SWMBO tells me that the EU are going to force drivers to have their 
headlights on all day!

Surely not, this will mean that the pollution will increase due to the extra 
fuel we will be using to power the headlights.

alan.holmes wrote:
> SWMBO tells me that the EU are going to force drivers to have their 
> headlights on all day!

Write to her and ask to see the evidence, that's what I always do and 
I've never heard back yet.

-- 
Douglas

Douglas Payne  wrote:

> alan.holmes wrote:
> > SWMBO tells me that the EU are going to force drivers to have their
> > headlights on all day!
> 
> Write to her and ask to see the evidence, that's what I always do and
> I've never heard back yet.

Heh.

On a serious note, I have heard that DLRs are going to be made
compulsory quite soon.

Which will do sod all for car accident rates, but will put bikes at
increased risk.
-- 
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Ducati 750SS - Hongdou GY200
Alfa 75 TSpark - Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:51:18 +0100, steve@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH)
wrote:

>Douglas Payne  wrote:
>
>> alan.holmes wrote:
>> > SWMBO tells me that the EU are going to force drivers to have their
>> > headlights on all day!
>> 
>> Write to her and ask to see the evidence, that's what I always do and
>> I've never heard back yet.
>
>Heh.
>
>On a serious note, I have heard that DLRs are going to be made
>compulsory quite soon.
>
>Which will do sod all for car accident rates, but will put bikes at
>increased risk.

On the pollution front, those speed humps must increase pollution by
forcing down-up gear changes every few metres - apart from the extra
clutch wear and thus sooner replacement parts.

"alan.holmes"  wrote in message 
news:ca8ik.56$Eo3.50@newsfe14.ams2...
> SWMBO tells me that the EU are going to force drivers to have their 
> headlights on all day!
>
> Surely not, this will mean that the pollution will increase due to the 
> extra fuel we will be using to power the headlights.
>
>
>

Which Government department does she work for?

jake wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:51:18 +0100, steve@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH)
> wrote:
>
>> Douglas Payne  wrote:
>>
>>> alan.holmes wrote:
>>>> SWMBO tells me that the EU are going to force drivers to have their
>>>> headlights on all day!
>>>
>>> Write to her and ask to see the evidence, that's what I always do
>>> and I've never heard back yet.
>>
>> Heh.
>>
>> On a serious note, I have heard that DLRs are going to be made
>> compulsory quite soon.
>>
>> Which will do sod all for car accident rates, but will put bikes at
>> increased risk.
>
> On the pollution front, those speed humps must increase pollution by
> forcing down-up gear changes every few metres - apart from the extra
> clutch wear and thus sooner replacement parts.

They don't force any gear chnages at all. What's wrong with staying in one 
gear at and just use the throttle, what's the point in increasing speed and 
then reducing it?

"alan.holmes"  wrote in message 
news:ca8ik.56$Eo3.50@newsfe14.ams2...
> SWMBO tells me that the EU are going to force drivers to have their 
> headlights on all day!
>
> Surely not, this will mean that the pollution will increase due to the 
> extra fuel we will be using to power the headlights.
>
>
>

Already compulsory November to March in parts of Europe, and advisory for 
the rest of the year.


-- 
Keith

"Keith"  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> SWMBO tells me that the EU are going to force drivers to have their
>> headlights on all day!
>>
>> Surely not, this will mean that the pollution will increase due to the
>> extra fuel we will be using to power the headlights.

> Already compulsory November to March in parts of Europe, and advisory
> for the rest of the year.

Already compulsory all year across the US and Scandinavia, too.

If and when this does come in, it'll almost certainly be - as with the US 
- compulsory only for DRLs to be fitted to new vehicles. Vehicles without 
them fitted won't have to have lights manually switched on.

More and more new cars have DRLs available as an option in the body 
control software anyway, with a number of manufacturers seeming to have 
it on by default already - Audi, f'rexample. As LED lighting becomes more 
widespread, the power usage will be minimal.

On 25 Jul 2008 07:15:11 GMT, Adrian  wrote:

>"Keith"  gurgled happily, sounding much like
>they were saying:
>
>>> SWMBO tells me that the EU are going to force drivers to have their
>>> headlights on all day!
>>>
>>> Surely not, this will mean that the pollution will increase due to the
>>> extra fuel we will be using to power the headlights.
>
>> Already compulsory November to March in parts of Europe, and advisory
>> for the rest of the year.
>
>Already compulsory all year across the US

Not so.

On 2008-07-24, SteveH  wrote:
> Douglas Payne  wrote:
>
>> alan.holmes wrote:
>> > SWMBO tells me that the EU are going to force drivers to have their
>> > headlights on all day!
>> 
>> Write to her and ask to see the evidence, that's what I always do and
>> I've never heard back yet.
>
> Heh.
>
> On a serious note, I have heard that DLRs are going to be made
> compulsory quite soon.

The Dockland Light Railway is going to be compulsory? What if you don't live in
East London?

Or could you mean DRLs?

-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

On 25 Jul 2008 07:45:54 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

>On 2008-07-24, SteveH  wrote:
>> Douglas Payne  wrote:
>>
>>> alan.holmes wrote:
>>> > SWMBO tells me that the EU are going to force drivers to have their
>>> > headlights on all day!
>>> 
>>> Write to her and ask to see the evidence, that's what I always do and
>>> I've never heard back yet.
>>
>> Heh.
>>
>> On a serious note, I have heard that DLRs are going to be made
>> compulsory quite soon.
>
>The Dockland Light Railway is going to be compulsory? What if you don't live in
>East London?

They will be made compulsory throughout the country.

jake wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:51:18 +0100, steve@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH)
> wrote:
> 
>> Douglas Payne  wrote:
>>
>>> alan.holmes wrote:
>>>> SWMBO tells me that the EU are going to force drivers to have their
>>>> headlights on all day!
>>> Write to her and ask to see the evidence, that's what I always do and
>>> I've never heard back yet.
>> Heh.
>>
>> On a serious note, I have heard that DLRs are going to be made
>> compulsory quite soon.
>>
>> Which will do sod all for car accident rates, but will put bikes at
>> increased risk.
> 
> On the pollution front, those speed humps must increase pollution by
> forcing down-up gear changes every few metres - apart from the extra
> clutch wear and thus sooner replacement parts.
Suspension wear maybe.

On 2008-07-25, Adrian  wrote:
> "Keith"  gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
>>> SWMBO tells me that the EU are going to force drivers to have their
>>> headlights on all day!
>>>
>>> Surely not, this will mean that the pollution will increase due to the
>>> extra fuel we will be using to power the headlights.
>
>> Already compulsory November to March in parts of Europe, and advisory
>> for the rest of the year.
>
> Already compulsory all year across the US 

No it isn't.


-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

Brimstone wrote:
> jake wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:51:18 +0100, steve@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Douglas Payne  wrote:
>>>
>>>> alan.holmes wrote:
>>>>> SWMBO tells me that the EU are going to force drivers to have
>>>>> their headlights on all day!
>>>>
>>>> Write to her and ask to see the evidence, that's what I always do
>>>> and I've never heard back yet.
>>>
>>> Heh.
>>>
>>> On a serious note, I have heard that DLRs are going to be made
>>> compulsory quite soon.
>>>
>>> Which will do sod all for car accident rates, but will put bikes at
>>> increased risk.
>>
>> On the pollution front, those speed humps must increase pollution by
>> forcing down-up gear changes every few metres - apart from the extra
>> clutch wear and thus sooner replacement parts.
>
> They don't force any gear chnages at all. What's wrong with staying
> in one gear at and just use the throttle, what's the point in
> increasing speed and then reducing it?

Because some thick twats insists on literally stopping to get over them. 
Which is a surprise when I'm trundling along at 25mph over them. Thing is, 
you never know who's going to do it either. Most people dab the brakes so 
you always see the brake lights.  I'm finding more and more slam them on, it 
seems pretty unpredicatable and very annoying. Going through a village near 
where I live, there is quite a few. If you get a reasonable driver in front 
of you, it's possible to potter through at 20mph in 3rd. If you get a cretin 
at the head of the queue, who's a stopper, you get a queue of 10+ cars all 
crawling along polluting the village.

