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


"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Jul 26, 11:20 am, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

There is currently a 10 year recommendation and that could
probably be extended to 15 years.

A recommendation, yes, but how many people actually do?

A lower period and a legal requirement (perhaps enforced by way
of the electricity supplier requiring a certificate) might make
it more worthwhile, perhaps?

Worthwhile for whom?
Its almost certainly not worthwhile for most homeowners.

Having an inspection before you sell a house so that the seller
can pay to put it right might be an idea, but anything else is
just lining the inspectors pockets.

Too many sellers in there. The onus is on the buyer to have a
inspection done if they are wary of the electrics.

There are less sellers than buyers of a property.
if the seller does pay it should be required for faults to be put
right before it can be sold, even to a different buyer.




I.e.. just make the seller responsible for safety as they are in
most sales.

There is no such rule for private sales unless you intend to deceive
someone.

Well if a buyer has a test done and it shows it to be dangerous and
tells the seller he isn't going to buy it because its dangerous,
then selling it without telling the other potential buyers is
deceiving them.

There are different levels of "dangerous" when it comes to electricity
installations..

Not having an RCD will get you a report from a sparks that says that
the property is dangerous

But it isn't.

But add to that no main earthing and it is a dangerous installation.

--
Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:
Obesity kills more people than cars so why not ban fat people from
eating chips?

Or ban them from eating?

Except salad.

Glasgow salad included of course
--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

On 27/07/2011 13:58, dennis@home wrote:


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

On Jul 26, 11:20 am, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

There is currently a 10 year recommendation and that could
probably be extended to 15 years.

A recommendation, yes, but how many people actually do?

A lower period and a legal requirement (perhaps enforced by way of
the electricity supplier requiring a certificate) might make it
more worthwhile, perhaps?

Worthwhile for whom?
Its almost certainly not worthwhile for most homeowners.

Having an inspection before you sell a house so that the seller can
pay to put it right might be an idea, but anything else is just
lining the inspectors pockets.

Too many sellers in there. The onus is on the buyer to have a
inspection done if they are wary of the electrics.

There are less sellers than buyers of a property.
if the seller does pay it should be required for faults to be put
right before it can be sold, even to a different buyer.




I.e.. just make the seller responsible for safety as they are in most
sales.

There is no such rule for private sales unless you intend to deceive
someone.

Well if a buyer has a test done and it shows it to be dangerous and
tells the seller he isn't going to buy it because its dangerous, then
selling it without telling the other potential buyers is deceiving them.

He may equally be deceiving them if he did. He did not commission the
potential buyers test and has no visibility of the credibility or
otherwise of it. It might be there is nothing wrong and the buyer is
simply trying it on for a discount. It would be daft to go on a
recommend the test to other buyers - especially as its not even yours to
recommend.

I wouldn't be surprised if they got sued if some buyer they didn't tell
got hurt.

I would be very surprised. The whole system of house sales is built on
the foundation that the buyer has their own survey and makes their own
decisions.

You would probably be OK if you knew it was dangerous and told the
buyer, but even that is no guaranty these days.

You will also be fine if you said nothing, and the whole lot burnt to
the ground five days after completion due to dodgy wiring. Why should a
vendor be any more expected to understand the finer points of wiring
than any other aspects of house construction?

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 27/07/2011 07:56, Neil Williams wrote:
On Jul 26, 9:32 pm,
wrote:

There are less sellers than buyers of a property.
if the seller does pay it should be required for faults to be put right
before it can be sold, even to a different buyer.
I.e.. just make the seller responsible for safety as they are in most sales.

The trouble is that you don't necessarily sell a house in a perfect
state of repair, generally.

Neil

Ours was a repossession and besides needing a complete re-wire, also
needed new internal doors, new radiators, new pump, new motorised
valves, new boiler, new header tanks, new shower, etc., etc., etc. -
basically before leaving, the previous owners had gutted it, even
cutting the pipes to remove the rads!

