Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:05:10 -0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 29/11/2012 16:49, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:43:34 -0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:


It's a long way between the back of my car and me. And Because I'm in
front of my seat, I won't feel him hitting me.

And the kids sitting in the rear most seat of my car who are 12"
from the
rear metalwork?

You don't have a boot?!?

And they're still on seats. A front collision pushes you forwards, a
rear collision simply pushes you into the comfy chair.

Another idiot that doesn't understand o'level physics.

It's Newton's third law. And what I stated above is correct.

But ignores the interaction between the seat's elasticity and the mass
of the occupant.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:14:39 -0000, Tim Watts wrote:

Tim Lamb wrote:

In message op.wojp95wjytk5n5@i7-940, Lieutenant Scott
writes


Then you're in the minority.

I don't think so. This group is probably above average age and
intelligence and I don't see you getting any support.

That's because someone agreeing with a post is less likely to reply to it.

OK. Hands up all those who think the Lieutenant is a responsible driver?


I think he's a dangerous

I may not be 100% safe, but who would want that? But I'm not dangerous.

arrogant ****wit

You misspelt "disagrees with my opinion"

who probably has one of those
fancy conditions that lead to an inability to see other's POVs.

They call anything a condition nowadays.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Why are they called buildings, when they're already finished? Shouldn't they be called builts?

On 29/11/2012 18:07, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:52:41 -0000, Man at B&Q
wrote:

On Nov 29, 5:11 pm, Huge wrote:
On 2012-11-29, John Williamson wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:26:50 -0000, Man at B&Q

wrote:
Jeezus. He was tailgaiting to start with. He's still tailgaiting
when
I slow down. What makes you think he will stop tailgaiting if I
speed
up again?

He wants to go 50mph, you're going 40mph. If you now go 50mph, he
has
no reason to drive close to you.

Most tailgaters, if you speed up, maintain the same distance
between you
and them, irrespective of the speed.

I have a better solution. I slow down until the speed is appropriate
for the
gap between me and the tailgater.

+1

I've had them down to walking pace before now.

I have actually stopped.

Do you like playing silly games on the roads? If a policeman saw you do
that, he'd get you into at least as much trouble as the tailgater.


No court will ever convict you of stopping if its unsafe to proceed.

On 28/11/2012 20:54, dennis@home wrote:

Stop being stupid.
Nothing any other driver does should prompt you to be dangerous.
What are you? some kind of sheep that can't think for yourself?

One possible exception. When on a motorway in thick fog (which I avoid
if I possibly can) there's a tradeoff between driving into the stopped
vehicle in front because you are going too fast, and reducing the impact
speed from the nutter behind.

Andy

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:13:30 -0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:


That's because someone agreeing with a post is less likely to reply to
it.

Amazing straw clutching...

Nope, simple logic.

What would they reply with "I agree"? There aren't thousands of "I agree"
posts in reply to anyone.



Whereas you have ... er ... zero "I agrees".

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://www.dionic.net/tim/

"She got her looks from her father. He's a plastic surgeon."

On 29/11/2012 19:24, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:10:37 -0000, Tim Watts wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:28:03 -0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:


Or you're not allowing them to break the speed limit.

Why should I facilitate someone breaking the law? I don't much mind if
they do, unless they do so in a stupid place or manner. But I will
not be
helping you in your quest to be an anti social nobber.

You're just jealous because you're incapable of driving fast without
crashing. You're a useless driver and should be shoved off the road.

I'm not jealouse and I have no wish to emulate a ****.

Why assume someone who can go faster is a ****t?

Hopefully one of the tailgaters will do this shortly.

You see, tailgaters are dangerous ****s - they should be jailed and not
allowed to drive - ever.

They don't hurt other tailgaters.


there are plenty of pileups to prove that is untrue.
They are even reported in newspapers when it happens.

Lieutenant Scott wrote:



Then why did you butt in?

