On 29/09/2015 14:17, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:36:53 +0100, Johnny B wrote:


Since they'd only managed to clock me as doing 35mph (probably in the
first ten yard stretch after the 30mph limit sign by means of a a hidden
mobile speed camera), I was given the option of doing a speed awareness
course in lieu of a fine and 3 points. Just coincidentally, the cost of
the course happened to be the same as the fine (£60) but it was a no-
brainer to take this option since it saved me accumulating 3 points on my
licence.

But you got brainwashed. You only take those if you think you risk running low on points.

Not necessarily. If you have points on your licence you will find that
changing insurance companies is more difficult and the premiums higher
than if you shop around without points on your licence.

Jim

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:38:52 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:20:23 +0100, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:
snip

I'd be inclined to drive at half the speed limit through the whole place, to **** everyone off. It's not illegal to go 15 in a 30.

That would make slowing to avoid pedestrians, stopping for traffic lights , and
cycling illegal

It's illegal to go under 30 on a motorway. But obviously there are exceptions like.... a traffic jam.

--
A scientist from Texas A&M University has invented a bra that keeps women's breasts from jiggling and prevents the nipples from pushing through the fabric when cold weather sets in.
At a news conference announcing the invention, the scientist was taken outside by a group of cowboys, who then proceeded to kick the **** out of him.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:27:59 +0100, Indy Jess John wrote:

On 29/09/2015 14:17, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:36:53 +0100, Johnny B wrote:


Since they'd only managed to clock me as doing 35mph (probably in the
first ten yard stretch after the 30mph limit sign by means of a a hidden
mobile speed camera), I was given the option of doing a speed awareness
course in lieu of a fine and 3 points. Just coincidentally, the cost of
the course happened to be the same as the fine (£60) but it was a no-
brainer to take this option since it saved me accumulating 3 points on my
licence.

But you got brainwashed. You only take those if you think you risk running low on points.

Not necessarily. If you have points on your licence you will find that
changing insurance companies is more difficult and the premiums higher
than if you shop around without points on your licence.

Don't tell them about the points then.

--
What comes after 69?
Mouthwash.

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 1:26:18 PM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
brightside S9 wrote:

Manufacturers will normally deliberately calibrate their speedos to
read 'high' by some amount between 100% and 110% to keep themselves
within the law.

It also means the car shows a higher top speed than reality. Better MPG.
And needs servicing more frequently. So a win win win for the makers.

In these days of pulse counting speedos, there is no need for the same
sort of tolerance as once. Only thing which will effect the reading is
tyre wear - which makes it read on the 'safe' side anyway.

--
If your sat nav indicates speed, it is interesting to see the difference between that and the car speedo.
Simon.

On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 13:26:18 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
brightside S9 wrote:

Manufacturers will normally deliberately calibrate their speedos to
read 'high' by some amount between 100% and 110% to keep themselves
within the law.

It also means the car shows a higher top speed than reality. Better MPG.
And needs servicing more frequently. So a win win win for the makers.

In these days of pulse counting speedos, there is no need for the same
sort of tolerance as once. Only thing which will effect the reading is
tyre wear - which makes it read on the 'safe' side anyway.

No the thing that effects the reading is the software and the digits
it chooses to show on the display.
I thought VW emissions reading will have taught everyone that.
So whatever a car says it's doing means little.
It can't be that difficult to fudge speedometers to under read.

The police should use their methods of reading speed which should be checked and calibrated regualry.

In article ,
sm_jamieson wrote:
On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 1:26:18 PM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
brightside S9 wrote:

Manufacturers will normally deliberately calibrate their speedos to
read 'high' by some amount between 100% and 110% to keep themselves
within the law.

It also means the car shows a higher top speed than reality. Better MPG.
And needs servicing more frequently. So a win win win for the makers.

In these days of pulse counting speedos, there is no need for the same
sort of tolerance as once. Only thing which will effect the reading is
tyre wear - which makes it read on the 'safe' side anyway.

--
If your sat nav indicates speed, it is interesting to see the difference
between that and the car speedo.

in my case: 73 on the speedo = 70 on the GPS

--
Please note new email address:

In article ,
Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:47:46 +0100, NY wrote:

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:52:11 +0100, NY wrote:

So far no-one has managed to come up with a *physical* speed
restriction (as opposed to a speed camera) which has no effect if you
are well within the speed limit and only comes into effect if you
exceed it.

Yes, they have.

In Iberia, seemingly random traffic lights in the middle of straight
stretches of road are common. If you're exceeding the limit, they
change to red. The higher your speed, the longer they're red for.

