On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:30:16 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:


Up to 75% of councils are dimming the lights to save money


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ave-money.html

Using a dimmer switch on your lights at home doesn't save very much in
electricity AFAIK, e.g. dimming to half the light doesn't reduce the
power consumption by 50% - is it different on street lights?

Dunno - many different types of lamps. Dimming GLS lamps used to
result in the well known brown out phenomena. Older members of my
family were incredulous at the idea.

"Who wants their lights on dim?"

As regards street lighting I'm sure I recall it being on a special
extra cheap unmetered tariff called, believe it or not, "The Street
Lighting Tariff".

It was cheap because there was shedloads of generating capacity which
otherwise would go to waste in the middle of the night.

Derek G

On 18 Apr,
"Dave Liquorice" wrote:

Teeside? That's 40 miles away and is by far the worst source of sky
glow. If you know where to look and the conditions are right there is
a small amount, just a blob on the horizon, from Carlisle.

Yes, Not all of Teesside, I'm almost on the south western edge. go another
few miles south or west and it starts to get darker, but towards
Middlesbrough and beyond it's bright! I suspect mostly from industry.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

On 18 Apr,
Tim Streater wrote:

No, so much for the incompetent ****s at the council who don't know how
to write a contract.

I've thought for years my local council share one brain cell with the
adjacent borough and swap it round each year. Recently they seem to have
started sharing contracts too, all signed with the one brain cell.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:30:30 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

I've never had a car with bi-xenons before, but I treated
myself this time and *boy* do everyone else's lights look dingy and
orange now.

As A.N.Other driver I hate the bloody things far too bright and
create blinding dazzle.

Prior to having them myself I did find some of them dazzling, to the
point that some cars got flashed (perhaps those that have fitted dodgy
after market bulbs?), I was wondering if I too would get flashed by
anyone they annoyed, but not so far ...

Particularly on bumpy roads, lower than them
due to the crest of a hill or when they have gone out of adjustment.

I don't know if all cars do it, but mine certainly adjust themselves
each time you start the car on with the lights on, you see them swivel
down and up before settling on what they regard as level, then they
constantly adjust as you drive ...

Obviously it wasn't a "sod everyone else" decision to buy them on the
car, they just happened to come with the spec level I chose, I wouldn't
have paid the difference to have them on a lower model, but I think if
*everyone* had them there'd be few complaints about them :-)

Graham. wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
Andy Wade wrote:
On 18/04/2011 08:30, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Using a dimmer switch on your lights at home doesn't save very much
in electricity AFAIK, e.g. dimming to half the light doesn't reduce
the power consumption by 50% - is it different on street lights?

Yes, because you're dimming a sodium discharge lamp, not a tungsten
filament. With tungsten the lumens per watt efficacy drops
dramatically when you under-run the lamp. With a discharge lamp it
may still fall off, but to a much lesser extent.

Dimming is not new. The street lights in the road where I live were
replaced a couple of years ago. After midnight they dim to 75%
output, or so the letter from the council said.

'Intelligent' street light control seems to be becoming a large
industry, e.g. http://www.e-streetlight.com/

There was an LED street light outside a house I worked at last month.

They must be cheap to run, but not cheap to install. The odd thing
is it was the only LED street light there. The rest were discharge
lamps (and new ones as they stood next to the old concrete
streetlamps) --
Adam

Was the light from it steady or strobed?

Steady
--
Adam

On 18/04/2011 22:47, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:39:39 +0100, JNugent wrote:

Many areas already do have centrally controlled traffic signals.

What are traffic lights?

You are a cyclist AICMFP.

Sorry, you don't get the fiver. There just aren't any traffic lights
around here.
"Bad traffic" is stuck behind another, sometimes twoshock horror
cars at the narrows on Front Street as you give way to something
coming up.

I know what you mean.

Until a couple of years ago, there were no traffic lights within several
miles of here, and it was possible/normal to get onto the primary road
network and travel to any part of the mainland without encountering a light
signal until you got there. Then the buggers installed a pelicon crossing
about a mile and a half away...

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:49:16 +0100
JNugent wrote:
network and travel to any part of the mainland without encountering a light
signal until you got there. Then the buggers installed a pelicon crossing
about a mile and a half away...

