matt-c

Why specifically a 225/45? Standard fit was 215/45 - going 225/45 will put your overall rolling radius at +1.44%. Not an awful lot mind, about 9mm total diameter.

It's not just you - it's very easy to over-rev the IS at low speeds such as pull-away, parking, and even from 1st to 2nd changes (manual, obviously). If I'm crawling in traffic, or parking on a slope, or reverse parking into a space from a right angle, I tend to flick the snow button to on, as it makes the throttle response slower, and "cleaner" - basically more accurate. But for day to day driving, here and there, I just don't bother as I've not noticed any discernible difference in fuel economy with it on or off

Ah, the classic Knobby off-tangent. Please, re-read the question and try again; "your car get's stolen, and because there's a risk that a parked car - with no people in it - might get a bit of (repairable) damage caused to it, you're happy for the police not to chase the thieves that stole your car, and let them get away? Correct?" I'll give you a clue. It's a one word answer - "Yes" or "No" Now, for question two that you failed to address (also a one word "yes" or "no" answer) "if that happens, are you going to claim from the police for compensation for the value of your car, because they didn't do their job and give chase, and thus did not apprehend the thieves?" Here's another clue, since it appears you really need the help. Neither question has anything to do with human life (as stated quite clearly in question 1). So, to summarise; the answers you are looking for are; Question 1 - yes or no Question 2 - yes or no Take some time to read them, you do struggle with that, so I'd like you to fully grasp it and give an honest (one word) answer. (Hell, I'd be happy if you lied and gave a false answer, it just makes you look even more foolish!)

As you already stated - the police kicking in the wrong door is entirely different to car thieves damaging a parked car. So that one is out (still) By the way, you missed these (why am I not surprised) Not got the balls to give an honest answer to the above? Thought not.... ;)

So, let's clarify - your car get's stolen, and because there's a risk that a parked car - with no people in it - might get a bit of (repairable) damage caused to it, you're happy for the police not to chase the thieves that stole your car, and let them get away? Correct? Now, question 2 - if that happens, are you going to claim from the police for compensation for the value of your car, because they didn't do their job and give chase, and thus did not apprehend the thieves? I suspect the answer to both of those are "no". Let's see if you're man enough to give an honest answer (actually, it'd surprise me if you actually even answered either of those questions, as per usual) Moving on... Yes! Let's debate terminology! It's the argument of the failing man. Suing the police vs seeking compensation from the police based on this event. Same thing! Course, you'd know that - you studied law right? Suing a person or organisation is to bring about legal proceedings against that person or organisation, typically for redress. Or, to appeal formally to a person (or organisation) for something - in this case money (as in, monetary compensation) But of course you know this, because you're fully educated in law, right? Lastly - yes, that's right. The council's have a budget just for events such as this. Do you think their budget is bottomless too? That sums you up - you see a large, or official, organisation, and you immediately think "oh, they've got the money for this" and expect to be able to take it - like you're entitled to it. As I said before, you're fast showing that you are a personification of all that is wrong with our society today. Thinking the world owes you something when it doesn't, and thinking you can profit when you haven't earned it. Jog on sunshine! ;)

