dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message . ..
dennis@home wrote:


The appropriate speed for that woman may have been 45 mph.

You miss the point again you idiot. What about the appropriate
speed for the rest of the road users?

Less than the speed limit.

At 45mph she represents a hazard to other road users.


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

dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message . ..
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message ...


No Dennis, the problem is that she is a ****wit who should be put
down. Driving at 45mph on a motorway is an offence and bloody
dangerous.

No it isn't.

The offence is 'driving without due consideration' and you can be
fined/banned for doing so. Driving too slowly will also cause a
failure during a driving test.

A vehicle driving too slowly is a hazard to other road users as it
will cause them 'to change direction or speed' unecessarily.

So yes it is. Ner ner ne ner ner.

No it is not.

Verbatum from the Road Traffic Act 1991, verified by my daughters boyfriend
who is a sargeant in the Kent Police;

Careless, and inconsiderate, driving
"If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other
public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable
consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an
offence."



Anything you don't understand there ****wit?




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

"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

There is a minimum speed that vehicles must be able to do before they
can use the motorway.

Which is...?

(With authoritative reference, of course)

Laws HA 1980 sects 16, 17 & sch 4,
MT(E&W)R regs 3(d), 4 & 11,
MT(E&W)(A)R, R(S)A sects 7, 8 & sch 3, RTRA sects 17(2) & (3),
MT(S)R reg 10

Oh, look, a handy c'n'p of the references from the bottom of Highway Code
rule 253. Which, by the way, doesn't mention any minimum achievable speed.

Any links to any of those? The only ones of those I've found online (HA80
s16, s17) also don't contain any mention of a speed.

I notice you conveniently forget to mention what that minimum speed is.

So - what is this minimum speed?

Adrian wrote:
"dennis@home" gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

There is a minimum speed that vehicles must be able to do before
they can use the motorway.

Which is...?

(With authoritative reference, of course)

Laws HA 1980 sects 16, 17 & sch 4,
MT(E&W)R regs 3(d), 4 & 11,
MT(E&W)(A)R, R(S)A sects 7, 8 & sch 3, RTRA sects 17(2) & (3),
MT(S)R reg 10

Oh, look, a handy c'n'p of the references from the bottom of Highway
Code rule 253. Which, by the way, doesn't mention any minimum
achievable speed.

Any links to any of those? The only ones of those I've found online
(HA80 s16, s17) also don't contain any mention of a speed.

I notice you conveniently forget to mention what that minimum speed
is.

So - what is this minimum speed?

You are unlikely to get a reply Adrian, because the ****** doesn't know. He
simply makes stuff up to suit his arguments and if caught out he ignores the
thread.

Complete tosspot.


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

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

There is a minimum speed that vehicles must be able to do before they
can use the motorway.

Which is...?

(With authoritative reference, of course)

Laws HA 1980 sects 16, 17 & sch 4,
MT(E&W)R regs 3(d), 4 & 11,
MT(E&W)(A)R, R(S)A sects 7, 8 & sch 3, RTRA sects 17(2) & (3),
MT(S)R reg 10

Oh, look, a handy c'n'p of the references from the bottom of Highway Code
rule 253. Which, by the way, doesn't mention any minimum achievable speed.

Any links to any of those? The only ones of those I've found online (HA80
s16, s17) also don't contain any mention of a speed.

I notice you conveniently forget to mention what that minimum speed is.

So - what is this minimum speed?

I don't actually remember, however all motorway slip roads used to have a
sign telling you what wasn't allowed on the road.
I haven't seen one for years.
The speed was about 40 mph IIRC.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
news
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message . ..
dennis@home wrote:


The appropriate speed for that woman may have been 45 mph.

You miss the point again you idiot. What about the appropriate
speed for the rest of the road users?

Less than the speed limit.

At 45mph she represents a hazard to other road users.

There are lots of motorway vehicles that travel at that sort of speed.
The hazard was that she was wandering about not driving too slow.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
. ..
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message . ..
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message ...


No Dennis, the problem is that she is a ****wit who should be put
down. Driving at 45mph on a motorway is an offence and bloody
dangerous.

No it isn't.

The offence is 'driving without due consideration' and you can be
fined/banned for doing so. Driving too slowly will also cause a
failure during a driving test.

A vehicle driving too slowly is a hazard to other road users as it
will cause them 'to change direction or speed' unecessarily.