Ah, like the infamous linked lights on the A4 in Slough that were set to
keep traffic moving at about 30 mph; if you drove at 20 or 40 you hit
every light at red, whereas if you drove at 30 then once you got through
the first light, all the rest would be at green for you. I heard that
someone worked out that if you drove at 80 you also hit green on every
light - and I bet the ton-up boys on their motorbikes took advantage of
that late at night :-)

Of course, nowdays the reverse is true. Long roads like the A4 (or A4123
in Brum) have the lights deliberately phased so that you have to stop at
every one, irrespective of speed.

Remember the mantra. Public transport:good. Private motoring:bad.

Actually, the DfT last year announced that your concept wasted fuel and,
although it increased tax revenue, it was now a bad thing and they'd
restore teh phasing at Slough.

--
Please note new email address:

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 13:26:18 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
brightside S9 wrote:

Manufacturers will normally deliberately calibrate their speedos to
read 'high' by some amount between 100% and 110% to keep themselves
within the law.

It also means the car shows a higher top speed than reality. Better MPG.
And needs servicing more frequently. So a win win win for the makers.

In these days of pulse counting speedos, there is no need for the same
sort of tolerance as once. Only thing which will effect the reading is
tyre wear - which makes it read on the 'safe' side anyway.

No the thing that effects the reading is the software and the digits
it chooses to show on the display.
I thought VW emissions reading will have taught everyone that.
So whatever a car says it's doing means little.
It can't be that difficult to fudge speedometers to under read.

The police should use their methods of reading speed which should be
checked and calibrated regualry.

To the best of my knowledge, they are. The Speedwatch kit we use is checked
against an external reference every time we use it.

--
Please note new email address:

On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 16:38:32 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article ,

So whatever a car says it's doing means little.
It can't be that difficult to fudge speedometers to under read.

The police should use their methods of reading speed which should be
checked and calibrated regualry.

To the best of my knowledge, they are. The Speedwatch kit we use is checked
against an external reference every time we use it.

That's what I'd expect I doubt what the drivers spedo says has any real relivence toi whether you've gone over the speed limit or not.
So you're speedo can say whatever it likes irrespective of tyre size.
It's the speed you are actually traveling at which is important to the police.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
In these days of pulse counting speedos, there is no need for the same
sort of tolerance as once. Only thing which will effect the reading is
tyre wear - which makes it read on the 'safe' side anyway.

No the thing that effects the reading is the software and the digits
it chooses to show on the display.
I thought VW emissions reading will have taught everyone that.
So whatever a car says it's doing means little.
It can't be that difficult to fudge speedometers to under read.

Even in the days of mechanical speedos, some were very much more accurate
than others. And this didn't always follow the price of the new car.

The police should use their methods of reading speed which should be
checked and calibrated regualry.

Why would the police be worries if you are driving under the speed limit?
All speedos only ever read high, if not accurate. They are not allowed to
read low.

--
*I wish the buck stopped here. I could use a few.

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

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, they are. The Speedwatch kit we use is
checked against an external reference every time we use it.

That's what I'd expect I doubt what the drivers spedo says has any real
relivence toi whether you've gone over the speed limit or not.

You can estimate speed accurately? Most of us mere mortals have to rely on
the car's speedo.

GPS may not always give you an instantaneous accurate reading - if it
looses signal etc.

--
*To be intoxicated is to feel sophisticated, but not be able to say it.

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

On 29/09/2015 15:30, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:27:59 +0100, Indy Jess wrote:

On 29/09/2015 14:17, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:36:53 +0100, Johnny B wrote:


Since they'd only managed to clock me as doing 35mph (probably in the
first ten yard stretch after the 30mph limit sign by means of a a hidden
mobile speed camera), I was given the option of doing a speed awareness
course in lieu of a fine and 3 points. Just coincidentally, the cost of
the course happened to be the same as the fine (£60) but it was a no-
brainer to take this option since it saved me accumulating 3 points on my
licence.

But you got brainwashed. You only take those if you think you risk running low on points.

Not necessarily. If you have points on your licence you will find that
changing insurance companies is more difficult and the premiums higher
than if you shop around without points on your licence.

Don't tell them about the points then.

Which is OK until you make a claim, and then they check everything, and
you will find that they don't pay your claim on the grounds that you
withheld a material fact. Then you personally will be pursued by any
other party wanting their losses reimbursed.

Jim

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:06:00 +0100, Indy Jess John wrote:

Not necessarily. If you have points on your licence you will find
that changing insurance companies is more difficult and the premiums
higher than if you shop around without points on your licence.

Don't tell them about the points then.

Which is OK until you make a claim, and then they check everything, and
you will find that they don't pay your claim on the grounds that you
withheld a material fact. Then you personally will be pursued by any
other party wanting their losses reimbursed.

Not quite. Your insurer are legally bound to pay third party claims - but
they can definitely come after you for them.