Hahaha, you said it: And you're quite correct - it is completely different. In fact the only qualifying link is that the police were involved. Other than that, it's apples and oranges. As for thinking the police aren't immune from being held accountable - I fully agree. The police are only human beings, and as such they are liable to held accountable for their actions. However, this isn't pertinent to Steve's situation either - it wasn't the police that made the drivers of the stolen car hit Steves car; it was the car thieves. So the only person accountable for the damage to Steve's car, is the driver of the stolen car. Likewise, talking about actions that result in loss of life are entirely different to damage to property. I for one know, for fact - not speculation, like yourself - that the police WILL call off a vehicle chase if the risks to life and well being of the public's health, grow too high. And I commend them for doing so. A person being run over (by either a cop or a thief) isn't worth their life for a car. However, damage to another car, is very inconsequential. Not to mention the fact we all (or at least I assume we all) have insurance to cover events like this. Let me ask you, if your car was stolen (and we all know just how much you love your car, so please, don't play it down), you would be happy for the police to NOT pursue the thieves, and let them get away? Because that's what will happen if people, en masse, take your advice, and sue the police when something like this happens. Do you understand what cause and effect is? Of course you do; you're well educated (you even said so yourself!). For ion there is an equal and opposite reaction; so when people start suing the police for damage that might have been inflicted on their car during a police chase, what do you think will happen? Well first of all, taxes will go up, as the police is not a business; it's tax payer funded. So taxes will increase to cover shortfalls in revenue and funding created by paying out for lawsuits. The second thing that will happen, is the police will stop chasing stolen cars. "Oh no they won't" I can hear you cry! Oh yes, they will. Why? Because it would be not only in the Police Commission's interest to not pursue the thieves (as in, should something happen to open them up to a lawsuit, what better way to avoid that than by avoiding the action that could lead to it; prevention rather than cure), but it will also be deemed to be in the public's (ie, the taxpayer) interest also, as they are the ones that foot the bill for the forthcoming lawsuit. Now, I think I pay enough tax, and enough insurance, and I, along with others, would not like it to go up unnecessarily (of course it will go up, but let's not add fuel to the fire). And I for one, as I'm sure others will also, would like the police to pursue suspects and perpetrators if my car was stolen (and having had a car stolen, and recovered by the police, I actually think they do a damn fine job) Oh, and please don't suggest for even one second you know me. Please present your "facts" relating to what I have or haven't read. Of course, you won't present any evidence, as you cannot; literally or physically. Instead you will ignore it, and bring up something else completely unrelated, as you invariably do everytime you are called out. And, until such time as you can present factual proof of my reading history, your statement is nothing more than speculation; which (as I think I've said before), means you are NOT educated to claim fact to. Good day to you, sir ;)

The snow button simply changes the throttle response of the pedal. The throttle in the IS is electronically assisted, and the snow button reduces the amount of assistance given to the throttle, making it feel much heavier, and (naturally) less responsive. It won't make much, if any, difference to your mpg, as it doesn't lessen the power output of the engine. Some people claim they do see an improvement when using it constantly, personally I think it's a placebo effect and any difference seen is down to them being much more conscious of their driving, as opposed to the snow button making the actual difference.

Oh, really? Because you know my life do you? I suggest you get your facts right before suggesting you know what it is you're talking about. Whether I have read law or not is by the by. The fact is, you think you, or someone else in this predicament, is entitled to compensation from the police for doing their job and enforcing law. At the very least, that is morally wrong. But you wouldn't know would you, as you've only read contract law, haven't you? I mean, you said it yourself here; Quote So you cannot offer advice on this situation, as you are not educated to do so. So perhaps you should re-read what you write before casting aspersion on what others do or say....

Scored a couple of tickets (VIP box, no less!) to see Iron Maiden Sat night at the O2 Arena in London, on a classic Seventh Son of a Seventh Son re-tour - and holy cr.ap they didn't disappoint! Easily outperformed the Final Frontier show at the same venue in 2011! Setlist; Moonchild Can I Play with Madness The Prisoner 2 Minutes to Midnight Afraid to Shoot Strangers The Trooper The Number of the Beast Phantom of the Opera Run to the Hills Wasted Years Seventh Son of a Seventh Son The Clairvoyant Fear of the Dark Iron Maiden ------------------- Aces High The Evil That Men Do Running Free Which is quite possibly the greatest set list in the history of anything ever! Of course, not only were they just spot on musically, their live show was awesome too - pyro (including light rack mounted fireworks, that popped in time with a passage of music!), giant robot Calvary Eddie (during Run to the Hills) moving around the stage, along with giant Clairvoyant Eddie, the devil/goat (Number of the Beast), and a giant Seventh Son Eddie, complete with dancing "baby" and pyro head! Absolutely blinding show! I also met Sir Bruce Forsyth, who walked into our box shortly before Maiden took to the stage. Couldn't resist a cheeky remark to him, so I said, as he walked past me, "Hey Bruce, I didnt know you were into rock music!". To which he replied "Well, you've heard of heavy metal - I'm soft aluminium!". Then I said "I sure didn't peg you as a Maiden fan though", and he turned to look back at me saying "I wouldn't peg you as a Sinatra fan either". I kinda wish I had my iPod with me so I could have shown him I do indeed have some Ol' Blue Eyes on it! Apparently, his grandson was playing in the support band, Voodoo Six. Never heard of them, but quite cool. Got a nice, stompy, English rock band feel to them. So in summary; VIP hospitality; free tickets, free dinner, free cake, free beer, a cheeky tête à tête with a celebrated British icon, and definitely the best Maiden show I've ever seen. Only thing that could have topped all that, would have been a meet n' greet pass (which I did try to arrange, and called/emailed/hassled everyone I know in the biz, from staff at Premier and Paiste, to a couple artists I'm friendly with that might have some pull, but to no avail sadly. Maybe next time...?) SCREEEEEEEEEEAM FOR ME LONDON!!!!!