Because idiots who tailgate **** me off.

And the ones who are proud of it will not get the last word, at least not
which I still breath.

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://www.dionic.net/tim/

"It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent
moral busybodies."

On 28/11/2012 21:15, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:06:05 -0000, Andy Champ
wrote:

On 27/11/2012 20:34, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

Firstly, I've never seen a supermarket with a hill step enough to make a
trolley go faster than 1-2mph.

Secondly, I wouldn't fix a dent. I'm not one of those scammers who
tries to get £100s of someone's insurance to replace a whole wing just
cause of a dent.

One near us has 20ft drop over the car park. Take a 100kG trolley and
let it build up speed over that - it has no trouble in bending door hard
enough so they don't work, or smashing lights.

Surely there would be a wall high enough to stop trolleys (or people or
cars) from rolling off the edge?


Different dialect. I did not mean a cliff or sheer drop, but a slope.
(about 10% in places)

I rarely go there, but always try to park at the top.

Paint incidentally isn't just for pretty. It's mostly to keep the rust
at bay.

A spec of rust on a door won't kill it. It's not like it's an MOT point.

A spec of rust tends to become a big area of rust, and in the wrong
place that is an MOT point.

Andy

On 29/11/2012 20:03, Andy Champ wrote:
On 28/11/2012 20:54, dennis@home wrote:

Stop being stupid.
Nothing any other driver does should prompt you to be dangerous.
What are you? some kind of sheep that can't think for yourself?

One possible exception. When on a motorway in thick fog (which I avoid
if I possibly can) there's a tradeoff between driving into the stopped
vehicle in front because you are going too fast, and reducing the impact
speed from the nutter behind.

Andy

The total ammount of energy available to cause damage and/ot injury will
be higher if you go faster.
Its probably safer to let him run into the back before you reach the car
infront.

In message , Tim Watts
writes
Tim Lamb wrote:

In message op.wojp95wjytk5n5@i7-940, Lieutenant Scott
writes
What are you a bloody pig? Virtually nobody sticks to speed limits,
just go stand somewhere and watch cars going past you.

I don't have any problems with the police. I'll happily help hold a
radar gun while you come by.

Then you're in the minority.

I don't think so. This group is probably above average age and
intelligence and I don't see you getting any support.

That's because someone agreeing with a post is less likely to reply to it.

OK. Hands up all those who think the Lieutenant is a responsible driver?


I think he's a dangerous arrogant ****wit who probably has one of those
fancy conditions that lead to an inability to see other's POVs.

That's a hands down then?

--
Tim Lamb

Tim Lamb wrote:

In message , Tim Watts
writes

I think he's a dangerous arrogant ****wit who probably has one of those
fancy conditions that lead to an inability to see other's POVs.

That's a hands down then?


I'm sort of on the fence ;-

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://www.dionic.net/tim/

"She got her looks from her father. He's a plastic surgeon."

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:16:01 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Nov 29, 6:06 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:48:56 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:









On Nov 29, 4:40 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:32:33 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Nov 29, 10:58 am, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:53:47 -0000, Tim Watts wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:13:15 -0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

And what is wrong with going at a faster speed? Then he won't need to
tailgate you.

He won't need to tailgate anyone if he does the decent thing and goes and
tears up his license as he has no place on the roads.

Or goes and plays with the lions in Africa. I'm happy either way.

Typical moronic response from a fool who thinks he has chosen the most
appropriate speed for the road and anyone who can go faster than him must
be dangerous.

That's not what I wrote, dipstick.

I do not think "people who can go faster" are ******s who should go and poke
lions in the butts with pointy sticks.

I said tailgaters are.

Tailgaters are simply people trying to go faster, but unable to do so because of people like you.

Tailgaiters are ****wits who drive aggresively close and try to bully
others into driving unsafely.

So? What gives you the right to be a safe little wimp? Man up and go faster.

Given you self confessed standards of driving, you are obviously the
one with "manhood" problems.

