Dodgy

Hi all, Samething happened to me over the weekend. ERR3!. Call lexus and enq about the 5yr/100,000miles warranty and as suspected it is 5yrs OR 100k whichever comes first. Not bad my car is an X plate 2000, although i've only clocked up 62k. Quoted me anywhere bet, 400-700 quid to repair. new one would cost 1k plus. I was looking to replace it from ebay/salvage yards etc but as someone pointed out that will eventually go. So it looks like an after market for me.

:tsktsk: :tsktsk: :tsktsk: :tsktsk: :tsktsk: :tsktsk: :tsktsk: :tsktsk: :tsktsk: :tsktsk: :tsktsk: lol

Hi, I was at the North East Motorshow on Saturday had a great day out. I did however wander into a stand( :duh: ) and got speaking to a guy who told me all about this Fuel CAP its designed by nassa(you know the space shuttle people) what you do is add two caps to your first and second full tank of petrol and one to every tank thereafter. It's suggested that it will give you a minimun of 10% saving on each full tank of petrol. has anyone heard of it or even tried it. cheers dodgy

Very dodgey :megaangry: did someone mention my name! sorry to hear that, you can always ask for evidence, you never know it might just work for you. secondly cooper on the roadside asking for cash upfront is a big no no, never heard of that being legal..... not in my force it isn't i report that striaght away

i just wouldn't, couldn't, never ever, no, absolutely no way, :o ok I'll think about <_< .............................. still no

:D made me laugh

ScareFace you put me to shame. Your Motor is lush matey! if could afford your motor i would buy it.............. the thing is i don't think you'll sell it

yeah still a plod. Gord, you doing the driving instruction now? Like the new look of the forum. Its gonna take me sometime to catch up.

Hi Guys I'm Back, for those who can remember My old comp give up several mths ago and i've been holding out for a laptop..... and yep i've got. Nice to see so many new members. I would do the intro now but I'll wait to see if any one can remember my last one. talk soon DODGY

Besty you've do it again, luv it, just one small point to note......WHERE'S THE FRONT NUMBER PLATE! (sorry old habits :P )

Happy Birthday, Have a great day :D

Firstly the girl must attend hospital ASAP to have her injuries recorded by the doctor. This will help determining what if any assault charges are brought against the defendant at a later date. Secondly how old is the victim because this can also be a factor in how the evidence is obtained for her, whether it is taken via video or written statement. Does the victim have any supporting witness that will come forward and offer evidence in the case? Also never be worried about counter allegations (when the police came he told them that if my daughter pressed charges he would too.. and she would be arrested too.) The classic get out line to frighten the victim into not making a complaint. If you are the victim of an assault in your own home then I think the person responsible will have a very hard time explaining how the victim came to receive her injuries in her home when all he seems to have is a few scratches to his chest. As for the defendants Daughter well she is on thin ice indeed as "Threats to kill" is also an Arrestable Offence and this can be investigated as well. If the incidents of harassment continue, then i suggest the setting up of a CCTV system to catch the incidents on tape to give to the Police for further investigations. Tell the victim if she hasn't done anything wrong then she should make the complaint and let the police do the work.

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid. Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can still raed it wouthit a porbelm Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas thuohgt spleling was ipmorantt

Sorry to hear that Mate I can say I know just how you feel as I've had my car damage to. Short story. Council get private firm to erect lamps in our street. They put a lamppost outside my neighbours house which is infact private land and should of never been sited there in the first place. I come home late one night and park outside my neighbours house (as normal as we live in a court yard). My neighbour is doing some DIY and goes outside to put his old carpet out for collection (with gripper rod still attached) and falls down the :tsktsk: big hole the contractors have left causing my neighbour to fall against the back of my motor causing £500 worth of damage to the backend. Now I’m waiting for either the council/private contractor/neighbours house insurance to pay up.

:P

Don't trust these boys mate there from the wrong side of the NE, I on the other hand i live in Washington (Tyne & Wear). No mate, lexus boy and Besty are great guys, MAD, but great guys