SteveW

On 27/07/2011 16:17, ARWadsworth wrote:
wrote:
On 27/07/2011 13:21, ARWadsworth wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:
In article
,
Neil wrote:
I could see the benefit in an "electrical MOT" of some sort to
replace it - requiring a periodic (5 years?) inspection of
electrical installations in domestic property to ensure they are
safe. There are unsafe electrical installations all over the
place, and unless you do some work on it[1] you don't necessarily
find out.

No thank you. I'm happy with the safety of the installation here and
don't see any need to be forced to pay someone else to confirm this.
If you feel the need, you can pay an electrician to do so. It would
also give carte blanch to dishonest testers to rip people off -
exactly like car MOTs.

What's the alternative to the MOT?


A periodic driving test? Far more effective of making roads safer
than any MOT test.

Good in theory. It will never happen though. 10% (according to some surveys)
would instantly fail on the eyesight test.

I'd not like to have to be retested regularly. I have done it once (I
trained to be a driving instructor) and it's very stressful. Most people
would fail on "bad" habits that are not actually of any great danger or
doing things the way they were taught that have changed over the years.

The real way to improve safety would be to get rid of many of the
cameras and get real traffic police out in force. That way people will
be pulled and checked because of bad driving and the millions that are
unlicenced, untaxed, uninsured, etc. might actually be taken off the road.

SteveW

On 27/07/2011 18:08, Clive George wrote:
On 27/07/2011 17:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
I am amazed how doctors can prescribe tranquillizers and not inform DVLA
and yet stop those with controlled diabetes driving some classes of
vehicles.

Are those vehicles ones where the driver has to keep to some schedule
etc?
A diabetic may have to stop and take medication or food etc exactly when
he needs to - not much use if driving a long distance coach.

There's much less of that these days - doses and food can be arranged
when wanted, rather than on a prearranged schedule.

The problem is still hypos. There's a risk of these for any insulin
controlled diabetic, and I think it's just an attempt to reduce the risk
but without being too restrictive. Drivers in the controlled classes are
more likely to spend hours at the wheel, thus increasing the chance of
it happening, and cause a bigger mess if it does go wrong.

I don't know how things are progressing, but I was told last year that
one of the companies that produced microchips for pets is working on one
that will not only allow vets to read off the ID and temperature as many
do, but also blood sugar levels. Now if they can get those working, I
can see diabetics being interested in using such a device with an
external monitor for continuous readings. That would be interesting for
all sorts of restrictions on licences and in work.

SteveW

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 27/07/2011 16:17, ARWadsworth wrote:
wrote:
On 27/07/2011 13:21, ARWadsworth wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:
In article
,
Neil wrote:
I could see the benefit in an "electrical MOT" of some sort to
replace it - requiring a periodic (5 years?) inspection of
electrical installations in domestic property to ensure they are
safe. There are unsafe electrical installations all over the
place, and unless you do some work on it[1] you don't necessarily
find out.

No thank you. I'm happy with the safety of the installation here and
don't see any need to be forced to pay someone else to confirm this.
If you feel the need, you can pay an electrician to do so. It would
also give carte blanch to dishonest testers to rip people off -
exactly like car MOTs.

What's the alternative to the MOT?


A periodic driving test? Far more effective of making roads safer
than any MOT test.

Good in theory. It will never happen though. 10% (according to some
surveys)
would instantly fail on the eyesight test.

I'd not like to have to be retested regularly. I have done it once (I
trained to be a driving instructor) and it's very stressful. Most people
would fail on "bad" habits that are not actually of any great danger or
doing things the way they were taught that have changed over the years.

The real way to improve safety would be to get rid of many of the cameras
and get real traffic police out in force.

Or..
Increase the fines on the cameras, have more of them, fund more police from
the camera revenue.
Hide the cameras so habitual speeders lose their license faster.
Do people who are caught by visible cameras for driving without due care or
being blind.


