Are reverse light a legal requirement ?

Also if you had a bust light (reverse) say on your mot would it fail ?

Thanks

Maxi  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

> Are reverse light a legal requirement ?

No.

> Also if you had a bust light (reverse) say on your mot would it fail ?

No.
www.motuk.co.uk

Adrian wrote:
> Maxi  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
> 
>> Are reverse light a legal requirement ?
> 
> No.

Hmm ok. Great. So this copper pulled me over when I finished parking 
well already pulled me over and said "your lucky I don't ticket you for 
the broken reverse light" ... I was sure it isn't a legal requirement 
but he was a jobsworth arse so said thanks and I'll fix it now, had a 
spare. He fked off. Guess he was just being stupid.

>> Also if you had a bust light (reverse) say on your mot would it fail ?
> 
> No.
> www.motuk.co.uk

Great I thought I read that on there some time ago. Just got me thinking 
about vehicle lighting, sad I am.

"Maxi"  wrote in message news:g6a5o0$un4$1@aioe.org...
> Adrian wrote:
>> Maxi  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>
>>> Are reverse light a legal requirement ?
>>
>> No.
>
> Hmm ok. Great. So this copper pulled me over when I finished parking well 
> already pulled me over and said "your lucky I don't ticket you for the 
> broken reverse light" ... I was sure it isn't a legal requirement but he 
> was a jobsworth arse so said thanks and I'll fix it now, had a spare. He 
> fked off. Guess he was just being stupid.
>
>>> Also if you had a bust light (reverse) say on your mot would it fail ?
>>
>> No.
>> www.motuk.co.uk
>
> Great I thought I read that on there some time ago. Just got me thinking 
> about vehicle lighting, sad I am.

Is it a case of, if the vehicle has one fitted it must work.  i.e. a car 
manufactured without one (ye olde ones) are not breaking the law, but a 
newer car with a faulty reversing light is?

Maxi wrote:
> Adrian wrote:
>> Maxi  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>
>>> Are reverse light a legal requirement ?
>>
>> No.
> 
> Hmm ok. Great. So this copper pulled me over when I finished parking 
> well already pulled me over and said "your lucky I don't ticket you for 
> the broken reverse light" ... I was sure it isn't a legal requirement 
> but he was a jobsworth arse so said thanks and I'll fix it now, had a 
> spare. He fked off. Guess he was just being stupid.

Sounds like you're a pikey with a pikey car, and a pikey attitude to 
match. He probably just wanted to pick on a pikey; this is understandable.

Silk wrote:
> Maxi wrote:
>> Adrian wrote:
>>> Maxi  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>>
>>>> Are reverse light a legal requirement ?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> Hmm ok. Great. So this copper pulled me over when I finished parking 
>> well already pulled me over and said "your lucky I don't ticket you 
>> for the broken reverse light" ... I was sure it isn't a legal 
>> requirement but he was a jobsworth arse so said thanks and I'll fix it 
>> now, had a spare. He fked off. Guess he was just being stupid.
> 
> Sounds like you're a pikey with a pikey car, and a pikey attitude to 
> match. He probably just wanted to pick on a pikey; this is understandable.

You a funny twirp Silk.

Why do you post silk no one here likes you.

Run along and go play in the traffic boy.

Maxi wrote:
> Silk wrote:
>> Maxi wrote:
>>> Adrian wrote:
>>>> Maxi  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were 
>>>> saying:
>>>>
>>>>> Are reverse light a legal requirement ?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> Hmm ok. Great. So this copper pulled me over when I finished parking 
>>> well already pulled me over and said "your lucky I don't ticket you 
>>> for the broken reverse light" ... I was sure it isn't a legal 
>>> requirement but he was a jobsworth arse so said thanks and I'll fix 
>>> it now, had a spare. He fked off. Guess he was just being stupid.
>>
>> Sounds like you're a pikey with a pikey car, and a pikey attitude to 
>> match. He probably just wanted to pick on a pikey; this is 
>> understandable.
> 
> You a funny twirp Silk.
> 
> Why do you post silk no one here likes you.
> 
> Run along and go play in the traffic boy.

I rest my case.