FWIW if I get a stopper in front of me, I overtake them if it's clear. I've 
overtaken over speed bumps many times, without going over the speed limit, 
which is 20 in that particular village.

Mike P

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>> Already compulsory all year across the US

> No it isn't.

<checks> Blimey, you're right. I sit corrected. I thought they'd been 
compulsory for a couple of years now, but it looks like it's just a case 
of many (most?) manufacturers deciding to do 'em as standard.

DRLs have been compulsory on all new cars in Canada since 1990, though.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:02:40 +0100, "Mike P" 
wrote:

>Brimstone wrote:
>> jake wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:51:18 +0100, steve@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Douglas Payne  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> alan.holmes wrote:
>>>>>> SWMBO tells me that the EU are going to force drivers to have
>>>>>> their headlights on all day!
>>>>>
>>>>> Write to her and ask to see the evidence, that's what I always do
>>>>> and I've never heard back yet.
>>>>
>>>> Heh.
>>>>
>>>> On a serious note, I have heard that DLRs are going to be made
>>>> compulsory quite soon.
>>>>
>>>> Which will do sod all for car accident rates, but will put bikes at
>>>> increased risk.
>>>
>>> On the pollution front, those speed humps must increase pollution by
>>> forcing down-up gear changes every few metres - apart from the extra
>>> clutch wear and thus sooner replacement parts.
>>
>> They don't force any gear chnages at all. What's wrong with staying
>> in one gear at and just use the throttle, what's the point in
>> increasing speed and then reducing it?
>
>Because some thick twats insists on literally stopping to get over them. 
>Which is a surprise when I'm trundling along at 25mph over them. 

I used to fly over them until I fucked up my front suspension.

Graz wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:02:40 +0100, "Mike P" 
> wrote:
>
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> jake wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:51:18 +0100, steve@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Douglas Payne  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> alan.holmes wrote:
>>>>>>> SWMBO tells me that the EU are going to force drivers to have
>>>>>>> their headlights on all day!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Write to her and ask to see the evidence, that's what I always do
>>>>>> and I've never heard back yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Heh.
>>>>>
>>>>> On a serious note, I have heard that DLRs are going to be made
>>>>> compulsory quite soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which will do sod all for car accident rates, but will put bikes
>>>>> at increased risk.
>>>>
>>>> On the pollution front, those speed humps must increase pollution
>>>> by forcing down-up gear changes every few metres - apart from the
>>>> extra clutch wear and thus sooner replacement parts.
>>>
>>> They don't force any gear chnages at all. What's wrong with staying
>>> in one gear at and just use the throttle, what's the point in
>>> increasing speed and then reducing it?
>>
>> Because some thick twats insists on literally stopping to get over
>> them. Which is a surprise when I'm trundling along at 25mph over
>> them.
>
> I used to fly over them until I fucked up my front suspension.

My Xantia doesn't seem to mind speed bumps at all. Didn't affect it's last 
MOT, or the one previous.

Mike P

"Mike P"  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>> I used to fly over them until I fucked up my front suspension.

> My Xantia doesn't seem to mind speed bumps at all. Didn't affect it's
> last MOT, or the one previous.

Look VERY carefully at the strut tops.

Xants & XMs rot the steel portion of the strut top out, hidden out of 
view. First you know about it, you have a strut through the bonnet...

Adrian wrote:
> "Mike P"  gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
>>> I used to fly over them until I fucked up my front suspension.
>
>> My Xantia doesn't seem to mind speed bumps at all. Didn't affect it's
>> last MOT, or the one previous.
>
> Look VERY carefully at the strut tops.
>
> Xants & XMs rot the steel portion of the strut top out, hidden out of
> view. First you know about it, you have a strut through the bonnet...

As long as it lasts until the MX5 is collected early next week, that'll do 
for me. Funnily, I've grown quite attached to the Xant even though it's 
boring.  It's my wife's fault for giving "him" a name..
I've found myself talking to it quite often the last few weeks, as more 
things start to fail. I've been coaxing it along. Sad or what??

Mike P

On 2008-07-25, Adrian  wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
>>> Already compulsory all year across the US
>
>> No it isn't.
>
><checks> Blimey, you're right. I sit corrected. 

S'okay. I have an advantage, given that my Mum lives in Pennsylvania and I go
there a fair amount.

> DRLs have been compulsory on all new cars in Canada since 1990, though.

Whereas I rarely go there...   :o)


-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:32:03 +0100, "Mike P" 
wrote:

>Graz wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:02:40 +0100, "Mike P" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> jake wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:51:18 +0100, steve@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Douglas Payne  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> alan.holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>> SWMBO tells me that the EU are going to force drivers to have
>>>>>>>> their headlights on all day!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Write to her and ask to see the evidence, that's what I always do
>>>>>>> and I've never heard back yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On a serious note, I have heard that DLRs are going to be made
>>>>>> compulsory quite soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which will do sod all for car accident rates, but will put bikes
>>>>>> at increased risk.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the pollution front, those speed humps must increase pollution
>>>>> by forcing down-up gear changes every few metres - apart from the
>>>>> extra clutch wear and thus sooner replacement parts.
>>>>
>>>> They don't force any gear chnages at all. What's wrong with staying
>>>> in one gear at and just use the throttle, what's the point in
>>>> increasing speed and then reducing it?
>>>
>>> Because some thick twats insists on literally stopping to get over
>>> them. Which is a surprise when I'm trundling along at 25mph over
>>> them.
>>
>> I used to fly over them until I fucked up my front suspension.
>
>My Xantia doesn't seem to mind speed bumps at all. Didn't affect it's last 
>MOT, or the one previous.

My Audi flew over them for years.  At the last MOT the tester noted
the front left suspension as dodgy but passed it.  Probably will need
doing for the next MOT.

In article , Mike P says...

> Because some thick twats insists on literally stopping to get over them. 
> Which is a surprise when I'm trundling along at 25mph over them. Thing is, 
> you never know who's going to do it either. 

Thankfully around here nearly all of them are the small square variety 
which means that any car built after 1983 has a track width wide enough 
to straddle it - apart from a Matiz. Fortunately the drivers have 
worked that out too.

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

"Mike P"  wrote in message 
news:6etj5gF8u3hiU1@mid.individual.net...
> Brimstone wrote:
>> jake wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:51:18 +0100, steve@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Douglas Payne  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> alan.holmes wrote:
>>>>>> SWMBO tells me that the EU are going to force drivers to have
>>>>>> their headlights on all day!
>>>>>
>>>>> Write to her and ask to see the evidence, that's what I always do
>>>>> and I've never heard back yet.
>>>>
>>>> Heh.
>>>>
>>>> On a serious note, I have heard that DLRs are going to be made
>>>> compulsory quite soon.
>>>>
>>>> Which will do sod all for car accident rates, but will put bikes at
>>>> increased risk.
>>>
>>> On the pollution front, those speed humps must increase pollution by
>>> forcing down-up gear changes every few metres - apart from the extra
>>> clutch wear and thus sooner replacement parts.
>>
>> They don't force any gear chnages at all. What's wrong with staying
>> in one gear at and just use the throttle, what's the point in
>> increasing speed and then reducing it?
>
> Because some thick twats insists on literally stopping to get over them. 
> Which is a surprise when I'm trundling along at 25mph over them. Thing is, 
> you never know who's going to do it either. Most people dab the brakes so 
> you always see the brake lights.  I'm finding more and more slam them on, 
> it seems pretty unpredicatable and very annoying. Going through a village 
> near where I live, there is quite a few. If you get a reasonable driver in 
> front of you, it's possible to potter through at 20mph in 3rd. If you get 
> a cretin at the head of the queue, who's a stopper, you get a queue of 10+ 
> cars all crawling along polluting the village.
>
> FWIW if I get a stopper in front of me, I overtake them if it's clear. 
> I've overtaken over speed bumps many times, without going over the speed 
> limit, which is 20 in that particular village.

You obviously do not have a passenger with neck problems, if I go over them 
faster then 5 mph, I get deafened by the screams!