That way people will be pulled and checked because of bad driving and the
millions that are unlicenced, untaxed, uninsured, etc. might actually be
taken off the road.

They still are, the cameras are in addition to police.

John Rumm wrote:

Well if a buyer has a test done and it shows it to be dangerous and
tells the seller he isn't going to buy it because its dangerous, then
selling it without telling the other potential buyers is deceiving
them.

He may equally be deceiving them if he did. He did not commission the
potential buyers test and has no visibility of the credibility or
otherwise of it. It might be there is nothing wrong and the buyer is
simply trying it on for a discount. It would be daft to go on a
recommend the test to other buyers - especially as its not even yours
to recommend.

I have had some "very nice" phone calls from sellers after condeming their
electrics.


--
Adam

On 27/07/2011 23:06, Steve Walker wrote:
On 27/07/2011 18:08, Clive George wrote:
On 27/07/2011 17:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
I am amazed how doctors can prescribe tranquillizers and not inform
DVLA
and yet stop those with controlled diabetes driving some classes of
vehicles.

Are those vehicles ones where the driver has to keep to some schedule
etc?
A diabetic may have to stop and take medication or food etc exactly when
he needs to - not much use if driving a long distance coach.

There's much less of that these days - doses and food can be arranged
when wanted, rather than on a prearranged schedule.

The problem is still hypos. There's a risk of these for any insulin
controlled diabetic, and I think it's just an attempt to reduce the risk
but without being too restrictive. Drivers in the controlled classes are
more likely to spend hours at the wheel, thus increasing the chance of
it happening, and cause a bigger mess if it does go wrong.

I don't know how things are progressing, but I was told last year that
one of the companies that produced microchips for pets is working on one
that will not only allow vets to read off the ID and temperature as many
do, but also blood sugar levels. Now if they can get those working, I
can see diabetics being interested in using such a device with an
external monitor for continuous readings. That would be interesting for
all sorts of restrictions on licences and in work.

Continuous monitoring is coming along - I had a go on a 3 day meter
possibly 5 years ago, and they're now showing the results to the wearer
(the one I tried just logged, which wasn't very useful). Tying it up to
a pump then gives you a complete solution. Forget the restrictions on
licences etc, it would just make life better. Though there would still
be the problem of having something permanently stuck in you, which isn't
necessarily going to be good.

On 28/07/2011 00:05, ARWadsworth wrote:
John wrote:

Well if a buyer has a test done and it shows it to be dangerous and
tells the seller he isn't going to buy it because its dangerous, then
selling it without telling the other potential buyers is deceiving
them.

He may equally be deceiving them if he did. He did not commission the
potential buyers test and has no visibility of the credibility or
otherwise of it. It might be there is nothing wrong and the buyer is
simply trying it on for a discount. It would be daft to go on a
recommend the test to other buyers - especially as its not even yours
to recommend.

I have had some "very nice" phone calls from sellers after condeming their
electrics.

Offering sex and travel ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 27/07/2011 23:36, dennis@home wrote:


"Steve Walker" wrote in message

The real way to improve safety would be to get rid of many of the
cameras and get real traffic police out in force.

Or..
Increase the fines on the cameras, have more of them, fund more police
from the camera revenue.
Hide the cameras so habitual speeders lose their license faster.
Do people who are caught by visible cameras for driving without due care
or being blind.

No point, speeding is a minor cause of road accidents. (inappropriate
speed for the conditions causes far more, and cameras are no use for
detecting that).

That way people will be pulled and checked because of bad driving and
the millions that are unlicenced, untaxed, uninsured, etc. might
actually be taken off the road.

They still are, the cameras are in addition to police.

Someone ought to tell them.

Still ANPR cameras could probably do a reasonable job of targeting
vehicles without tax or insurance - that would make a far bigger
contribution to road safety than speed cameras.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 27/07/2011 23:36, dennis@home wrote:


"Steve Walker" wrote in message

The real way to improve safety would be to get rid of many of the
cameras and get real traffic police out in force.

