"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Sat, 21 May 2016 07:26:42 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 20 May 2016 07:55:30 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Wed, 18 May 2016 06:28:40 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Tue, 17 May 2016 21:52:38 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 17/05/2016 11:40, Rod Speed wrote:


"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Mon, 16 May 2016 03:52:34 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Sat, 14 May 2016 04:51:14 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Fri, 13 May 2016 07:04:50 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



I see them fine without looking in the one direction for
ages.

You have to look that way for around half a cycle.

No you don't, that flashing registers even when you aren't
looking at that light directly,

Peripheral vision isn't that accurate.

Doesn't need to be accurate to register if it is flashing or
not.

and half a cycle isn't anything
even remotely like 'for ages' anyway with indicators.

Half a second.

Shorter than that.

Depends on the car.

There are **** all that flash at once a second.

The legal requirement is for a flash rate is that it is between
once
and
twice per second. Many are very close to once per second.

Why can't we have more precise laws for car design?

We can, but there wasn't any point when that particular law
was first done like that and that avoiding having to modify
all the cars on the roads that don't comply with your stupidity.

Twice a second exactly for indicators.

No point in exactly.

Headlight brightness that isn't a factor of 3 different between
models
of
car.

Even sillier.

Indicators which are as large and bright as neighbouring lights (eg
brakes).

Mad with the as large.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=1226103

Just because some fool demands something...

It makes sense,

Like hell it does on the as large.

Bigger things are easier to see.

Yeah, that's why the EU is mandating that
the entire back of the car is lights now.

They seem to be making bigger and bigger brake lights,

And more of them too with a brake light in
the middle above the back window with some.

but the indicators are getting smaller.

I don't believe that and I have been looking more closely
at them when out driving since we started discussing this.

and I don't se any sensible retorts from you.

That's because you have wanked yourself completely blind, boy.

Or because you don't bother making constructive replies.

We all swooned at yours.

Nobody reads conversations involving you.

How odd that so many reply to them.

On Sun, 22 May 2016 01:32:57 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Sat, 21 May 2016 07:26:42 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Fri, 20 May 2016 07:55:30 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Wed, 18 May 2016 06:28:40 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Tue, 17 May 2016 21:52:38 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 17/05/2016 11:40, Rod Speed wrote:


"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Mon, 16 May 2016 03:52:34 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Sat, 14 May 2016 04:51:14 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Fri, 13 May 2016 07:04:50 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



I see them fine without looking in the one direction for
ages.

You have to look that way for around half a cycle.

No you don't, that flashing registers even when you aren't
looking at that light directly,

Peripheral vision isn't that accurate.

Doesn't need to be accurate to register if it is flashing or
not.

and half a cycle isn't anything
even remotely like 'for ages' anyway with indicators.

Half a second.

Shorter than that.

Depends on the car.

There are **** all that flash at once a second.

The legal requirement is for a flash rate is that it is between
once
and
twice per second. Many are very close to once per second.

Why can't we have more precise laws for car design?

We can, but there wasn't any point when that particular law
was first done like that and that avoiding having to modify
all the cars on the roads that don't comply with your stupidity.

Twice a second exactly for indicators.

No point in exactly.

Headlight brightness that isn't a factor of 3 different between
models
of
car.

Even sillier.

Indicators which are as large and bright as neighbouring lights (eg
brakes).

Mad with the as large.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=1226103

Just because some fool demands something...

It makes sense,

Like hell it does on the as large.

Bigger things are easier to see.

Yeah, that's why the EU is mandating that
the entire back of the car is lights now.

They seem to be making bigger and bigger brake lights,

And more of them too with a brake light in
the middle above the back window with some.

All, for the last 20 years.

but the indicators are getting smaller.

I don't believe that and I have been looking more closely
at them when out driving since we started discussing this.

http://thumbsnap.com/i/T6O6Teaj.png?0522

and I don't se any sensible retorts from you.

That's because you have wanked yourself completely blind, boy.

Or because you don't bother making constructive replies.

We all swooned at yours.

Nobody reads conversations involving you.

How odd that so many reply to them.

Not many, AFAIK 90% of people have you killfiled. Including myself sometimes.

--
€œWhats the difference between a British and an Iraqi tank?€�
€œI dont know.€�
€œWelcome to the US Air Force.€�

On Sun, 22 May 2016 00:58:52 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Sat, 21 May 2016 07:46:10 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Fri, 20 May 2016 08:09:57 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Wed, 18 May 2016 06:24:38 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Tue, 17 May 2016 11:40:29 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Mon, 16 May 2016 03:52:34 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Sat, 14 May 2016 04:51:14 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Fri, 13 May 2016 07:04:50 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:

I remember when that would always make the other guy
flash
back
at
you
if
you left full beam on by mistake.

