Clive George wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...

So you were (effectively) fined for a lapse of memory, not
concentration or attention or because you were driving familar
ground but not driving dangerously?

"Sorry, I forgot the road had a corner here"

You aren't actually driving the road by memory, you are prioritising
the important stuff, like what that kid on a bike is about to do not
if the number on a stick is the same as it was yesterday.

If you're overloaded by that information (kid on bike, number on
sign), you either need to take steps to reduce that load or increase
the amount of information you can take on. The latter means
concentrating on driving, not going on autopilot. There is another
alternative, which is to slow down to a level where you can cope with
the amount of information coming in, but that's clearly a ridiculous
idea.


And I bet there wasn't a kid on a bike at the point where Clot had his
memory lapse...

After six or seven years have passed, I certainly cannot recall all the
details! The road in question just prior to where the speed limit changes is
on a slight curve to the left. Parked cars on the nearside with residential
driveways that are regularly used at the time of day (with vegetation that
can conceal dangers), a concealed footpath which goes between two houses
which children have run out of into the roadway. Known and potential hazards
that were far more important to me at the time than being caught at 36 mph
whilst my rear bumper was possibly still in the 40 mph zone!

Lapse of memory is no excuse at all. There are big circles with
numbers in them, with red borders. If you're driving with any
degree of attention whatsoever, you'll notice them.

Have you never been though a set of lights and suddenly had the
thought that you didn't consciously 'notice' the state of the lights
(but a glance in the mirror suggests they must have been green)?

Occasionally. And I take that as a reminder that I wasn't
concentrating adequately, and any ****up which would have resulted
from that would have been my fault. I try to learn from my mistakes.

I have the same approach.

If you claim it's a lapse of memory which caused you to not see a
speeed limit, then that's good grounds for a charge of driving
without due care and
attention.

Possibly (by your rules) but not relevant in the real (driving
safety) world.

Yes, 100% relevant in the real world. The point isn't that the number
on the stick may be different to what's safe, the point is that you
should be driving such that you know what the number on the stick is
and what your speed is without compromising your safety. Do you see
the difference?

I certainly do!

Andy Dingley wrote:
On 27 Oct, 19:08, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

So why did the Thames freeze over 200 years ago then?


Bloody volcano IIRC. Krakatoa?


Because.

Which has little relation to any _additional_ causes we kick into
play. One doesn't preclude the other.

One might also suggest that the absence of "little ice ages", frost
fairs etc. since we started messing with stuff would tend to support
the anthropocene hypothesis, rather than discredit it.

Indeed.

Mark wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:02:50 -0000, "Clot"
wrote:

Clive George wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:58:34 -0000, "Clot"
wrote:


As a person that got caught speeding in exactly the same
situation, I have a
great deal of sympathy with your mate. In my instance, I had been
diligently
keeping to a 40 mph limit (despite a queue of cars up my tail) and
was slowing down as I came into the 30mph zone. They had just been
moved (which
I had forgotten). Low and behold there was a camera van parked
just within the 30mph zone. I swear my rear bumper was still in
the 40mph when they got
me!

So you were (effectively) fined for a lapse of memory, not
concentration or attention or because you were driving familar
ground but not driving dangerously?

"Sorry, I forgot the road had a corner here"

Lapse of memory is no excuse at all. There are big circles with
numbers in them, with red borders. If you're driving with any degree
of attention whatsoever, you'll notice them.

If you claim it's a lapse of memory which caused you to not see a
speeed limit, then that's good grounds for a charge of driving
without due care and attention.

I can't agree. Driving according to the road conditions and
anticipating what hazards may lie ahead is far more important than
watching out for technical breach of the law.

Anyone driving should be able to do both. Failure to do so is either
a lack of ability or a disregard for others.

Agreed.

Clive George wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
...

I can't agree. Driving according to the road conditions and
anticipating what hazards may lie ahead is far more important than
watching out for technical breach of the law.

There's nothing stopping you from doing both. It's not even
especially hard.
Remember, road conditions includes the law in place, and anticipating
hazards includes anticipating speed limits.

