"Pete Shew" wrote in message
o.uk...


Also AFAIK from later in the thread (dennis again) marine diesel now
attracts excise duty.

Well I didn't say that, it must be that expert Adam.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


And of course you do tend to hit the resume button after having to slow
down because of the idiot tailgating you.
Not that an astra in 5th is going to accelerate very quickly.

The ones that **** me off are the dorks who drive over a 2 lane (unmarked)
roundabout in as near as dammit straight line - usually when I'm in the
center lane 1 foot behind them.

I find bikers tend to do that a lot... they appear to think they are quicker
away than cars, something they obviously aren't.


I was in the outer lane today and some dork in front did exaclty that to
the
van driver who was to my right. Didn't half get sworn at courtesy of his
horn.

--
Tim Watts

On 29/07/2011 19:56, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 29/07/2011 07:45, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 28/07/2011 08:03, dennis@home wrote:


"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.

Twaddle.

How would a camera detect you doing 27mph in a 30mph zone? 27mph might
be legal, but depending on the circumstances could be inappropriate.


Not twaddle.
Where did I say they detected all inappropriate speed?
They only detect inappropriate speed does include exceeding the limit
which is defined as being inappropriate.

Nope, 35 in a 30 zone may be perfectly appropriate for the conditions,
however it would be illegal. Remember a speed limit can only at best
be a compromise. It does not take into account prevailing conditions,
the vehicle in question or the driver - the chances of it actually
being an appropriate limit in any given circumstance are going to be
slim.

I think inappropriate includes driving at illegal speeds, you may not
but I will not accept that definition.

You may think that, but I doubt you will find many who agree. When
accident statistics are collected, inappropriate speed is treated
separately from speeding. So an incident resulting from someone falling
asleep at the wheel while doing 75 on a deserted motorway in the dead if
night would not be considered a speed related accident. Whereas someone
driving into the back of a queue of traffic while doing 60 in dense fog
on a motorway would be treated as a case of inappropriate speed
contributing to the accident.

Next you will be stating its appropriate to run the lights when its clear,

Its a good point, and in fact yes, there are times where that would seem
like a sensible option.

Many countries already have such policies apply in some cases.

They are planning on introducing a pilot scheme here where lights at
some junctions would default to flashing amber at non busy times,
allowing drivers to use their judgement when to proceed.

or ignore turn restrictions because you can see there is nothing coming,
etc.
I mean why stop at breaking the law by speeding you may as well do as
you please if you think its appropriate.

Indeed - good suggestion. You seem to be chilling out a little Dennis.
Use common sense, don't inconvenience others or put them at risk.

Again there have been some tests on this in a few towns elsewhere in
Europe, where they have basically removed all motoring related rules,
and taken down all traffic signs (other than navigational ones). So no
speed limits, no give way signs, beware of falling rocks, schools, bus
lanes etc, not even much in the way of road marking. Basically freeing
drivers from mental clutter and information overload, and forcing them
to drive more co-operatively with other drivers since there are no
longer "rules" to fall back on. Not unsurprisingly the standards of
driving have improved, and accidents have been greatly reduced. The
population of the towns generally report feeling more content and less
stressed.

(Not only that, it must drive the control freaks apoplectic with rage,
which is obviously also good fun! ;-)

It is never appropriate for a driver to exceed the speed limit except in
an emergency.

The fact that the majority of drivers do so on a regular basis without
causing accidents, and speeding as a sole cause represents a very small
percentage of accidents, demonstrates that this is obviously false.

Emergency may well be defined by the court and not by the driver.

In the case of an emergency, it can only be defined by the driver. The
concept of "emergency" does not usually afford time for court hearings
to decide!

It doesn't include being late because you couldn't be arsed to get out
of bed for instance.

No, but would perhaps include driving someone in immediate danger to
hospital when other options are not available.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 29/07/2011 22:42, Tim Watts wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


And of course you do tend to hit the resume button after having to slow
down because of the idiot tailgating you.
Not that an astra in 5th is going to accelerate very quickly.

The ones that **** me off are the dorks who drive over a 2 lane (unmarked)
roundabout in as near as dammit straight line - usually when I'm in the
center lane 1 foot behind them.

I was in the outer lane today and some dork in front did exaclty that to the
van driver who was to my right. Didn't half get sworn at courtesy of his
horn.

Had a lovely example of something similar yesterday... I was driving
down a dual carriageway in relatively light traffic, indicated and
pulled over into the right hand lane to allow traffic joining on a slip
road to merge. I was rather surprised when some chancer in a large white
van decides this would be a good time to undertake at about 90 a short
while later - nearly taking out couple of the cars on the slip road in
the process.

(Still it was in a SPECS controlled section of road, so there is a fair
chance the non existent registered keeper will get a NIP in the post).


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 29/07/2011 22:32, Tim Watts wrote:
dennis@home wrote:



"John wrote in message
o.uk...

I suppose if you want to break down the rule of law, that would be a good
way to start. I am sure with some creative thought you could criminalise
everyone.

You can only criminalise criminals.

Your logic is criminal!

Indeed - there is so much that is legislated about these days that the
chances of getting through a day without unwittingly committing some
offence (although maybe not criminal) are going to be pretty slim!


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 29/07/2011 20:06, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 29/07/2011 12:57, dennis@home wrote:


"Pete Shew" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 29/07/2011 07:47, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

Could make for a right fiasco when wandering into a petrol station
with a can so you can go back and mow your lawn!

Dennis in his peaked cap - "I am sorry I can't let you buy that...
show me the mot and insurance for that mower!"