Or..
Increase the fines on the cameras, have more of them, fund more police
from the camera revenue.
Hide the cameras so habitual speeders lose their license faster.
Do people who are caught by visible cameras for driving without due care
or being blind.

No point, speeding is a minor cause of road accidents. (inappropriate
speed for the conditions causes far more, and cameras are no use for
detecting that).

The cameras only detect inappropriate speed as far as the law is concerned.

Lets face it.. to get caught by a big yellow speed camera requires you to be
stupid, or to be driving without due care.
The sooner they lose their license the better.


That way people will be pulled and checked because of bad driving and
the millions that are unlicenced, untaxed, uninsured, etc. might
actually be taken off the road.

They still are, the cameras are in addition to police.

Someone ought to tell them.

You obviously don't see the police in the unmarked cars.


Still ANPR cameras could probably do a reasonable job of targeting
vehicles without tax or insurance - that would make a far bigger
contribution to road safety than speed cameras.

They do that too.
Maybe you don't notice them because they mostly target people using anpr
cameras these days.

I know several places where they will regularly setup anpr cameras and will
be diverting people down a side street to a car park where they are
processed.
Its all done low key so they don't get much warning.

On Jul 27, 7:33*pm, "tim...." wrote:

Not having an RCD will get you a report from a sparks that says that the
property is dangerous

But it isn't.

The problem is that there are many earlier-than-current standards that
the electrical installation in a property may well comply to. Most
won't be to the latest standards, and most won't have RCDs.

Check again in 20 years' time and you will find the situation to be
different...

Neil

On Jul 27, 2:58*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:

You would probably be OK if you knew it was dangerous and told the buyer,
but even that is no guaranty these days.

You are not, AIUI, required to tell the buyer anything that is not
explicitly asked for.

If the buyer asked if the electrical installation was safe, you said
"yes" and the answer was known to be "no", OTOH, that might be a
problem. But as there are, as others have stated, different degrees
of "safe", they might be more likely to answer "you're welcome to
inspect it yourself or to have an electrician inspect it, I'm not
qualified to say". I wouldn't go on what a buyer said their surveyor
said, as they might be making it up to try to get a greater discount.

Neil

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 04:39:13 -0700 (PDT), Neil Williams
wrote:

On Jul 27, 12:33*pm, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

Caveat emptor.

I think that is the only sensible way to deal with things in the
housing market, really. Houses are by their nature not perfect, and
requiring a large outlay before sale might well damage the workings of
the market or bankrupt people unnecessarily. If I want to buy a house
with known unsafe wiring at a good price on the principle that I will
sort it out or arrange for it to be sorted out, why shouldn't I?

Problem is that there are plenty of buyers out there who are so
ignorant and will only discover the problems after purchase. This
makes life more difficult for those of us that do the research.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Ours was a repossession and besides needing a complete re-wire, also
needed new internal doors, new radiators, new pump, new motorised
valves, new boiler, new header tanks, new shower, etc., etc., etc. -
basically before leaving, the previous owners had gutted it, even
cutting the pipes to remove the rads!

I remember seeing that on a house near here. Everything just piled up in
the front garden. I knew the owner slightly and he was quite open it was
because he was being repossessed and believed he was getting a bad deal so
was doing it just to spite the loan company. And it seemed to me such a
waste to both sides.

--
*Dancing is a perpendicular expression of a horizontal desire *

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

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
The real way to improve safety would be to get rid of many of the
cameras and get real traffic police out in force. That way people will
be pulled and checked because of bad driving and the millions that are
unlicenced, untaxed, uninsured, etc. might actually be taken off the
road.

The right type of cameras are brilliant at logging registration numbers
and checking on insurance, etc. Far more efficient than any human. Should
then be possible to stop the quite large numbers who never bother with
minor details like insurance.