>
> Mike P
>

alan.holmes wrote:
> "Mike P"  wrote in message
> news:6etj5gF8u3hiU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> jake wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:51:18 +0100, steve@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Douglas Payne  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> alan.holmes wrote:
>>>>>>> SWMBO tells me that the EU are going to force drivers to have
>>>>>>> their headlights on all day!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Write to her and ask to see the evidence, that's what I always do
>>>>>> and I've never heard back yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Heh.
>>>>>
>>>>> On a serious note, I have heard that DLRs are going to be made
>>>>> compulsory quite soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which will do sod all for car accident rates, but will put bikes
>>>>> at increased risk.
>>>>
>>>> On the pollution front, those speed humps must increase pollution
>>>> by forcing down-up gear changes every few metres - apart from the
>>>> extra clutch wear and thus sooner replacement parts.
>>>
>>> They don't force any gear chnages at all. What's wrong with staying
>>> in one gear at and just use the throttle, what's the point in
>>> increasing speed and then reducing it?
>>
>> Because some thick twats insists on literally stopping to get over
>> them. Which is a surprise when I'm trundling along at 25mph over
>> them. Thing is, you never know who's going to do it either. Most
>> people dab the brakes so you always see the brake lights.  I'm
>> finding more and more slam them on, it seems pretty unpredicatable
>> and very annoying. Going through a village near where I live, there
>> is quite a few. If you get a reasonable driver in front of you, it's
>> possible to potter through at 20mph in 3rd. If you get a cretin at
>> the head of the queue, who's a stopper, you get a queue of 10+ cars
>> all crawling along polluting the village. FWIW if I get a stopper in 
>> front of me, I overtake them if it's
>> clear. I've overtaken over speed bumps many times, without going
>> over the speed limit, which is 20 in that particular village.
>
> You obviously do not have a passenger with neck problems, if I go
> over them faster then 5 mph, I get deafened by the screams!
>
>>
>> Mike P

Many of the roads I drive on, especially around flackwell heath and 
rossendale, are far worse than going over speedbumps.

Mike P

Keith  wrote:

> Already compulsory November to March in parts of Europe, and advisory for
> the rest of the year.

Compulsory in Italy, but no one seems to have told the Italians.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:57:21 +0100, "alan.holmes"
 wrote:


>
>You obviously do not have a passenger with neck problems, if I go over them 
>faster then 5 mph, I get deafened by the screams!
>

No, no, no ...

You've got it wrong, you're not supposed to get the pax to lie down
over the bumps - they sit in the car with you !

Derek

Adrian wrote:
> "Mike P"  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
> 
>>> I used to fly over them until I fucked up my front suspension.
> 
>> My Xantia doesn't seem to mind speed bumps at all. Didn't affect it's
>> last MOT, or the one previous.
> 
> Look VERY carefully at the strut tops.
> 
> Xants & XMs rot the steel portion of the strut top out, hidden out of 
> view. First you know about it, you have a strut through the bonnet...

Once saw a Capri many years ago, come hurtling up to a level crossing, 
got all 4 wheels off the ground, unfortunately for the driver as he 
landed both struts tops let go & the struts tried to escape via the 
bonnet. Both wheels jammed into the arches & it slid down the road with 
the tyres burning off & sparks flying out as it scraped to a halt.

Alan...

"SteveH"  wrote in message 
news:1iklzoc.nknngw1twgx5iN%steve@italiancar.co.uk...
> Douglas Payne  wrote:
>
>> alan.holmes wrote:
>> > SWMBO tells me that the EU are going to force drivers to have their
>> > headlights on all day!
>>
>> Write to her and ask to see the evidence, that's what I always do and
>> I've never heard back yet.
>
> Heh.
>
> On a serious note, I have heard that DLRs are going to be made
> compulsory quite soon.
>
> Which will do sod all for car accident rates, but will put bikes at
> increased risk.


Which could be negated quite easily by bikers not riding like tits. Lets be 
honest, most bikers kill themselves, rather than other people doing it for 
them.

-- 
MrBitsy
Rover 75 CDTi

"alan.holmes"  wrote in message 
news:CJmik.15027$9I1.8988@newsfe16.ams2...
>
> "Mike P"  wrote in message 
> news:6etj5gF8u3hiU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> jake wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:51:18 +0100, steve@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Douglas Payne  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> alan.holmes wrote:
>>>>>>> SWMBO tells me that the EU are going to force drivers to have
>>>>>>> their headlights on all day!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Write to her and ask to see the evidence, that's what I always do
>>>>>> and I've never heard back yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Heh.
>>>>>
>>>>> On a serious note, I have heard that DLRs are going to be made
>>>>> compulsory quite soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which will do sod all for car accident rates, but will put bikes at
>>>>> increased risk.
>>>>
>>>> On the pollution front, those speed humps must increase pollution by
>>>> forcing down-up gear changes every few metres - apart from the extra
>>>> clutch wear and thus sooner replacement parts.
>>>
>>> They don't force any gear chnages at all. What's wrong with staying
>>> in one gear at and just use the throttle, what's the point in
>>> increasing speed and then reducing it?
>>
>> Because some thick twats insists on literally stopping to get over them. 
>> Which is a surprise when I'm trundling along at 25mph over them. Thing 
>> is, you never know who's going to do it either. Most people dab the 
>> brakes so you always see the brake lights.  I'm finding more and more 
>> slam them on, it seems pretty unpredicatable and very annoying. Going 
>> through a village near where I live, there is quite a few. If you get a 
>> reasonable driver in front of you, it's possible to potter through at 
>> 20mph in 3rd. If you get a cretin at the head of the queue, who's a 
>> stopper, you get a queue of 10+ cars all crawling along polluting the 
>> village.
>>
>> FWIW if I get a stopper in front of me, I overtake them if it's clear. 
>> I've overtaken over speed bumps many times, without going over the speed 
>> limit, which is 20 in that particular village.
>
> You obviously do not have a passenger with neck problems, if I go over 
> them faster then 5 mph, I get deafened by the screams!


All those assumptions about why drivers are going slow over speed bumps, and 
here is an example - why are people so quick to criticise and able to show 
so little understanding?

-- 
MrBitsy
Rover 75 CDTi

"MrBitsy"  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> On a serious note, I have heard that DLRs are going to be made
>> compulsory quite soon.
>>
>> Which will do sod all for car accident rates, but will put bikes at
>> increased risk.

> Which could be negated quite easily by bikers not riding like tits. Lets
> be honest, most bikers kill themselves, rather than other people doing
> it for them.

Yes, a hell of a lot of bikers are killed in single-vehicle crashes, true 
- but mainly the "born-again" middle-aged weekend warriors.

BUT - IIRC in the vast majority of fatal car/bike collisions, the car 
driver's solely at fault.

In article <g6d791$2l2$1@aioe.org>, Alan Smith says...
> Adrian wrote:
> > "Mike P"  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> > were saying:
> > 
> >>> I used to fly over them until I fucked up my front suspension.
> > 
> >> My Xantia doesn't seem to mind speed bumps at all. Didn't affect it's
> >> last MOT, or the one previous.
> > 
> > Look VERY carefully at the strut tops.
> > 
> > Xants & XMs rot the steel portion of the strut top out, hidden out of 
> > view. First you know about it, you have a strut through the bonnet...
> 
> Once saw a Capri many years ago, come hurtling up to a level crossing, 
> got all 4 wheels off the ground, unfortunately for the driver as he 
> landed both struts tops let go & the struts tried to escape via the 
> bonnet. Both wheels jammed into the arches & it slid down the road with 
> the tyres burning off & sparks flying out as it scraped to a halt.
> 
Strut tops aren't exactly a strong point on Cappers. It's rare to find 
one without repair plates on.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On 2008-07-25, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> Keith  wrote:
>
>> Already compulsory November to March in parts of Europe, and advisory for
>> the rest of the year.
>
> Compulsory in Italy, but no one seems to have told the Italians.

The Italians don't obey any laws they don't agree with, AFAICS. You wouldn't
think they have compulsory helmet laws, but they do.

