Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'

"Rob Morley" wrote ...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:55:48 -0000
"A.Dazzle" wrote:

"Rob Morley" wrote...

snips
I've been using my real
name and email address on Usenet for 10 years and nothing bad has
happened.

But that's your choice, isn't it?
If someone has obviously decided otherwise, you see nothing wrong
in putting their details in a public forum?
You see nothing wrong in putting information obtained via the
feedback email on his Foundation website in the public domain?

I didn't comment on that,
And you still didn't.

I don't have any mission, either 'get Chapman' or get anyone else.
And I don't belong to any clique or claque.
And, like you, I do use my own name in other forums.

To my mind, both of these actions are wrong.
But YMMV and obviously does.

--
A. Dazzle.

"Matt B" wrote

For one thing traditional American SUVs are not necessarily four-wheel
drive. Additionally, being *utility* vehicles based on ancient
commercial-vehicle rear-wheel-drive cart-spring chassis, they do not have
to comply with all the recent safety regulations now associated with
"normal" passenger cars. They will be built to take knocks, will be
equipped with _functional_ (not cosmetic) bull bars, and will /not/ be
expected to crumple.

OTOH, modern European 4x4s, such as the Range Rover, are generally
"luxury" passenger cars (not "utility" vehicles), /are/ four-wheel drive,
are monocoque, will have in-built traction-control, stability-control and
ABS, and /do/ have to comply with safety regulations,

....none of which makes the slightest bit of difference to a pedestrian.

including those to do with crumple zones and pedestrian safety, and are
subject to NCAP testing.

What part of a Range Rover do you think would crumple under a pedestrian?

"Dave Larrington" wrote

If a Range Rover was not designed with off-road performance in mind, do
you
*really* think they'd go to all the trouble and expense of fitting a
permanent
four-wheel drive system, Terrain Response® (which "optimises the settings
for gearbox, throttle, air suspension and traction control to suit tarmac,
sand, snow, mud, boulders and more", by the way), air suspension with, and
I quote,
"height settings for extreme off-road use", electronic centre
differential,
etc. etc. They don't design that sort of stuff into Jaguars or the
Mercedes-Benz S class.

It's so the owners can buy a warm fuzzy feeling.
Manufacturers "go to all the trouble and expense of fitting" things
because they believe they can make a profit out of it.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:31:59 +0000, Phil W Lee
phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:

"DavidR" considered Wed, 11 Feb 2009
23:00:57 -0000 the perfect time to write:

"Matt B" wrote

For one thing traditional American SUVs are not necessarily four-wheel
drive. Additionally, being *utility* vehicles based on ancient
commercial-vehicle rear-wheel-drive cart-spring chassis, they do not have
to comply with all the recent safety regulations now associated with
"normal" passenger cars. They will be built to take knocks, will be
equipped with _functional_ (not cosmetic) bull bars, and will /not/ be
expected to crumple.

OTOH, modern European 4x4s, such as the Range Rover, are generally
"luxury" passenger cars (not "utility" vehicles), /are/ four-wheel drive,
are monocoque, will have in-built traction-control, stability-control and
ABS, and /do/ have to comply with safety regulations,

...none of which makes the slightest bit of difference to a pedestrian.

including those to do with crumple zones and pedestrian safety, and are
subject to NCAP testing.

What part of a Range Rover do you think would crumple under a pedestrian?


The driver, but you have to time it right


Hello - it's Anchor Lee.

How's the legal training coming along?

judith

--
If you find 2 abreast cyclists more obstructive than single file ones,
you must have been intending to pass dangerously close anyway.
(Anchor Lee)