So yes it is. Ner ner ne ner ner.

No it is not.

Verbatum from the Road Traffic Act 1991, verified by my daughters
boyfriend who is a sargeant in the Kent Police;

Careless, and inconsiderate, driving
"If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other
public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable
consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of
an offence."

Nowhere does that say 45 mph is too slow.

Anything you don't understand there ****wit?

What are you trying to prove?
We already know you are a foul mouthed yob who smokes too much and rips of
old ladies.

"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

There is a minimum speed that vehicles must be able to do before
they can use the motorway.

Which is...?

(With authoritative reference, of course)

Laws HA 1980 sects 16, 17 & sch 4,
MT(E&W)R regs 3(d), 4 & 11,
MT(E&W)(A)R, R(S)A sects 7, 8 & sch 3, RTRA sects 17(2) & (3), MT(S)R
reg 10

Oh, look, a handy c'n'p of the references from the bottom of Highway
Code rule 253. Which, by the way, doesn't mention any minimum
achievable speed.

Any links to any of those? The only ones of those I've found online
(HA80 s16, s17) also don't contain any mention of a speed.

I notice you conveniently forget to mention what that minimum speed is.

So - what is this minimum speed?

I don't actually remember, however all motorway slip roads used to have
a sign telling you what wasn't allowed on the road. I haven't seen one
for years.
The speed was about 40 mph IIRC.

Here's a free clue. That HC rule that you cut'n'pasted the list of
applicable laws from gives the classes of vehicles which are and aren't
allowed on m'ways. That's the sum total of legal restrictions and
requirements.

Here's another free clue. There's a time to graciously admit when you're
wrong. For you, in this subthread, that time is about now.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Dave" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message ...


No Dennis, the problem is that she is a ****wit who should be put
down. Driving at 45mph on a motorway is an offence and bloody
dangerous.

No it isn't.

Not quite sure of the history of this, but if I recollect, when
motorways were born in this country (M6 Preston Bypass being the first
one) there was a minimum speed of 40 MPH on it.

There are a few Motorways with minimum speed limits.
There is a minimum speed that vehicles must be able to do before they
can use the motorway.


Apart from which, I regularly see drivers in the middle lane of a 3
lane motorway doing less than 55 MPH. Did they never pass all of their
driving test, but failed the mirror, signal maneuver part of it? And
happened to the first rule of the road?

Drive on the left in GB.

That is a very common driving error.
It is also illegal but hard to prove.
I expect geoff and clot do that all the time as they appear to be those
superior drivers who are better than everyone else.



No, you sad waste of space,I find people who sail down the middle lane
at 60 very annoying

I only stay in the overtaking lanes if there is another vehicle close
enough in front of me to make it not worthwhile pulling in

And, yes, I did 120 in the inside lane of the M1 today, perfectly safely

I'm not superior - just obviously better than you, as you obviously seem
obsessed with rules and formulae for how to drive. Like with everything
else you do, there seems to be no natural ability there, no talent or
feeling for how to do things - no inspiration

Just a tedious, regimented little person who has never flourished, but
managed to muddle through


--
geoff

In message , Adrian
writes
"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

There is a minimum speed that vehicles must be able to do before they
can use the motorway.

Which is...?

(With authoritative reference, of course)

Laws HA 1980 sects 16, 17 & sch 4,
MT(E&W)R regs 3(d), 4 & 11,
MT(E&W)(A)R, R(S)A sects 7, 8 & sch 3, RTRA sects 17(2) & (3),
MT(S)R reg 10

Oh, look, a handy c'n'p of the references from the bottom of Highway Code
rule 253. Which, by the way, doesn't mention any minimum achievable speed.

Any links to any of those? The only ones of those I've found online (HA80
s16, s17) also don't contain any mention of a speed.

I notice you conveniently forget to mention what that minimum speed is.

So - what is this minimum speed?


Lets not forget that attitudes have changed in the past 50 years,
driving at, say, 20 mph in a 30 mph zone has become socially
unacceptable


--
geoff

On 1 Mar 2009 15:47:29 GMT, Adrian wrote:

"ARWadsworth" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Tameside council website says

Speed limits are in place for a very good reason - to inform
motorists of the safest maximum speed for a stretch of road.

What a load of ********.

Most of my commute is on roads where a fraction of the limit is too fast
- even in ideal road and traffic conditions. On some stretches, barely a
quarter of the limit is as fast as is appropriate.