Is it one of those really well designed ones that waits until theres some
traffic coming before it goes red? By which time the pedestrian has already
crossed and is long gone so you're left sitting there wondering whether
anyone will see you if you just drive across it at red.

B2003

damduck wrote:
I could hear steps coming close and turned to see a chap
walking up faster than me,stepped to one side to let him pass and trod
on his small dog which I had not seen.

A few days ago I was driving home quite late and suddenly somebody
dressed all in black walking their black dog stepped out of the
black shadows and onto the road in front of me.

JGH

Jethro wrote:
Which leads back to my "if it *really* mattered" argument. Is there
*any* government push for homeworking (tax breaks for companies, etc)?

If you work from home you can claim as business expenses the
proportion
of your home running costs that you use for business puposes. Some
years
ago I did some calculations and found it was near enough to 1/12 so I
simply used a typical monthly bill for my tax return figures.

Bear in mind that taking just a small %age of cars off the road
in rush-hour has a remarkable effect on congestion.

I was still working at work as well, so I was still occupying road
space several days a week. I got a work-issued bus pass which also
went on the tax return as payment in kind which sorta cancelled out
the home-working allowance

JGH

"jgharston" wrote in message
...
damduck wrote:
I could hear steps coming close and turned to see a chap
walking up faster than me,stepped to one side to let him pass and trod
on his small dog which I had not seen.

A few days ago I was driving home quite late and suddenly somebody
dressed all in black walking their black dog stepped out of the
black shadows and onto the road in front of me.

Both instance where more appropriate dress was required. I have lived in the
countryside for most of my life only moving into a town 7 years ago so
street lighting is still a novelty to me. Our little town could quite easily
turn off half of them. I grew up with the nearest street light 6 miles away
in the nearest town and subsequently always dress in light colours when out
and about at night.

As an instructor with the ATC it always amused me that youngsters that grew
up in the towns were amazed how much they could see at night with torches
switched off. Once they had allowed their eyes to adjust to the moonlight
that is. On the other hand a townie pal of mine was equally shocked that he
simply could not see where to walk on the way back from the local pub to our
cottage in Arkengarthdale on a cloud covered night. I had offered him a
torch but he poo-pood the idea of needing one!

Mike

Steve Walker wrote:
Public sector jobs aren't that good, my wife has one - just. She was
told in November after training some students, "thanks for training your
replacements."

After getting deselected two years ago I campaigned to get my
replacement
elected, only to have him defect to the other party immediately after
getting elected. Grrr.

JGH

On Apr 19, 12:21*pm, jgharston wrote:
Jethro wrote:
Which leads back to my "if it *really* mattered" argument. Is there
*any* government push for homeworking (tax breaks for companies, etc)?


No, not a tax break for workers - who cares about them ? I meant a tax
break for a company (say 1% of corporation tax) that can demonstrate
they have a policy to encourage homeworking. That way, the
*shareholders* would pressure the directors to make it happen.

In my career, I have sat on 3 separate employee forums that discussed
home/flex working. (In 3 companies). Every time we put together a very
cogent, and reasoned proposal for why it would work. Each time, they
were rejected with the simple "the MD doesn't like it". The closest we
got was when it was pointed out that letting an employee homework
could be viewed as a 5% pay rise with no cost to the company.

On Apr 19, 12:05*pm, jgharston wrote:
damduck wrote:
I could hear steps coming close and turned to see a chap
walking up faster than me,stepped to one side to let him pass and trod
on his small dog which I had not seen.

A few days ago I was driving home quite late and suddenly somebody
dressed all in black walking their black dog stepped out of the
black shadows and onto the road in front of me.

JGH

I remember still the shock of meeting an unlit cycle coming up the
wrong side of the road when I was on my motorcycle. The road was lit
but badly (over 30 years ago). I only saw it when I was about ten
yards away.

jgharston wrote:
damduck wrote:
I could hear steps coming close and turned to see a chap
walking up faster than me,stepped to one side to let him pass and trod
on his small dog which I had not seen.

A few days ago I was driving home quite late and suddenly somebody
dressed all in black walking their black dog stepped out of the
black shadows and onto the road in front of me.