--
*And don't start a sentence with a conjunction *

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 23:00:51 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 27/07/2011 16:17, ARWadsworth wrote:
wrote:
On 27/07/2011 13:21, ARWadsworth wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:
In article
,
Neil wrote:
I could see the benefit in an "electrical MOT" of some sort to
replace it - requiring a periodic (5 years?) inspection of
electrical installations in domestic property to ensure they are
safe. There are unsafe electrical installations all over the
place, and unless you do some work on it[1] you don't necessarily
find out.

No thank you. I'm happy with the safety of the installation here and
don't see any need to be forced to pay someone else to confirm this.
If you feel the need, you can pay an electrician to do so. It would
also give carte blanch to dishonest testers to rip people off -
exactly like car MOTs.

What's the alternative to the MOT?


A periodic driving test? Far more effective of making roads safer
than any MOT test.

Good in theory. It will never happen though. 10% (according to some surveys)
would instantly fail on the eyesight test.

I'd not like to have to be retested regularly. I have done it once (I
trained to be a driving instructor) and it's very stressful.

I'd not like it but would recognise it as useful. People think as
long as they have passed their test then can drive as badly as they
like. Regular testing would help people realize they need to keep
their driving standard up all the time.

Most people
would fail on "bad" habits that are not actually of any great danger or
doing things the way they were taught that have changed over the years.

I disagree. Bad habits rarely cause collisions but, when a collision
occurs, it was caused by one of those "Bad" habits. People get used
to driving poorly since they get away with it most of the time. Only
when they cause a collision are they prosecuted for that bad habit
despite the fact that many motorists do the same, a lot of the time.

The real way to improve safety would be to get rid of many of the
cameras and get real traffic police out in force. That way people will
be pulled and checked because of bad driving and the millions that are
unlicenced, untaxed, uninsured, etc. might actually be taken off the road.

Yes. We do need far more traffic police. I don't think we have any
here (in a rural area).
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 08:03:07 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
news:YOGdnV9qhZSXK63TnZ2dnUVZ8oSdnZ2d@brightview. co.uk...
On 27/07/2011 23:36, dennis@home wrote:


"Steve Walker" wrote in message

The real way to improve safety would be to get rid of many of the
cameras and get real traffic police out in force.

Or..
Increase the fines on the cameras, have more of them, fund more police
from the camera revenue.
Hide the cameras so habitual speeders lose their license faster.
Do people who are caught by visible cameras for driving without due care
or being blind.

No point, speeding is a minor cause of road accidents. (inappropriate
speed for the conditions causes far more, and cameras are no use for
detecting that).

The cameras only detect inappropriate speed as far as the law is concerned.

Lets face it.. to get caught by a big yellow speed camera requires you to be
stupid, or to be driving without due care.
The sooner they lose their license the better.


That way people will be pulled and checked because of bad driving and
the millions that are unlicenced, untaxed, uninsured, etc. might
actually be taken off the road.

They still are, the cameras are in addition to police.

Someone ought to tell them.

You obviously don't see the police in the unmarked cars.

I don't see any evidence of traffic police. I see many motorists
breaking the law all the time. I've not seen one being pulled over
for it in the last 10 years.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

Mark wrote:

You obviously don't see the police in the unmarked cars.

I don't see any evidence of traffic police. I see many motorists
breaking the law all the time. I've not seen one being pulled over
for it in the last 10 years.

South Yorkshire police do regular road blocks using ANPR to decide which
cars to pull up.

--
Adam

Steve Walker wrote:
Good in theory. It will never happen though. 10% (according to some
surveys) would instantly fail on the eyesight test.

I'd not like to have to be retested regularly. I have done it once (I
trained to be a driving instructor) and it's very stressful. Most
people would fail on "bad" habits that are not actually of any great
danger or doing things the way they were taught that have changed
over the years.

Our local pub had a driving competition run by the IAM. That is as close to
a retest that I have had.