We still do.

Then you'd flash at someone using a bright DRL.

No, we do that at night when their lights are on high
beam.

If high beam makes you want to flash, why doesn't DRL?

Because the DRLs are during the day.

That doesn't make it any better.

It does mean that you don't get dazzled because you
are trying to see what isn't lit by anyone's lights etc.

They annoy me the same day or night.

That's because of your ear to ear dog ****.

They're totally unnecessary.

Wrong. They do make the car more noticeable.

And they cause a distraction.

Not with normal people who don't have ear to ear dog ****.

On the one hand you think people need extra light to notice cars,

You're lying thru your teeth now.

You told me DRLs were a good idea

Another bare faced lie.

Just below, you have just written "makes the car more noticeable"..

That doesn't mean that I think DRLs are a good idea.

I don't think they're a good idea, but you do,

No I don't.

you keep arguing against me.

I keep rubbing your nose in the fact that they
don't need to be disabled as you claimed.

If you don't think they're a good idea, then you must agree they should be
switched off.

Nope, I don't see they do any harm and I realise
that regardless of what I think about them it isnt
going to happen on anything other than my car and
even if my car has them, that wouldn't affect me
except in the sense that the battery might not
get as well charged on short trips in the daytime.

I have no wish to annoy other drivers. I will always disable them, or if the law requires them and the filthy traffic pig scum check up on them, dim them.

and on the other hand you think the same people won't be
distracted
by
them.

I'm not distracted by other cars, with or
without their headlights on in the day.

A light attracts attention.

Nope, just makes the car more noticeable.

Only to those with ****ty eyesight who shouldn't be on the road.

Corse its fine to have those that get distracted by any
headlight and who start flashing their own lights at
any headlight they see, on the road, eh ?

The lights are unnecessary and must be extinguished.

Flashing your lights at them doesn't get them extinguished.

If enough people flash at them,

That isnt going to happen, no matter how many tantrums you chuck.

they will get fed up of it or wonder why they're annoying so many people.

And when they don't, they wont.

Most people adjust their actions if they feel they are annoying others.

If it does not, then you won't notice one you should.

Nothing to do with attracting attention.

Lights attract attention.

Odd, could have sworn that the street lights don't.

They are up high and you know they aren't vehicles to avoid.

Cars with bright lights make you give them more attention, and other
cars and pedestrians less.

Those that operate like that should be allowed to drive.

What?

Shouldn't be allowed to drive.

So you're saying BRIGHT drls should be banned?

Nope, I was saying that those who can't drive properly
when other cars have DRLs shouldn't be allowed to drive.

It's easier to drive without the blasted things. Imagine someone walking towards you and they shine a torch in your eye. You'd punch their lights out.

I'm not even distracted by terminal ****wits such
as yourself that are actually stupid enough to put
their own headlights on on high beam every time
the see another car with its headlights on in the
daytime either.

I'm training the other driver to use lights when it's DARK.

Like hell you are when they don't change what they do lights wise.

If they get flashed by lots of people,

They don't, I've never seen anyone stupid enough to do that.

Everyone flashes when they see a full beam, day or night. Some DRLs are
as bright as full beam.

Never seen anyone flashing a DRL.

That's not what I said. I said if someone sees another car using full
beam (continuously) during the day, they will flash them. Some DRLs are
as bright as a full beam, so may aswell be a full beam.

And I clearly said that I have never seen anyone flash a DRL.

I'm not talking about flashing the DRLs. I'm talking about flashing AT someone else who has an overly bright light on (a ****ed up DRL or full beam).

they'll realise they're doing something wrong.

And when they arent, they wont.

Only if they're arrogant ****s.

Corse you are nothing like that yourself, eh ?

No. I drive properly, I let people out, I use indicators etc.

And you never flash anyone who has DRLs, eh ?

Of course I do. I am warning them that they're causing a distraction to other road users.

Read up what the experts say:
http://www.dadrl.org.uk

I respond by putting my full beam on.

That's because of your ear to ear dog ****.

It's to teach the morons that use lights when it isn't dark..

In fact it does nothing of the sort, they don't change that
behaviour.

When someone gets flashed at, they think something must be wrong
with
their car.

Most of the time they think that someone
is warning them that there are cops who
they will be coming up to.

Nope.

Yep.

I did that today too, 4 rapid flashes. Everyone understood and
slowed
down. That's £500 less in the pigs' coffers.