JGH
well if there had been no lights, there would have been no shadow.

And if it was pitch black, he would have had a torch.

Jethro wrote:
On Apr 19, 12:21 pm, jgharston wrote:
Jethro wrote:
Which leads back to my "if it *really* mattered" argument. Is there
*any* government push for homeworking (tax breaks for companies, etc)?

No, not a tax break for workers - who cares about them ? I meant a tax
break for a company (say 1% of corporation tax) that can demonstrate
they have a policy to encourage homeworking. That way, the
*shareholders* would pressure the directors to make it happen.

In my career, I have sat on 3 separate employee forums that discussed
home/flex working. (In 3 companies). Every time we put together a very
cogent, and reasoned proposal for why it would work. Each time, they
were rejected with the simple "the MD doesn't like it". The closest we
got was when it was pointed out that letting an employee homework
could be viewed as a 5% pay rise with no cost to the company.

Exactly my experience. Despite the fact that I did it extensively within
my own company.

Managers don't like it: they see their idealised existence of checking
who comes in late, and the easy job of 'having meetings' in which
nothing is ever decided, slipping away and being replaced by what
management actually is: the division and allocation of work and
resources to staff, and the monitoring of their progress in performing
that work.

On Apr 19, 2:58*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
*The Natural Philosopher wrote:



Jethro wrote:
On Apr 19, 12:21 pm, jgharston wrote:
Jethro wrote:
Which leads back to my "if it *really* mattered" argument. Is there
*any* government push for homeworking (tax breaks for companies, etc)?

No, not a tax break for workers - who cares about them ? I meant a tax
break for a company (say 1% of corporation tax) that can demonstrate
they have a policy to encourage homeworking. That way, the
*shareholders* would pressure the directors to make it happen.

In my career, I have sat on 3 separate employee forums that discussed
home/flex working. (In 3 companies). Every time we put together a very
cogent, and reasoned proposal for why it would work. Each time, they
were rejected with the simple "the MD doesn't like it". The closest we
got was when it was pointed out that letting an employee homework
could be viewed as a 5% pay rise with no cost to the company.

Exactly my experience. Despite the fact that I did it extensively within
my own company.

Managers don't like it: they see their idealised existence of checking
who comes in late, and the easy job of 'having meetings' in which
nothing is ever decided, slipping away and being replaced by what
management actually is: the division and allocation of work and
resources to staff, and the monitoring of their progress in performing
that work.

I'd agree that poor managers won't like it for the reasons you give. And
any meeting that doesn't have a set agenda, and doesn't end with a list
of actions for attendees to have done by next time, is a waste of time.
You rapidly discover who the **** meeting Chairmen are.

The first time I got involved with a proposal (for flexitime), one of
the early objections was that managers would have to keep an eye on
employees to make sure they put in the hours and didn't abuse the
system. To which my response was "isn't that their job ?".

Jonathan Ward wrote:

I remember still the shock of meeting an unlit cycle coming up the
wrong side of the road when I was on my motorcycle. The road was lit
but badly (over 30 years ago). I only saw it when I was about ten
yards away.

Even lights and reflectors can have their problems. Coming up
behind what I thought was a distant car at night, I was partially
judging the distance from the space between the lights. It turned
out to be a much closer bicycle, with a second reflector on a
stick.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

Jethro wrote:
On Apr 19, 2:58 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:



Jethro wrote:
On Apr 19, 12:21 pm, jgharston wrote:
Jethro wrote:
Which leads back to my "if it *really* mattered" argument. Is there
*any* government push for homeworking (tax breaks for companies, etc)?
No, not a tax break for workers - who cares about them ? I meant a tax
break for a company (say 1% of corporation tax) that can demonstrate
they have a policy to encourage homeworking. That way, the
*shareholders* would pressure the directors to make it happen.
In my career, I have sat on 3 separate employee forums that discussed
home/flex working. (In 3 companies). Every time we put together a very
cogent, and reasoned proposal for why it would work. Each time, they
were rejected with the simple "the MD doesn't like it". The closest we
got was when it was pointed out that letting an employee homework
could be viewed as a 5% pay rise with no cost to the company.
Exactly my experience. Despite the fact that I did it extensively within
my own company.
Managers don't like it: they see their idealised existence of checking
who comes in late, and the easy job of 'having meetings' in which
nothing is ever decided, slipping away and being replaced by what
management actually is: the division and allocation of work and
resources to staff, and the monitoring of their progress in performing
that work.
I'd agree that poor managers won't like it for the reasons you give. And
any meeting that doesn't have a set agenda, and doesn't end with a list
of actions for attendees to have done by next time, is a waste of time.
You rapidly discover who the **** meeting Chairmen are.