For example, if you're driving along behind somebody and you come to
a lower speed limit, seeing the sign lets you know that driver might
decide to suddenly slow down to that limit.

Agreed, one of the issues one should be taking into account.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Clive George wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...

[1] There are many many roads where if you were to drive at the
posted limit you would probably die within minutes. Now I know some
people do just that (Darwin rules Ok g) but there are many more of
us who seem to cope and have been able to cope before much of what
we have now existed.

Two lasses crashed into a canal near Skipton in the past couple of
years. Went straight on at a tightish bend in NSL. Both dead, and I
think one of the passengers too.

Their mates said "But she was a safe driver, and the speed limit is
60 there".

No concept of taking responsibility for their actions.


Indeed. round here there are regular accidents on un limited minor
roads where people come around at 60 mph, or even at the posted 40mph
on some limited streches and find a combine harvester, a stopped car,
or a horsebox, or a deer..in the middle of the road.

At this time of year, wet leaves are a literal killer, to.

There's far too much emphasis on driving to the Law, and far too
little on driving to the conditions IMO.

I quite agree. On a long journey home last Saturday, too many drivers were
driving too fast in my opinion though within legal limits during stormy wet
conditions where there were significant drifts of wet leaves.

On Oct 28, 2:39*pm, Andy Dingley wrote:
On 27 Oct, 19:08, "The Medway Handyman"

wrote:
So why did the Thames freeze over 200 years ago then?

Because.

Which has little relation to any _additional_ causes we kick into
play. One doesn't preclude the other.

One might also suggest that the absence of "little ice ages", frost
fairs etc. since we started messing with stuff would tend to support
the anthropocene hypothesis, rather than discredit it.

One might suggest that. One might also suggest that it was warmer
before the little ice age and before the generally accepted start of
the anthropocene period.

MBQ

Owain wrote:
On 28 Oct, 11:04, Mark wrote:
********. The stupid are likely to "breed like rabbits" no matter
what the system is. The current benefits system does not encourage
having children. It costs far more to raise a child than you can get
from the state.

It can't do, because parents whose sole income is benefits manage to
raise a child - some of them successfully.

Child benefit is a godsend for many hardworking parents.

Lower taxes would benefit hardworking everyones.

Owain

precisely. Take all the money from the working, then give it back to
the not working, is hardly an incentive to work.

Someone I know says he dare not work for less than 300 a week Or he will
lose money. He is very willing to work, and could get lower paid work.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Dingley wrote:
On 27 Oct, 19:08, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

So why did the Thames freeze over 200 years ago then?


Bloody volcano IIRC. Krakatoa?



Thought you said earlier volcanic eruptions (probably) ended the Ice Age?

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:20:32 +0000, T i m wrote:
This seems relevant (WS) 2:15 onwards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAGJpISVERg

Ha, ta for that. My missus was amazed when she was over in the UK and saw
signs at the side of the road reminding people to think...

(have they installed any that say "breathe" yet, you know, just in case?)

Ash wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Dingley wrote:
On 27 Oct, 19:08, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

So why did the Thames freeze over 200 years ago then?
Bloody volcano IIRC. Krakatoa?



Thought you said earlier volcanic eruptions (probably) ended the Ice Age?



Correct.

The two are not mutually incompatible. Volcanoes spew out firstly huge
amounts of ash that nets you a 'nuclear winter' and then that subsides,
**** loads of CO2 which gives you a couple of millenia of warm weather.


I know its hard to think about complex things, but its worth trying, honest.

wrote:
On 28 Oct,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Coal doesn't need a forced draught.

I've come across coal that needed forced draught, and even then hardly
worked.

anthracitye is teh only pone. and to an exteng dry steam coal. Thse have
low hydrocarbon content compare with lignite of normal bituminous.


Coke does.

How did the braziers used by nigh****chmen in the 50s work? They were coke in
a can with holes in and natural draught. Coal would have been stolen.

If coke was so easy to use, coke would have been stolen too..