Seeing the results list was quite funny. The village rentagob that claims to
have driven in every country in the world and in every car ever made and was
never once to blame for having to slam on his brakes (it was always some
other drivers error) was very near the bottom of the list.


--
Adam

Mark wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 04:39:13 -0700 (PDT), Neil Williams
wrote:

On Jul 27, 12:33 pm, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

Caveat emptor.

I think that is the only sensible way to deal with things in the
housing market, really. Houses are by their nature not perfect, and
requiring a large outlay before sale might well damage the workings
of the market or bankrupt people unnecessarily. If I want to buy a
house with known unsafe wiring at a good price on the principle that
I will sort it out or arrange for it to be sorted out, why shouldn't
I?

Problem is that there are plenty of buyers out there who are so
ignorant and will only discover the problems after purchase. This
makes life more difficult for those of us that do the research.

How do ignorant buyers make life more difficult?

--
Adam

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Ours was a repossession and besides needing a complete re-wire, also
needed new internal doors, new radiators, new pump, new motorised
valves, new boiler, new header tanks, new shower, etc., etc., etc. -
basically before leaving, the previous owners had gutted it, even
cutting the pipes to remove the rads!

I remember seeing that on a house near here. Everything just piled up in
the front garden. I knew the owner slightly and he was quite open it was
because he was being repossessed and believed he was getting a bad deal so
was doing it just to spite the loan company. And it seemed to me such a
waste to both sides.

he will find he is worse off.
Just being repossessed doesn't make the debt go away.
They sell the property for what they can to reduce the debt and then sell
the remaining debt to a debt collector if there is any.
If there is an excess they pay it to the owner.
He has just ensured he will have more debt/less cash after the sale.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
The real way to improve safety would be to get rid of many of the
cameras and get real traffic police out in force. That way people will
be pulled and checked because of bad driving and the millions that are
unlicenced, untaxed, uninsured, etc. might actually be taken off the
road.

The right type of cameras are brilliant at logging registration numbers
and checking on insurance, etc. Far more efficient than any human. Should
then be possible to stop the quite large numbers who never bother with
minor details like insurance.

Hence the changes to the law to allow fines to be sent to the registered
keeper with no requirement to identify the driver.
If the keeper can prove it was insured he doesn't have to pay.

If the police stop you they will impound the car until you have proof of
insurance.

"Mark" wrote in message
...

I don't see any evidence of traffic police. I see many motorists
breaking the law all the time. I've not seen one being pulled over
for it in the last 10 years.

Unless they are doing a high profile stop and check you wont see them unless
you happen to be there when they direct someone to the processing area.

Also some forces are too small or decide to pursue lesser crimes like house
breaking where people seldom get killed/injured.

In article ,
Mark wrote:
I don't see any evidence of traffic police. I see many motorists
breaking the law all the time. I've not seen one being pulled over
for it in the last 10 years.

I followed a police BMW through a series of short cuts to get to a main
road round here. All these shortcuts are side roads with speed bumps. He
accelerated hard then braked between each one. When he reached the main
road, he speeded up to about 50 - in a 30 limit. Then stopped at the red
traffic lights. So not on a shout or anything.

So it's not surprising motorists don't get pulled over for breaking the
law - it seems even a trained police driver doesn't understand it.

--
*Arkansas State Motto: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Laugh.

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

On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:39:56 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 04:39:13 -0700 (PDT), Neil Williams
wrote:

On Jul 27, 12:33 pm, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

Caveat emptor.

I think that is the only sensible way to deal with things in the
housing market, really. Houses are by their nature not perfect, and
requiring a large outlay before sale might well damage the workings
of the market or bankrupt people unnecessarily. If I want to buy a
house with known unsafe wiring at a good price on the principle that
I will sort it out or arrange for it to be sorted out, why shouldn't
I?

Problem is that there are plenty of buyers out there who are so
ignorant and will only discover the problems after purchase. This
makes life more difficult for those of us that do the research.

How do ignorant buyers make life more difficult?