No, people with a small manhood tend to act girly and take safety precautions. I bet you got a red triangle and a hi-vis jacket in your boot too.

Do you always do as you're told?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, Managers are from Uranus.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:16:46 -0000, Tim Watts wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:


So? What gives you the right to be a safe little wimp? Man up and go
faster.

I am of the opinion that the only reason you drive fast (or claim to) is
because you have these:

8-

scale 1:1

It's an old wives' tale that speed and car has anything to do with penis.

Just as it's an old wives' tale that Negroes have larger ones.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Aristotle believed wind direction determined whether a baby would be a boy or a girl.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:18:05 -0000, Tim Watts wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:


Ever stopped to think you're driving too close to their bonnet?


No. Not once.

Then try thinking about things form someone else's point of view for a change.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Girl with skirt up run faster than boy with trousers down!!

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:20:56 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

On 29/11/2012 17:46, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:37:32 -0000, John Williamson
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:40:29 -0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

None of this affects the Loo Tenant, however, as he is so skilful that
he doesn't need insurance. That's just for old gits.

Correct, I don't think insurance should be compulsory. If someone hits
me I'm happy to take cash for the damage.

And you would, of course, be happy to pay for the lifetime of 24 hour
care for the person you cripple when you hit them because your ABS has
failed, and your wheels lock on a slippery surface.

Insurance isn't just for things like wing mirrors.

Then have an insurance for horrendous accidents. Most insurance claims
could easily have been paid for by the driver.

Show me where I can buy 3rd party insurance which only pays out if I
cause more than £1000 of damage.


Compare the merkat. set the excess to £1000.

They gave me a quote of £453. I currently pay only £254.

They also have nowhere to put in an excess.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Hickory dickory dock, three mice ran up the clock. The clock struck one, and the others got away with minor injuries.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:07:11 +0000, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
Are you 6 or something?

Oy! That's a good age for a meerkat.

In captivity they live for 12 to 14 years.

Is that meerkat years or human years?

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 22:10:55 -0000, Jules Richardson wrote:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:07:11 +0000, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
Are you 6 or something?

Oy! That's a good age for a meerkat.

In captivity they live for 12 to 14 years.

Is that meerkat years or human years?

I don't know, I wouldn't trust anything a meerkat told me.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

"O'Ryan," asked the druggist, "did that mudpack I gave you improve your wife's appearance?"
"It did, surely," replied O'Ryan, "but it keeps fallin' off!"

On 29/11/2012 21:06, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:20:56 -0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 29/11/2012 17:46, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:37:32 -0000, John Williamson
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:40:29 -0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

None of this affects the Loo Tenant, however, as he is so skilful
that
he doesn't need insurance. That's just for old gits.

Correct, I don't think insurance should be compulsory. If someone
hits
me I'm happy to take cash for the damage.

And you would, of course, be happy to pay for the lifetime of 24 hour
care for the person you cripple when you hit them because your ABS has
failed, and your wheels lock on a slippery surface.

Insurance isn't just for things like wing mirrors.

Then have an insurance for horrendous accidents. Most insurance claims
could easily have been paid for by the driver.

Show me where I can buy 3rd party insurance which only pays out if I
cause more than £1000 of damage.


Compare the merkat. set the excess to £1000.

They gave me a quote of £453. I currently pay only £254.

They also have nowhere to put in an excess.


confused too?

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 22:57:09 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

On 29/11/2012 21:06, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:20:56 -0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 29/11/2012 17:46, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:37:32 -0000, John Williamson
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

And you would, of course, be happy to pay for the lifetime of 24 hour
care for the person you cripple when you hit them because your ABS has
failed, and your wheels lock on a slippery surface.

Insurance isn't just for things like wing mirrors.

Then have an insurance for horrendous accidents. Most insurance claims
could easily have been paid for by the driver.