I THOUGHT they were coal actually. I guess coke must just about burn
without forced draught, but is hard work. WE used to buy anthracite,
coke and steam coal for a closed stove/fire. All were a devil to light
compared with normal bituminous coal. Coal is a cinch in an open fire.


W used to use some steam coal or coke in the open fire, but it wasn't
self sustaining - always needed ordinary coal.

I know its hard to think about complex things, but its worth trying,
honest.

.... and just when I was thinking you've got something worth saying ...your
sarcastic side let you down 8-(

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Dingley wrote:
On 27 Oct, 22:15, Rod wrote:

the coal consumed was two hundredweight".

"Coal" in that period was commonly used to refer to any of the black,
lumpy fuels. You have to check carefully as to which was used. Even
charcoal is sometimes described as "coals" in the 16th century. "Pit
coal" or "sea coal" is the sort that we commonly know as coal.


Rubbish

Go to the National railway Museum website and email the comments section
with your question, and it will be forwarded to the relevant curator. My
daughter works there; she is stood behind me as I type this and she says the
information will be yours by return.

Bill

On 28 Oct, 15:02, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

So why did the Thames freeze over 200 years ago then?

Bloody volcano IIRC. Krakatoa?

You're about 100 years too late for some of the biggest freezes

On 28 Oct, 14:58, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Compare and contrast the 20's and 30's say, where to be an unmarried
mother was *to be socially beyond the pale,

It wasn't. Unmarried motherhood and its acceptability has always
increased in times of social turmoil, such as post-WW1 and during the
Depression. You can't apply the social mores of the 1910s or 1950s to
the early '20s or '30s

The Medway Handyman
wibbled on Tuesday 27 October 2009 19:49

I've complained to the ASA about the climate change advert where a dad is
reading his daughter a bedtime story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMp8UiCNYas


http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/iss/arch.../3-01pic2.html

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Dingley wrote:
On 27 Oct, 19:08, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

So why did the Thames freeze over 200 years ago then?


Bloody volcano IIRC. Krakatoa?

1883 - 83 years after.


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

Andy Dingley wrote:
On 27 Oct, 19:08, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

So why did the Thames freeze over 200 years ago then?

Because.

As in 'because I said so'?

Which has little relation to any _additional_ causes we kick into
play. One doesn't preclude the other.

One might also suggest that the absence of "little ice ages", frost
fairs etc. since we started messing with stuff would tend to support
the anthropocene hypothesis, rather than discredit it.

The premise is that fossil fuel use causes freak weather conditions. The
black swan is that freak weather conditions have always exsisted.


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

Andy Dingley wrote:
On 28 Oct, 15:02, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

So why did the Thames freeze over 200 years ago then?
Bloody volcano IIRC. Krakatoa?

You're about 100 years too late for some of the biggest freezes
oh well, find another one. Etna?

The Medway Handyman wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Dingley wrote:
On 27 Oct, 19:08, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

So why did the Thames freeze over 200 years ago then?
Bloody volcano IIRC. Krakatoa?

1883 - 83 years after.


well take yoitr pick

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PLATETEC/TOPTEN.HTM

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Andy Dingley wrote:
On 27 Oct, 19:08, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

So why did the Thames freeze over 200 years ago then?
Because.

As in 'because I said so'?
Which has little relation to any _additional_ causes we kick into
play. One doesn't preclude the other.

One might also suggest that the absence of "little ice ages", frost
fairs etc. since we started messing with stuff would tend to support
the anthropocene hypothesis, rather than discredit it.

The premise is that fossil fuel use causes freak weather conditions. The
black swan is that freak weather conditions have always exsisted.


no, rather that the frequency and degree or freak weather increases with
increased CO2.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:32:58 -0500, Jules
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:20:32 +0000, T i m wrote:
This seems relevant (WS) 2:15 onwards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAGJpISVERg

Ha, ta for that. My missus was amazed when she was over in the UK and saw
signs at the side of the road reminding people to think...

The frightening thing is it's true though. Even insurance Co's paying
out simply bogus claims because it will be cheaper, not because it's
the morally correct thing to do. This includes it seems paying those
who are stupid enough to drive whilst holding a cup of coffee between
their legs the suing because they get scalded (or whatever).