In practice, and unless the points are so egregious that they wouldn't
have covered you at all, they'll just take the extra premium from any
payout you'd have had.

'course, now insurers have direct access to DVLA to check your licence,
all they need is your licence number.

Don't want to give it...? Why not...? Thanks, but we won't quote.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:06:00 +0100, Indy Jess John wrote:

On 29/09/2015 15:30, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:27:59 +0100, Indy Jess wrote:

On 29/09/2015 14:17, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:36:53 +0100, Johnny B wrote:


Since they'd only managed to clock me as doing 35mph (probably in the
first ten yard stretch after the 30mph limit sign by means of a a hidden
mobile speed camera), I was given the option of doing a speed awareness
course in lieu of a fine and 3 points. Just coincidentally, the cost of
the course happened to be the same as the fine (£60) but it was a no-
brainer to take this option since it saved me accumulating 3 points on my
licence.

But you got brainwashed. You only take those if you think you risk running low on points.

Not necessarily. If you have points on your licence you will find that
changing insurance companies is more difficult and the premiums higher
than if you shop around without points on your licence.

Don't tell them about the points then.

Which is OK until you make a claim, and then they check everything, and
you will find that they don't pay your claim on the grounds that you
withheld a material fact. Then you personally will be pursued by any
other party wanting their losses reimbursed.

Except that doesn't happen.

--
H lp! S m b d st l ll th v w ls fr m m k yb rd!

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:06:00 +0100, Indy Jess John wrote:

On 29/09/2015 15:30, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:27:59 +0100, Indy Jess wrote:

On 29/09/2015 14:17, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:36:53 +0100, Johnny B wrote:


Since they'd only managed to clock me as doing 35mph (probably in the
first ten yard stretch after the 30mph limit sign by means of a a hidden
mobile speed camera), I was given the option of doing a speed awareness
course in lieu of a fine and 3 points. Just coincidentally, the cost of
the course happened to be the same as the fine (£60) but it was a no-
brainer to take this option since it saved me accumulating 3 points on my
licence.

But you got brainwashed. You only take those if you think you risk running low on points.

Not necessarily. If you have points on your licence you will find that
changing insurance companies is more difficult and the premiums higher
than if you shop around without points on your licence.

Don't tell them about the points then.

Which is OK until you make a claim, and then they check everything, and
you will find that they don't pay your claim on the grounds that you
withheld a material fact. Then you personally will be pursued by any
other party wanting their losses reimbursed.

Except that doesn't happen.

--
H lp! S m b d st l ll th v w ls fr m m k yb rd!

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:06:00 +0100, Indy Jess John wrote:

On 29/09/2015 15:30, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:27:59 +0100, Indy Jess wrote:

On 29/09/2015 14:17, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:36:53 +0100, Johnny B wrote:


Since they'd only managed to clock me as doing 35mph (probably in the
first ten yard stretch after the 30mph limit sign by means of a a hidden
mobile speed camera), I was given the option of doing a speed awareness
course in lieu of a fine and 3 points. Just coincidentally, the cost of
the course happened to be the same as the fine (£60) but it was a no-
brainer to take this option since it saved me accumulating 3 points on my
licence.

But you got brainwashed. You only take those if you think you risk running low on points.

Not necessarily. If you have points on your licence you will find that
changing insurance companies is more difficult and the premiums higher
than if you shop around without points on your licence.

Don't tell them about the points then.

Which is OK until you make a claim, and then they check everything, and
you will find that they don't pay your claim on the grounds that you
withheld a material fact. Then you personally will be pursued by any
other party wanting their losses reimbursed.

Except that doesn't happen.

--
H lp! S m b d st l ll th v w ls fr m m k yb rd!

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:10:07 +1000, Sam Thatch wrote:

But if you have a mortgage you have not invested the full value of the
property, so the ROI is on the capital you put in.

Nope. You've still put the full purchase price in

Nope.

- it's just that you've had to borrow much of it.

That's what gearing is all about.

Gearing enables you to leverage your cash.

Yes, so you dont have to put the full purchase price in from your own
money.

It doesn't mean you aren't investing £x.

£x is invested, but only part of that is your money, the rest is borrowed,
so
the return you get is the return you get on your own money you invested.

If you were doing a balance sheet, you'd show the
full value of the asset, and the full value of the debt.

But the return you get is on your own money you invested,
not the total invested. And when negative gearing is allowed
by the tax regime, the return can be much better when geared.

And as rents (and house prices) rise with inflation (at least in the
long run) your investment is near enough indexed linked.

That's a... novel... opinion.

Nope.

I wonder if it's historically accurate...?

Yep.

Riiight.

Yep.