-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

Conor wrote:
> In article <g6d791$2l2$1@aioe.org>, Alan Smith says...
>> Adrian wrote:
>>> "Mike P"  gurgled happily, sounding much like
>>> they were saying:
>>>
>>>>> I used to fly over them until I fucked up my front suspension.
>>>
>>>> My Xantia doesn't seem to mind speed bumps at all. Didn't affect
>>>> it's last MOT, or the one previous.
>>>
>>> Look VERY carefully at the strut tops.
>>>
>>> Xants & XMs rot the steel portion of the strut top out, hidden out
>>> of view. First you know about it, you have a strut through the
>>> bonnet...
>>
>> Once saw a Capri many years ago, come hurtling up to a level
>> crossing, got all 4 wheels off the ground, unfortunately for the
>> driver as he landed both struts tops let go & the struts tried to
>> escape via the bonnet. Both wheels jammed into the arches & it slid
>> down the road with the tyres burning off & sparks flying out as it
>> scraped to a halt.
>>
> Strut tops aren't exactly a strong point on Cappers. It's rare to find
> one without repair plates on.

It's the same with a number of Fords (105E Anglia/Cortina/Granada/Capri) 
from that period which used Mcpherson struts. The upper end location 
invariably needed reinforcing. In fact, when inspecting a car with a view to 
purchase it was a point against if the inner wings hadn't been reinforced.

MrBitsy wrote:
> "alan.holmes"  wrote in message
> news:CJmik.15027$9I1.8988@newsfe16.ams2...
>>
>> "Mike P"  wrote in message
>> news:6etj5gF8u3hiU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> jake wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:51:18 +0100, steve@italiancar.co.uk
>>>>> (SteveH) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Douglas Payne  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> alan.holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>> SWMBO tells me that the EU are going to force drivers to have
>>>>>>>> their headlights on all day!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Write to her and ask to see the evidence, that's what I always
>>>>>>> do and I've never heard back yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On a serious note, I have heard that DLRs are going to be made
>>>>>> compulsory quite soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which will do sod all for car accident rates, but will put bikes
>>>>>> at increased risk.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the pollution front, those speed humps must increase pollution
>>>>> by forcing down-up gear changes every few metres - apart from the
>>>>> extra clutch wear and thus sooner replacement parts.
>>>>
>>>> They don't force any gear chnages at all. What's wrong with staying
>>>> in one gear at and just use the throttle, what's the point in
>>>> increasing speed and then reducing it?
>>>
>>> Because some thick twats insists on literally stopping to get over
>>> them. Which is a surprise when I'm trundling along at 25mph over
>>> them. Thing is, you never know who's going to do it either. Most
>>> people dab the brakes so you always see the brake lights.  I'm
>>> finding more and more slam them on, it seems pretty unpredicatable
>>> and very annoying. Going through a village near where I live, there
>>> is quite a few. If you get a reasonable driver in front of you,
>>> it's possible to potter through at 20mph in 3rd. If you get a
>>> cretin at the head of the queue, who's a stopper, you get a queue
>>> of 10+ cars all crawling along polluting the village.
>>>
>>> FWIW if I get a stopper in front of me, I overtake them if it's
>>> clear. I've overtaken over speed bumps many times, without going
>>> over the speed limit, which is 20 in that particular village.
>>
>> You obviously do not have a passenger with neck problems, if I go
>> over them faster then 5 mph, I get deafened by the screams!
>
>
> All those assumptions about why drivers are going slow over speed
> bumps, and here is an example - why are people so quick to criticise
> and able to show so little understanding?

Well then they should drive with some consistency. Most of them don't. If 
you're telling me someone who stops to go over them, speeds up to 25-30mph 
quickly between them, then stops dead again is driving correctly, or with 
consideration for a passenger, well, you're talking bollocks frankly.

Like I said, I just overtake them when it's safe and legal to do so. I don't 
beep, flash or gesticulate like I've seen many people do on this bit of road 
I'm talking about.

mike P

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2008-07-25, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > Keith  wrote:
> >
> >> Already compulsory November to March in parts of Europe, and advisory for
> >> the rest of the year.
> >
> > Compulsory in Italy, but no one seems to have told the Italians.
> 
> The Italians don't obey any laws they don't agree with, AFAICS. You wouldn't
> think they have compulsory helmet laws, but they do.

Oh I dunno, when the law stated that everyone must wear a helmet, every
scooter rider I saw was wearing a helmet - on their elbow because the
law didn't say where the helemt should be worn.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Mike P wrote:

> Because some thick twats insists on literally stopping to get over them. 
> Which is a surprise when I'm trundling along at 25mph over them.

So cars are different.  What a revelation!

> Thing is, you never know who's going to do it either. Most people dab 
> the brakes so you always see the brake lights.  I'm finding more and 
> more slam them on, it seems pretty unpredicatable and very annoying.

That's your failing, not theirs.  Letting yourself get annoyed by it and 
apparently driving such that their actions are impacting your car 
control.  Try leaving more space and giving people time and space to 
make their own judgements in their own vehicles, instead of being a twat 
and thinking "well I could fly over that so I expect everyone else to 
fly over it".

> Going through a village near where I live, there is quite a few. If 
> you get a reasonable driver in front of you, it's possible to potter 
> through at 20mph in 3rd. If you get a cretin at the head of the queue, 
> who's a stopper, you get a queue of 10+ cars all crawling along 
> polluting the village.

Sounds like the speed bumps are quite effective in that case, that is 
after all their purpose.  There are speed bumps near where I work which 
I have to go over every morning.  Now most of them I can do at around 
10mph (still too slow for you I expect).

If I go over them faster the car is clearly not happy.  It's not the 
speed going over the actual hump, but the oscillation of the suspension.  
At around 10mph the front suspension drops down and bounces up, then the 
back does the same.  But if I go over any faster, as the front is 
bouncing back up, the back is dropping down - a sort of short-lived 
resonance effect if you like - and the effect on the car is quite 
severe.  Vehicle sympathy, and common sense, demands that this is 
avoided.

Then the very last speed bump is okay to get on but for some reason very 
severe dropping off, and anything over a crawl causes the front to drop 
much too sharply for my liking.  I see larger cars going over them 
faster.  No problem, as they are either making an informed decision 
about their own vehicle, or they are perfectly free to fuck their own 
vehicle up.

But I won't compromise my own vehicle or my saftey for some impatient 
twat who can't see past the end of their own bonnet, thinks they are a 
great driver and assumes everyone has to drive the same as they do 
otherwise they're a cretin.

> FWIW if I get a stopper in front of me, I overtake them if it's clear. I've 
> overtaken over speed bumps many times, without going over the speed limit, 
> which is 20 in that particular village.

So you've got vehicles slowing down and concentrating on the immediate 
hazard, and at that same time you introduce yourself into the equation, 
just because it's more convenient for you.  If you tried that on the 
final speed bump I mentioned above you could find yourself being shunted 
by the car turning right off the bump into the gym car park.

-- 
Chris

In article <1ikomn3.1d3lktx1b8zzmqN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, %steve%
@malloc.co.uk says...
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > On 2008-07-25, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Keith  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Already compulsory November to March in parts of Europe, and advisory for
> > >> the rest of the year.
> > >
> > > Compulsory in Italy, but no one seems to have told the Italians.
> > 
> > The Italians don't obey any laws they don't agree with, AFAICS. You wouldn't
> > think they have compulsory helmet laws, but they do.
> 
> Oh I dunno, when the law stated that everyone must wear a helmet, every
> scooter rider I saw was wearing a helmet - on their elbow because the
> law didn't say where the helemt should be worn.
> 
I thin it is, or rather was the same in the UK, and while one biker on 
his own wouldn't stand a chance, no matter what the law, when there is a 
protest or funeral slow procession, it is quite normal to see elbowed 
helmets, and the police in attendance do bugger all about it, because 
you wouldn't want to upset a large turnout of bikers burying a brother 
for a grey area.
-- 
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

Chris Lawrence <news03@holosys.co.uk.invalid> gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

>> Going through a village near where I live, there is quite a few. If you
>> get a reasonable driver in front of you, it's possible to potter
>> through at 20mph in 3rd. If you get a cretin at the head of the queue,
>> who's a stopper, you get a queue of 10+ cars all crawling along
>> polluting the village.