Equally, on other stretches of road, the limit is far lower than an
otherwise safe and appropriate speed would be.

A road near us had numerous accidents, some fatal. The limit was 60 and
except in severe weather, it was perfectly possible to drive it at 60
without feeling too uncomfortable, although I tended to around 50. The
accidents always involved people trying to do 80 or 90. The sensible
solutions would have been either a speed camera at the fastest point or
reduction in the limit (on the basis that most people are unwilling to do
more than a certain amount over the limit), instead we got a reduction in
the speed limit to 40 and a camera situated on the only safe overtaking
point. Surely one or the other could have been tried before resorting to
both.

SteveW

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

There is a minimum speed that vehicles must be able to do before
they can use the motorway.

Which is...?

(With authoritative reference, of course)

Laws HA 1980 sects 16, 17 & sch 4,
MT(E&W)R regs 3(d), 4 & 11,
MT(E&W)(A)R, R(S)A sects 7, 8 & sch 3, RTRA sects 17(2) & (3), MT(S)R
reg 10

Oh, look, a handy c'n'p of the references from the bottom of Highway
Code rule 253. Which, by the way, doesn't mention any minimum
achievable speed.

Any links to any of those? The only ones of those I've found online
(HA80 s16, s17) also don't contain any mention of a speed.

I notice you conveniently forget to mention what that minimum speed is.

So - what is this minimum speed?

I don't actually remember, however all motorway slip roads used to have
a sign telling you what wasn't allowed on the road. I haven't seen one
for years.
The speed was about 40 mph IIRC.

Here's a free clue. That HC rule that you cut'n'pasted the list of
applicable laws from gives the classes of vehicles which are and aren't
allowed on m'ways. That's the sum total of legal restrictions and
requirements.

Here's another free clue. There's a time to graciously admit when you're
wrong. For you, in this subthread, that time is about now.

Wrong?
I know that some agricultural vehicles can use the motorway and some can't.
Its the speed they are capable of that decides (as well as being taxed as a
commercial and not using red).
Anyway it doesn't really matter to me so if you want to go and look feel
free.

On 1 Mar 2009 18:06:05 GMT, Adrian wrote:

"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

There is a minimum speed that vehicles must be able to do before they
can use the motorway.

Which is...?

(With authoritative reference, of course)

Laws HA 1980 sects 16, 17 & sch 4,
MT(E&W)R regs 3(d), 4 & 11,
MT(E&W)(A)R, R(S)A sects 7, 8 & sch 3, RTRA sects 17(2) & (3),
MT(S)R reg 10

Oh, look, a handy c'n'p of the references from the bottom of Highway Code
rule 253. Which, by the way, doesn't mention any minimum achievable speed.

Any links to any of those? The only ones of those I've found online (HA80
s16, s17) also don't contain any mention of a speed.

I notice you conveniently forget to mention what that minimum speed is.

So - what is this minimum speed?

Back when I was a learner and again when I was training to be an
instructor, I was taught that vehicles must be able to maintain a minimum
speed of 30mph to be allowed to use a motorway.

It's just reminded me of a company I worked for where the foreman once
drove a crane (not on motorways) with a maximum speed of 12mph from
Manchester to a job in Cornwall!

SteveW

On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 19:15:02 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

There is a minimum speed that vehicles must be able to do before they
can use the motorway.

Which is...?

(With authoritative reference, of course)

Laws HA 1980 sects 16, 17 & sch 4,
MT(E&W)R regs 3(d), 4 & 11,
MT(E&W)(A)R, R(S)A sects 7, 8 & sch 3, RTRA sects 17(2) & (3),
MT(S)R reg 10

Oh, look, a handy c'n'p of the references from the bottom of Highway Code
rule 253. Which, by the way, doesn't mention any minimum achievable speed.

Any links to any of those? The only ones of those I've found online (HA80
s16, s17) also don't contain any mention of a speed.

I notice you conveniently forget to mention what that minimum speed is.

So - what is this minimum speed?

I don't actually remember, however all motorway slip roads used to have a
sign telling you what wasn't allowed on the road.
I haven't seen one for years.
The speed was about 40 mph IIRC.


The signs on the motorway slip roads had the classes of vehicle not
permitted. 50cc engines and under, invalid carriages, bicycles and
horse drawn vehicles. Never had any speed signs. Ever

On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:34:24 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Please cite the relevant legislation that makes driving at 45mph on a
motor way "an offence". It might be offensive but that isn't the same.

