Do *You* Hate Motorists? Take The Test

Daniel Barlow wrote:
thaksin writes:

Phil W Lee wrote:
thaksin considered Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:41:34
+0100 the perfect time to write:
Odds are _vanishingly_ small that it isn't legal, though. They can
_over-read_ by up to 10%, but _under-read_ by 0.
If, of course, you're still using the exact same dimension of tyre
that the car came with as standard.
Granted, but I'd bet that 99% of cars are thus shod.

A brief check of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations
1986 doesn't say anything about an exemption for cars with unusual tyre
sizes. I conclude therefore that the legal requirement for speedometer
accuracy holds nevertheless, and if you modify your car in this way it's
your responsibility to finish the job properly

That is _almost_ the case (and incidentally the reason why the speedo
for my 'new' Minor was custom-calibrated). But I don't think there's a
requirement for it. It's not tested at MOT time, anyway. When I moved
the Minor from one restorer to another 150 miles away I phoned the local
plodshop to check whether I could drive it since the speedo was still
away, and they were quite happy that I had a TomTom which I was using
for the job.

"Daniel Barlow" wrote in message
...
thaksin writes:

Phil W Lee wrote:
thaksin considered Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:41:34
+0100 the perfect time to write:
Odds are _vanishingly_ small that it isn't legal, though. They can
_over-read_ by up to 10%, but _under-read_ by 0.

If, of course, you're still using the exact same dimension of tyre
that the car came with as standard.

Granted, but I'd bet that 99% of cars are thus shod.

A brief check of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations
1986 doesn't say anything about an exemption for cars with unusual tyre
sizes. I conclude therefore that the legal requirement for speedometer
accuracy holds nevertheless, and if you modify your car in this way it's
your responsibility to finish the job properly

I'd be more concerned that my insurance would be voided by altering my
wheels from standard. I am on HR tyres and the spec is VR, so I am laying
myself open for an insurance problem.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

"Phil W Lee" phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote in message
...
"alan.holmes" considered Sat, 25 Apr
2009 19:28:44 +0100 the perfect time to write:


wrote in message
...
"A spokesman for the Cleveland Safety Camera Partnership said: "It is
the responsibility of the contractors and the Highways Agency for
signage during road works. All we can do is check that the signs are
in the right place when police officers are present at the scene."

What is a "safety camera"?

It is a device used to falsly accuse motorists of exceeding the speed
limit
and thus raise money for the government.

Alan

If you're that convinced you weren't speeding, maybe you should check
that your speedometer is legal.

Just as a demonstration that what I have written is correct, over the past
few years I have been accused of exceeding the speed limit nine times, the
first one I was stupid enough to pay, the second one was such a farce that
it bought home to me that these devices are not at all accurate, so each one
I asked to see the 'evidence five times I heard no more, of the others it
was not possible to assess the sped as one was a laser gun, which have been
recorded as being completely unreliable, one occasion I was sent a single
picture from a Gatso, clearly to hide the fact that that was not correct,
one went to court which again was a complete farce, it was referred twice,
on the second occasion I was asked what questions I would ask the police,
which I did not do, but asked for it to be referred to a crown court, the
CPS wrote to me saying there was not enough evidence to secure a prosecution
and I was offered compensation, on one occasion I asked how was the thing
calibrated, and the answer was that it was 'serviced' once a year!

My experience show that these devices should be removed until they are set
up correctly.

Alan

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:38:53 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:29:09 +0100, chris French
wrote:

Doesn't much help Killfiling Nuxy and co if people keep responding to
him/her.

As long as the nuxxious emissions are appropriately trimmed I don't
care overmuch if people respond, but I do find it wearing when people
quote all of one of his rants just to tell him he's a loathsome
brainless trolling ****tard, as if we didn't already know that.

think I need to add 'Motorist' in the subject line to it as well

That's a good idea, I must try that.

Guy

Hello Guy - keeping things on the boil I see.

Snipper Smith is not going to be best pleased is he?

How's the kids?

Still wearing cycle helmets?

I really can't understand that - how can you let them wear such
dangerous things?

If they came off their bike and the helmet contributed to their death,
then I guess that you would be held to be responsible as you knew they
were dicing with death by wearing them.

What's the missus say about it?

--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I pointed out the web page
He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for
years.

In message , "Just zis Guy,
you know?" writes
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:29:09 +0100, chris French
wrote:

Doesn't much help Killfiling Nuxy and co if people keep responding to
him/her.

As long as the nuxxious emissions are appropriately trimmed I don't
care overmuch if people respond, but I do find it wearing when people
quote all of one of his rants just to tell him he's a loathsome
brainless trolling ****tard, as if we didn't already know that.

Yeah, but replying to them when they start a thread sometimes lures me
into reading it.....
--
Chris French

wrote:
On 25 Apr, 21:59, "Adam Lea" wrote:
wrote:
On 25 Apr, 19:30, "alan.holmes" wrote:
wrote in message

Was she silly enough to pay the fine, or did she ask to see the
'evidence'?

She admitted she was doing 40 mph in a 30 mph zone outside of a
school and since she had no money *I* was silly enough to pay the
fine!

I hope she took you out to a meal (or something similar) as
compensation.

She couldn't pay her speeding fine, so where was she going to find the
money to buy a meal from?

Oh, I thought you meant she didn't have any money at that time, so she could
buy you a meal when she did have some money.

If you are bailing her out when she gets a fine where is the incentive for
her to learn from her mistakes?

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:19:56 +0100, "alan.holmes"
wrote:

snip

My experience show that these devices should be removed until they are set
up correctly.

Alan


So just to be sure, is that nine accusations, 1 guilty (by choice) and
8 dropped or not guilty?


--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

"Adam Lea" wrote in message news:EM6dnRpGDc-

I hope she took you out to a meal (or something similar) as
compensation.

She couldn't pay her speeding fine, so where was she going to find the
money to buy a meal from?

Oh, I thought you meant she didn't have any money at that time, so she
could buy you a meal when she did have some money.


She was in between jobs at the time and had no money of her own.


If you are bailing her out when she gets a fine where is the incentive for
her to learn from her mistakes?

She now has a job 4 miles away to which she drives. Her incentive is that if
she lost her licence she'd have to to *cycle* there.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

Simon Mason wrote:
"Adam Lea" wrote in message news:EM6dnRpGDc-

I hope she took you out to a meal (or something similar) as
compensation.

She couldn't pay her speeding fine, so where was she going to find
the money to buy a meal from?

Oh, I thought you meant she didn't have any money at that time, so
she could buy you a meal when she did have some money.


She was in between jobs at the time and had no money of her own.


If you are bailing her out when she gets a fine where is the
incentive for her to learn from her mistakes?

She now has a job 4 miles away to which she drives. Her incentive is
that if she lost her licence she'd have to to *cycle* there.

I take it that she is not a cycling enthusiast then :-)

"Judith Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:19:56 +0100, "alan.holmes"
wrote:

snip

My experience show that these devices should be removed until they are set
up correctly.

Alan


So just to be sure, is that nine accusations, 1 guilty (by choice) and
8 dropped or not guilty?

I assumed, in the first instance, that the devices were reliable, so I took
it that I had exceeded the speed limit, I have no idea whether I was guilty
of exceeding the speed limit on the others, but the fact they were dropped,
makes me feel I was not guilty, as are probably most people trapped by these
things.

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary
position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to
obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

This is safest, as you will then avoid the potholes and sunken drains which
will throw you of yuor bike onto the road and possibly kill you!

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the
Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

But if you let them pass they will invariably push you off the road!

Alan