Silk wrote:
> Maxi wrote:
>> Silk wrote:
>>> Maxi wrote:
>>>> Adrian wrote:
>>>>> Maxi  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were 
>>>>> saying:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are reverse light a legal requirement ?
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm ok. Great. So this copper pulled me over when I finished parking 
>>>> well already pulled me over and said "your lucky I don't ticket you 
>>>> for the broken reverse light" ... I was sure it isn't a legal 
>>>> requirement but he was a jobsworth arse so said thanks and I'll fix 
>>>> it now, had a spare. He fked off. Guess he was just being stupid.
>>>
>>> Sounds like you're a pikey with a pikey car, and a pikey attitude to 
>>> match. He probably just wanted to pick on a pikey; this is 
>>> understandable.
>>
>> You a funny twirp Silk.
>>
>> Why do you post silk no one here likes you.
>>
>> Run along and go play in the traffic boy.
> 
> I rest my case.

knob head :)

In article <g6a6v1$547$1@aioe.org>, slider@slide.com says...
> Is it a case of, if the vehicle has one fitted it must work.  i.e. a car 
> manufactured without one (ye olde ones) are not breaking the law, but a 
> newer car with a faulty reversing light is?
> 
Nope, my old Saab 900 passed with a non functional reverse light.
Construction and use requires it, MOT doesn't

It was just a switch, so it was fixed next time I was down the scrappy 
for something else.
-- 
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases
Topcashback http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
Greasypalm http://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553

Maxi wrote:

> knob head :)

Sentences should start with a capital letter and end with a full stop.

Elder  gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

> Construction and use requires it

I don't think it does. It certainly didn't as late as 1990, at least.

If there IS a reversing light, it must be either automatically 
illuminated only in reverse gear, or there be an interior warning light, 
but I don't think there's a requirement.

Can't think of any new car without one, mind.

Silk  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> Maxi wrote:

>> knob head :)

> Sentences should start with a capital letter and end with a full stop.

Nah, he's just missing a sigsep.

Silk wrote:
> Maxi wrote:
> 
>> knob head :)
> 
> Sentences should start with a capital letter and end with a full stop.

Knob head. :)

"Maxi"  wrote in message news:g6a4d0$pee$1@aioe.org...
> Are reverse light a legal requirement ?
>
> Also if you had a bust light (reverse) say on your mot would it fail ?
>
> Thanks

If your car has a reversing light, it must work.

But, it isn't checked in an MoT test.

In article , toomany2cvs@gmail.com 
says...
> Elder  gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying:
> 
> > Construction and use requires it
> 
> I don't think it does. It certainly didn't as late as 1990, at least.
> 
> If there IS a reversing light, it must be either automatically 
> illuminated only in reverse gear, or there be an interior warning light, 
> but I don't think there's a requirement.
> 
> Can't think of any new car without one, mind.
> 
Ah right, I thought it was one of those things they had to fit to new 
cars since year XXXX type things.
-- 
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases
Topcashback http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
Greasypalm http://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:33:35 +0100, Adrian  wrote:

> Elder  gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying:
>
>> Construction and use requires it
>
> I don't think it does. It certainly didn't as late as 1990, at least.
>
> If there IS a reversing light, it must be either automatically
> illuminated only in reverse gear, or there be an interior warning light,
> but I don't think there's a requirement.
>
> Can't think of any new car without one, mind.

What irritates me is cars that reverse on one side only....

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

Never play leapfrog with a unicorn!

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:04:58 +0100, Maxi  wrote:

> Silk wrote:
>> Maxi wrote:
>>
>>> knob head :)
>>  Sentences should start with a capital letter and end with a full stop.
>
> Knob head. :)

What has the top of the gear lever to do with it?

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

What do you call it when a blonde drives down the street with her head out  
the window?
Refueling.

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 19:55:43 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:33:35 +0100, Adrian  wrote:
>
>> Elder  gurgled happily, sounding much
>> like they were saying:
>>
>>> Construction and use requires it
>>
>> I don't think it does. It certainly didn't as late as 1990, at least.
>>
>> If there IS a reversing light, it must be either automatically
>> illuminated only in reverse gear, or there be an interior warning light,
>> but I don't think there's a requirement.
>>
>> Can't think of any new car without one, mind.
>
>What irritates me is cars that reverse on one side only....

You mean half the car is reversing and the other half isn't?

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 06:27:36 +0100, Graz  wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 19:55:43 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:33:35 +0100, Adrian   
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Elder  gurgled happily, sounding much
>>> like they were saying:
>>>
>>>> Construction and use requires it
>>>
>>> I don't think it does. It certainly didn't as late as 1990, at least.
>>>
>>> If there IS a reversing light, it must be either automatically
>>> illuminated only in reverse gear, or there be an interior warning  
>>> light,
>>> but I don't think there's a requirement.
>>>
>>> Can't think of any new car without one, mind.
>>
>> What irritates me is cars that reverse on one side only....
>
> You mean half the car is reversing and the other half isn't?

According to the lights (light) this is the case.  The other side is foggy.

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

A guy was playing golf at some fancy club, and just as he was
about to tee off , a cart drives up.  These two guys get out and
hand him a note saying, "We are deaf, may we play
through?"

The guy says, "Hell no!", and tees off anyway.