The offence is 'driving without reasonable consideration'.

That is some what of a "catch all". What legislation directly enforces a
requirement to drive at over 45 mph on a motorway?

That drives me nuts as well. I've had drivers hoot & wave fists.

Same here, they can't really have an excuse that they haven't seen me in a
Land Rover FFS but they seem to object to my horn and headlights when they
pull in with their back end 6' from my front doing 50 when I'm doing 60...

Applies to A roads as well around here. Entrance to the Medway tunnel
is especially bad.

A road design can be a bit poor there is one entrance slip in Leeds that I
always avoid. It's too short, even when I was driving a car with a bit
more go than the LR. Not helped by it being on a gentle left hand bend and
in a cutting so you can't see anything in lane 1 until you are more or
less in the final 20yds of slip road. And being in a cutting there is no
hard shoulder to abort down if you need to.

--
Cheers
Dave.

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


"Dave" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message ...


No Dennis, the problem is that she is a ****wit who should be put
down. Driving at 45mph on a motorway is an offence and bloody
dangerous.

No it isn't.

Not quite sure of the history of this, but if I recollect, when
motorways were born in this country (M6 Preston Bypass being the
first one) there was a minimum speed of 40 MPH on it.

There are a few Motorways with minimum speed limits.
There is a minimum speed that vehicles must be able to do before they
can use the motorway.


Apart from which, I regularly see drivers in the middle lane of a 3
lane motorway doing less than 55 MPH. Did they never pass all of
their driving test, but failed the mirror, signal maneuver part of
it? And happened to the first rule of the road?

Drive on the left in GB.

That is a very common driving error.
It is also illegal but hard to prove.
I expect geoff and clot do that all the time as they appear to be
those superior drivers who are better than everyone else.



No, you sad waste of space,I find people who sail down the middle lane
at 60 very annoying

I only stay in the overtaking lanes if there is another vehicle close
enough in front of me to make it not worthwhile pulling in

And, yes, I did 120 in the inside lane of the M1 today, perfectly
safely
I'm not superior - just obviously better than you, as you obviously
seem obsessed with rules and formulae for how to drive. Like with
everything else you do, there seems to be no natural ability there,
no talent or feeling for how to do things - no inspiration

Just a tedious, regimented little person who has never flourished, but
managed to muddle through

Without rules, he just cannot function.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Clot wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

SNIP

Is doing 32mph in a 30 limit speeding? Is stopping on a yellow line
for two minutes a real offence? Does anal retentive have a hyphen?

What colour is the sky on your planet?

Thank you, I belong to your church. I cannot comprehend this idiot
use of speed cameras and that speed is the cause of accidents. Of
course it is if inappropriate.

SNIP

UK-DIY once again veres wildly off topic :-)

What I'd like to know is when the present 30 & 40 limits came into
being - and what braking systems were common at the time?

Compare & contrast a 1953 Ford Popular with its 7" drum brakes &
cross ply tyres, with a modern car with ABS, servo, discs, radials
etc. Sure the reaction time of the driver might be the same, but the
braking efficiency of the vehicle is entirely different.

I plead guilty to the charge of diverting this thread. No doubt Dennis will
advise us as to which statute I have contravened.

"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Here's another free clue. There's a time to graciously admit when
you're wrong. For you, in this subthread, that time is about now.

Wrong?

Yes, wrong.

I know that some agricultural vehicles can use the motorway and some
can't. Its the speed they are capable of that decides (as well as being
taxed as a commercial and not using red).

Exactly. It's much more than just the speed, as you claimed. Even then,
it's very different to "all vehicles", as you claimed.

Anyway it doesn't really matter to me so if you want to go and look feel
free.

It's as close as we're going to get to an apology, I s'pose.

dennis@home wrote:

Of course it is if inappropriate.

Like when the speed limit is set lower than you want to drive?

There is a place on my commute to work where the speed limit was
recently reduced from NSL (60) to 40. On a bridge over a motorway.

I can only assume it was reduced because the adjacent 30 had been
extended, and the NSL section to the next 40 is now too short for some
regulation.

I can imagine no other reason why it is set like that.

It's also been pointed out that the limit, even at the hazard, averages
5mph too low because they set it to the next 10MPH below the actual safe
speed.