So your Nope is wrong.

My nope is correct.

Nope.

People know the difference between many flashes warning of a pig, a
couple
of quick flashes to let someone out, and a long flash meaning anger.

BULL****.

Always worked for me.

You're lying now or your eyes are so bad you can't even see what happens.

Nope, never had a probl;em with people understanding my flashing of
lights.

I don't believe you.

Your problem.

If I give two short flashes, someone will pull in front of me.

Every single time you do that, eh ? Yeah, right.

Yip, it means "on you go". If they're sat waiting to pull out of a side
road and they get a couple of quick flashes, what else are they going to
think it means?

**** all would know that the means and
I have never ever seen anyone do that.

Nobody flashes to let people out in Australia? Well it's commonplace in the UK. Everyone knows what it means, in fact here is a copper flashing me to let me turn right:
https://youtu.be/9zOQ7JjJYsw

If I give many short flashes, they slow down.

Every single time you do that, eh ? Yeah, right.

Yip. If someone is speeding and they see many flashes, they're going to
worry it might be a pig or camera ahead.

You have no way of knowing what they think when they see that.

When I see brake lights in my mirror, I've avoided them getting a ticket..

And if they are travelling at or below the speed
limit they have no cause to worry about anything.

I don't flash those.

Or some kind of danger requiring you slow down, like a breakdown or a
kangaroo in the middle of the road.

I do in fact flash people in that situation and with the cops around,
but I have never seen anyone slow down when I have done that.

So your fellow motorists are too stupid to heed your warning?

And I'm not stupid enough to flash like mad either.

Flashing once wouldn't mean "danger".

If I give one long flash, they know I'm annoyed, and get out of the fast
lane etc.

Every single time you do that, eh ? Yeah, right.

Some arrogant ****s (nearly always in a BMW) know what I mean and stay
there and give me the finger. But they still knew what I meant.

And with those who did nothing, you have
no idea what they knew or didn't know.

I do by their actions.

That's what undertaking is for.

Pity its just another of your fantasys.

You think I don't undertake?

If someone annoys me, they get one long flash.

And they have no idea that you make that distinction.

Everybody does the same.

BULL****.

If I've left my full beam on, I get a long flash from people coming
the
other way.

BULL****. Even you hairy legged cross dressers arent that inbred.

You've never seen this?

I have never seen JUST a long flash.

Try driving with your full beam on and see what cars coming the other
way
do.

Been there, done that, don't JUST get a long flash.

What do you get then?

It varys. Some do give just one short flash.

That means hello.

Some put their lights on high beam until you lower yours.

That is the correct thing to do, it allows them to see properly until you correct your lights.

Some do nothing with their lights.

I had the same problem with a garage saler mate of mine.

I'm notorious for tearing around like my arse is on fire
so when he was driving along and I came up behind him,
he put his hand out the window and sort of waved it in the
air. He was trying to tell me that there were cops around
but I assumed he was telling me to overtake him, so I did
because it was a good place to overtake. Fortunately
there there was no cop there at the time.

The correct hand signal is to make an L shape with your thumb and
forefinger, to signify a radar gun.

There is no radar gun. The cops have full time radar with
cameras running full time whenever their car is in use.

Doesn't matter, the symbol is well known.

Never ever seen anyone ever do that. Can't be that well known.

On a motorbike you can tap your head.
http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2011/08/23...ing-your-head/

So you lied.

No.

More here, I particularly like the "I am Disappointed in Your Driving
Abilities"
http://www.bestbeginnermotorcycles.c...e-hand-signals

And I bet **** all know any of those.

I bet everyone knows that one above.

They usually check their lights are angled right.

Not when some naked loon with rabid blood shot
eyes and fleck of foam about the lips does it, they
just call the cops and have him frog marched off
to the loony bin where he belongs.

I did have someone chase me once.

No surprises there...

He was driving too slowly so I pulled in front of him out of a side
road.
He then thought it would be funny to overtake me and slow down, give
me
the finger, engage reverse at junctions etc.

I got the better of him though....

You're only allowed 3 dots.

Says who?

Me.

You have no authority in this matter.

Wrong, as always.

Show your documentation.

Don't need any, and don't you forget it.

Come here and say that.

so I just assume they must be indicating left or
flashing
their
lights
at me to go first and pull in front of them.

No surprises there.

I do not tolerate ****ty driving.

There is no driving involved in that situation.

The functionality of the vehicle is the responsibility
of
the
driver.

Nope, of the designer.

That too, but somehow they've got them allowed through,
so
it's
also
up
to
the driver to make sure that he drives safely, which
includes
not
dazzling
or distracting other drivers.