(have they installed any that say "breathe" yet, you know, just in case?)

Who knows where it will stop.

The thing is, much of this over zealous PC / HSE stuff is affecting
everyone. Kids not getting work opportunity because Co's can't tick
enough boxes and / or don't want the risks.

The worst for me are all the ambulance chasers. I've heard that
motorbike shops (and car garages no doubt) can get a cash kick-back if
they get a customer to hire a vehicle while their claim is sorted out
through the insurance Co rather than take a loan bike for free ...
because they can earn money out of the hire etc.


T i m

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:44:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

wrote:
On 28 Oct,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Coal doesn't need a forced draught.

I've come across coal that needed forced draught, and even then hardly
worked.

anthracitye is teh only pone. and to an exteng dry steam coal. Thse have
low hydrocarbon content compare with lignite of normal bituminous.


Coke does.

How did the braziers used by nigh****chmen in the 50s work? They were coke in
a can with holes in and natural draught. Coal would have been stolen.

If coke was so easy to use, coke would have been stolen too..

I THOUGHT they were coal actually. I guess coke must just about burn
without forced draught, but is hard work. WE used to buy anthracite,
coke and steam coal for a closed stove/fire. All were a devil to light
compared with normal bituminous coal. Coal is a cinch in an open fire.


W used to use some steam coal or coke in the open fire, but it wasn't
self sustaining - always needed ordinary coal.


All this is very odd. Anybody over about 55 will remember huge coke
fired classroom stoves supplied from a huge pile in the schoolyard,
and those who did national service will remember a coke stove at the
end of every hut. All of these were naturally draughted (and not just
the servicemen !).

Derek

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:52:03 -0000, "Bill Wright"
wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim W wrote:

It's the subtle introduction of "though crime" that's most worrying. You
try
to start a reasoned and balanced debate on "Is excessive immigration bad
for Britain" without being instantly labelled as BNP.

WEll that is changing. Its not immigration per se, its too many people
full stop.

No, it's immigration. There's too many foreigners in this country.

Mind you, the other thing is that the current system encourages the workshy
and the stupid to breed like rabbits. When these lasses get pregnant just to
get a council flat they should be send back to mum and dad with a flea in
their ear. Child benefit should be abolished.


Watching "Unemployed for 7 days" on TV last night revealed to me that
the underclass (I.E. No husband / father figure in the house, and most
of them unemployed for generations) live in a totally different
universe to the rest of us where (A bit like the Big Rock Candy
Mountain) new 5 bedroom houses grow on trees, and if money is in
short supply it's the man down the council, jobcentre etc who is to
blame even if they literally CBA to get out of bed in the morning to
go down the jobcentre and pick up their dole / cash.

Derek

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:44:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

wrote:
On 28 Oct,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Coal doesn't need a forced draught.
I've come across coal that needed forced draught, and even then hardly
worked.
anthracitye is teh only pone. and to an exteng dry steam coal. Thse have
low hydrocarbon content compare with lignite of normal bituminous.

Coke does.

How did the braziers used by nigh****chmen in the 50s work? They were coke in
a can with holes in and natural draught. Coal would have been stolen.
If coke was so easy to use, coke would have been stolen too..

I THOUGHT they were coal actually. I guess coke must just about burn
without forced draught, but is hard work. WE used to buy anthracite,
coke and steam coal for a closed stove/fire. All were a devil to light
compared with normal bituminous coal. Coal is a cinch in an open fire.


W used to use some steam coal or coke in the open fire, but it wasn't
self sustaining - always needed ordinary coal.

All this is very odd. Anybody over about 55 will remember huge coke
fired classroom stoves

STOVES.

Not open fires.

There seems to be enough draught with a stove for it to work.

same with wood. Our woodburner stove will burn much fiercer than an open
fire will.


supplied from a huge pile in the schoolyard,
and those who did national service will remember a coke stove at the
end of every hut. All of these were naturally draughted (and not just
the servicemen !).