So, if we take the house my parents bought in 1980 for £60,000, then
quickly borrow a typical web inflation calculator, it's currently worth
£230k.

Ooops. It's on the market at the mo for £600k.

So that property produced a much better return than he listed.

And, no, it's not in London. Not even within 150 miles of the SE.

The place we sold two years ago, in the SE? Now worth almost three times
the inflation-adjusted price over the 15yrs we had it.

Same with that one.

The place we bought two years ago, in an area where house prices are
relatively low, which'd previously sold at the same time as we bought
that last place? Still at least 50% over the 1998 inflation adjusted
price.

If we look back at the 1976 sale price for here? Oops. Now worth about
four times that inflation adjusted value.

Furthest back sale price I've got for here is 1947 - six months before
the start of easily-referenceable inflation statistics. That price'd now
be worth about £65k.

In fact, if we look back, the biggest jump _relative to inflation_
occurred between 1976 and 1991.

Still a much better return than he listed which means it was
clearly worth doing.

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 03:43:30 +1000, Sam Thatch wrote:

It doesn't mean you aren't investing £x.

£x is invested, but only part of that is your money, the rest is
borrowed, so the return you get is the return you get on your own money
you invested.

You buy a £100k house.
You get £6k rent, which is £5k income/year after £1k costs.

Except... You got an £80k mortgage, on which you pay £4k interest/year.

You are getting £1k return on your investment.

If you're ignoring the borrowed money, how on earth do you take the
interest in to account? If you ignore the borrowings, you might as well
just say "Well, I'm getting £5k return on my £20k investment".

And when negative gearing is allowed by the tax regime, the return can
be much better when geared.

Yes, because you're paying the interest out of before-tax money, not
after-tax money.

And as rents (and house prices) rise with inflation (at least in the
long run) your investment is near enough indexed linked.

That's a... novel... opinion.

Nope.

I wonder if it's historically accurate...?

Yep.

Riiight.

Yep.

So, if we take the house my parents bought in 1980 for £60,000, then
quickly borrow a typical web inflation calculator, it's currently worth
£230k.

Ooops. It's on the market at the mo for £600k.

So that property produced a much better return than he listed.

Exactly.

What was said was...
And as rents (and house prices) rise with inflation (at least in the
long run) your investment is near enough indexed linked.

And, no, it's not in London. Not even within 150 miles of the SE.

The place we sold two years ago, in the SE? Now worth almost three
times the inflation-adjusted price over the 15yrs we had it.

Same with that one.

Exactly.

What was said was...
And as rents (and house prices) rise with inflation (at least in the
long run) your investment is near enough indexed linked.

Still a much better return than he listed which means it was clearly
worth doing.

Oh, indeed. But what was claimed was that they rise at around the rate of
inflation in the long run.

Do you want to bet on it continuing to do that in the future? There have
certainly been short-term periods where they've fallen - let alone risen
at less than inflation. In many parts of the country, that's still the
case.

B'sides, since when was buying AFTER a long-term above-expectation rise
in values a smart move...? Just means you buy at the peak of the bubble.

On 29/09/2015 15:30, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:38:52 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:20:23 +0100, "Tough Guy no. 1265"
wrote:
snip

I'd be inclined to drive at half the speed limit through the whole
place, to **** everyone off. It's not illegal to go 15 in a 30.

That would make slowing to avoid pedestrians, stopping for traffic
lights , and
cycling illegal

It's illegal to go under 30 on a motorway. But obviously there are
exceptions like.... a traffic jam.


That's not true, there is no minimum speed limit on most of the motorways.

There is a minimum speed that vehicles are supposed to be able to do.

You may get done for dangerous driving if you are driving too slow for
the conditions but that's not the same thing.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
Rod Speed wrote

You're in a minority on that tho. Even you lot are into currys
now and that wouldn't have happened without immigrants.

An English cookbook, The Forme of Cury, was published in the 1390s

Didn't include any currys.

The upper classes regularly dined on curry in the 1600s,

And the currys you lot eat now had nothing to do with that.

but strong flavours fell out of favour in the late
17th Century when French cuisine became popular.

The first curry recipe in English was published by Hannah
Glasse in 1747. 'To Make a Currey the India Way'

And the currys you lot eat now had nothing to do with that.

It was not until the late 18th Century when Britain took
control of Bengal that Indian cooking came back into
fashion and by 1809 London's first curry house had opened.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-30718727

And the currys you lot eat now had nothing to do with that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/0/24432750

An English cookbook, The Forme of Cury, was published in the 1390s, and
all hot food was called "cury" from the French word cuire, meaning to
cook.

Yes, that's what I meant when I said that there were no currys in that.