> Sounds like the speed bumps are quite effective in that case, that is
> after all their purpose.  There are speed bumps near where I work which
> I have to go over every morning.  Now most of them I can do at around
> 10mph (still too slow for you I expect).
> 
> If I go over them faster the car is clearly not happy.  It's not the
> speed going over the actual hump, but the oscillation of the suspension.
> At around 10mph the front suspension drops down and bounces up, then the
> back does the same.  But if I go over any faster, as the front is
> bouncing back up, the back is dropping down - a sort of short-lived
> resonance effect if you like - and the effect on the car is quite
> severe.  Vehicle sympathy, and common sense, demands that this is
> avoided.
> 
> Then the very last speed bump is okay to get on but for some reason very
> severe dropping off, and anything over a crawl causes the front to drop
> much too sharply for my liking.  I see larger cars going over them
> faster.  No problem, as they are either making an informed decision
> about their own vehicle, or they are perfectly free to fuck their own
> vehicle up.
> 
> But I won't compromise my own vehicle or my saftey for some impatient
> twat who can't see past the end of their own bonnet, thinks they are a
> great driver and assumes everyone has to drive the same as they do
> otherwise they're a cretin.

Are you suggesting that - without the humps - 10mph would be the highest 
appropriate speed for that stretch of road?

Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Mike P wrote:
>
>> Because some thick twats insists on literally stopping to get over
>> them. Which is a surprise when I'm trundling along at 25mph over
>> them.
>
> So cars are different.  What a revelation!

>> Thing is, you never know who's going to do it either. Most people dab
>> the brakes so you always see the brake lights.  I'm finding more and
>> more slam them on, it seems pretty unpredicatable and very annoying.
>
> That's your failing, not theirs.

No, it's theirs actually. This obviously only happens on the first bump of 
the series. If the cretins slowed down before they got to the hump, without 
just slamming the brakes on at the last second, it would actually give other 
road users, not just me, a clue to the speed they might slow down to to go 
over the bump. As it is, they get to within about 10 meters of it, brake 
hard. A bit of warning would be nice. It's obviously predicatable once you 
get used to it

I'm  too sensible to get annoyed by it as a driver. I find it irritating but 
it doesn't annoy me - like the annoyance I get when a bee is in the room. 
It's annoying but it doesn't send me into a wild rage.

>Letting yourself get annoyed by it
> and apparently driving such that their actions are impacting your car
> control.  Try leaving more space and giving people time and space to
> make their own judgements in their own vehicles

I try to leave a 2 sec gap, which isn't much at 20mph granted, but unless 
I'm telepathic I can't tell they're going to brake hard can I? Obviously now 
I just expect everyone to

> instead of being a
> twat and thinking "well I could fly over that so I expect everyone
> else to fly over it".

I don't, as I said, I'd just like a bit of warning first.

>> Going through a village near where I live, there is quite a few. If
>> you get a reasonable driver in front of you, it's possible to potter
>> through at 20mph in 3rd. If you get a cretin at the head of the
>> queue, who's a stopper, you get a queue of 10+ cars all crawling
>> along
>> polluting the village.
>
> Sounds like the speed bumps are quite effective in that case, that is
> after all their purpose.  There are speed bumps near where I work
> which I have to go over every morning.  Now most of them I can do at
> around 10mph (still too slow for you I expect).

Depends on the bumps, even in my Xantia some have to be really slowed down 
for.

> If I go over them faster the car is clearly not happy.  It's not the
> speed going over the actual hump, but the oscillation of the
> suspension. At around 10mph the front suspension drops down and
> bounces up, then the back does the same.

Sounds like yours are different sort of bumps to mine. Seriously - the ones 
here are those low type that are the width of the road with an angled ramp 
onto them, built up and they're about 2 metres wide, then a small ramp off 
them at the other side. They are much easier to navigate than the standard 
bump I *think* you're talking about.

>But if I go over any
> faster, as the front is bouncing back up, the back is dropping down -
> a sort of short-lived resonance effect if you like - and the effect
> on the car is quite severe.  Vehicle sympathy, and common sense,
> demands that this is avoided.
>
> Then the very last speed bump is okay to get on but for some reason
> very severe dropping off, and anything over a crawl causes the front
> to drop much too sharply for my liking.  I see larger cars going over
> them faster.

They are the other sort of bumps then. My Cherokee was awful going over the 
ones I'm on about. So much so I avoided the village and went the longer way 
round!

>No problem, as they are either making an informed
> decision about their own vehicle, or they are perfectly free to fuck
> their own vehicle up.
>
> But I won't compromise my own vehicle or my saftey for some impatient
> twat who can't see past the end of their own bonnet, thinks they are a
> great driver and assumes everyone has to drive the same as they do
> otherwise they're a cretin.

I don't think that, I just try and give other road users warning to my 
intentions
>
>> FWIW if I get a stopper in front of me, I overtake them if it's
>> clear. I've overtaken over speed bumps many times, without going
>> over the speed limit, which is 20 in that particular village.
>
> So you've got vehicles slowing down and concentrating on the immediate
> hazard,

No, if they were concentrating, they'd brake earlier and go over the bumps 
slowly, but smoothly.

>and at that same time you introduce yourself into the
> equation, just because it's more convenient for you.  If you tried
> that on the final speed bump I mentioned above you could find
> yourself being shunted by the car turning right off the bump into the
> gym car park.

No, as I don't overtake near junctions. The first time I ever drove a car on 
my own after passing my test, someone turned left ( i was living in Greece) 
without indicating (I think. I still don't know for sure 18 years later) 
while I was passing them . We missed each other but I swear that will never 
happen again to me.

Silly fucking place for a bump too, in a junction if you ask me ;)

Mike P

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008, Adrian wrote:

> Are you suggesting that - without the humps - 10mph would be the highest 
> appropriate speed for that stretch of road?

No.  Why?

-- 
Chris

Chris Lawrence <news03@holosys.co.uk.invalid> gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

>> Are you suggesting that - without the humps - 10mph would be the
>> highest appropriate speed for that stretch of road?

> No.  Why?

So why do you have a problem with people accelerating between the humps? 
They're quite clearly FAR too severe for the actual requirement, if it's 
not possible to travel along the road at a speed that - but for the humps 
- would be perfectly appropriate.

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008, Adrian wrote:

> Chris Lawrence <news03@holosys.co.uk.invalid> gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
> 
> >> Are you suggesting that - without the humps - 10mph would be the
> >> highest appropriate speed for that stretch of road?
> 
> > No.  Why?
> 
> So why do you have a problem with people accelerating between the humps?

I don't.  What leap of logic gave you that idea?
 
> They're quite clearly FAR too severe for the actual requirement, if it's 
> not possible to travel along the road at a speed that - but for the humps 
> - would be perfectly appropriate.

What are you wittering on about?  I'm responding to Mike P's comment 
that "some thick twats insists on literally stopping to get over them. 
Which is a surprise when I'm trundling along at 25mph over them."

Good for him.  If I tried going over humps (the ones across the road, 
not the square lumps) at 25mph it would damage the car.  So he'll just 
have to be patient or, more likely, continue his unfortunate habit of 
overtaking.

-- 
Chris

"Chris Lawrence" <news03@holosys.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message 
news:Pine.BSF.4.64.0807262042210.16097@ochre.gradwell.net...
> So he'll just have to be patient or, more likely, continue his unfortunate 
> habit of
> overtaking.


Unfortunate habit?

-- 
MrBitsy
Rover 75 CDTi

Chris Lawrence <news03@holosys.co.uk.invalid> gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

> Good for him.  If I tried going over humps (the ones across the road,
> not the square lumps) at 25mph it would damage the car.

Try getting a car with half-decent suspension. Mike drives a hydraulic 
Citroen.

MrBitsy wrote:
> "Chris Lawrence" <news03@holosys.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Pine.BSF.4.64.0807262042210.16097@ochre.gradwell.net...
>> So he'll just have to be patient or, more likely, continue his
>> unfortunate habit of
>> overtaking.
>
>
> Unfortunate habit?