Show me where I can buy 3rd party insurance which only pays out if I
cause more than £1000 of damage.


Compare the merkat. set the excess to £1000.

They gave me a quote of £453. I currently pay only £254.

They also have nowhere to put in an excess.

confused too?

Not tried them. I got my current one through moneysupermarket.com

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

The state of Texas has executed yet another inmate. But Unforeseen legal issues have arisen. The state has killed so many people this year, it must now register as a tobacco company.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:11:30 -0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:05:10 -0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 29/11/2012 16:49, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:43:34 -0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:


It's a long way between the back of my car and me. And Because I'm in
front of my seat, I won't feel him hitting me.

And the kids sitting in the rear most seat of my car who are 12"
from the
rear metalwork?

You don't have a boot?!?

And they're still on seats. A front collision pushes you forwards, a
rear collision simply pushes you into the comfy chair.

Another idiot that doesn't understand o'level physics.

It's Newton's third law. And what I stated above is correct.

But ignores the interaction between the seat's elasticity and the mass
of the occupant.

And that the impulse provided by the collision is transmitted to the
body. Meanwhile another of Newton's Laws (the one about inertia) gets
applied to the head. And so you get whiplash - which is a common problem
and always caused by dimwits striking your car from the rear.

If you get struck from the front, your head can suddenly tilt forwards.

Getting struck from the back is like being whacked by a soft cushion.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

If trains stop at train stations, what happens at workstations?

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:09:19 -0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

France. 99% of the population.

I bow to your superior knowledge, as I only spend 10 weeks a year
driving there on average. I find them, on the whole, very patient and
courteous drivers, if a little on the reckless side, but almost emtirely
predictable in their madness. I'd rather drive there than in the UK.

They *used* to tailgate, but that was 30 to 40 years ago.

I was there only 5 years ago, and they all tailgated. But what I like is they drive fast, and pay attention, and are very courteous to lane changing requests.

Oh and the centre of Paris is FUN!

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Mick and Paddy are reading head stones at a nearby cemetery.
Mick says "Crikey! There's a bloke here who was 152!"
Paddy says "What's his name?"
Mick replies "Miles, from London!"

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:13:37 -0000, "Lieutenant Scott"
wrote:

If you deliberately get in my way slowing me down, I am going to try to overtake you.

For ****'s sake get a bike - you don't get held up, then.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:31:24 +0000, John Williamson wrote:
One system works like this:-

http://www.caddie.com/common/upload_...0Gestion%20de%
20parc.GB.pdf

Having one of the remote controls could be amusing. :-)

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:36:55 +0000, charles wrote:
there used to be a sign on the London Underground escalators which read
"Dogs must be carried". What did you do if you didn't have a dog with
you? Would someone hire you one?

:-)

Sign at local playing fields says "walking dogs prohibited", so we just
make 'em run.

On 29/11/2012 00:08, ARW wrote:
SteveW wrote:
On 27/11/2012 09:41, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 02:18:36 +0000, wrote:

My mother now in her 80's doesn't find walking too far that easily
recently but probably wouldn't qualify for a disabled badge just
yet. I threatened the other day to park in a Parent and Child
place but was stopped more by her protestations of embarrassment
more than anything else.

I've used the Parent & Child spaces when taking my father shopping
and all the disabled ones were taken (he had a Blue Badge). I was
quite looking forward to being challenged either by a parent or the
store but I wasn't.

That's something that annoys me (and I have in the past had reason to
use a blue badge frequently when taking my mother-in-law out).