The currys we eat now (now we use the word curry to
mean spicy rather than hot) didn't come from immigrants,

They did in the sense that the places flogging currys
in that soggy little island now were mostly started
by immigrants from India and Pakistan.

we learnt from them in india.

Yes, but that wasn't what produced the places
flogging currys to people like you today.

The indian people were NOT
immigrants in their own country.

But it was the immigrants to that soggy little
frigid island of yours that mostly produced
the places you buy your currys from today.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Indy Jess John wrote:
A business vacates a shop and another takes it over. The first thing
they do is take out all the fixtures and fittings and put new ones in,
and some perfectly serviceable stuff gets smashed up and put in a skip
outside.

That cost money. And while it is going on the shop sells nothing and
gets no income, so the shop refitting is done with loans. Small wonder
that some fail. And then somebody else comes along and removed the
previous fixtures and fittings that might be only 6 months old, to put
in new ones.

Why don't they reuse what is there?

There tend to be quite a few 'hobby' businesses round here. Called
something like 'The Lucky Parrot' or whatever and selling the sort of
'novelty items' a department store wouldn't stock. And only last a short
while. But as you say cost a fortune to set up. Same with restaurants. Far
too many for all to be profitable.

And with pubs and the sort of places that flog women's clothes etc
and women's hair dressers etc.

We're just getting an Aldi and the local newspaper interviewed the
most aggressive of the independent supermarket operators about
that. Hilarious watching him behave like a little kid desperately
whistling to keep his courage up as he walks past the cemetery at night.

He might well survive because he does get significant traffic on foot
from those who can't drive for whatever reason, but it will be interesting
to see how well he does with those who don’t have much further to go
than to the new Aldi. He's never been that cheap compared with the
two major supermarket chains here but the other major independent
hasn’t either so maybe many of the customers aren't that price sensitive.

Aldi has always been rather down market compared with the
majors. You can't even buy chutney there most of the time.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:39:14 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

On 29/09/2015 15:30, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:38:52 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:20:23 +0100, "Tough Guy no. 1265"
wrote:
snip

I'd be inclined to drive at half the speed limit through the whole
place, to **** everyone off. It's not illegal to go 15 in a 30.

That would make slowing to avoid pedestrians, stopping for traffic
lights , and
cycling illegal

It's illegal to go under 30 on a motorway. But obviously there are
exceptions like.... a traffic jam.


That's not true, there is no minimum speed limit on most of the motorways.

There is a minimum speed that vehicles are supposed to be able to do.

You may get done for dangerous driving if you are driving too slow for
the conditions but that's not the same thing.

It's exactly the same thing. If you're going under 30 on the motorway, people are going to be swerving round you, and you'll get done for it. I once did 40mph on the motorway as my bonnet had become loose and was threatening to fly up. I got about 50% of people hooting at me, especially the lorries. A policeman would no doubt have been rather annoyed.

--
I was doing some remolishments to my house the other day and accidentally defurbished it.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

A business vacates a shop and another takes it over. The first thing
they do is take out all the fixtures and fittings and put new ones in,

Not necessarily, most obviously with petrol stations

Petrol stations round here get closed and houses built in their place.

I've never seen that happen here, but we build a hell of a lot more
new houses on a bare block of land than happens in London now. The
town has more than doubled in size in the 45 years I have been here.

We have closed lots of them, but they mostly get used
for other small business operations. The one I got my
car windscreen replaced at is one example. Another
is being turned into a place flogging grog.

And all petrol stations have to be
refurbished by law within a timescale.

We have nothing like that law. The worst of the petrol
stations here is very run down indeed. Its only got two
pumps, one of which is permanently out of order.

The other pump is so primitive that it doesn’t even
have a readout of the meters near the cash register,
he has to look out the window at the pump and hope
that no one has started using the pump again since
the person standing in front of him at the cash
register stopped using the pump.

Run by presumably illegal immigrants.

They didn’t spend a cent when they took it over
except to add a decent modern manual eftpos
machine that allows you to pay using a tap and
go card next to the cash register.

So absolutely nothing like shops.

Our petrol stations don’t rip out all the fittings
when changing ownership. Shops often do.

Of course it is likely very different in the outback.

I don’t live in the outback. Town with a population of
50K with 9 petrol stations and about 10 pharmacys
and what must be 100 or more shops of various types.
Two malls and the main set of strip shops.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
And the currys you lot eat now had nothing to do with that.

Nor are they traditional dishes from the country they claim to come from.
Anymore than so called Chinese food is.

Same with pizzas etc too.

But all were done by immigrants, one obvious advantage with immigrants.

We saw the food we could buy radically improved by immigrants.
When I was a kid about all there was was fish and chips and pies
and hot dogs. Now you have vastly more choice from all over the
world, everything from pizza to kebabs to chinese to all sorts of
asian to burgers etc etc etc.