Derek

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:27:52 +0000, T i m wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:32:58 -0500, Jules
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:20:32 +0000, T i m wrote:
This seems relevant (WS) 2:15 onwards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAGJpISVERg

Ha, ta for that. My missus was amazed when she was over in the UK and saw
signs at the side of the road reminding people to think...

The frightening thing is it's true though. Even insurance Co's paying
out simply bogus claims because it will be cheaper, not because it's
the morally correct thing to do. This includes it seems paying those
who are stupid enough to drive whilst holding a cup of coffee between
their legs the suing because they get scalded (or whatever).

Actually, the terminally clueless should be forced to drive with cups of
coffee between their legs. Hopefully the resulting burns will prevent
them from reproducing and making the problem even worse in future
generations :-)

(have they installed any that say "breathe" yet, you know, just in
case?)

Who knows where it will stop.

The thing is, much of this over zealous PC / HSE stuff is affecting
everyone. Kids not getting work opportunity because Co's can't tick
enough boxes and / or don't want the risks.

Yeah, it's terrible here in the US - but not nearly as bad as it was in
the UK (which always strikes me as odd because the perception of myself &
peers when I was growing up in the UK was that the US was the place fo
H+S insanity).

Furthermore the rural nature of a lot of the US has an impact - there can
be a big difference between what the law says and how it's enacted out in
the sticks, where common sense tends to overrule everything (and I realise
the UK's not really any different there, but there's a lot less 'sticks'
to go around)

The worst for me are all the ambulance chasers. I've heard that
motorbike shops (and car garages no doubt) can get a cash kick-back if
they get a customer to hire a vehicle while their claim is sorted out
through the insurance Co rather than take a loan bike for free ...
because they can earn money out of the hire etc.

There's backhanders and stealth 'taxes' and sweet little deals going on
everywhere all the time, I suppose. Best to try not to think about it or
it'll make your head explode :/

cheers

Jules

In message
,
Andy Dingley writes
On 28 Oct, 15:02, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

So why did the Thames freeze over 200 years ago then?

Bloody volcano IIRC. Krakatoa?

You're about 100 years too late for some of the biggest freezes


Tambora ?


--
geoff

"Ash" wrote in message
. uk...
Except they wern't, their log fires were not releasing fossil carbon.
Now if they had found some black rocks and also discovered they
burn't well that would be a different matter.


So ... if they were not releasing fossil carbon, didn't have power
stations,
cars, industry belching out pollution etc etc then what made the earth
warm
up and bring the ice age to an end?

I heard it was something to do with farting cows. Mmmmmmm, or was that wooly
mammoths?

"T i m" wrote in message
...

Speed limits and then cameras are primarily there to manage trap
those who can't make decisions on their own (and in that process also
trap those spending more time actually driving attentively and not
staring at their speedo or circles on sticks). I'm not saying most of
us can't do both of course but speed and safe driving can be two
different things.

I would say that if you can't control your vehicles speed correctly then you
are not driving safely.
The excuse used by poor drivers that they spend all their time looking for
hazards and can't see the speed limit signs or the speedo is just plain
cr@p.
If you can't keep an eye on your speed and know what the signs say then you
are already driving too fast for your abilities.


ie, They have speed limits in the pits on race tracks but not on the
track yet not everyone dies?

Put them all in normal cars without safety cages, harnesses, crash helmets,
etc. and a lot more would die, they have far more accidents than most
drivers but survive them through engineering.

"Heliotrope Smith" wrote in message
...

"Ash" wrote in message
. uk...
Except they wern't, their log fires were not releasing fossil carbon.
Now if they had found some black rocks and also discovered they
burn't well that would be a different matter.


So ... if they were not releasing fossil carbon, didn't have power
stations,
cars, industry belching out pollution etc etc then what made the earth
warm
up and bring the ice age to an end?

I heard it was something to do with farting cows. Mmmmmmm, or was that
wooly
mammoths?



Cows ...

Daily Express
Tuesday October 27,2009
By Emily Garnham

BECOME A VEGGIE TO SAVE PLANET

Methane from livestock accounts for a fifth of the global warming impact

ONE OF the world's leading voices on climate change has sensationally urged
people to become vegetarian to help beat global warming.