Andy

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


"geoff" wrote in message
...

C'mon own up dennis, this is you, isn't it

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...ng-pictures-of
-pensioner-on-mobility-scooter-115875-21157529/

I wonder if they treat cyclists the same?

the same as what ?

senile old farts?

You should know

You tell 'em Maxie. You tell em! Fantastic!

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


"Clot" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
...


Thank you, I belong to your church. I cannot comprehend this idiot
use of speed cameras and that speed is the cause of accidents.

That is why they need the speed traps, because you and others don't
comprehend.

Sorry, I cannot agree with you on this point. It is inappropriate speed
that kills. Without the recent 20 mph zones around schools, I would
reduce my speed quite often to much less due to the risk to all in the
locality.

So they don't create a problem for you then.
Its nice to see someone who actually wont be breaking the speed limits as
you obviously drove as slow as they have been set before they were set.

Dennis - do you have a man walks in front of your horseless carriage with
a red flag?

Tomorrow, I will hit 140-150mph, just for you

Maxie, you are amazing indeed. The things you do. What a way to beat the
bailiffs! Fabulous.

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


"Dave" wrote in message
.. .
dennis@home wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message ...


No Dennis, the problem is that she is a ****wit who should be put
down. Driving at 45mph on a motorway is an offence and bloody
dangerous.

No it isn't.

Not quite sure of the history of this, but if I recollect, when
motorways were born in this country (M6 Preston Bypass being the first
one) there was a minimum speed of 40 MPH on it.

There are a few Motorways with minimum speed limits.
There is a minimum speed that vehicles must be able to do before they can
use the motorway.


Apart from which, I regularly see drivers in the middle lane of a 3 lane
motorway doing less than 55 MPH. Did they never pass all of their
driving test, but failed the mirror, signal maneuver part of it? And
happened to the first rule of the road?

Drive on the left in GB.

That is a very common driving error.
It is also illegal but hard to prove.
I expect geoff and clot do that all the time as they appear to be those
superior drivers who are better than everyone else.

No, you sad waste of space,I find people who sail down the middle lane at
60 very annoying

Maxie, fantastic! You know all the wrong things.

I only stay in the overtaking lanes if there is another vehicle close
enough in front of me to make it not worthwhile pulling in

Maxie, what driving technique. Such an expert!

And, yes, I did 120 in the inside lane of the M1 today, perfectly safely

Wow! Maxie you would do 1000mph safely on the M1 as well. What a biker!
You can dodge Bailiffs very quickly indeed.

I'm not superior - just obviously better than you,

Maxie, you are superior and better.

as you obviously seem obsessed with rules and formulae for how to drive.

Maxie, you are the sort who makes the rules.

Like with everything else you do, there seems to be no natural ability
there, no talent or feeling for how to do things - no inspiration

Maxie, sock it to 'em, sock it to 'em! Fatastic!

Just a tedious, regimented little person who has never flourished, but
managed to muddle through

Well said Maxie. You are such an inspiration. Such a free sprit and you
can't 'arf dodge the bailiffs. And you are in a Paddy band too.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Adrian
writes
"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

There is a minimum speed that vehicles must be able to do before they
can use the motorway.

Which is...?

(With authoritative reference, of course)

Laws HA 1980 sects 16, 17 & sch 4,
MT(E&W)R regs 3(d), 4 & 11,
MT(E&W)(A)R, R(S)A sects 7, 8 & sch 3, RTRA sects 17(2) & (3),
MT(S)R reg 10

Oh, look, a handy c'n'p of the references from the bottom of Highway Code
rule 253. Which, by the way, doesn't mention any minimum achievable speed.

Any links to any of those? The only ones of those I've found online (HA80
s16, s17) also don't contain any mention of a speed.

I notice you conveniently forget to mention what that minimum speed is.

So - what is this minimum speed?

Lets not forget that attitudes have changed in the past 50 years, driving
at, say, 20 mph in a 30 mph zone has become socially unacceptable

Who do those people think they are Maxie. You are a 120mph man - anywhere.
And you do Morris dancing too.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:



No Dennis, its the desire to use speed cameras as revenue producers.

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


In Stalybridge some speed cameras are painted green to help them blend in
with the trees.