The local sikhs have a massive great sport thing every year where
they take over the massive multi level oval complex and provide
masses of free food for anyone who wants to come along and watch.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:27:59 +0100, Indy Jess John
wrote:

On 29/09/2015 14:17, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:36:53 +0100, Johnny B
wrote:


Since they'd only managed to clock me as doing 35mph (probably in the
first ten yard stretch after the 30mph limit sign by means of a a
hidden
mobile speed camera), I was given the option of doing a speed awareness
course in lieu of a fine and 3 points. Just coincidentally, the cost of
the course happened to be the same as the fine (£60) but it was a no-
brainer to take this option since it saved me accumulating 3 points on
my
licence.

But you got brainwashed. You only take those if you think you risk
running low on points.

Not necessarily. If you have points on your licence you will find that
changing insurance companies is more difficult and the premiums higher
than if you shop around without points on your licence.

Don't tell them about the points then.

And get them deny your claim when you make one.

No point in insuring if they won't pay out on a claim.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:48:04 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:27:59 +0100, Indy Jess John
wrote:

On 29/09/2015 14:17, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:36:53 +0100, Johnny B
wrote:


Since they'd only managed to clock me as doing 35mph (probably in the
first ten yard stretch after the 30mph limit sign by means of a a
hidden
mobile speed camera), I was given the option of doing a speed awareness
course in lieu of a fine and 3 points. Just coincidentally, the cost of
the course happened to be the same as the fine (£60) but it was a no-
brainer to take this option since it saved me accumulating 3 points on
my
licence.

But you got brainwashed. You only take those if you think you risk
running low on points.

Not necessarily. If you have points on your licence you will find that
changing insurance companies is more difficult and the premiums higher
than if you shop around without points on your licence.

Don't tell them about the points then.

And get them deny your claim when you make one.

Never happened.

No point in insuring if they won't pay out on a claim.

I don't insure for payouts.

--
When Mike got arrested, the police told him, "Anything you say will be held against you."
Mike smiled and simply replied, "Jessica Simpson's boobs."

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:52:11 +0100, NY wrote:

"Dave Farrance" wrote in
message ...
[quoted text muted]

So far no-one has managed to come up with a *physical* speed restriction
(as opposed to a speed camera) which has no effect if you are well
within the speed limit and only comes into effect if you exceed it.

I'm sure some fluid in a flexible tube could be tuned to become rigid
when hit with the force of a car exceeding 30 (or 20) but just remain
liquid below that ...

I dont believe that.

It might well be possible to have a proper speed measuring
device controlling a valve on a flexible tube filled with fluid tho.
How long it would last on the road tho is a separate matter.

But since there is no incentive to make
private motoring any easier over time,

Thats why they keep redoing the built up area road detail.

it would be wasted research.

Nope.

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:47:46 +0100, NY wrote:

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:52:11 +0100, NY wrote:

So far no-one has managed to come up with a *physical* speed
restriction (as opposed to a speed camera) which has no effect if you
are well within the speed limit and only comes into effect if you
exceed it.

Yes, they have.

In Iberia, seemingly random traffic lights in the middle of straight
stretches of road are common. If you're exceeding the limit, they
change to red. The higher your speed, the longer they're red for.

Ah, like the infamous linked lights on the A4 in Slough that were set to
keep traffic moving at about 30 mph; if you drove at 20 or 40 you hit
every light at red, whereas if you drove at 30 then once you got through
the first light, all the rest would be at green for you. I heard that
someone worked out that if you drove at 80 you also hit green on every
light - and I bet the ton-up boys on their motorbikes took advantage of
that late at night :-)

Of course, nowdays the reverse is true. Long roads like the A4 (or A4123
in Brum) have the lights deliberately phased so that you have to stop at
every one, irrespective of speed.

Not even possible.

Remember the mantra. Public transport:good. Private motoring:bad.

Must be why they keep building new motorways.

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
sm_jamieson wrote:
On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 1:26:18 PM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article ,
brightside S9 wrote:

Manufacturers will normally deliberately calibrate their speedos to
read 'high' by some amount between 100% and 110% to keep themselves
within the law.

It also means the car shows a higher top speed than reality. Better
MPG.
And needs servicing more frequently. So a win win win for the makers.

In these days of pulse counting speedos, there is no need for the same
sort of tolerance as once. Only thing which will effect the reading is
tyre wear - which makes it read on the 'safe' side anyway.

--
If your sat nav indicates speed, it is interesting to see the difference
between that and the car speedo.

in my case: 73 on the speedo = 70 on the GPS

Within 2mph on my speedo vs sat nav on my van until I get past 80mph then it
gives a 3mph discrepancy all the way up to 110mph.