The first time I got involved with a proposal (for flexitime), one of
the early objections was that managers would have to keep an eye on
employees to make sure they put in the hours and didn't abuse the
system. To which my response was "isn't that their job ?".

I had a similar conversation with a sales and marketing guy who
complained that I was developing the wrong product, and should have
worked out what was actually wanted..

On 18/04/2011 11:12, John Williamson wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...

There's lots of residential on-street parking here, most don't bother
parking facing the "right" way because the streetlights are on at the
time they actually park, not thinking that they'll be parked illegally
once the lights go off.


A untapped revenue stream, better phone the council so they can have
someone go around and issue tickets.

BTW its illegal to park the wrong way around with the street lights *on*.
Its illegal to park without parking lights (that requires two lights
at the front and two at the rear not the ones you get when you flip
the indicators to the park position) when there are no street lights
so there is potential for even more revenue.
Of course with all the car parking lights on then you won't need
street lights anyway.

And the breakdown services will make a fortune, coming out to all the
flat batteries every morning. Emitting rather more CO2 than is saved by
turning the lights off in the first place.

I was given an old Austin 1100 many years ago. It was at the time all
cars parked on the road had to have overnight lights.

In winter, the frost would grow quite deep during the colder winter
months and it never failed to start the next morning.

Dave

On 18/04/2011 13:20, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"dennis@home" wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

When did you last see a car with sidelights on when parked at night?

Anytime I park where they are required. 8-)

Why are you calling parking lights, sidelights?
There are no such things as side lights fitted to most cars, some HGV
have what could be called sidelights but its no relevant as HGVs can't
park without parking lights even if there are street lights.

What are parking lights, does my car have them and how do I turn them on
if so?

Sidelights is what my car displays if I don't have the headlights on. It
includes lights for the number plates, the dashboard, and lighting up
the radio controls etc, as well as one light at each corner of the car.

What I might be inclined to call parking lights would be *only* a light
front/back on the side nearest the road (drivers side if I understand
all the stuff from the HC, posted here), controllable by e.g. the
indicator stalk, and *no* other lights.

I just checked my car (2008 C4). Sidelights but no parking lights AFAICT.

In the seventies, I had a Rover 3500 that had side lights. Turn the
switch, to the right, from the off position and the lights would come on
progressively. Turn it to the left from off and the right front and rear
lights would come on.

Dave

Dave :
In the seventies, I had a Rover 3500 that had side lights. Turn the
switch, to the right, from the off position and the lights would come
on progressively. Turn it to the left from off and the right front and
rear lights would come on.

All my Audis have done that. The switch is the indicator stalk.

--
Mike Barnes

On 19/04/2011 12:29, MuddyMike wrote:
wrote in message
...
damduck wrote:
I could hear steps coming close and turned to see a chap
walking up faster than me,stepped to one side to let him pass and trod
on his small dog which I had not seen.

A few days ago I was driving home quite late and suddenly somebody
dressed all in black walking their black dog stepped out of the
black shadows and onto the road in front of me.

Both instance where more appropriate dress was required. I have lived in the
countryside for most of my life only moving into a town 7 years ago so
street lighting is still a novelty to me. Our little town could quite easily
turn off half of them. I grew up with the nearest street light 6 miles away
in the nearest town and subsequently always dress in light colours when out
and about at night.

As an instructor with the ATC it always amused me that youngsters that grew
up in the towns were amazed how much they could see at night with torches
switched off. Once they had allowed their eyes to adjust to the moonlight
that is. On the other hand a townie pal of mine was equally shocked that he
simply could not see where to walk on the way back from the local pub to our
cottage in Arkengarthdale on a cloud covered night. I had offered him a
torch but he poo-pood the idea of needing one!