Tameside council website says

"Camera sites have to be clearly visible from a distance of at least 60
metres"

"The purpose of safety cameras is to improve the safety of roads for all
road users. Speed limits are in place for a very good reason - to inform
motorists of the safest maximum speed for a stretch of road. Motorists
who break the speed limit are putting themselves and other road users at
risk"

A camouflaged camera is not helping people remember the speed limit and
is not clearly visible from 60 metres. It is a revenue producer.

How can it be?
A camera has to be part of the safety camera scheme before the local
authority gets any of the revenue.
It can't be part of the safety camera scheme if its hidden.
Its there to catch the idiots and costs the local authority money to
operate.

They should hide them all and that will get the idiots disqualified
quicker.


I did not write Tamesides website.

http://www.tameside.gov.uk/traffic/speedlimits

It also says

"The cost of installing and using cameras comes only from drivers breaking
the speed limit"

Someone is lying, and I suspect Tameside.

The cameras were camouflaged blue where there were no trees but the street
lights had blue posts.

Adam

On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 09:36:10 -0800 (PST), mike
wrote:

On Mar 1, 10:40*am, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"mike" wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 10:36 pm, Stephen Howard wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:54:30 -0000, "dennis@home"

wrote:

I have known several places say no.
My local staples said no when I wanted some bits of desk.

I suspect Staples would far rather you bought a new desk.

I've bought a desk from Staples before and I can confirm you're
better off getting one from a skip.

That supplier went bust in Dec IIRC.

What are you on?

I was going to ask that too, but then I thought would we really
understand the answer?

I suspect he means the supplier of the particular desk, as sold
through Staples - but as he's replied to the wrong post it appears to
read that Staples went bust.
Unless it's a particularly cryptic joke that refers to a skip as a
supplier...in which case I'd say the act still needs work.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard
Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk

"Clot" wrote in message
...
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Clot wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

SNIP

Is doing 32mph in a 30 limit speeding? Is stopping on a yellow line
for two minutes a real offence? Does anal retentive have a hyphen?

What colour is the sky on your planet?

Thank you, I belong to your church. I cannot comprehend this idiot
use of speed cameras and that speed is the cause of accidents. Of
course it is if inappropriate.

SNIP

UK-DIY once again veres wildly off topic :-)

What I'd like to know is when the present 30 & 40 limits came into
being - and what braking systems were common at the time?

Compare & contrast a 1953 Ford Popular with its 7" drum brakes &
cross ply tyres, with a modern car with ABS, servo, discs, radials
etc. Sure the reaction time of the driver might be the same, but the
braking efficiency of the vehicle is entirely different.

I plead guilty to the charge of diverting this thread. No doubt Dennis
will advise us as to which statute I have contravened.

Have you done something wrong?

You don't appear to be abusing anyone unlike TMH.
I wonder if BY still chuck people off usenet when they are abusive?

dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
No Dennis, the problem is that she is a ****wit who should be put
down. Driving at 45mph on a motorway is an offence and bloody
dangerous.

No it isn't.

The offence is 'driving without due consideration' and you can be
fined/banned for doing so. Driving too slowly will also cause a
failure during a driving test.

A vehicle driving too slowly is a hazard to other road users as it
will cause them 'to change direction or speed' unecessarily.

So yes it is. Ner ner ne ner ner.

No it is not.

Verbatum from the Road Traffic Act 1991, verified by my daughters
boyfriend who is a sargeant in the Kent Police;

Careless, and inconsiderate, driving
"If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or
other public place without due care and attention, or without
reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place,
he is guilty of an offence."

Nowhere does that say 45 mph is too slow.

Anything you don't understand there ****wit?

What are you trying to prove?

Simply that you are an idiot. Case Closed.

We already know you are a foul mouthed yob who smokes too much and
rips of old ladies.

I assume you mean rips 'off'? Could someone here track down Dennis's
address for me? I feel that legal action for libel is appropriate.


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

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


And, yes, I did 120 in the inside lane of the M1 today, perfectly safely

--
geoff

So it was you that passed me then. My van will not go above 110.

Adam

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Here's another free clue. There's a time to graciously admit when
you're wrong. For you, in this subthread, that time is about now.

Wrong?

Yes, wrong.

I know that some agricultural vehicles can use the motorway and some
can't. Its the speed they are capable of that decides (as well as being
taxed as a commercial and not using red).

Exactly. It's much more than just the speed, as you claimed. Even then,
it's very different to "all vehicles", as you claimed.