Some people think so. Yesterday evening an old boy in a Merc estate slowed 
suddenly to a speed that didn't even register on my speedo. As there was 
nothing coming, I nipped past, still below the 20mph limit. and trundled on 
my way at 20mph. He gave a couple of long blasts on his horn and flashed his 
lights at me until I was out of sight.   Why? I am not doing anything 
irresponsible or illegal? Maybe I should stop and explain this to some 
people..

Mike P

Adrian wrote:
> Chris Lawrence <news03@holosys.co.uk.invalid> gurgled happily,
> sounding much like they were saying:
>
>>> Are you suggesting that - without the humps - 10mph would be the
>>> highest appropriate speed for that stretch of road?
>
>> No.  Why?
>
> So why do you have a problem with people accelerating between the
> humps? They're quite clearly FAR too severe for the actual
> requirement, if it's not possible to travel along the road at a speed
> that - but for the humps - would be perfectly appropriate.

I think a 20mph limit, humps and one of those speed-readout devices that 
flashes up your speed ( positioned on a telegraph pole next to one of the 
speed humps!!)  is way OTT for the village I'm talking about.

Mike P

Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008, Adrian wrote:
>
>> Chris Lawrence <news03@holosys.co.uk.invalid> gurgled happily,
>> sounding much like they were saying:
>>
>>>> Are you suggesting that - without the humps - 10mph would be the
>>>> highest appropriate speed for that stretch of road?
>>
>>> No.  Why?
>>
>> So why do you have a problem with people accelerating between the
>> humps?
>
> I don't.  What leap of logic gave you that idea?
>
>> They're quite clearly FAR too severe for the actual requirement, if
>> it's not possible to travel along the road at a speed that - but for
>> the humps - would be perfectly appropriate.
>
> What are you wittering on about?  I'm responding to Mike P's comment
> that "some thick twats insists on literally stopping to get over them.
> Which is a surprise when I'm trundling along at 25mph over them."
>
> Good for him.  If I tried going over humps (the ones across the road,
> not the square lumps) at 25mph it would damage the car.

Why? Is your car broken? I'm certainley not the only person who does this on 
this bit of road, I've seen all types of vehicle going over them at a 
sensible speed. I generally stick to the speed limit through there, but many 
don't...

Mike P

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008, Adrian wrote:

> Chris Lawrence <news03@holosys.co.uk.invalid> gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
> 
> > Good for him.  If I tried going over humps (the ones across the road,
> > not the square lumps) at 25mph it would damage the car.
> 
> Try getting a car with half-decent suspension. Mike drives a hydraulic 
> Citroen.

Nah, everything's fine as it is.  I can see that the problem is in 
Mike's car, between the steering wheel and the driver's seat.

-- 
Chris

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008, Mike P wrote:

> > What are you wittering on about?  I'm responding to Mike P's comment
> > that "some thick twats insists on literally stopping to get over them.
> > Which is a surprise when I'm trundling along at 25mph over them."
> >
> > Good for him.  If I tried going over humps (the ones across the road,
> > not the square lumps) at 25mph it would damage the car.
> 
> Why? Is your car broken? I'm certainley not the only person who does this on 
> this bit of road, I've seen all types of vehicle going over them at a 
> sensible speed. I generally stick to the speed limit through there, but many 
> don't...

Read my reply and you'll see that I explained the timing effect of going 
over humps at different speeds, which is clearly different for different 
vehicles.

-- 
Chris

Chris Lawrence <news03@holosys.co.uk.invalid> gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

>> > Good for him.  If I tried going over humps (the ones across the road,
>> > not the square lumps) at 25mph it would damage the car.

>> Try getting a car with half-decent suspension. Mike drives a hydraulic
>> Citroen.

> Nah, everything's fine as it is.

Clearly not. Either the humps are far too severe for the situation, or 
the suspension in your car is far too fragile.

> I can see that the problem is in Mike's car, between the steering wheel 
> and the driver's seat.

Why? He's doing a perfectly safe and appropriate speed for the stretch of 
road.

Brimstone wrote:
> Conor wrote:

>> Strut tops aren't exactly a strong point on Cappers. It's rare to find
>> one without repair plates on.
> 
> It's the same with a number of Fords (105E Anglia/Cortina/Granada/Capri) 
> from that period which used Mcpherson struts. The upper end location 
> invariably needed reinforcing. In fact, when inspecting a car with a view to 
> purchase it was a point against if the inner wings hadn't been reinforced. 
> 

Granadas never used MacPherson struts, neither did the Mk3/4/5 Cortina.


-- 
Pete M - OMF#9

BMW 325i SE Touring
Range Rover V8 Turbo

"Wait! We can't stop here, this is Bat Country"

"Adrian"  wrote in message 
news:6f3824F9gnorU1@mid.individual.net...
> Chris Lawrence <news03@holosys.co.uk.invalid> gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
>
>>> > Good for him.  If I tried going over humps (the ones across the road,
>>> > not the square lumps) at 25mph it would damage the car.
>
>>> Try getting a car with half-decent suspension. Mike drives a hydraulic
>>> Citroen.
>
>> Nah, everything's fine as it is.
>
> Clearly not. Either the humps are far too severe for the situation, or
> the suspension in your car is far too fragile.

Not sure where one could draw the line here, though.  If a speed bump 
damages the car, is it:

(a) the Council's fault because they installed it, or
(b) the manufacturer's fault, because they designed the car, or
(c) the drivers' fault, for going over it too fast.

Probably something of all in there.

>> I can see that the problem is in Mike's car, between the steering wheel
>> and the driver's seat.
>
> Why? He's doing a perfectly safe and appropriate speed for the stretch of
> road.


-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

"Mike P"  wrote in message 
news:6f31b0F9ahd5U1@mid.individual.net...
> Adrian wrote:
>> Chris Lawrence <news03@holosys.co.uk.invalid> gurgled happily,
>> sounding much like they were saying:
>>
>>>> Are you suggesting that - without the humps - 10mph would be the
>>>> highest appropriate speed for that stretch of road?
>>
>>> No.  Why?
>>
>> So why do you have a problem with people accelerating between the
>> humps? They're quite clearly FAR too severe for the actual
>> requirement, if it's not possible to travel along the road at a speed
>> that - but for the humps - would be perfectly appropriate.
>
> I think a 20mph limit, humps and one of those speed-readout devices that 
> flashes up your speed ( positioned on a telegraph pole next to one of the 
> speed humps!!)  is way OTT for the village I'm talking about.


But of course.  Somebody somewhere shouted, "think of the children!" and the 
parish had money left over in the budget.

I remember some tosser chairing a parish council and wanting a speed camera, 
sorry, safety camera installed.  I voted against it.  We lost the vote, 
camera installed, three days later Mr. Chairman was caught speeding.

Made the headline news of the local paper.  I had my tea up my nose and 
everything when I read it that night. ;-)

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008, Adrian wrote:

> Chris Lawrence <news03@holosys.co.uk.invalid> gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
> 
> >> > Good for him.  If I tried going over humps (the ones across the road,
> >> > not the square lumps) at 25mph it would damage the car.
> 
> >> Try getting a car with half-decent suspension. Mike drives a hydraulic
> >> Citroen.
> 
> > Nah, everything's fine as it is.
> 
> Clearly not. Either the humps are far too severe for the situation, or 
> the suspension in your car is far too fragile.

Nope they're just fine.  I slow to around 10mph and go over them without 
problem.  And for the third (and last) time, it's a matter of resonance, 
not fragility - the front of the car coming up as the back goes down 
when the hump is crossed at a particular speed.

> > I can see that the problem is in Mike's car, between the steering wheel 
> > and the driver's seat.
> 
> Why? He's doing a perfectly safe and appropriate speed for the stretch of 
> road.

He's impatient, assuming and overtakes on a hazard.  His driving might 
be safe so far but his attitude seems quite wrong to me.

-- 
Chris

DervMan  wrote:

> I remember some tosser chairing a parish council and wanting a speed camera,
> sorry, safety camera installed.  I voted against it.  We lost the vote,
> camera installed, three days later Mr. Chairman was caught speeding.