Nicholas Stern, the author of an influential 2006 review of climate change,
said methane emissions from cows and pigs were putting "enormous pressure"
on the world.

He said: "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse
gases. It put enormous pressure on the world's resources. A vegetarian diet
is better."

The former World Bank chief economist was speaking ahead of a crunch climate
change talks in Copenhagen this December, which could result in higher costs
for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.

Lord Stern, who is not a strict vegetarian, told The Times: "I think it's
important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what
they are eating.

"I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed
radically since I was a student.

"People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly
ask about the carbon content of their food."

He added: "A diet that relies heavily on meat production results in higher
emissions than a typical vegetarian diet. Different individuals will make
different choices."

But Lord Stern - a professor at London School of Economics - warned: "The
debate about climate change should not be dumbed down to a single slogan,
such as 'give up meat to save the planet'."

According to estimates methane from livestock accounts for a fifth of the
global warming impact. As a greenhouse gas it is 23 times more powerful than
carbon dioxide If business continued as usual then temperatures could
increase by 5C by early next century, warned Lord Stern.

He said: "These kinds of changes will have huge consequences - southern
Europe is likely to be a desert; hundreds of millions of people will have to
move. There will be severe global conflict."

Lord Stern said it was "vital" the UK public understood what was at stake.

"These negotiations will have a profound impact on the kind of world our
children, our grandchildren and future generations will live in," he said.

"The choice is stark. If we take strong and effective action now to tackle
the causes and consequences of climate change, we can create a bright future
of sustainable growth and prosperity across the world built on a low-carbon
economy.

"But if we fail, and allow less important short-term issues to cloud our
judgment, such that we end up with a weak and ineffective treaty, we will
condemn the world to a dark future, living in an increasingly hostile
climate and struggling to deal with the mounting risks and hardships that
will arise by continuing to follow a high-carbon route towards its
inevitable dead end."

In message , Arfa Daily
writes
I feel there really is too much emphasis (and tolerance by us) on
knicking 'drivers' for such things. I mean, how difficult would it be
for them to consider circumstances, check the driver database (to see
(say) the driver had an unblemished 20 year driving record) and let
him go with a 'drive safely sir' and a smile? That wouldn't raise any
cash though would it (not that most people would have an issue with a
small fine, it's the points (when issued in such circumstances) that
most people object to).

Out of interest, would the copper be sat in the same place doing
people for going at 25 mph in the thick fog?

Cheers, T i m

[1] There are many many roads where if you were to drive at the
posted limit you would probably die within minutes. Now I know some
people do just that (Darwin rules Ok g) but there are many more of
us who seem to cope and have been able to cope before much of what we
have now existed.

Thank you for that reasoned and honest reply. At least you are *one* person
on here who understands *exactly* what I am saying ...

No, I reckon that there are a fair number of people here who understand
exactly what you mean

.... just been through the argument too many times to post yet another
reply


--
geoff

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
news

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim W wrote:

It's the subtle introduction of "though crime" that's most worrying. You
try
to start a reasoned and balanced debate on "Is excessive immigration bad
for Britain" without being instantly labelled as BNP.

WEll that is changing. Its not immigration per se, its too many people
full stop.

No, it's immigration. There's too many foreigners in this country.

Mind you, the other thing is that the current system encourages the
workshy and the stupid to breed like rabbits. When these lasses get
pregnant just to get a council flat they should be send back to mum and
dad with a flea in their ear. Child benefit should be abolished.

Back in your cage you dolts!

All the NHS dentists I have found in the last five years have been Polish or
South African.

Long live immigration :-)

In message , Clot
writes
As a person that got caught speeding in exactly the same situation, I have a
great deal of sympathy with your mate. In my instance, I had been diligently
keeping to a 40 mph limit (despite a queue of cars up my tail) and was
slowing down as I came into the 30mph zone. They had just been moved (which
I had forgotten). Low and behold there was a camera van parked just within
the 30mph zone. I swear my rear bumper was still in the 40mph when they got
me!