The works van speedo is 5mph out at 70mph and a full 7mph out at 110mph.



--
Adam

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 13:26:18 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
brightside S9 wrote:

Manufacturers will normally deliberately calibrate their speedos to
read 'high' by some amount between 100% and 110% to keep themselves
within the law.

It also means the car shows a higher top speed than reality. Better MPG.
And needs servicing more frequently. So a win win win for the makers.

In these days of pulse counting speedos, there is no need for the same
sort of tolerance as once. Only thing which will effect the reading is
tyre wear - which makes it read on the 'safe' side anyway.

No the thing that effects the reading is the software and the digits
it chooses to show on the display.
I thought VW emissions reading will have taught everyone that.

That doesn't involve displaying anything.

So whatever a car says it's doing means little.
It can't be that difficult to fudge speedometers to under read.

It's rather more complicated than it looks at first
given that the rate at which you get pulses depends
on the tyres installed and the pressure in them and
how much they have worn etc.

The police should use their methods of reading speed
which should be checked and calibrated regualry.

They obviously are.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 03:43:30 +1000, Sam Thatch wrote:

It doesn't mean you aren't investing £x.

£x is invested, but only part of that is your money, the rest is
borrowed, so the return you get is the return you get on your own money
you invested.

You buy a £100k house.
You get £6k rent, which is £5k income/year after £1k costs.

Except... You got an £80k mortgage, on which you pay £4k interest/year.

You are getting £1k return on your investment.

If you're ignoring the borrowed money, how on earth do you take the
interest in to account? If you ignore the borrowings, you might as well
just say "Well, I'm getting £5k return on my £20k investment".

I didnt say you were ignoring your borrowings. I JUST said that when
calculating the return on your investment, its the amount you actually
put in of your own money that the return is calculated on, not the total
of what you put in and what you borrowed.

And when negative gearing is allowed by the tax regime, the return can
be much better when geared.

Yes, because you're paying the interest out of before-tax money, not
after-tax money.

That has nothing to do with the return you get on the amount of your
own cash you invested.

And as rents (and house prices) rise with inflation (at least in the
long run) your investment is near enough indexed linked.

That's a... novel... opinion.

Nope.

I wonder if it's historically accurate...?

Yep.

Riiight.

Yep.

So, if we take the house my parents bought in 1980 for £60,000, then
quickly borrow a typical web inflation calculator, it's currently worth
£230k.

Ooops. It's on the market at the mo for £600k.

So that property produced a much better return than he listed.

Exactly.

What was said was...
And as rents (and house prices) rise with inflation (at least in the
long run) your investment is near enough indexed linked.

And, no, it's not in London. Not even within 150 miles of the SE.

The place we sold two years ago, in the SE? Now worth almost three
times the inflation-adjusted price over the 15yrs we had it.

Same with that one.

Exactly.

What was said was...
And as rents (and house prices) rise with inflation (at least in the
long run) your investment is near enough indexed linked.

Still a much better return than he listed which means it was clearly
worth doing.

Oh, indeed. But what was claimed was that they rise at around the rate of
inflation in the long run.

Do you want to bet on it continuing to do that in the future? There have
certainly been short-term periods where they've fallen - let alone risen
at less than inflation. In many parts of the country, that's still the
case.

B'sides, since when was buying AFTER a long-term above-expectation rise
in values a smart move...? Just means you buy at the peak of the bubble.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:48:04 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:27:59 +0100, Indy Jess John
wrote:

On 29/09/2015 14:17, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:36:53 +0100, Johnny B
wrote:


Since they'd only managed to clock me as doing 35mph (probably in
the
first ten yard stretch after the 30mph limit sign by means of a a
hidden
mobile speed camera), I was given the option of doing a speed
awareness
course in lieu of a fine and 3 points. Just coincidentally, the cost
of
the course happened to be the same as the fine (£60) but it was a no-
brainer to take this option since it saved me accumulating 3 points
on
my
licence.

But you got brainwashed. You only take those if you think you risk
running low on points.

Not necessarily. If you have points on your licence you will find that
changing insurance companies is more difficult and the premiums higher
than if you shop around without points on your licence.

Don't tell them about the points then.

And get them deny your claim when you make one.

Never happened.

It has actually.

No point in insuring if they won't pay out on a claim.

I don't insure for payouts.

There is no other reason to insure.

It's you that are liable to the other party if you
are at fault, not your insurance company. If they
refuse to pay that claim, you get to wear the
claim just like you would if you were not insured.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

A business vacates a shop and another takes it over. The first thing
they do is take out all the fixtures and fittings and put new ones in,

Not necessarily, most obviously with petrol stations

Petrol stations round here get closed and houses built in their place.