I'm not dazzled or distracted by them.

Then drive around with your full beam on all day.

I don't have the headlights on during the day.

Morons with newer cars do.

**** all do that here. Certainly some do.

They all do, because the cars are made like that.

We have newer cars on average than you lot do and
they don't all do that, even with european cars alone.

Only the few like me who would disconnect them have them off.

Wrong. **** all drive around with their headlights on during
the
day.

Every single car made since I think 2012 has them.

And we have plenty of those european cars.

Show me a photo of a European car in Australia that's brand new,
driving
without any lights.

Can't be bothered, I haven't bothered to setup a dashcam,

It doesn't have to be your own photo.

You're free to look for that yourself.

I know they don't exist.

You're wrong.

Then show me one.

Go and **** yourself.

You have admitted you have zero evidence for your assertion.

Nope, I say that whenever I feel like doing that.

If you demanded that I document my assertion that
Cameron is currently your PM, I would say the same thing.

That's because you're a lazy loafing couch potato.

essentially because its footage could well be used to shaft
me and I can't be arsed to organise dashcams that can't be
seen so I can use the footage when it suits me and say
about them when it would be used to shaft me.

If you crash and it's your fault, it doesn't take long to slip the
camera
into a bag.

But the other party may well see you doing that
and may well have noticed it during the crash too.

They are too small to notice,

Like hell they are.

Probably just think it's a satnav.

Nope, they look completely different.

Not a place you would be carefully looking at while trying to avoid
crashing.

But something you would look at carefully after the crash had happened
if you know you were not at a fault and don't have your own.

I'd not think of it as most people don't have them.

especially when you have more to think about like just having crashed.

That is the first thing anyone with even half a clue thinks about when
they know they arent at fault, whether it got caught on a dashcam.

Like I'm going to submit my own camera to prove I did it.

The cops will seize it when they show up to see who did it.

Only if they find it.

Which might just be why I made the original comment.

You must think that over 50% of accidents will be caused by you to not want a camera.

The camera will get smashed or the memory card will fall out.

Which will be all the evidence anyone needs that you did it.

The camera could easily get damaged in the crash.

Not when it was fine just after the crash and
was smashed by the time the cops showed up.

The cops only see the smashed version of the camera.

And it's also not an offence to use a camera with no memory card in it.

"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Sun, 22 May 2016 01:32:57 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 21 May 2016 07:26:42 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Fri, 20 May 2016 07:55:30 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Wed, 18 May 2016 06:28:40 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Tue, 17 May 2016 21:52:38 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 17/05/2016 11:40, Rod Speed wrote:


"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Mon, 16 May 2016 03:52:34 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Sat, 14 May 2016 04:51:14 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Fri, 13 May 2016 07:04:50 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



I see them fine without looking in the one direction for
ages.

You have to look that way for around half a cycle.

No you don't, that flashing registers even when you aren't
looking at that light directly,

Peripheral vision isn't that accurate.

Doesn't need to be accurate to register if it is flashing or
not.

and half a cycle isn't anything
even remotely like 'for ages' anyway with indicators.

Half a second.

Shorter than that.

Depends on the car.

There are **** all that flash at once a second.

The legal requirement is for a flash rate is that it is between
once
and
twice per second. Many are very close to once per second.

Why can't we have more precise laws for car design?

We can, but there wasn't any point when that particular law
was first done like that and that avoiding having to modify
all the cars on the roads that don't comply with your stupidity.

Twice a second exactly for indicators.

No point in exactly.

Headlight brightness that isn't a factor of 3 different between
models
of
car.

Even sillier.

Indicators which are as large and bright as neighbouring lights
(eg
brakes).

Mad with the as large.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=1226103

Just because some fool demands something...

It makes sense,

Like hell it does on the as large.

Bigger things are easier to see.

Yeah, that's why the EU is mandating that
the entire back of the car is lights now.

They seem to be making bigger and bigger brake lights,

And more of them too with a brake light in
the middle above the back window with some.

All, for the last 20 years.

Nope, plenty dont.

but the indicators are getting smaller.

I don't believe that and I have been looking more closely
at them when out driving since we started discussing this.

http://thumbsnap.com/i/T6O6Teaj.png?0522

Just because one is smaller says nothing about all of them.

and I don't se any sensible retorts from you.

That's because you have wanked yourself completely blind, boy.

Or because you don't bother making constructive replies.

We all swooned at yours.

Nobody reads conversations involving you.

How odd that so many reply to them.

Not many,

Hell of a lot more than bother with your ****.