Got caught (33 in a 30 zone - I thought that was within the limit of the
limit) coming out of Much Wenlock just before it changed to 40 mph and
well after the village had finished

I should have challenged it, but CBA


--
geoff

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Derek Geldard wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:44:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

wrote:
On 28 Oct, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Coal doesn't need a forced draught.
I've come across coal that needed forced draught, and even then hardly
worked.
anthracitye is teh only pone. and to an exteng dry steam coal. Thse
have low hydrocarbon content compare with lignite of normal bituminous.

Coke does.

How did the braziers used by nigh****chmen in the 50s work? They
were coke in
a can with holes in and natural draught. Coal would have been stolen.
If coke was so easy to use, coke would have been stolen too..

I THOUGHT they were coal actually. I guess coke must just about burn
without forced draught, but is hard work. WE used to buy anthracite,
coke and steam coal for a closed stove/fire. All were a devil to
light compared with normal bituminous coal. Coal is a cinch in an
open fire.


W used to use some steam coal or coke in the open fire, but it wasn't
self sustaining - always needed ordinary coal.

All this is very odd. Anybody over about 55 will remember huge coke
fired classroom stoves

STOVES.

Not open fires.

I am 63 years old and I can remember having an open coke fire that drew
quite well. It had to be started with coal though.

Dave

On 28 Oct, 19:27, T i m wrote:


The frightening thing is it's true though. Even insurance Co's paying
out simply bogus claims because it will be cheaper, not because it's
the morally correct thing to do. This includes it seems paying those
who are stupid enough to drive whilst holding a cup of coffee between
their legs the suing because they get scalded (or whatever).

You do have to be careful not to fall into the Daily Mail trap,
though. Just to take the coffee example, it is hugely blown out of
context.

Had I been sitting in that jury, I think my sympathies would have gone
against McDonalds. They could easily, having decided that they wanted
to store at scalding temps, not to serve drive-by customers. Maybe I
would have upped the 20% contribitory negligence, but I'm not sure.

http://www.dsinjurylaw.com/knowledge...7s+Coffee+Myth

In message , Clive
George writes
"T i m" wrote in message
.. .

So you were (effectively) fined for a lapse of memory, not
concentration or attention or because you were driving familar ground
but not driving dangerously?

"Sorry, I forgot the road had a corner here"

You aren't actually driving the road by memory, you are prioritising
the important stuff, like what that kid on a bike is about to do not
if the number on a stick is the same as it was yesterday.

If you're overloaded by that information (kid on bike, number on sign), you
either need to take steps to reduce that load or increase the amount of
information you can take on. The latter means concentrating on driving, not
going on autopilot.

I very rarely concentrate on my driving, its almost exclusively handled
in the subconscious, the same with e.g. skiing or other occupations
where automatic responses are better and faster than conscious thought,
even when driving at speeds over 100mph where you wake up a bit

When I have to start concentrating on my driving, I'll prolly hand my
licence back, as I'll realise I've become as bad as dennis and clive
(what a name for a comedy duo)



There is another alternative, which is to slow down to a
level where you can cope with the amount of information coming in, but
that's clearly a ridiculous idea.


Which tells me that you shouldn't really be driving, there is no natural
ability there

--
geoff

dennis@home wrote:


"T i m" wrote in message
...

Speed limits and then cameras are primarily there to manage trap
those who can't make decisions on their own (and in that process also
trap those spending more time actually driving attentively and not
staring at their speedo or circles on sticks). I'm not saying most of
us can't do both of course but speed and safe driving can be two
different things.

I would say that if you can't control your vehicles speed correctly then
you are not driving safely.
The excuse used by poor drivers that they spend all their time looking
for hazards and can't see the speed limit signs or the speedo is just
plain cr@p.

I had to drive to Warwick services yesterday, from Preston, Lancs.

I entered a 50 MPH zone that did not have the obligatory warning that it
was coming up and I entered the first camera zone at 70 MPH. I'll let
you know if I get a ticket.

This is not the first time that there has been an infringement in the
sign posts on the M6. It happened some time ago, when they were making
driving life very difficult for motorists.