Later on (after six shots), he is on the green about to putt when
a ball comes from out of nowhere and misses his head by an
inch.  "What the @#$%^&*?",  he yells.

The deaf guys drive up and hand him a note.  On the note is
written, "FORE".

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:49:39 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 06:27:36 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 19:55:43 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:33:35 +0100, Adrian   
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Elder  gurgled happily, sounding much
>>>> like they were saying:
>>>>
>>>>> Construction and use requires it
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it does. It certainly didn't as late as 1990, at least.
>>>>
>>>> If there IS a reversing light, it must be either automatically
>>>> illuminated only in reverse gear, or there be an interior warning  
>>>> light,
>>>> but I don't think there's a requirement.
>>>>
>>>> Can't think of any new car without one, mind.
>>>
>>> What irritates me is cars that reverse on one side only....
>>
>> You mean half the car is reversing and the other half isn't?
>
>According to the lights (light) this is the case.  The other side is foggy.

I think you can safely assume that both sides of the car are reversing
simultaneously.

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:01:58 +0100, Graz  wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:49:39 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 06:27:36 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 19:55:43 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:33:35 +0100, Adrian 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Elder  gurgled happily, sounding  
>>>>> much
>>>>> like they were saying:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Construction and use requires it
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think it does. It certainly didn't as late as 1990, at least.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there IS a reversing light, it must be either automatically
>>>>> illuminated only in reverse gear, or there be an interior warning
>>>>> light,
>>>>> but I don't think there's a requirement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't think of any new car without one, mind.
>>>>
>>>> What irritates me is cars that reverse on one side only....
>>>
>>> You mean half the car is reversing and the other half isn't?
>>
>> According to the lights (light) this is the case.  The other side is  
>> foggy.
>
> I think you can safely assume that both sides of the car are reversing
> simultaneously.

That depends on the amount of black ice and/or the person driving at the  
time.

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

If quizzes are quizzical, what are tests?

On 25 Jul, 20:42, Elder  wrote:
> In article , toomany2...@gmail.com
> says...> Elder  gurgled happily, sounding much
> > like they were saying:
>
> > > Construction and use requires it
>
> > I don't think it does. It certainly didn't as late as 1990, at least.
>
> > If there IS a reversing light, it must be either automatically
> > illuminated only in reverse gear, or there be an interior warning light,
> > but I don't think there's a requirement.
>
> > Can't think of any new car without one, mind.
>
> Ah right, I thought it was one of those things they had to fit to new
> cars since year XXXX type things.
> --
> Carl Robson
> Get cashback on your purchases
> Topcashbackhttp://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
> Greasypalmhttp://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553

Austin Metro reversing lights (1980)
When the Metro was launched, the basic version did not get reversing
lights - you had to buy the more expensive model to enjoy safe
reversing in the dark. However, it was much simpler to have only one
wiring harness and one set of rear lights for all models. So the base
models had reversing lights - but the little 5p bulbs were not fitted.
Some enterprising garages offered to fit them while the car was in for
servicing - at rather more than 5p.

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:40:51 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:01:58 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:49:39 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 06:27:36 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 19:55:43 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:33:35 +0100, Adrian 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Elder  gurgled happily, sounding  
>>>>>> much
>>>>>> like they were saying:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Construction and use requires it
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think it does. It certainly didn't as late as 1990, at least.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there IS a reversing light, it must be either automatically
>>>>>> illuminated only in reverse gear, or there be an interior warning
>>>>>> light,
>>>>>> but I don't think there's a requirement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can't think of any new car without one, mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> What irritates me is cars that reverse on one side only....
>>>>
>>>> You mean half the car is reversing and the other half isn't?
>>>
>>> According to the lights (light) this is the case.  The other side is  
>>> foggy.
>>
>> I think you can safely assume that both sides of the car are reversing
>> simultaneously.
>
>That depends on the amount of black ice and/or the person driving at the  
>time.

Reversing on black ice is usually unintentional and not in reverse
gear, therefore displaying no reversing lights.

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 08:15:13 +0100, Graz  wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:40:51 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:01:58 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:49:39 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 06:27:36 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 19:55:43 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:33:35 +0100, Adrian 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Elder  gurgled happily, sounding
>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>> like they were saying:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Construction and use requires it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think it does. It certainly didn't as late as 1990, at  
>>>>>>> least.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there IS a reversing light, it must be either automatically
>>>>>>> illuminated only in reverse gear, or there be an interior warning
>>>>>>> light,
>>>>>>> but I don't think there's a requirement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can't think of any new car without one, mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What irritates me is cars that reverse on one side only....
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean half the car is reversing and the other half isn't?
>>>>
>>>> According to the lights (light) this is the case.  The other side is
>>>> foggy.
>>>
>>> I think you can safely assume that both sides of the car are reversing
>>> simultaneously.
>>
>> That depends on the amount of black ice and/or the person driving at the
>> time.
>
> Reversing on black ice is usually unintentional and not in reverse
> gear, therefore displaying no reversing lights.