Heh we had a Parish councillor who wanted speed humps and "traffic
calming" on the A-road through the village. The County Council agreed
and selected a location - right outside the Parish councillor's house.
Fastest policy reversal I've ever seen. They still ended up with a 40mph
sign outside their home and complained about the noise of
accelerating/braking traffic.

Chris Lawrence <news03@holosys.co.uk.invalid> gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

>> Clearly not. Either the humps are far too severe for the situation, or
>> the suspension in your car is far too fragile.

> Nope they're just fine.  I slow to around 10mph

But 10mph is - as you've said - an unrealistically slow speed for that 
stretch of road.

> and go over them without problem.  And for the third (and last) time, 
> it's a matter of resonance, not fragility - the front of the car coming 
> up as the back goes down when the hump is crossed at a particular speed.

Yes, dear. And that can vary widely according to the car - I've just 
taken SWMBO's car back to the lockup - there's speed bumps on the way. 
The "sweet spot" is about 30-40mph. Anything less, and you do get a 
marked pitch. Get 'em right, and they're barely noticable.

>> > I can see that the problem is in Mike's car, between the steering
>> > wheel and the driver's seat.

>> Why? He's doing a perfectly safe and appropriate speed for the stretch
>> of road.

> He's impatient, assuming and overtakes on a hazard.  His driving might
> be safe so far but his attitude seems quite wrong to me.

If he can see it's safe to pass, what's the problem? What "assumption" is 
being made?

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008, Adrian wrote:

> Chris Lawrence <news03@holosys.co.uk.invalid> gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
> 
> >> Clearly not. Either the humps are far too severe for the situation, or
> >> the suspension in your car is far too fragile.
> 
> > Nope they're just fine.  I slow to around 10mph
> 
> But 10mph is - as you've said - an unrealistically slow speed for that 
> stretch of road.

But about the right speed for driving over the large humps of concrete 
in the carriageway in my car.

I think you're the only driver I'm aware of who ignores speed humps and 
doesn't slow down at all.

> > and go over them without problem.  And for the third (and last) time, 
> > it's a matter of resonance, not fragility - the front of the car coming 
> > up as the back goes down when the hump is crossed at a particular speed.
> 
> Yes, dear. And that can vary widely according to the car - I've just 
> taken SWMBO's car back to the lockup - there's speed bumps on the way. 
> The "sweet spot" is about 30-40mph. Anything less, and you do get a 
> marked pitch. Get 'em right, and they're barely noticable.

Are you talking about something different then perhaps?  I'm talking 
about a hump of concrete right across the carriageway, not those small 
square blobs of concrete which can be straddled.

If I hit said humps of concrete at 30-40mph the car would be damaged, 
and I think yours would be too.  So I'm guessing we're on about 
different things.  As it happens I did hit one of those particular humps 
at 30mph a few years ago in a Fiesta when I was taking driving lessons, 
It made a horrendous sounding bang underneath the car and the whole car 
become unstable for a second while it settled down.  The instrutor asked 
me if I hadn't seen the speed hump, and I told him I had but didn't 
expect it to have such a severe effect.

> >> > I can see that the problem is in Mike's car, between the steering
> >> > wheel and the driver's seat.
> 
> >> Why? He's doing a perfectly safe and appropriate speed for the stretch
> >> of road.
> 
> > He's impatient, assuming and overtakes on a hazard.  His driving might
> > be safe so far but his attitude seems quite wrong to me.
> 
> If he can see it's safe to pass, what's the problem? What "assumption" is 
> being made?

He is assuming that other drivers are in error if they are not driving 
the way he would drive, and apparently he is assuming that other cars 
act the same as his car.  Overtaking on a speed hump is not illegal as 
far as I know, but does not exactly show common sense.  Still, the roads 
of full of such drivers, the "must get ahead" mentality instead of just 
being a bit patient and seeing things from other road users' point of 
view and using their noggin.

-- 
Chris

Chris Lawrence <news03@holosys.co.uk.invalid> gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

>> >> Clearly not. Either the humps are far too severe for the situation,
>> >> or the suspension in your car is far too fragile.

>> > Nope they're just fine.  I slow to around 10mph

>> But 10mph is - as you've said - an unrealistically slow speed for that
>> stretch of road.

> But about the right speed for driving over the large humps of concrete
> in the carriageway in my car.

Fine. So the lumps of concrete are too large, or your car is incapable of 
driving over them at an appropriate speed.

>> Yes, dear. And that can vary widely according to the car - I've just
>> taken SWMBO's car back to the lockup - there's speed bumps on the way.
>> The "sweet spot" is about 30-40mph. Anything less, and you do get a
>> marked pitch. Get 'em right, and they're barely noticable.

> Are you talking about something different then perhaps?  I'm talking
> about a hump of concrete right across the carriageway, not those small
> square blobs of concrete which can be straddled.

Yes. So am I.

> If I hit said humps of concrete at 30-40mph the car would be damaged,
> and I think yours would be too.

Nope.

> So I'm guessing we're on about different things.

Nope.

> As it happens I did hit one of those particular humps at 30mph a few 
> years ago in a Fiesta

I rest my case.

>> >> > I can see that the problem is in Mike's car, between the steering
>> >> > wheel and the driver's seat.

>> >> Why? He's doing a perfectly safe and appropriate speed for the
>> >> stretch of road.

>> > He's impatient, assuming and overtakes on a hazard.  His driving
>> > might be safe so far but his attitude seems quite wrong to me.

>> If he can see it's safe to pass, what's the problem? What "assumption"
>> is being made?

> He is assuming that other drivers are in error if they are not driving
> the way he would drive

Well, fuck, that's ALL overtaking frowned on, then.

> and apparently he is assuming that other cars act the same as his car.

<re-reads> Nope, only seems to be one person doing that in this thread.

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008, Adrian wrote:

> Chris Lawrence <news03@holosys.co.uk.invalid> gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
> 
> >> >> Clearly not. Either the humps are far too severe for the situation,
> >> >> or the suspension in your car is far too fragile.
> 
> >> > Nope they're just fine.  I slow to around 10mph
> 
> >> But 10mph is - as you've said - an unrealistically slow speed for that
> >> stretch of road.
> 
> > But about the right speed for driving over the large humps of concrete
> > in the carriageway in my car.
> 
> Fine. So the lumps of concrete are too large, or your car is incapable of 
> driving over them at an appropriate speed.

Your stance is so fuckwitted that I am assuming we're on about different 
things, but you're adamant that we're not.  So let's start again.  
Large humps of concrete in the road designed to slow down traffic.  In 
some cases 10mph is as fast as I want to hit them, anything faster is 
damaging to the car.  Mike P behind me assumes that anyone going that 
slow is a cretin.  You apparently drive over them at 30-40mph and think 
everyone should.

Which part of that didn't you agree with?

> > As it happens I did hit one of those particular humps at 30mph a few 
> > years ago in a Fiesta
> 
> I rest my case.

What case?  30mph was much too fast and the car was lucky not to have 
been damaged - and indeed may have been from the bang that came from 
under it.

> >> > He's impatient, assuming and overtakes on a hazard.  His driving
> >> > might be safe so far but his attitude seems quite wrong to me.
> 
> >> If he can see it's safe to pass, what's the problem? What "assumption"
> >> is being made?
> 
> > He is assuming that other drivers are in error if they are not driving
> > the way he would drive
> 
> Well, fuck, that's ALL overtaking frowned on, then.

Nope, just the overtaking on hazards due to impatience.

> > and apparently he is assuming that other cars act the same as his car.
> 
> <re-reads> Nope, only seems to be one person doing that in this thread.

You think I am?  I am driving with sympathy to my own vehicle.  I don't 
assume that other vehicles act just the same way, and I take it into 
account before I start labelling other drivers as cretins.  Mind you 
I'm not egotistical on the road, and that does seem to be a large aspect 
of male drivers these days.

-- 
Chris

Chris Lawrence <news03@holosys.co.uk.invalid> gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

>> Fine. So the lumps of concrete are too large, or your car is incapable
>> of driving over them at an appropriate speed.

> Your stance is so fuckwitted that I am assuming we're on about different
> things, but you're adamant that we're not.  So let's start again.