Because, while you're getting inspections done, they have already
bought the house for the asking price!
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:16:47 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
The real way to improve safety would be to get rid of many of the
cameras and get real traffic police out in force. That way people will
be pulled and checked because of bad driving and the millions that are
unlicenced, untaxed, uninsured, etc. might actually be taken off the
road.

The right type of cameras are brilliant at logging registration numbers
and checking on insurance, etc. Far more efficient than any human. Should
then be possible to stop the quite large numbers who never bother with
minor details like insurance.

The more of these cameras there are the more likely the crims will
have cloned plates.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:31:43 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

Steve Walker wrote:
Good in theory. It will never happen though. 10% (according to some
surveys) would instantly fail on the eyesight test.

I'd not like to have to be retested regularly. I have done it once (I
trained to be a driving instructor) and it's very stressful. Most
people would fail on "bad" habits that are not actually of any great
danger or doing things the way they were taught that have changed
over the years.

Our local pub had a driving competition run by the IAM. That is as close to
a retest that I have had.

I recommend doing an advanced test. I did this with ROSPA
(motorbike). However it does take over your life.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

Hence the changes to the law to allow fines to be sent to the
registered keeper with no requirement to identify the driver.
If the keeper can prove it was insured he doesn't have to pay.


How's that going to help with the large motoring underclass[1] who don't
register as the keeper of the car and who don't pay fines?

[1] Probably not a PC term but I once had to sit through a seminar on
social exclusion which included the argument that many young men,
especially those from certain ethnic minorities and sink estates,
couldn't possibly afford to insure a car; as a result they were socially
excluded and/or criminalised; so the government should intervene to
regulate the market so insurers were obliged to offer them "affordable
policies". Just a thought in case you wondered where the EU may go next
now they have decided it's wrong for the insurance industry to take
account of differences between sexes.
--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

"Robin" wrote in message
...
Hence the changes to the law to allow fines to be sent to the
registered keeper with no requirement to identify the driver.
If the keeper can prove it was insured he doesn't have to pay.


How's that going to help with the large motoring underclass[1] who don't
register as the keeper of the car and who don't pay fines?

They should charge twice the price for fuel and offer a discount to those
with insurance.

dennis@home wrote:
"Robin" wrote in message
...
Hence the changes to the law to allow fines to be sent to the
registered keeper with no requirement to identify the driver.
If the keeper can prove it was insured he doesn't have to pay.


How's that going to help with the large motoring underclass[1] who
don't register as the keeper of the car and who don't pay fines?

They should charge twice the price for fuel and offer a discount to
those with insurance.

Do you make all these things up yourself or does nursie give you some help?

--
Adam

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 27/07/2011 18:08, Clive George wrote:
On 27/07/2011 17:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
I am amazed how doctors can prescribe tranquillizers and not inform
DVLA
and yet stop those with controlled diabetes driving some classes of
vehicles.

Are those vehicles ones where the driver has to keep to some schedule
etc?
A diabetic may have to stop and take medication or food etc exactly when
he needs to - not much use if driving a long distance coach.

There's much less of that these days - doses and food can be arranged
when wanted, rather than on a prearranged schedule.

The problem is still hypos. There's a risk of these for any insulin
controlled diabetic, and I think it's just an attempt to reduce the risk
but without being too restrictive. Drivers in the controlled classes are
more likely to spend hours at the wheel, thus increasing the chance of
it happening, and cause a bigger mess if it does go wrong.

I don't know how things are progressing, but I was told last year that one
of the companies that produced microchips for pets is working on one that
will not only allow vets to read off the ID and temperature as many do,
but also blood sugar levels. Now if they can get those working, I can see
diabetics being interested in using such a device with an external monitor
for continuous readings. That would be interesting for all sorts of
restrictions on licences and in work.

SteveW



I think all humans should be micro chipped as well.....