Not sure if you meant it, but this caused me to have hysterical laughter.

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

Old Lady - "What is that funny looking thing over there?"
Zoo Keeper - "That's a kangaroo, madam. a native of Australia,"
Old Lady - "Oh, my god!  My sister married one of them!"

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:14:44 퍝, baggy1963  wrote:

> On 25 Jul, 20:42, Elder  wrote:
>> In article , toomany2...@gmail.com>> says...> Elder  gurgled happily, sounding much
>> > like they were saying:
>>
>> > > Construction and use requires it
>>
>> > I don't think it does. It certainly didn't as late as 1990, at least.
>>
>> > If there IS a reversing light, it must be either automatically
>> > illuminated only in reverse gear, or there be an interior warning light,
>> > but I don't think there's a requirement.
>>
>> > Can't think of any new car without one, mind.
>>
>> Ah right, I thought it was one of those things they had to fit to new>> cars since year XXXX type things.
>> --
>> Carl Robson
>> Get cashback on your purchases
>> Topcashbackhttp://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
>> Greasypalmhttp://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553
>
> Austin Metro reversing lights (1980)
> When the Metro was launched, the basic version did not get reversing
> lights - you had to buy the more expensive model to enjoy safe
> reversing in the dark. However, it was much simpler to have only one
> wiring harness and one set of rear lights for all models. So the base
> models had reversing lights - but the little 5p bulbs were not fitted.> Some enterprising garages offered to fit them while the car was in for> servicing - at rather more than 5p.

Reverse lights are not bright enough to light your way.  When I had to reverse down a lane in the pitch black, I drove with brake, fog, and hazard lights on so I could see!

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

It's an age-old truism.  Men will quickly fall asleep after having sex.
And I know why, too.
It's because they've been up half the night begging for it.

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:33:01 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:14:44 +0100, baggy1963  w=
>rote:
>
>> On 25 Jul, 20:42, Elder  wrote:
>>> In article , toomany2...@gmail.com=
>
>>> says...> Elder  gurgled happily, sou=
>nding much
>>> > like they were saying:
>>>
>>> > > Construction and use requires it
>>>
>>> > I don't think it does. It certainly didn't as late as 1990, at leas=
>t.
>>>
>>> > If there IS a reversing light, it must be either automatically
>>> > illuminated only in reverse gear, or there be an interior warning l=
>ight,
>>> > but I don't think there's a requirement.
>>>
>>> > Can't think of any new car without one, mind.
>>>
>>> Ah right, I thought it was one of those things they had to fit to new=
>
>>> cars since year XXXX type things.
>>> --
>>> Carl Robson
>>> Get cashback on your purchases
>>> Topcashbackhttp://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
>>> Greasypalmhttp://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=3D1006553
>>
>> Austin Metro reversing lights (1980)
>> When the Metro was launched, the basic version did not get reversing
>> lights - you had to buy the more expensive model to enjoy safe
>> reversing in the dark. However, it was much simpler to have only one
>> wiring harness and one set of rear lights for all models. So the base
>> models had reversing lights - but the little 5p bulbs were not fitted.=
>
>> Some enterprising garages offered to fit them while the car was in for=
>
>> servicing - at rather more than 5p.
>
>Reverse lights are not bright enough to light your way.  When I had to r=
>everse down a lane in the pitch black, I drove with brake, fog, and haza=
>rd lights on so I could see!

Wouldn't it have been easier to turn round and drive forwards?

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:39:42 퍝, Graz  wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:33:01 퍝, "Peter Hucker" 
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:14:44 퍝, baggy1963  w=
>> rote:
>>
>>> On 25 Jul, 20:42, Elder  wrote:
>>>> In article , toomany2...@gmail.com=
>>
>>>> says...> Elder  gurgled happily, sou=
>> nding much
>>>> > like they were saying:
>>>>
>>>> > > Construction and use requires it
>>>>
>>>> > I don't think it does. It certainly didn't as late as 1990, at leas=
>> t.
>>>>
>>>> > If there IS a reversing light, it must be either automatically
>>>> > illuminated only in reverse gear, or there be an interior warning l=
>> ight,
>>>> > but I don't think there's a requirement.
>>>>
>>>> > Can't think of any new car without one, mind.
>>>>
>>>> Ah right, I thought it was one of those things they had to fit to new=
>>
>>>> cars since year XXXX type things.
>>>> --
>>>> Carl Robson
>>>> Get cashback on your purchases
>>>> Topcashbackhttp://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
>>>> Greasypalmhttp://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=3D1006553
>>>
>>> Austin Metro reversing lights (1980)
>>> When the Metro was launched, the basic version did not get reversing>>> lights - you had to buy the more expensive model to enjoy safe
>>> reversing in the dark. However, it was much simpler to have only one>>> wiring harness and one set of rear lights for all models. So the base
>>> models had reversing lights - but the little 5p bulbs were not fitted.=
>>
>>> Some enterprising garages offered to fit them while the car was in for=
>>
>>> servicing - at rather more than 5p.
>>
>> Reverse lights are not bright enough to light your way.  When I had to r=
>> everse down a lane in the pitch black, I drove with brake, fog, and haza=
>> rd lights on so I could see!
>
> Wouldn't it have been easier to turn round and drive forwards?