I've thrown away probably 5 or 6 park "fines" from private car parks, and never had ANY follow up from any of them. The only ones I've not been able to get out of paying were two in MacDonalds carparks (two separate occasions), but that's because both times, I was in a company vehicle, and the "fine" was sent to the lease company, who automatically pay it, then bill me for later (adding a nice admin charge onto it, for the pleasure). If they had been sent directly to me, I'd have filed them with the rest; in the bin. I've only ever received two proper fines I couldn't get out of - 1 for parking with two wheels up on the kerb, and one for stopping in a bus lane. I did once recieve one that I got out of, fining me for parking on a double yellow. I contested it saying I was parked in a marked bay and had a legit parking ticket from the machine for the time of my stay. The council agree'd and dropped it. Turns out, when I went back to the same place a month or so later, I wasn't actually parked in a marked bay, I had indeed parked on the double yellows. But I thought I was in a bay, and thus bought the ticket and went to the shops! Silly me. Still, fine overturned, so all's well that ends well!

By all means do this if you're fighting a council imposed ticket. But don't even bother if it's a private one. Not worth the paper it's printed on. They may threaten to take you to court, but they won't as they know they can't win, and it's a waste of time and money. Just bin it; don't even acknowledge them.

This just about sums you up really Unbeliveable.... Lets dissect shall we? If the police didn't pursue stolen cars, then NO car would be safe - as it'd be free reign to steal any car, since there'd be no comeback for doing so No, the damage was caused by thieves who steal cars and think they can drive... Contradiction Again, herein lies the problem with this country. Everybody thinks they are entitled to something and can get it by claiming compensation or suing people. ________________________________________________ Stevlee - glad to see it's all fixed, I'd be gutted as you too. Friend of mine recently went through a very similar thing, except his car was hit, whilst parked, by a drunk driver. Fortunately, the car that was being driven was left at the side of the road, only a couple hundred yards away, after the driver had been arrested and detained by police. Because of that, my friend was able to claim for his car from the insurance of the drunk driver (luckily, the drunk's insurance paid out, even though his insurance was invalidated by him driving whilst drunk. Hefty fine for that man, and a ban for drink driving too no doubt)

Groms have two connectors so that you can also connect an existing cd changer. There is only one port that is for CD changers, so you should be connected to this one. If you have a CD changer already plugged in, unplug it, plug the TOY1 cable in there, then connect the CD changer cable to the female pass through connector on the TOY1

320 is the lowest miles a car's had that I've fitted a screen to, with the lowest amount of miles a present owner has done being around 85! Shortest screen life (other than a screen cracking during fitting, which doesn't count) is 8 miles - I fitted a screen to an Audi TT, and the owner couldn't come pick the car up before we closed, so since I'd finished my work, and had a fitter standing round doing nothing, I offered to drive the car back to her - she lived 10.2 miles away. We got within a couple miles of her house, pulled in behind a lorry to take the exit, and just as I did, a large stone came up and cracked the screen! I was gutted! We put it on the drive, gave her the bad news, but by this point I'd already called my branch and told them, and even though it wasn't our fault, we offered to replace it free of charge the following week, which we did. She couldn't believe it, but saw the funny/ironic side, and was quite good about it - especially since we were going to replace it for free in seven days!

