you, you could always learn to drive and then you wouldn't need to
be as touchy.

Andy Champ wrote:
wrote:
Maximum coefficient of friction (without using glue) is 1. Maximum
retardation, therefore =1G. Anything more is a figment of imagination.


Any good bike will hit 60 in 2.5 seconds.

60MPH is 26.8m/s. So that's 10.72 m/s/s.

1 G is 9.81m/s/s.

So bikes are a figment of your imagination.

Andy
Without aero assistance tyres - good tyres on a good surface..can do
about 1.2G..racing slicks more, but I duuno how MUCH more.

'Coefficient of friction' is pretty meaningless with tyres, or we would
NOT have wide flat ones for racing purposes.

Coefficient of friction applies far more to hard surfaces sliding over
each other. Not soft sticky temperature dependent rubber on tar roads.

ISTR that in the ground effect/active suspsenson days, Mansell was
pulling 5g sideways through the silverstone bends..

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...


oh do **** off

Why don't you, you could always learn to drive and then you wouldn't
need to be as touchy.

what makes you think you have the faintest idea what my driving's like


--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...


oh do **** off

Why don't you, you could always learn to drive and then you wouldn't need
to be as touchy.

what makes you think you have the faintest idea what my driving's like

What makes you so touchy.. you must have been done or be afraid of being
done or you wouldn't be.

geoff wrote:
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...


oh do **** off

Why don't you, you could always learn to drive and then you wouldn't
need to be as touchy.

what makes you think you have the faintest idea what my driving's like

Go easy on him Geoff, its the glue talking.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...


oh do **** off

Why don't you, you could always learn to drive and then you wouldn't
need to be as touchy.

what makes you think you have the faintest idea what my driving's like

What makes you so touchy.. you must have been done or be afraid of
being done or you wouldn't be.

you're a bellend mate

--
geoff

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...


oh do **** off

Why don't you, you could always learn to drive and then you wouldn't
need to be as touchy.

what makes you think you have the faintest idea what my driving's like

What makes you so touchy.. you must have been done or be afraid of
being done or you wouldn't be.

What makes you think I'm being touchy ?

You conveniently failed to answer my question as to my driving skills

You seem unable to differentiate between a road and a pavement

You just seem determined to prove that you are a complete tosser


--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...


oh do **** off

Why don't you, you could always learn to drive and then you wouldn't
need to be as touchy.

what makes you think you have the faintest idea what my driving's like

What makes you so touchy.. you must have been done or be afraid of being
done or you wouldn't be.

What makes you think I'm being touchy ?

You conveniently failed to answer my question as to my driving skills

You seem unable to differentiate between a road and a pavement

Its you that doesn't understand the difference between a road and a
pavement.
You still insist he wasn't on the road but on the pavement despite being
told they are the same for tax purposes.
So you are either very stupid or are the tosser here.


You just seem determined to prove that you are a complete tosser

You have proven you are.



--
geoff

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...


oh do **** off

Why don't you, you could always learn to drive and then you
wouldn't need to be as touchy.

what makes you think you have the faintest idea what my driving's like

What makes you so touchy.. you must have been done or be afraid of
being done or you wouldn't be.

What makes you think I'm being touchy ?

You conveniently failed to answer my question as to my driving skills

You seem unable to differentiate between a road and a pavement

Its you that doesn't understand the difference between a road and a
pavement.
You still insist he wasn't on the road but on the pavement despite
being told they are the same for tax purposes.

He was clamped because he had one wheel outside the parking box

--
geoff

In article ,
geoff wrote:
He was clamped because he had one wheel outside the parking box

If you said it was ok to have one wheel over the line, many would then
complain when getting a ticket for having only two wheels over the line.
Make it ok to have only two wheels over the line...

--
*In "Casablanca", Humphrey Bogart never said "Play it again, Sam" *

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

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
geoff wrote:
He was clamped because he had one wheel outside the parking box

If you said it was ok to have one wheel over the line, many would then
complain when getting a ticket for having only two wheels over the line.
Make it ok to have only two wheels over the line...

Not me, it's what the man from NCP said on the news


--
geoff

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Without aero assistance tyres - good tyres on a good surface..can do
about 1.2G..racing slicks more, but I duuno how MUCH more.

A top fuel dragster will do 0 - 100 in under a second... so that is
pulling over 5g at some point in the run.

ISTR that in the ground effect/active suspsenson days, Mansell was
pulling 5g sideways through the silverstone bends..

I thought ground effect cars pre-dated Mansell?

--
Cheers,

John.

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

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "dennis@home"
saying something like:

None at all. Doesn't detract in the slightest from you being a stupid
****.

WELL i can disregard that as you are too stupid to know.
Have a nice day.

You don't understand "The Reasonable Man" test at all, do you? Along
with, it seems, the utter ******s who are out to screw all of us for as
much in the way of fines and penalties as they can possibly get away
with.

Some day, one of those ******s will screw you over and then you'll
squeal.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"It's a moron working with power tools.
How much more suspenseful can you get?"
- House