One supermarket that we used to use had twice as many disabled spaces
as parent and child ones. With a combination of my wife's car
(inherited from her father) being a three door and her having a bad
back, the long doors made it nigh on impossible to get a child seat
and child in and out of the back without the extra width of a parent
and child space. Regularly, she would go to the supermarket and find
all the places taken; a number by blue badge holders who couldn't be
bothered to wait a short while for a space to become free. Yet as
spaces became free in the blue badge section, she couldn't in turn
take one of them. With a very young child starting screaming in the
back because the motion of the car had ceased, yet unable to park,
get him out and settle him, she had to abandon the trips and return
home a number of times.
At another location near here, Toys-R-Us, Mothercare, Boots and a
sports shop are all together, where you would expect many parents
with young children and there are eight parent and child spaces and
twenty-four disabled spaces and the same thing happens - despite many
of the disabled spaces being free.

If someone's condition means that they cannot wait - urgent need for
the toilet or an anxiety related mental health problem for example,
then fair enough - but otherwise

So are you suggesting "colostrsomy bag about to explode" bays should be next
to a "mad person" on board parking bay?

No I'm saying that people with disabilities should wait for a disabled
bay to come free rather than take over scarce parent and child spaces,
when parents cannot do the reverse. I'm also saying that some conditions
mean that people will be unable to wait for a disabled space to come
free and that I think it is fine under such circumstances to use the
parent a child bays instead.

SteveW

On 28/11/2012 23:17, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 23:10:36 -0000, SteveW
wrote:

On 28/11/2012 20:25, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:07:05 -0000, SteveW
wrote:

On 28/11/2012 19:28, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:21:40 -0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 28/11/2012 15:01, Lieutenant Scott wrote:




You don't understand much about driving.

You have to be able to stop in an emergency even if the idiot behind
runs into the back.

If he does it will push you forwards and you need to allow for that.

The only way is to drive slower.

Therefor tailgating slows the traffic. QED

No, you do what you do, he does what he does. Him smashing into
you is
none of your concern. If he pushes you into something that you
wouldn't
otherwise have hit, then he gets blamed. Simple.

Not much comfort if you or someone else is killed or seriously injured
because the tailgater shunted you forward when you tried to stop.

Hardly. You'd get shunted a little bit. Not enough to change life to
death.

Under different circumstances (I was stationary for long enough for a
child
to walk the length of the zebra crossing I was waiting at), I was hit
from
behind by someone who didn't notice me early enough. I was pushed forward
until my car was straddling the crossing. It is easy enough to see
that had
someone unexpectedly stepped out in front of me elsewhere on the road and
forced an emergency stop, a tailgater could easily have pushed me far
enough to end up with a pedestrian under my car!

Which would be the pusher's fault not yours, so don't worry about it.
If you weren't there he would have run over the pedestrian himself.

If he hadn't been driving so close, the pedestrian would be fine. I
don't care about fault, I rather not flatten someone.

Both the unreasonably slow and the tailgater are in the wrong, but the
slow driver is only very irritating, while the tailgater is dangerous.

The slow driver prompts the tailgater to be dangerous.

Prompts, does not force.

Same outcome.

No. You have no choice if you are forced. If you are only prompted, you
needn't do it and if you do, the action is still your responsibility and
fault.

SteveW

On 29/11/2012 13:19, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:14:19 +0000, SteveW wrote:

- Electrical wiring and connectors

What all of them?

- Trailer electrical socket security and damage
- Operation of 13-pin trailer electrical sockets using an approved
trailer socket tester

But no electrical test for a 7 pin?

No. Possibly because some non-standard arrangements may already have
been in use.

- Engine mountings

Haven't they always been in?

I would have thought so.

- Speedometer

And that?

No. There was no requirement to even have a speedometer!

SteveW

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:18:45 +0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

Round here, you really have to slow down at night if there is an oncoming
car - reason, no pavements on many of the roads, so if you do see a
pedestrian in your path, you cannot swerve out, so you really have to be
prepared to stop on a penny.

Same on the back roads around here and it's not helped by idiots
wearing all black and dark green. One time I nearly ran one over as
there was just nothing to pick him out from the hedge.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 07:49:33 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
You stop sudenly (and reverse into the tailgater if needed). you phone
for an ambulance.