It was a narrow lane in the middle of nowhere (for the purposes of sex), and there was no way to turn round.

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

When eating a tongue sandwich, how do you know when you've finished?

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:48:44 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:39:42 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:33:01 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:14:44 +0100, baggy1963 <stephenb91@hotmail.com=
>> w=3D
>>> rote:
>>>
>>>> On 25 Jul, 20:42, Elder  wrote:
>>>>> In article , toomany2...@gmail.c=
>om=3D
>>>
>>>>> says...> Elder  gurgled happily, s=
>ou=3D
>>> nding much
>>>>> > like they were saying:
>>>>>
>>>>> > > Construction and use requires it
>>>>>
>>>>> > I don't think it does. It certainly didn't as late as 1990, at le=
>as=3D
>>> t.
>>>>>
>>>>> > If there IS a reversing light, it must be either automatically
>>>>> > illuminated only in reverse gear, or there be an interior warning=
> l=3D
>>> ight,
>>>>> > but I don't think there's a requirement.
>>>>>
>>>>> > Can't think of any new car without one, mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah right, I thought it was one of those things they had to fit to n=
>ew=3D
>>>
>>>>> cars since year XXXX type things.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Carl Robson
>>>>> Get cashback on your purchases
>>>>> Topcashbackhttp://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
>>>>> Greasypalmhttp://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=3D3D1006553
>>>>
>>>> Austin Metro reversing lights (1980)
>>>> When the Metro was launched, the basic version did not get reversing=
>
>>>> lights - you had to buy the more expensive model to enjoy safe
>>>> reversing in the dark. However, it was much simpler to have only one=
>
>>>> wiring harness and one set of rear lights for all models. So the bas=
>e
>>>> models had reversing lights - but the little 5p bulbs were not fitte=
>d.=3D
>>>
>>>> Some enterprising garages offered to fit them while the car was in f=
>or=3D
>>>
>>>> servicing - at rather more than 5p.
>>>
>>> Reverse lights are not bright enough to light your way.  When I had t=
>o r=3D
>>> everse down a lane in the pitch black, I drove with brake, fog, and h=
>aza=3D
>>> rd lights on so I could see!
>>
>> Wouldn't it have been easier to turn round and drive forwards?
>
>It was a narrow lane in the middle of nowhere (for the purposes of sex),=
> and there was no way to turn round.

Wouldn't it then have been easier to reverse in while it was still
light?

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 21:19:00 퍝, Graz  wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:48:44 퍝, "Peter Hucker" 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:39:42 퍝, Graz  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:33:01 퍝, "Peter Hucker" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:14:44 퍝, baggy1963 <stephenb91@hotmail.com=
>>> w=3D
>>>> rote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 25 Jul, 20:42, Elder  wrote:
>>>>>> In article , toomany2...@gmail.c=
>> om=3D
>>>>
>>>>>> says...> Elder  gurgled happily, s=
>> ou=3D
>>>> nding much
>>>>>> > like they were saying:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > > Construction and use requires it
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > I don't think it does. It certainly didn't as late as 1990, at le=
>> as=3D
>>>> t.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > If there IS a reversing light, it must be either automatically
>>>>>> > illuminated only in reverse gear, or there be an interior warning=
>> l=3D
>>>> ight,
>>>>>> > but I don't think there's a requirement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Can't think of any new car without one, mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah right, I thought it was one of those things they had to fit to n=
>> ew=3D
>>>>
>>>>>> cars since year XXXX type things.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Carl Robson
>>>>>> Get cashback on your purchases
>>>>>> Topcashbackhttp://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
>>>>>> Greasypalmhttp://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=3D3D1006553
>>>>>
>>>>> Austin Metro reversing lights (1980)
>>>>> When the Metro was launched, the basic version did not get reversing=
>>
>>>>> lights - you had to buy the more expensive model to enjoy safe
>>>>> reversing in the dark. However, it was much simpler to have only one=
>>
>>>>> wiring harness and one set of rear lights for all models. So the bas=
>> e
>>>>> models had reversing lights - but the little 5p bulbs were not fitte=
>> d.=3D
>>>>
>>>>> Some enterprising garages offered to fit them while the car was in f=
>> or=3D
>>>>
>>>>> servicing - at rather more than 5p.
>>>>
>>>> Reverse lights are not bright enough to light your way.  When I had t=
>> o r=3D
>>>> everse down a lane in the pitch black, I drove with brake, fog, and h=
>> aza=3D
>>>> rd lights on so I could see!
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it have been easier to turn round and drive forwards?
>>
>> It was a narrow lane in the middle of nowhere (for the purposes of sex),=
>> and there was no way to turn round.
>
> Wouldn't it then have been easier to reverse in while it was still
> light?