Dave

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

All this is very odd. Anybody over about 55 will remember huge coke
fired classroom stoves

STOVES.

Not open fires.

In the 60s we used to heat a large house with coke for the stove and
coal for the open fires. We lived out in the sticks and in winter
deliveries of fuel could get erratic. The coke bunker took four tonnes
so we generally had lots of coke when the coal had run out. Open coke
fires were common and although they didn't give as much heat as the coal
they worked well in an open grate.

The local bowling club used to run a barbecue which was fuelled using
coke in large open pits. Less draft than an open fire and the coke still
burned well.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:23:57 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"T i m" wrote in message
.. .

Speed limits and then cameras are primarily there to manage trap
those who can't make decisions on their own (and in that process also
trap those spending more time actually driving attentively and not
staring at their speedo or circles on sticks). I'm not saying most of
us can't do both of course but speed and safe driving can be two
different things.

I would say that if you can't control your vehicles speed correctly then you
are not driving safely.

Agreed ... or you are being punted up the arse by a lorry ... ;-)

The excuse used by poor drivers that they spend all their time looking for
hazards and can't see the speed limit signs or the speedo is just plain
cr@p.

Yup. Not sure anyone here has said that though?

If you can't keep an eye on your speed and know what the signs say then you
are already driving too fast for your abilities.

For most of the time and circumstances I'd agree. But consider how
long it might take to miss a repeater sign when turning onto a main
road and 'concentrating' on the parked car you are overtaking and the
kids feet you have seen on the road underneath. Or the sign hidden
behind a parked lorry or buried in the undergrowth [1].


ie, They have speed limits in the pits on race tracks but not on the
track yet not everyone dies?

Put them all in normal cars without safety cages, harnesses, crash helmets,
etc. and a lot more would die, they have far more accidents than most
drivers but survive them through engineering.

Well maybe but whilst doing far more miles 'on the edge' in a few
minutes than most drivers will do in a lifetime. But we weren't really
talking about crash survival. ;-(

A 30 mph GATSO will trigger when you go past it on an otherwise empty
road at 2am and at 40 mph if you saw the speed limit or camera or not.
It won't trigger as you knock a school kid off their bike when doing
30 mph.

I'm not defending poor 'care' here, just that it is possible to be
driving carefully and still miss 'information'.

FWIW, part of why I like and have used a GPS for many years before
they became 'cool' was because I can ignore the general mess of
confusing road signs and therefore try to focus on those signs that
are important (like hazard warning and speed changes).

Cheers, T i m

[1] Dad was stopped years ago for 'speeding', similar to the OP story,
just inside a 40 after a 60.

Plod: You know the speed limit is along here?
Dad: Yes, it's 60 mph.
Plod: No, it's 40 mph.
Dad: Oh where does it say that?
Plod: Back there (points to the back of a circle on a stick)
Dad: Oh, that said 40 did it Officer?
Plod: Yes.
Dad: Well I couldn't see it, let's look.

Plod and Dad walk back up the road and they both look at the circle on
a stick. Dad walks back to his car and drives off leaving plod trying
to clean black circle with his hanky.

Owain wrote:
On 28 Oct, 22:33, "Ash" wrote:
Daily Express
Tuesday October 27,2009
By Emily Garnham
BECOME A VEGGIE TO SAVE PLANET
Nicholas Stern, the author of an influential 2006 review of climate
change, said methane emissions from cows and pigs were putting
"enormous pressure" on the world.
...
The former World Bank chief economist

bank chief economists are *such* a good guide to how we should run the
world.

was speaking ahead of a crunch climate
change talks in Copenhagen this December, which could result in
higher costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities
of greenhouse gases.

That would be vegetables grown in heated glasshouses (heated by fossil
fuels) and polytunnels (made from oil based plastics) and dosed with
oil based fertilisers and pesticides etc then flown halfway round the
world.

And without cattle there'd be no leather so that would mean oil based
plastic substitutes for footwear, clothing and furniture.


And of course 600 billion humans farting like mad because of all the
sprouts...


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