Wow. Just... wow.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:31:14 +0000, John Williamson
wrote:

It's amusing how many tailgaters insist on passing me in bad weather,
then find out that I am, in fact going faster than they think it is safe
to do so when they're the one "at point", so to speak.

Hah. There's a section of twisty road near me that I was being
tailgated on the approach to. I simply kept the throttle constant all
the way around the twisties, taking them at a speed with which the
tailgater wasn't competent to cope with.
I noticed just before the last bend he'd disappeared from my mirror.
Yep - in the ditch, the ****wit.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:14:39 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:
I think he's a dangerous arrogant ****wit who probably has one of those
fancy conditions that lead to an inability to see other's POVs.

I hardly think that "being rather thick" should be considered a fancy
condition!

On 30/11/2012 00:29, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:18:45 +0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

Round here, you really have to slow down at night if there is an oncoming
car - reason, no pavements on many of the roads, so if you do see a
pedestrian in your path, you cannot swerve out, so you really have to be
prepared to stop on a penny.

Same on the back roads around here and it's not helped by idiots
wearing all black and dark green. One time I nearly ran one over as
there was just nothing to pick him out from the hedge.


You are lucky, some around here wear camouflage.

On Nov 29, 8:57*pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:16:01 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:









On Nov 29, 6:06 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:48:56 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Nov 29, 4:40 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:32:33 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Nov 29, 10:58 am, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:53:47 -0000, Tim Watts wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:13:15 -0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

And what is wrong with going at a faster speed? *Then he won't need to
tailgate you.

He won't need to tailgate anyone if he does the decent thing and goes and
tears up his license as he has no place on the roads.

Or goes and plays with the lions in Africa. I'm happy either way.

Typical moronic response from a fool who thinks he has chosen the most
appropriate speed for the road and anyone who can go faster than him must
be dangerous.

That's not what I wrote, dipstick.

I do not think "people who can go faster" are ******s who should go and poke
lions in the butts with pointy sticks.

I said tailgaters are.

Tailgaters are simply people trying to go faster, but unable to do so because of people like you.

Tailgaiters are ****wits who drive aggresively close and try to bully
others into driving unsafely.

So? *What gives you the right to be a safe little wimp? *Man up and go faster.

Given you self confessed standards of driving, you are obviously the
one with "manhood" problems.

No, people with a small manhood tend to act girly and take safety precautions. *I bet you got a red triangle and a hi-vis jacket in your boot too.

Do you always do as you're told?

Talking to yourself now.

MBQ

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:12:15 +0000, Frank Erskine wrote:

I think they are magnetic but the magnet is in the wheel and there is
a simple magnetic (but not magnatised) plate in the ground. Magnet is
attracted to the plate, releasing a spring loaded brake mechansium.

However, that would cause a problem to a trolley passing over a, say,
metal manhole cover in the car park.

Ah, er, make the manhole covers out of stainless or ali. Simples. B-)

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:15:33 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Nov 29, 6:06 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:47:15 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:









On Nov 29, 4:22 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:26:50 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Nov 28, 10:39 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:35:26 -0000, dennis@home wrote:
On 28/11/2012 22:22, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:17:37 -0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 28/11/2012 21:36, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:20:14 -0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

The tailgater is an arrogant ****** who needs to be reeducated.
Tailgaters
harrass others and invariably do stupid things.

By getting in my way you are harassing me. You can choose to let me
past.

By slowing down, as you should when being tailgated.

If you have to slow down and there is no safe passing place then its the
stupid tailgater that is causing his delay.

If there is no place for him to get past, then speed up and go at a
decent rate you old fart.

That is unsafe as he is tailgating you and you have to slow down.
Once you start tailgating the only safe thing the driver infront can do
is slow down.

And what is wrong with going at a faster speed? Then he won't need to tailgate you.

Jeezus. He was tailgaiting to start with. He's still tailgaiting when
I slow down. What makes you think he will stop tailgaiting if I speed
up again?