It was dark when we got there.  I did not realise it was a dead end.

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

A guy says, "I remember the first time I used alcohol as a substitute for women."
"Yeah what happened?" asked the other.
The first guy replies, "Well, I got my penis stuck in the neck of the bottle."

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:37:26 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 21:19:00 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:48:44 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:39:42 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:33:01 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:14:44 +0100, baggy1963 <stephenb91@hotmail.c=
>om=3D
>>>> w=3D3D
>>>>> rote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25 Jul, 20:42, Elder  wrote:
>>>>>>> In article , toomany2...@gmail=
>.c=3D
>>> om=3D3D
>>>>>
>>>>>>> says...> Elder  gurgled happily,=
> s=3D
>>> ou=3D3D
>>>>> nding much
>>>>>>> > like they were saying:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > > Construction and use requires it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > I don't think it does. It certainly didn't as late as 1990, at =
>le=3D
>>> as=3D3D
>>>>> t.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > If there IS a reversing light, it must be either automatically
>>>>>>> > illuminated only in reverse gear, or there be an interior warni=
>ng=3D
>>> l=3D3D
>>>>> ight,
>>>>>>> > but I don't think there's a requirement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Can't think of any new car without one, mind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah right, I thought it was one of those things they had to fit to=
> n=3D
>>> ew=3D3D
>>>>>
>>>>>>> cars since year XXXX type things.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Carl Robson
>>>>>>> Get cashback on your purchases
>>>>>>> Topcashbackhttp://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
>>>>>>> Greasypalmhttp://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=3D3D3D1006553
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Austin Metro reversing lights (1980)
>>>>>> When the Metro was launched, the basic version did not get reversi=
>ng=3D
>>>
>>>>>> lights - you had to buy the more expensive model to enjoy safe
>>>>>> reversing in the dark. However, it was much simpler to have only o=
>ne=3D
>>>
>>>>>> wiring harness and one set of rear lights for all models. So the b=
>as=3D
>>> e
>>>>>> models had reversing lights - but the little 5p bulbs were not fit=
>te=3D
>>> d.=3D3D
>>>>>
>>>>>> Some enterprising garages offered to fit them while the car was in=
> f=3D
>>> or=3D3D
>>>>>
>>>>>> servicing - at rather more than 5p.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reverse lights are not bright enough to light your way.  When I had=
> t=3D
>>> o r=3D3D
>>>>> everse down a lane in the pitch black, I drove with brake, fog, and=
> h=3D
>>> aza=3D3D
>>>>> rd lights on so I could see!
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't it have been easier to turn round and drive forwards?
>>>
>>> It was a narrow lane in the middle of nowhere (for the purposes of se=
>x),=3D
>>> and there was no way to turn round.
>>
>> Wouldn't it then have been easier to reverse in while it was still
>> light?
>
>It was dark when we got there.  I did not realise it was a dead end.

Suppose someone else had wanted to go there?