You have to remember that every ones eyes are different. My night vision
is excellent, I think it is a by product of being slightly colour blind
(More receptors for white light.)

My wife, on the other hand does not like driving at night, unless all
the street lights are working.

Dave

Tim Streater wrote:

I think it's an age thing too. I'm finding as I get older that I'm more
easily blinded bey people's headlights than I used to be. And bright
sunlight too.

Any family history of cataracts?

On 19/04/2011 18:09, Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

I think it's an age thing too. I'm finding as I get older that I'm more
easily blinded bey people's headlights than I used to be. And bright
sunlight too.

Any family history of cataracts?

Or vampires in the family?

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

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

I think it's an age thing too. I'm finding as I get older that I'm more
easily blinded bey people's headlights than I used to be. And bright
sunlight too.

Any family history of cataracts?

Not that I'm aware of, why?

Because Dad used to complain about glare from headlight before he had
his done ...

On 19/04/2011 19:23, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 19/04/2011 18:09, Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

I think it's an age thing too. I'm finding as I get older that I'm
more
easily blinded bey people's headlights than I used to be. And bright
sunlight too.

Any family history of cataracts?

Or vampires in the family?

I like biting young females on their hem hem necks, does that count?


If you dislike garlic its not looking good...

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

"Jethro" wrote in message
...

The first time I got involved with a proposal (for flexitime), one of
the early objections was that managers would have to keep an eye on
employees to make sure they put in the hours and didn't abuse the
system. To which my response was "isn't that their job ?".


No it isn't.
Their job is too make sure you have the resources and skills to do your job.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

I'm still waiting for Our Dennis to explain what he means by parking
lights.

I already did, before you asked.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mike Barnes wrote:

Dave :
In the seventies, I had a Rover 3500 that had side lights. Turn the
switch, to the right, from the off position and the lights would come
on progressively. Turn it to the left from off and the right front and
rear lights would come on.

All my Audis have done that. The switch is the indicator stalk.

Right, so you have parking lights, as did Dave, as well as sidelights.

No.
You have to have a lights on both sides.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 19:22:35 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

I think it's an age thing too. I'm finding as I get older that
I'm
more easily blinded bey people's headlights than I used to be.
And
bright sunlight too.

Any family history of cataracts?

Not that I'm aware of, why?

Before cataracts fully cloud the lens they scatter the light passing
through generating increased flare/glare. My Dad had a normally
looking eye (he lost the other when he was in his 20's) but the
cateract meant that the flare from bright sunlight almost completely
obscured his vision.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:57:37 +0100, Dave wrote:
What I might be inclined to call parking lights would be *only* a light
front/back on the side nearest the road (drivers side if I understand
all the stuff from the HC, posted here), controllable by e.g. the
indicator stalk, and *no* other lights.

I just checked my car (2008 C4). Sidelights but no parking lights
AFAICT.

In the seventies, I had a Rover 3500 that had side lights. Turn the
switch, to the right, from the off position and the lights would come on
progressively. Turn it to the left from off and the right front and rear
lights would come on.

My Triumphs were like that, too - one click of the switch gave me parking
lights on one side only, next click was sidelights, next was headlights.
I can't remember for sure, but I think that behaviour may have
disappeared with the later ones, suggesting that it wasn't necessary on
cars built after the mid-70s.

cheers

Jules

dennis@home wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mike Barnes wrote:

Dave :
In the seventies, I had a Rover 3500 that had side lights. Turn the
switch, to the right, from the off position and the lights would
come on progressively. Turn it to the left from off and the right
front and rear lights would come on.

All my Audis have done that. The switch is the indicator stalk.

Right, so you have parking lights, as did Dave, as well as
sidelights.

No.
You have to have a lights on both sides.

The lights are on but no-one is at home.

You are a expert on parking lights.
--
Adam

"Jules Richardson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:57:37 +0100, Dave wrote:
What I might be inclined to call parking lights would be *only* a light
front/back on the side nearest the road (drivers side if I understand
all the stuff from the HC, posted here), controllable by e.g. the
indicator stalk, and *no* other lights.

I just checked my car (2008 C4). Sidelights but no parking lights
AFAICT.