Claimed?
I admit I was wrong about the speed as it appears that its 40k/hr not 40 mph
but that does cover all vehicles that normally may be driven on the
motorway. The fact that some that can exceed that speed are banned for tax
purposes doesn't make what I said wrong.


Anyway it doesn't really matter to me so if you want to go and look feel
free.

It's as close as we're going to get to an apology, I s'pose.

You are not going to get an apology from me over this matter so don't take
it as one.

"mike" wrote in message
...
On Mar 1, 10:40 am, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"mike" wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 10:36 pm, Stephen Howard wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:54:30 -0000, "dennis@home"

wrote:

I have known several places say no.
My local staples said no when I wanted some bits of desk.

I suspect Staples would far rather you bought a new desk.

I've bought a desk from Staples before and I can confirm you're
better off getting one from a skip.

That supplier went bust in Dec IIRC.

What are you on?

I was going to ask that too, but then I thought would we really
understand the answer?

Its quite simple but I do know that TMH is probably too stupid to understand
but you?
Lets break it down..

"I've bought a desk from Staples before and I can confirm you're
better off getting one from a skip."

The desks you can buy at Staples were cr@p.

"That supplier went bust in Dec IIRC."

That supplier (of the desks) went bust in Dec IIRC.

That was easy.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:34:24 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Please cite the relevant legislation that makes driving at 45mph on
a motor way "an offence". It might be offensive but that isn't the
same.

The offence is 'driving without reasonable consideration'.

That is some what of a "catch all". What legislation directly
enforces a requirement to drive at over 45 mph on a motorway?

Its meant to be a 'catch all'.

There is no specific legislation that stops you being aggressive, queue
jumping, staying in the middle lane, having your lights on main beam or
driving too slowly, but they all cause inconvenience or are a hazard to
other road users.


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

In message , ARWadsworth
writes

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


And, yes, I did 120 in the inside lane of the M1 today, perfectly safely

--
geoff

So it was you that passed me then. My van will not go above 110.

Not me guv - I was in the inside lane all the time

'onest guv


--
geoff

dennis@home wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
...
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Clot wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

SNIP

Is doing 32mph in a 30 limit speeding? Is stopping on a yellow
line for two minutes a real offence? Does anal retentive have a
hyphen? What colour is the sky on your planet?

Thank you, I belong to your church. I cannot comprehend this idiot
use of speed cameras and that speed is the cause of accidents. Of
course it is if inappropriate.

SNIP

UK-DIY once again veres wildly off topic :-)

What I'd like to know is when the present 30 & 40 limits came into
being - and what braking systems were common at the time?

Compare & contrast a 1953 Ford Popular with its 7" drum brakes &
cross ply tyres, with a modern car with ABS, servo, discs, radials
etc. Sure the reaction time of the driver might be the same, but
the braking efficiency of the vehicle is entirely different.

I plead guilty to the charge of diverting this thread. No doubt
Dennis will advise us as to which statute I have contravened.

Have you done something wrong?

You don't appear to be abusing anyone unlike TMH.
I wonder if BY still chuck people off usenet when they are abusive?

Good idea Dennis. Accusing people of ripping off old ladies is abusive.

How do I find his ISP so I can complain?


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

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"mike" wrote in message
...
On Mar 1, 10:40 am, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"mike" wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 10:36 pm, Stephen Howard wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:54:30 -0000, "dennis@home"

wrote:

I have known several places say no.
My local staples said no when I wanted some bits of desk.

I suspect Staples would far rather you bought a new desk.

I've bought a desk from Staples before and I can confirm you're
better off getting one from a skip.

That supplier went bust in Dec IIRC.

What are you on?

I was going to ask that too, but then I thought would we really
understand the answer?

Its quite simple but I do know that TMH is probably too stupid to
understand but you?
Lets break it down..

"I've bought a desk from Staples before and I can confirm you're
better off getting one from a skip."

The desks you can buy at Staples were cr@p.

"That supplier went bust in Dec IIRC."

That supplier (of the desks) went bust in Dec IIRC.

That was easy.


nah - we all know now - you're an old lady in a cripple wagon pretending

--
geoff

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...


How do I find his ISP so I can complain?

You get a court order and ask.
Without one anyone that replies with any personal information is committing
a criminal offence.
You have supplied your information so anyone can use it without committing
the same offense.
Go ask for your court order so the judge can have a laugh.