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:13:49 퍝, Graz  wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:37:26 퍝, "Peter Hucker" 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 21:19:00 퍝, Graz  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:48:44 퍝, "Peter Hucker" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:39:42 퍝, Graz  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:33:01 퍝, "Peter Hucker" >>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:14:44 퍝, baggy1963 <stephenb91@hotmail.c=
>> om=3D
>>>>> w=3D3D
>>>>>> rote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 25 Jul, 20:42, Elder  wrote:>>>>>>>> In article , toomany2...@gmail=
>> .c=3D
>>>> om=3D3D
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> says...> Elder  gurgled happily,=
>> s=3D
>>>> ou=3D3D
>>>>>> nding much
>>>>>>>> > like they were saying:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > > Construction and use requires it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > I don't think it does. It certainly didn't as late as 1990, at =
>> le=3D
>>>> as=3D3D
>>>>>> t.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > If there IS a reversing light, it must be either automatically
>>>>>>>> > illuminated only in reverse gear, or there be an interior warni=
>> ng=3D
>>>> l=3D3D
>>>>>> ight,
>>>>>>>> > but I don't think there's a requirement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > Can't think of any new car without one, mind.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ah right, I thought it was one of those things they had to fit to=
>> n=3D
>>>> ew=3D3D
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> cars since year XXXX type things.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Carl Robson
>>>>>>>> Get cashback on your purchases
>>>>>>>> Topcashbackhttp://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
>>>>>>>> Greasypalmhttp://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=3D3D3D1006553
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Austin Metro reversing lights (1980)
>>>>>>> When the Metro was launched, the basic version did not get reversi=
>> ng=3D
>>>>
>>>>>>> lights - you had to buy the more expensive model to enjoy safe
>>>>>>> reversing in the dark. However, it was much simpler to have only o=
>> ne=3D
>>>>
>>>>>>> wiring harness and one set of rear lights for all models. So the b=
>> as=3D
>>>> e
>>>>>>> models had reversing lights - but the little 5p bulbs were not fit=
>> te=3D
>>>> d.=3D3D
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some enterprising garages offered to fit them while the car was in=
>> f=3D
>>>> or=3D3D
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> servicing - at rather more than 5p.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reverse lights are not bright enough to light your way.  When I had=
>> t=3D
>>>> o r=3D3D
>>>>>> everse down a lane in the pitch black, I drove with brake, fog, and=
>> h=3D
>>>> aza=3D3D
>>>>>> rd lights on so I could see!
>>>>>
>>>>> Wouldn't it have been easier to turn round and drive forwards?
>>>>
>>>> It was a narrow lane in the middle of nowhere (for the purposes of se=
>> x),=3D
>>>> and there was no way to turn round.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it then have been easier to reverse in while it was still
>>> light?
>>
>> It was dark when we got there.  I did not realise it was a dead end.
>
> Suppose someone else had wanted to go there?

There would have been a threesome or more.

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

The 2 most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:18:11 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:13:49 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:37:26 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 21:19:00 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:48:44 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:39:42 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:33:01 +0100, "Peter Hucker" =
>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:14:44 +0100, baggy1963 <stephenb91@hotmail=
>.c=3D
>>> om=3D3D
>>>>>> w=3D3D3D
>>>>>>> rote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 25 Jul, 20:42, Elder  wrote:=
>
>>>>>>>>> In article , toomany2...@gma=
>il=3D
>>> .c=3D3D
>>>>> om=3D3D3D
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> says...> Elder  gurgled happil=
>y,=3D
>>> s=3D3D
>>>>> ou=3D3D3D
>>>>>>> nding much
>>>>>>>>> > like they were saying:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > > Construction and use requires it
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > I don't think it does. It certainly didn't as late as 1990, a=
>t =3D
>>> le=3D3D
>>>>> as=3D3D3D
>>>>>>> t.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > If there IS a reversing light, it must be either automaticall=
>y
>>>>>>>>> > illuminated only in reverse gear, or there be an interior war=
>ni=3D
>>> ng=3D3D
>>>>> l=3D3D3D
>>>>>>> ight,
>>>>>>>>> > but I don't think there's a requirement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > Can't think of any new car without one, mind.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ah right, I thought it was one of those things they had to fit =
>to=3D
>>> n=3D3D
>>>>> ew=3D3D3D
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> cars since year XXXX type things.
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Carl Robson
>>>>>>>>> Get cashback on your purchases
>>>>>>>>> Topcashbackhttp://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.ht=
>m
>>>>>>>>> Greasypalmhttp://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=3D3D3D3D1006553
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Austin Metro reversing lights (1980)
>>>>>>>> When the Metro was launched, the basic version did not get rever=
>si=3D
>>> ng=3D3D
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> lights - you had to buy the more expensive model to enjoy safe
>>>>>>>> reversing in the dark. However, it was much simpler to have only=
> o=3D
>>> ne=3D3D
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wiring harness and one set of rear lights for all models. So the=
> b=3D
>>> as=3D3D
>>>>> e
>>>>>>>> models had reversing lights - but the little 5p bulbs were not f=
>it=3D
>>> te=3D3D
>>>>> d.=3D3D3D
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some enterprising garages offered to fit them while the car was =
>in=3D
>>> f=3D3D
>>>>> or=3D3D3D
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> servicing - at rather more than 5p.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reverse lights are not bright enough to light your way.  When I h=
>ad=3D
>>> t=3D3D
>>>>> o r=3D3D3D
>>>>>>> everse down a lane in the pitch black, I drove with brake, fog, a=
>nd=3D
>>> h=3D3D
>>>>> aza=3D3D3D
>>>>>>> rd lights on so I could see!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wouldn't it have been easier to turn round and drive forwards?
>>>>>
>>>>> It was a narrow lane in the middle of nowhere (for the purposes of =
>se=3D
>>> x),=3D3D
>>>>> and there was no way to turn round.
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't it then have been easier to reverse in while it was still
>>>> light?
>>>
>>> It was dark when we got there.  I did not realise it was a dead end.
>>
>> Suppose someone else had wanted to go there?
>
>There would have been a threesome or more.