On 28/07/2011 10:58, dennis@home wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Ours was a repossession and besides needing a complete re-wire, also
needed new internal doors, new radiators, new pump, new motorised
valves, new boiler, new header tanks, new shower, etc., etc., etc. -
basically before leaving, the previous owners had gutted it, even
cutting the pipes to remove the rads!

I remember seeing that on a house near here. Everything just piled up in
the front garden. I knew the owner slightly and he was quite open it was
because he was being repossessed and believed he was getting a bad
deal so
was doing it just to spite the loan company. And it seemed to me such a
waste to both sides.

he will find he is worse off.
Just being repossessed doesn't make the debt go away.
They sell the property for what they can to reduce the debt and then
sell the remaining debt to a debt collector if there is any.
If there is an excess they pay it to the owner.
He has just ensured he will have more debt/less cash after the sale.

The chances are he couldn't sell because it was worth less than the
loan, and couldn't pay so was bankrupt. If he claimed bankruptcy he
could have an entirely clean slate again in 6 years, where the level of
debt is immaterial.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
When he reached the main
road, he speeded up to about 50 - in a 30 limit. Then stopped at the
red traffic lights. So not on a shout or anything.

He doesn't have to be on a shout.

Of course not. No reason at all for a police car to obey the speed limit
in town. Or any other traffic regs. They're only there for others.

--
*I love cats...they taste just like chicken.

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

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Robin" wrote in message
...
Hence the changes to the law to allow fines to be sent to the
registered keeper with no requirement to identify the driver.
If the keeper can prove it was insured he doesn't have to pay.


How's that going to help with the large motoring underclass[1] who
don't register as the keeper of the car and who don't pay fines?

They should charge twice the price for fuel and offer a discount to
those with insurance.

Do you make all these things up yourself or does nursie give you some
help?

Do tell us your better ideas.

dennis@home wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Robin" wrote in message
...
Hence the changes to the law to allow fines to be sent to the
registered keeper with no requirement to identify the driver.
If the keeper can prove it was insured he doesn't have to pay.


How's that going to help with the large motoring underclass[1] who
don't register as the keeper of the car and who don't pay fines?

They should charge twice the price for fuel and offer a discount to
those with insurance.

Do you make all these things up yourself or does nursie give you some
help?

Do tell us your better ideas.

You mean something that will not encourage fuel theft or just mean getting
someone to buy the fuel for you.

--
Adam

Do tell us your better ideas.

Testicular (or ovarian) amputation for offenders? (Only one per offence
though, and humanely.) It'd have the benefit of reducing the
propensity to offend cascading down the generations (whether by nature
or nurture or both).

(I'm with those who consider fines for uninsured drivers near to
useless: they average less than £200 - probably less than 25% of the
cost of insurance. Crushing's not much better when they can pick up a
car for £500 or £600 pounds - still well below the cost of one year's
insurance.)

--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

You mean something that will not encourage fuel theft or just mean
getting someone to buy the fuel for you.

Indeed. Plus:

a. if filling stations could discriminate they could simply be
required not sell; but

b. the rest of us probably wouldn't be too happy to queue while
insurance is checked (and then checked further when it turns out the
database is out of date); and to lose the ability to pay at the pump.
And it'll all add to costs of course.

And buying a foreign registered vehicle wd continue to be another way to
waltz round all such checks. (The number of Romanian registered cars
around here is quite remarkable. In the South East it is increasingly
worth a booze cruise every 6 months to get the paperwork to show the
car's not been here more than 6 months.)
--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

Robin wrote:
You mean something that will not encourage fuel theft or just mean
getting someone to buy the fuel for you.

Indeed. Plus:

a. if filling stations could discriminate they could simply be
required not sell; but

b. the rest of us probably wouldn't be too happy to queue while
insurance is checked (and then checked further when it turns out the
database is out of date); and to lose the ability to pay at the pump.
And it'll all add to costs of course.

And don't forget, I would be selling the fuel at somewhere between the two
prices.

--
Adam