In message , The Medway
Handyman writes
dennis@home wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
...
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Clot wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

SNIP

Is doing 32mph in a 30 limit speeding? Is stopping on a yellow
line for two minutes a real offence? Does anal retentive have a
hyphen? What colour is the sky on your planet?

Thank you, I belong to your church. I cannot comprehend this idiot
use of speed cameras and that speed is the cause of accidents. Of
course it is if inappropriate.

SNIP

UK-DIY once again veres wildly off topic :-)

What I'd like to know is when the present 30 & 40 limits came into
being - and what braking systems were common at the time?

Compare & contrast a 1953 Ford Popular with its 7" drum brakes &
cross ply tyres, with a modern car with ABS, servo, discs, radials
etc. Sure the reaction time of the driver might be the same, but
the braking efficiency of the vehicle is entirely different.

I plead guilty to the charge of diverting this thread. No doubt
Dennis will advise us as to which statute I have contravened.

Have you done something wrong?

You don't appear to be abusing anyone unlike TMH.
I wonder if BY still chuck people off usenet when they are abusive?

Good idea Dennis. Accusing people of ripping off old ladies is abusive.

How do I find his ISP so I can complain?


replied offlist



--
geoff

dennis@home wrote:

You probably think this is a terrible miscarriage of justice, too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7171154.stm

She shouldn't be driving on the hard shoulder.

....but if she'd managed to keep in lane while pottering along the
motorway at 10mph you wouldn't see a problem? Seriously?

For other traffic doing normal speeds, there's effectively no difference
between a vehicle crawling at 10mph and one that's stationary. Do you
then also think it's OK for someone to park their car in lane 1 of the M32?

Pete

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , ARWadsworth
writes

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


And, yes, I did 120 in the inside lane of the M1 today, perfectly safely

--
geoff

So it was you that passed me then. My van will not go above 110.

Not me guv - I was in the inside lane all the time

'onest guv


--
geoff


It was you then.

I was undertaking (no pun intended) an old bloke on a motability scooter by
my illegal use of the hard shoulder when you passed me.

Adam

geoff wrote:
In message , The Medway
Handyman writes
dennis@home wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
...
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Clot wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

SNIP

Is doing 32mph in a 30 limit speeding? Is stopping on a yellow
line for two minutes a real offence? Does anal retentive have a
hyphen? What colour is the sky on your planet?

Thank you, I belong to your church. I cannot comprehend this
idiot use of speed cameras and that speed is the cause of
accidents. Of course it is if inappropriate.

SNIP

UK-DIY once again veres wildly off topic :-)

What I'd like to know is when the present 30 & 40 limits came into
being - and what braking systems were common at the time?

Compare & contrast a 1953 Ford Popular with its 7" drum brakes &
cross ply tyres, with a modern car with ABS, servo, discs, radials
etc. Sure the reaction time of the driver might be the same, but
the braking efficiency of the vehicle is entirely different.

I plead guilty to the charge of diverting this thread. No doubt
Dennis will advise us as to which statute I have contravened.

Have you done something wrong?

You don't appear to be abusing anyone unlike TMH.
I wonder if BY still chuck people off usenet when they are abusive?

Good idea Dennis. Accusing people of ripping off old ladies is
abusive. How do I find his ISP so I can complain?


replied offlist

Thanks Geoff. I'm now on the case.


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

dennis@home wrote:
wrote:

I have known several places say no.
My local staples said no when I wanted some bits of desk.

I suspect Staples would far rather you bought a new desk.

I've bought a desk from Staples before and I can confirm you're
better off getting one from a skip.

That supplier went bust in Dec IIRC.

What are you on?

I was going to ask that too, but then I thought would we really
understand the answer?

Its quite simple but I do know that TMH is probably too stupid to
understand but you?
Lets break it down..

"I've bought a desk from Staples before and I can confirm you're
better off getting one from a skip."

The desks you can buy at Staples were cr@p.

"That supplier went bust in Dec IIRC."

That supplier (of the desks) went bust in Dec IIRC.

That was easy.

You absolute ****ing ******. You have been caught out again and you can't
admit it. Your standard answer when caught out is to acuse people of being
stupid.

You have over stepped the mark now by libeling me on a public newsgroup.

You could not possibly know which desk the respondent purchased or who
supplies each type of desk to Staples. Your post clearly states that
Staples went bust in January.

You are a complete & utter tosspot.


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