I've never seen that happen here, but we build a hell of a lot more
new houses on a bare block of land than happens in London now. The
town has more than doubled in size in the 45 years I have been here.

We have closed lots of them, but they mostly get used
for other small business operations. The one I got my
car windscreen replaced at is one example. Another
is being turned into a place flogging grog.

And all petrol stations have to be
refurbished by law within a timescale.

We have nothing like that law. The worst of the petrol
stations here is very run down indeed. Its only got two
pumps, one of which is permanently out of order.

The other pump is so primitive that it doesn’t even
have a readout of the meters near the cash register,
he has to look out the window at the pump and hope
that no one has started using the pump again since
the person standing in front of him at the cash
register stopped using the pump.

Run by presumably illegal immigrants.

They didn’t spend a cent when they took it over
except to add a decent modern manual eftpos
machine that allows you to pay using a tap and
go card next to the cash register.

So absolutely nothing like shops.

Our petrol stations don’t rip out all the fittings
when changing ownership. Shops often do.

Of course it is likely very different in the outback.

I don’t live in the outback. Town with a population of
50K with 9 petrol stations and about 10 pharmacys
and what must be 100 or more shops of various types.
Two malls and the main set of strip shops.

That's what comes of living in a ****-hole.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Indy Jess John wrote:
A business vacates a shop and another takes it over. The first thing
they do is take out all the fixtures and fittings and put new ones in,
and some perfectly serviceable stuff gets smashed up and put in a skip
outside.

That cost money. And while it is going on the shop sells nothing and
gets no income, so the shop refitting is done with loans. Small wonder
that some fail. And then somebody else comes along and removed the
previous fixtures and fittings that might be only 6 months old, to put
in new ones.

Why don't they reuse what is there?

There tend to be quite a few 'hobby' businesses round here. Called
something like 'The Lucky Parrot' or whatever and selling the sort of
'novelty items' a department store wouldn't stock. And only last a short
while. But as you say cost a fortune to set up. Same with restaurants.
Far
too many for all to be profitable.

And with pubs and the sort of places that flog women's clothes etc
and women's hair dressers etc.

We're just getting an Aldi and the local newspaper interviewed the
most aggressive of the independent supermarket operators about
that. Hilarious watching him behave like a little kid desperately
whistling to keep his courage up as he walks past the cemetery at night.

He might well survive because he does get significant traffic on foot
from those who can't drive for whatever reason, but it will be interesting
to see how well he does with those who don’t have much further to go
than to the new Aldi. He's never been that cheap compared with the
two major supermarket chains here but the other major independent
hasn’t either so maybe many of the customers aren't that price sensitive.

Aldi has always been rather down market compared with the
majors. You can't even buy chutney there most of the time.

That's what comes of living in a ****-hole.

Indy Jess John wrote:

Not necessarily. If you have points on your licence you will find that
changing insurance companies is more difficult and the premiums higher
than if you shop around without points on your licence.

It was on the wireless that some insurance companies ask if you've been
sent on a course.

Bill

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

You may get done for dangerous driving if you are driving too slow for
the conditions but that's not the same thing.

It's exactly the same thing. If you're going under 30 on the motorway,
people are going to be swerving round you, and you'll get done for it.
I once did 40mph on the motorway as my bonnet had become loose and was
threatening to fly up. I got about 50% of people hooting at me,
especially the lorries. A policeman would no doubt have been rather
annoyed.

If you take a slow vehicle onto a dual carriageway you must have a
yellow beacon clearly visible from the rear.

Bill

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

Don't tell them about the points then.

And get them deny your claim when you make one.

Never happened.

No point in insuring if they won't pay out on a claim.

I don't insure for payouts.


You know, Mr Toughguy, you are a bit of a chump aren't you?

Bill

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
You buy a £100k house.
You get £6k rent, which is £5k income/year after £1k costs.

Except... You got an £80k mortgage, on which you pay £4k interest/year.

You are getting £1k return on your investment.

Plus the value of the house which you're paying off via the mortgage.

To compare like for like. you'd need to borrow any money then invest it.

--
*They told me I had type-A blood, but it was a Type-O.*

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

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
And all petrol stations have to be
refurbished by law within a timescale.

We have nothing like that law.

The underground storage tanks have a finite life. So when they are due to
be changed, the site needs major digging work so you might as well replace
the pumps etc at the same time.

--
*I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was blaming you.

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And all petrol stations have to be
refurbished by law within a timescale.

We have nothing like that law.

The underground storage tanks have a finite life.

Nope.

So when they are due to be changed,

None of our are ever changed.

the site needs major digging work

Not if they are never changed.

so you might as well replace the
pumps etc at the same time.

We aren't actually stupid enough to dig up the tanks.