He wants to go 50mph, you're going 40mph. If you now go 50mph, he has no reason to drive close to you.

sigh

I was doing 50 and he was too close. I slow down to 40 to let him pass
and he continues to drive too close. I slow down some more for safety
sake (his and mine). Why do you think he will change his behaviour if
I drive at 50 again?

I wasn't talking about an again. Either speed up or slow down, not both.

Thanks for finally admitting that it's OK to slow down when being
tailgated.

My statement was incomplete. It's ok to slow down TO LET HIM PAST.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

It's always funny, until someone gets hurt...
then it's just hilarious.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:09:33 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:12:15 +0000, Frank Erskine wrote:

I think they are magnetic but the magnet is in the wheel and there is
a simple magnetic (but not magnatised) plate in the ground. Magnet is
attracted to the plate, releasing a spring loaded brake mechansium.

However, that would cause a problem to a trolley passing over a, say,
metal manhole cover in the car park.

Ah, er, make the manhole covers out of stainless or ali. Simples. B-)

But they're not, are they?

:-)

--
Frank Erskine

On Nov 30, 2:50*pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:15:33 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:









On Nov 29, 6:06 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:47:15 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Nov 29, 4:22 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:26:50 -0000, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Nov 28, 10:39 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:35:26 -0000, dennis@home wrote:
On 28/11/2012 22:22, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:17:37 -0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 28/11/2012 21:36, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:20:14 -0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

The tailgater is an arrogant ****** who needs to be reeducated.
Tailgaters
harrass others and invariably do stupid things.

By getting in my way you are harassing me. *You can choose to let me
past.

By slowing down, as you should when being tailgated.

If you have to slow down and there is no safe passing place then its the
stupid tailgater that is causing his delay.

If there is no place for him to get past, then speed up and go at a
decent rate you old fart.

That is unsafe as he is tailgating you and you have to slow down.
Once you start tailgating the only safe thing the driver infront can do
is slow down.

And what is wrong with going at a faster speed? *Then he won't need to tailgate you.

Jeezus. He was tailgaiting to start with. He's still tailgaiting when
I slow down. What makes you think he will stop tailgaiting if I speed
up again?

He wants to go 50mph, you're going 40mph. *If you now go 50mph, he has no reason to drive close to you.

sigh

I was doing 50 and he was too close. I slow down to 40 to let him pass
and he continues to drive too close. I slow down some more for safety
sake (his and mine). Why do you think he will change his behaviour if
I drive at 50 again?

I wasn't talking about an again. *Either speed up or slow down, not both.

Thanks for finally admitting that it's OK to slow down when being
tailgated.

My statement was incomplete. *It's ok to slow down TO LET HIM PAST.

Like I said, "Thanks for finally admitting that it's OK to slow down
when being tailgated.". No need for the extra qualification, if you
read up thread you'll realise we've been saying "to let the ****wit
past" that all along.

MBQ

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:57:29 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

Same on the back roads around here and it's not helped by idiots
wearing all black and dark green. One time I nearly ran one over as
there was just nothing to pick him out from the hedge.


You are lucky, some around here wear camouflage.

Oh, that too, but luckily the odd one with an ex-army cammo jacket or
trews usually has something lighter on them.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:09:33 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

Ah, er, make the manhole covers out of stainless or ali. Simples. B-)

Pikies will love that - increased value - super.

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:09:33 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:12:15 +0000, Frank Erskine wrote:

I think they are magnetic but the magnet is in the wheel and there is
a simple magnetic (but not magnatised) plate in the ground. Magnet is
attracted to the plate, releasing a spring loaded brake mechansium.
However, that would cause a problem to a trolley passing over a, say,
metal manhole cover in the car park.
Ah, er, make the manhole covers out of stainless or ali. Simples. B-)

But they're not, are they?

Cast iron for vehicle routes and occasionally fibreglass for pedestrian
routes round here usually.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.