The same is true now when you go and buy untaxed fuel (there is still
VAT on it) for your mower.
Can you buy untaxed petrol in the UK? Do you have to go to the
equivalent of a bonded warehouse, and what documentation is needed?
I have a few non road use petrol engines.

I know people that can, I have no idea what you need.
You can use it for light aircraft for example.

Of course bio fuel is untaxed if its DIY.

You can go to a fuel oil supplier and buy red diesel easily enough.
They are usually only interested if you want to buy a whole drum of it
though.

Isn't marine diesel cheaper? If you are near a supplier.

It used to be, but not now, they changed the law a couple of years ago.
Not sure if its any cheaper than DERV now.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In message , John
Rumm writes
On 29/07/2011 22:32, Tim Watts wrote:
dennis@home wrote:



"John wrote in message
o.uk...

I suppose if you want to break down the rule of law, that would be a good
way to start. I am sure with some creative thought you could criminalise
everyone.

You can only criminalise criminals.

Your logic is criminal!

Indeed - there is so much that is legislated about these days that the
chances of getting through a day without unwittingly committing some
offence (although maybe not criminal) are going to be pretty slim!

Too right!

Also *local* rather than national rules. Bus lanes, yellow boxes,
parking legalities.....

Age is no help. News bit on proposed Westminster parking charges.... you
*text* the payment! How does that work if you don't routinely carry a
mobile and may not have your reading glasses to hand?

A general thought vaguely in support of Dennis, laws/rules rely on the
majority complying. Usually through a general acceptance that the rule
is fair in that it is required to be met by all. If more than a minority
blatantly ignore a rule it becomes hard to maintain an acceptable
compliance level and more rigorous enforcement is introduced.

Individuality is a great human asset but struggles against population
density and conflict management.

Speed limits introduced for vehicles on cross ply tyres, indifferent
cable operated drum brakes and poor road surfacing have been nailed down
by fuel conservation/pollution, traffic density and inadequate highway
provision.

regards



--
Tim Lamb

In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
Age is no help. News bit on proposed Westminster parking charges.... you
*text* the payment! How does that work if you don't routinely carry a
mobile and may not have your reading glasses to hand?

You use your free PT pass?

It's long been near impossible to park in the West End of an evening
anyway. Except for the very expensive NCP car parks.

--
*One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor.

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

dennis@home wrote:
"Pete Shew" wrote in message
o.uk...


Also AFAIK from later in the thread (dennis again) marine diesel now
attracts excise duty.

Well I didn't say that, it must be that expert Adam.

You were the first to mention marine fuel. I never mentioned it once.

--
Adam

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Pete Shew" wrote in message
o.uk...


Also AFAIK from later in the thread (dennis again) marine diesel now
attracts excise duty.

Well I didn't say that, it must be that expert Adam.

You were the first to mention marine fuel. I never mentioned it once.

Well I only asked a question about it, so the answer must have been from
some expert, like you.

dennis@home wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Pete Shew" wrote in message
o.uk...


Also AFAIK from later in the thread (dennis again) marine diesel
now attracts excise duty.

Well I didn't say that, it must be that expert Adam.

You were the first to mention marine fuel. I never mentioned it once.

Well I only asked a question about it, so the answer must have been
from some expert, like you.


Why? If you look at the thread you will see that I never replied to your
question.

I best add "unable to read a thread" to your list of talents.


--
Adam

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Pete Shew" wrote in message
o.uk...


Also AFAIK from later in the thread (dennis again) marine diesel
now attracts excise duty.

Well I didn't say that, it must be that expert Adam.

You were the first to mention marine fuel. I never mentioned it once.

Well I only asked a question about it, so the answer must have been
from some expert, like you.


Why? If you look at the thread you will see that I never replied to your
question.

I best add "unable to read a thread" to your list of talents.

I see you are an expert in that too.

dennis@home wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Pete Shew" wrote in message
o.uk...


Also AFAIK from later in the thread (dennis again) marine diesel
now attracts excise duty.

Well I didn't say that, it must be that expert Adam.

You were the first to mention marine fuel. I never mentioned it
once.

Well I only asked a question about it, so the answer must have been
from some expert, like you.


Why? If you look at the thread you will see that I never replied to
your question.

I best add "unable to read a thread" to your list of talents.

I see you are an expert in that too.

I never mentioned or commented on it so how can you make a judgement?

You really are a first class ****stick.

--
Adam

Windmill wrote:
John Rumm writes:

Had a chance to realise that you ****ed up have you? So now you are
adding transponders to the cars?

Don't forget that your idea also make fuel theft more attractive.
Could make for a right fiasco when wandering into a petrol station
with a can so you can go back and mow your lawn!
Dennis in his peaked cap - "I am sorry I can't let you buy that...
show me the mot and insurance for that mower!"

When you so often see suggestions like this, it's not surprising there
are so many dictators in the world.
Maybe they could attach transponders to everyone's genitals to
transmit indications of rape to police HQ.


Oddly enough, the people that make such suggestions usually have no balls to
attach the equipment to:-)

--
Adam

On Jul 28, 3:35*pm, "Robin" wrote:

(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.)

I'm for the idea that, as I think is the case in some countries, basic
third-party motor insurance and road tax are paid for nationally via a
levy on fuel for road vehicles. Then there are no uninsured drivers.
Insurance companies would then compete to sell higher levels of
insurance - regardless of what I got free, I would still want fully-
comprehensive insurance with legal protection, personally, while many
people driving cheaper cars might still want to add fire and theft
cover.

The one thing that would be left to enforce as far as the vehicle goes
would be roadworthiness, i.e. MOT. That could be done easily enough
via electronic means these days.

Neil