In the seventies, I had a Rover 3500 that had side lights. Turn the
switch, to the right, from the off position and the lights would come on
progressively. Turn it to the left from off and the right front and rear
lights would come on.

My Triumphs were like that, too - one click of the switch gave me parking
lights on one side only, next click was sidelights, next was headlights.
I can't remember for sure, but I think that behaviour may have
disappeared with the later ones, suggesting that it wasn't necessary on
cars built after the mid-70s.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1...chedule/2/made

calls "side lights/parking lights" position indicators.
there is actually no reference to side lights or parking lights, there are
side position indicators but few cars have these.
Other regulations state that if lights are required where you park you must
have two red at the rear and two white at the front on a car. i.e. the
position indicators.

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

You are a expert on parking lights.

I don't think you can make that claim.
I don't think I am and expert on them other than having read some of the
construction and use regulations when I was building a car from a triumph
herald chassis many moons ago. I don't think they have changed but they may
have, an expert would know.

BTW its "an" not "a".

Is this going to be another argument where you are wrong?
I am bored with them so if it is try arguing with someone who cares.

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

You are a expert on parking lights.

I don't think

Correct.

Is this going to be another argument where you are wrong?

It was just general abuse not an argument. Are you too thick to spot the
difference?

--
Adam

dennis@home wrote:


"Jethro" wrote in message
...

The first time I got involved with a proposal (for flexitime), one of
the early objections was that managers would have to keep an eye on
employees to make sure they put in the hours and didn't abuse the
system. To which my response was "isn't that their job ?".


No it isn't.
Their job is too make sure you have the resources and skills to do your
job.
They must have had a terrible time with you then.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Jethro" wrote in message
...

The first time I got involved with a proposal (for flexitime), one of
the early objections was that managers would have to keep an eye on
employees to make sure they put in the hours and didn't abuse the
system. To which my response was "isn't that their job ?".


No it isn't.
Their job is too make sure you have the resources and skills to do your
job.
They must have had a terrible time with you then.

We had an understanding, I designed stuff, they made it and sold it.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Jethro" wrote in message
...


The first time I got involved with a proposal (for flexitime), one of
the early objections was that managers would have to keep an eye on
employees to make sure they put in the hours and didn't abuse the
system. To which my response was "isn't that their job ?".


No it isn't.
Their job is too make sure you have the resources and skills to do
your job.
They must have had a terrible time with you then.

We had an understanding, I designed stuff, they made it and sold it.

Or not..I believe that was the reason 'Marconi PLC' is no longer with us.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Jethro" wrote in message
...

The first time I got involved with a proposal (for flexitime), one of
the early objections was that managers would have to keep an eye on
employees to make sure they put in the hours and didn't abuse the
system. To which my response was "isn't that their job ?".


No it isn't.
Their job is too make sure you have the resources and skills to do your
job.
They must have had a terrible time with you then.

We had an understanding, I designed stuff, they made it and sold it.

Or not..I believe that was the reason 'Marconi PLC' is no longer with us.

Fortunately I know the truth unlike you.
However that wont stop you making stuff up as its a habit to you.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Jules Richardson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:57:37 +0100, Dave wrote:
What I might be inclined to call parking lights would be *only* a light
front/back on the side nearest the road (drivers side if I understand
all the stuff from the HC, posted here), controllable by e.g. the
indicator stalk, and *no* other lights.

I just checked my car (2008 C4). Sidelights but no parking lights
AFAICT.

In the seventies, I had a Rover 3500 that had side lights. Turn the
switch, to the right, from the off position and the lights would come on
progressively. Turn it to the left from off and the right front and rear
lights would come on.

My Triumphs were like that, too - one click of the switch gave me parking
lights on one side only, next click was sidelights, next was headlights.
I can't remember for sure, but I think that behaviour may have
disappeared with the later ones, suggesting that it wasn't necessary on
cars built after the mid-70s.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1...chedule/2/made

calls "side lights/parking lights" position indicators.
there is actually no reference to side lights or parking lights, there are
side position indicators but few cars have these.
Other regulations state that if lights are required where you park you
must have two red at the rear and two white at the front on a car. i.e.
the position indicators.

Good for dimming street lights then next door won't see me throwing their c
at's **** back over to them
Robbie