In another car?

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:30:11 퍝, Graz  wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:18:11 퍝, "Peter Hucker" 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:13:49 퍝, Graz  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:37:26 퍝, "Peter Hucker" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 21:19:00 퍝, Graz  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:48:44 퍝, "Peter Hucker" >>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:39:42 퍝, Graz  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:33:01 퍝, "Peter Hucker" =
>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Reverse lights are not bright enough to light your way.  When I h=
>> ad=3D
>>>> t=3D3D
>>>>>> o r=3D3D3D
>>>>>>>> everse down a lane in the pitch black, I drove with brake, fog, a=
>> nd=3D
>>>> h=3D3D
>>>>>> aza=3D3D3D
>>>>>>>> rd lights on so I could see!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wouldn't it have been easier to turn round and drive forwards?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was a narrow lane in the middle of nowhere (for the purposes of =
>> se=3D
>>>> x),=3D3D
>>>>>> and there was no way to turn round.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wouldn't it then have been easier to reverse in while it was still>>>>> light?
>>>>
>>>> It was dark when we got there.  I did not realise it was a dead end>>> Suppose someone else had wanted to go there?
>>
>> There would have been a threesome or more.
>
> In another car?

We would have used whichever was the more spacious obviously.


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

How do you titillate an ocelot?
Oscillate its titalot.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:36:13 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:30:11 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:18:11 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:13:49 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:37:26 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 21:19:00 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:48:44 +0100, "Peter Hucker" =
>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:39:42 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:33:01 +0100, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.co=
>m>=3D
>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Reverse lights are not bright enough to light your way.  When I=
> h=3D
>>> ad=3D3D
>>>>> t=3D3D3D
>>>>>>> o r=3D3D3D3D
>>>>>>>>> everse down a lane in the pitch black, I drove with brake, fog,=
> a=3D
>>> nd=3D3D
>>>>> h=3D3D3D
>>>>>>> aza=3D3D3D3D
>>>>>>>>> rd lights on so I could see!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wouldn't it have been easier to turn round and drive forwards?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was a narrow lane in the middle of nowhere (for the purposes o=
>f =3D
>>> se=3D3D
>>>>> x),=3D3D3D
>>>>>>> and there was no way to turn round.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wouldn't it then have been easier to reverse in while it was still=
>
>>>>>> light?
>>>>>
>>>>> It was dark when we got there.  I did not realise it was a dead end=
>.
>>>>
>>>> Suppose someone else had wanted to go there?
>>>
>>> There would have been a threesome or more.
>>
>> In another car?
>
>We would have used whichever was the more spacious obviously.

That would make sense, except for the fact that it would make
reversing in the dark even more tricky.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:51:45 퍝, Graz  wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:36:13 퍝, "Peter Hucker" 
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:30:11 퍝, Graz  wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:18:11 퍝, "Peter Hucker" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:13:49 퍝, Graz  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:37:26 퍝, "Peter Hucker" >>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 21:19:00 퍝, Graz  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wouldn't it then have been easier to reverse in while it was still=
>>
>>>>>>> light?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was dark when we got there.  I did not realise it was a dead end=
>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> Suppose someone else had wanted to go there?
>>>>
>>>> There would have been a threesome or more.
>>>
>>> In another car?
>>
>> We would have used whichever was the more spacious obviously.
>
> That would make sense, except for the fact that it would make
> reversing in the dark even more tricky.

Only the second car would have problems, the first car would just follow it out.

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

Man who walk through turnstyle sideways going to bangkok!

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:58:25 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:51:45 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:36:13 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:30:11 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:18:11 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:13:49 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:37:26 +0100, "Peter Hucker" =
>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 21:19:00 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wouldn't it then have been easier to reverse in while it was sti=
>ll=3D
>>>
>>>>>>>> light?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was dark when we got there.  I did not realise it was a dead e=
>nd=3D
>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Suppose someone else had wanted to go there?
>>>>>
>>>>> There would have been a threesome or more.
>>>>
>>>> In another car?
>>>
>>> We would have used whichever was the more spacious obviously.
>>
>> That would make sense, except for the fact that it would make
>> reversing in the dark even more tricky.
>
>Only the second car would have problems, the first car would just follow=
> it out.

Assuming, of course, that the parties in both cars climaxed more or
less simultaneously.