If all doors are unlocked, and you lock the drivers door with the key, only the drivers door will lock - the rest will remain unlocked. If you lock all doors with the button on the drivers controls (with the ignition off) then lock the drivers door with the key, all doors will be locked, but using the key in the drivers door will only unlock the drivers door, not the rest (you need to use the button inside to unlock the rest of the doors) If you have the ignition ON and press the lock button on the drivers controls (with the drivers door open) all door will lock, then unlock automatically. Not sure why - would make more sense to lock all doors except the open on, but there you go... The alarm is also no activated by locking the drivers door with the key. (if you have locked all the doors from outside using the remote, and the alarm is activated, then unlocking with the key will trigger the alarm before the drivers door is even opened)

She's cute, but not well equipped Oh wait, we're sposed to be talking about the car? Oh....

Mine was a touch below 90k, and it's 11 years old. It might have have a cam belt before, but there's nothing in the receipt folder to say it has. Looking at the pic I posted above, it's nowhere near the worst, but it's still past it's prime!

Good point! But I thought the IS went to his Mrs?

Tis a belt, not a chain Ray. And although Lexus say 100k change interval, it's been recommended (here and other places) to change it at 60k

Wow, sounds like you need a new phone! Google, or Apple, Maps on my phone is quicker and faster than any of the TomTom's I've had (and I've currently got three), and more reliable (GPS fix, location pointing) than all of them too! Plus, like yours, if I choose to go for spoken directions (which I don't often, but have done) I play my music through the Grom from my phone, and the nav voice attenuates the music while it's speaking, then returns it to the original volume when it isn't. I'm so tempted to buy an iPad Mini and fix that in the motorised housing, but after having a quick measure, it looks like it won't fit :(

Personally, and I know we're all different, but to me the only thing about the built in sat-nav is that it looks nice and makes a feature out of the top of the dash. But other than that, it's rubbish; it's archaic, a faff to use (compared to a modern touchscreen nav) and lacks so many features. For a fraction of the price (and a millionth of the effort) you can buy and fit an up to date touchscreen nav unit, that is not only much better in terms of maps, and routing, but loaded with so many more features, and also portable. The other option, if you really want the flip up screen, is to buy the motorised housing, rip out the screen, fit an after market screen in it's place, get a bit fancy with a soldering iron, and wire it into the car. Boom - up to date nav, but in the stock looking housing. That was going to be something I was going to do, but I've not bothered. For two reasons - 1) I'm a fussy git and so far haven't found the aftermarket nav that ticks all the boxes for me, and 2) I so rarely need/use a sat nav, that the rare times I do, I just use the Google Maps or Apple Maps app on my phone...

The insurance groupings aren't just related to performance though. They are also tied into thefts, and write offs. So if the IS200 Sport has been written off more times than an SE, or stolen more often, it will be a higher insurance group. An Escort Cosworth is still insurance group 20, yet a Focus RS (mk2) is group 19 - even though the Focus RS is more powerful, bigger engine, faster top end, and costs more than an Escort Cosworth.

Hahaha. Still not a sport tho! :D Think mine was about £20 more (for the year) but I put that down to the valuation of the car (which was a bit higher than the SE I'd previously had a quote for)

No no Chris; there's no debate. He's clearly said that unless it says "Sport" on the V5, it's not a "Sport" model. So because his V5 doesn't say "Sport", then he doesn't have a "Sport" car. It's simple, and he said it himself. I do find it ironic though that he insists on contradicting himself. I mean, he said, in his own words, that his car isn't a Sport, yet then goes on to tell us WHY his car is a Sport (even though it isn't). His reasoning? The only difference is the engine and gearbox. So, two differences between your car and his, in his eyes, makes his a Sport (even though it isn't). Funny, cos earlier he said there's only two differences between the IS200 Sport and a non Sport IS200 (the suspension and LSD). So if only two differences make an IS300 (non Sport) a Sport (it's not), then surely only two differences make a non-Sport IS200, a Sport? Yes? No... Sorry OP - if your V5 doesn't say Sport, it's not a Sport. Just like John's IS300 isn't a Sport - no matter how much he wishes it was.

Wasn't an ex PM was it?