Indeed. We'll find out quickly enough where you're misunderstanding what 
I'm saying.

> Large humps of concrete in the road designed to slow down traffic.

Correct.

> In some cases 10mph is as fast as I want to hit them, anything faster is
> damaging to the car.

Fine. So either your car's suspension is very poorly designed, or the 
hump is very poorly designed, since they seem to restrict traffic to an 
unnecessarily slow speed.

> Mike P behind me assumes that anyone going that slow is a cretin.

No, Mike said that anybody who slows to a damn-near-dead-stop is a cretin.

> You apparently drive over them at 30-40mph

I do.

> and think everyone should.

I'd love for you to provide the details of where I said that...

>> > As it happens I did hit one of those particular humps at 30mph a few
>> > years ago in a Fiesta

>> I rest my case.

> What case?  30mph was much too fast and the car was lucky not to have
> been damaged - and indeed may have been from the bang that came from
> under it.

The car's suspension is very badly designed. It's a Fester. It's a sack 
of steaming shite.

>> >> > He's impatient, assuming and overtakes on a hazard.  His driving
>> >> > might be safe so far but his attitude seems quite wrong to me.

>> >> If he can see it's safe to pass, what's the problem? What
>> >> "assumption" is being made?

>> > He is assuming that other drivers are in error if they are not
>> > driving the way he would drive

>> Well, fuck, that's ALL overtaking frowned on, then.

> Nope, just the overtaking on hazards due to impatience.

What "hazard"? Did you miss the bit where I said "If he can see it's safe 
to pass"? Surely not, since you quoted it several times.

>> > and apparently he is assuming that other cars act the same as his
>> > car.

>> <re-reads> Nope, only seems to be one person doing that in this thread.

> You think I am?

It's fairly clear from your posts that you are.

You once went over one too quickly for a poorly designed vehicle, 
therefore no vehicle could possibly do it.

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008, Adrian wrote:

> > In some cases 10mph is as fast as I want to hit them, anything faster is
> > damaging to the car.
> 
> Fine. So either your car's suspension is very poorly designed, or the 
> hump is very poorly designed, since they seem to restrict traffic to an 
> unnecessarily slow speed.

At least one of the humps is poorly designed, there is literally a drop 
off it onto the road.  I don't think my car's suspension is "very poorly 
designed" at all, but in a moment we'll see that it's irrelevant.  I 
also see plenty of cars slowing to around 10mph for these humps.  
Perhaps their suspensions are all very poorly designed too.  Or perhaps 
it's a reasonable speed to take them at.

> > Mike P behind me assumes that anyone going that slow is a cretin.
> 
> No, Mike said that anybody who slows to a damn-near-dead-stop is a cretin.

He actually said "Because some thick twats insists on literally stopping 
to get over them. Which is a surprise when I'm trundling along at 25mph 
over them."  If he is surprised by people going below 25mph then I 
suggest that taking them at 10mph falls into the category of people with 
whom he is not happy.

> > You apparently drive over them at 30-40mph
> 
> I do.
> 
> > and think everyone should.
> 
> I'd love for you to provide the details of where I said that...

Oh.  So you do believe that people should slow down for them after all?  
Wonderful.  So the question is down to what speed, and who gets to 
decide.  I'll start the bidding at "whatever speed feels appropriate in 
the vehicle" and "the driver is the best person to know their vehicle, 
not the person behind".

> > What case?  30mph was much too fast and the car was lucky not to have
> > been damaged - and indeed may have been from the bang that came from
> > under it.
> 
> The car's suspension is very badly designed. It's a Fester. It's a sack 
> of steaming shite.

So Mike P's correct to be annoyed with drivers who slow right down, 
because they're in the wrong for having the wrong type of car for his 
liking?  I'm not sure that is his stance, but it's an interesting 
viewpoint.

Ref the above comment about the suspension being irrelevant - if you see 
such cars navigating a set of speed humps, common sense suggests that 
you give them plenty of space and time to do it, since you believe that 
they have very badly designed suspensions.

> >> Well, fuck, that's ALL overtaking frowned on, then.
> 
> > Nope, just the overtaking on hazards due to impatience.
> 
> What "hazard"? Did you miss the bit where I said "If he can see it's safe 
> to pass"? Surely not, since you quoted it several times.

What hazard?  The large piece of concrete across the carriageway which 
is temporarily diverting the attention of a slower moving driver.  Next 
you'll be telling me that if a driver can see it's safe to pass a 
stationary bin wagon on the wrong side of a bollard that they should go 
for it.  I doubt it though, since you've made your views on that quite 
clear and we wouldn't want to see any inconsistency in your thinking.

> >> > and apparently he is assuming that other cars act the same as his
> >> > car.
> 
> >> <re-reads> Nope, only seems to be one person doing that in this thread.
> 
> > You think I am?
> 
> It's fairly clear from your posts that you are.
> 
> You once went over one too quickly for a poorly designed vehicle, 
> therefore no vehicle could possibly do it.

Don't be daft.  I can feel when my current car is hitting speed bumps 
too fast, and I go over them as fast as I feel is comfortable.  I've 
driven a bit too fast over humps since then and am still happy with the 
relatively slow speeds I go over them at.  It's called vehicle sympathy 
and common sense.

Some humps I can do at around 20-25, others require less than 10.  It 
might frustrate impatient fuckwits who know their vehicles can hit them 
at 40, but such people are frustrated by most things because they can't 
think beyond the end of their bonnet.  Good luck to them.  One day 
they'll push their luck too far.  I hope I'm not near them when they do.

Meanwhile you cannot comprehend someone slowing right down to go over 
them, even though you believe they're driving a car with very poorly 
designed suspension and should apparently expect it from them.  Do you 
tailgate unsecured loads too so you can watch them fall off?

-- 
Chris

"Adrian"  wrote in message 
news:6f3o85F9gnorU13@mid.individual.net...
> Chris Lawrence <news03@holosys.co.uk.invalid> gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
>
>>> Fine. So the lumps of concrete are too large, or your car is incapable
>>> of driving over them at an appropriate speed.
>
>> Your stance is so fuckwitted that I am assuming we're on about different
>> things, but you're adamant that we're not.  So let's start again.
>
> Indeed. We'll find out quickly enough where you're misunderstanding what
> I'm saying.

You know, you're both acting in Usenet like the kind of drivers nobody wants 
to meet (but are around every corner).  C'mon.  Settle down.

>> Large humps of concrete in the road designed to slow down traffic.
>
> Correct.
>
>> In some cases 10mph is as fast as I want to hit them, anything faster is
>> damaging to the car.
>
> Fine. So either your car's suspension is very poorly designed, or the
> hump is very poorly designed, since they seem to restrict traffic to an
> unnecessarily slow speed.

And yet... that is their design remit.

The inept cocks that put the speed humps down in the estate and surrounding 
area that I live in designed them so that they would wear out every year, 
thus causing a little man to come out and spray paint over them, then to 
spend half a day putting more tarmac down, which of course wears away just 
as quickly.  This leads to a renewed speed bump every year and a gradually 
wearing away dip the far side (far worse on the bus route).  That leads to 
something that doesn't look too tall on the way up, but has a chuff of a pit 
on the far side.

And you bet after I rolled my Ka and had a sore back, I felt every single 
millimetre of the speed bump.

I seem to recall that the maximum height is 75mm but most are 50mm.  Or 
something.  I'd feel a cock if I measured some of them, but the *effective* 
height on the down side is around an inch more than the height on the way 
up.

>> Mike P behind me assumes that anyone going that slow is a cretin.
>
> No, Mike said that anybody who slows to a damn-near-dead-stop is a cretin.
>
>> You apparently drive over them at 30-40mph
>
> I do.
>
>> and think everyone should.
>
> I'd love for you to provide the details of where I said that...

Ya - maybe both of you can just mumble something nasty about the other and 
drop this point..? :-)

Shoot.  I'm trying to go all peacekeeper on you.  Sorry.  Tell you what, 
flame me instead?

>>> > As it happens I did hit one of those particular humps at 30mph a few
>>> > years ago in a Fiesta
>
>>> I rest my case.
>
>> What c