Government's empty promises Speed cameras — a betrayal of public trust The 1991 Road Traffic Act allowed the use of Speed Cameras to gain prosecutions in the UK for the first time. Their introduction was underpinned by extensive and ongoing publicity to link speed with accidents regardless of circumstance based on the simplistic and selective use of available evidence. When assurances were added that they would be sited only at accident blackspots, motoring organisations, the press and much of the motoring public put aside their apprehensions and acquiesced to the increasing use of these devices on the grounds that they would save lives. Some cameras, sited as promised at junction or traffic light locations, have indeed resulted in localised falls in serious accidents. Taking this together with continued advances in both active and passive vehicle safety, improved vehicle security reducing 'joyriding' by unqualified drivers, continuing road improvements and little increase in road traffic, one would have expected an acceleration in the long term trend towards fewer deaths on the roads. However, in 1995 UK road deaths and serious injuries fell only marginally. Hampshire, with no speed cameras, mirrored the national trend whereas speed camera laden Oxfordshire suffered a 30% increase in deaths. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Association of British Drivers The ABD's response The ABD has always maintained that, despite the assurances, speed cameras would be placed in open road locations enforcing often inappropriate speed limits and serving little purpose other than to move the whole enforcement system away from the education of dangerous drivers and towards the arbitrary penalisation of safe and responsible citizens. These fears have been realised and the consequential undermining of driving skills has, the ABD believes, been a significant factor in this failure to improve Britain's road safety record. Restrictions on this irresponsible abuse of Speed Cameras are now essential in order to ensure they are used in the manner originally promised and can thus make a positive rather than a negative contribution to road safety. The ABD is campaigning for an amendment to the 1991 Act which would require clear labelling of all speed cameras with a sign 200yds in advance showing a valid justification for the camera placement and reminding drivers of the speed limit. An example would be — "Dangerous junction — Camera 200yds — 40mph". Cameras where no such justification exists should be removed. A summary of our supporting arguments is contained in the attached question and answer sheet. We are sure that if these arguments are placed before Britain's motorists, a significant proportion will be justifyably angry that their trust in the authorities has been betrayed by the blatant misuse of speed cameras to the detriment of road safety. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Strategy against Gatso cameras To make members aware of Trunk Road camera locations by compiling maps. To highlight to the authorities and the general public specific examples where cameras have been placed in open road locations with no safety justification in direct contravention of the promises made on their introduction. (See A3 locations described below) To highlight the failure of cameras to significantly reduce overall National accident, injury or death rates. To demonstrate the negative impact on driver skills derived from an unreasonable enforcement policy perpetrated by whatever means. To specifically campaign against enforcement of the 70mph motorway limit by cameras. To campaign for the restriction of cameras to clearly labelled accident black spots. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Speed cameras — Questions & Answers Q. Is the ABD against Speed Cameras altogether? A. No. The ABD accepts the argument used to justify speed cameras on their introduction — that they can cut accidents by making reckless or incompetent drivers slow down for specific hazards which generate 'accident black spots'. Q. How can you say that the authorities have 'abused' Speed Cameras? Instead of being located in blackspots, the majority of cameras have been placed in open road locations where they serve no purpose other than to catch out drivers who are travelling at an appropriate speed for the conditions. A particularly worrying trend is the recent placement of cameras on the motorway network, currently Britain's safest roads despite almost universal disregard for the 70mph speed limit. Q. How can you accuse the authorities of irresponsibility when they are just doing their job? Even those cameras sited correctly are often not clearly labelled, thus denying the target group of drivers the opportunity to be educated into slowing down for hazards. This clearly demonstrates an irresponsible attitude on the part of the authorities - prosecutions are more important than road safety. Q. But surely a safe driver never exceeds the speed limit? A. The speed limit is supposed to be the maximum safe speed on that road and it is up to the driver to use his skill and judgement to set his speed appropriately to the conditions within it. On country lanes, shopping streets and housing estates this is usually the case, but on the open road and on many clear urban through roads, limits exist which bring this statement into disrepute. There are several reasons for this: Open road limits have not been adjusted to take account of the modern car's vastly superior brakes, tyres and suspensions which have reduced stopping distances by up to 50% from those stated in the Highway Code. Similar stretches of urban dual carriageway have limits varying from 30mph to 70mph, sometimes without logic at all but often because the limit is set for the worst rush hour conditions rather than light traffic. Semi-urban clear road limits are reduced to or maintained at unrealistic levels for political reasons to allow decision makers to cover themselves against any blame for potential accidents. Safe drivers who give the road conditions their full attention will inevitably break such arbitrary and inconsistent limits. Q. We hear that 'speed kills', and so why isn't a general slowdown a good thing? A. The authorities state that 'excessive speed is a contributory factor in a third of accidents'. But what about the other two thirds, and what is the main factor in this minority if speed is only 'contributory'? This missing factor, the real cause of most accidents, is failure by drivers to respond to hazards: They fail to see them because they aren't looking. They see the hazard but do not recognise it as such, and so fail to act. They recognise the hazard but do not know how to respond in line with their own and their vehicle's ability. Driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions is simply one consequence of these fundamental failings. To separate it out as a root cause in its own right is meaningless and dangerous. Q How does this alleged camera abuse translate into more dangerous roads? A1. Most obviously by distracting drivers' attention from the road. Since a driver cannot rely on keeping her licence by driving sensibly and appropriately, the first use of her senses must always be to locate the camera and then to ensure she passes it at the correct speed. Whilst doing this, she cannot give her full attention to other potential hazards, and may take unpredictable evasive action such as braking which creates a hazard for other road users. A2 Perhaps more importantly by undermining his skills. A safe driver is one able to judge road conditions for himself. But sensible and necessary speed limits are rarely enforced, presumably because it is more cost effective to collect tickets from safe drivers on roads where the limit is inappropriately low. Such circumstances reward drivers for travelling at the speed they can get away with rather than what is safe, and even the most skilled driver will find himself losing his ability to judge road conditions properly. New drivers stand little chance of developing their skills to a level where they can cope with normal day to day hazards safely and intelligently. Q. Isn't it wrong to break the law, and shouldn't those who do so be punished? A. The ABD believes that laws are necessary but that they should be fair to all and serve a clear purpose. Enforcement to the letter of regulations which large numbers of responsible citizens regard as unreasonable and pointless can only lead to widespread disregard for the whole system of law and is a significant factor in the breakdown in standards of honesty in the Western world. Q. Who are the ABD and why should their views be pulicised? A.The ABD is made up of responsible drivers who believe the rights of the motorist are being undermined to an unacceptable degree. We all hold down full time jobs in the community and mostly have growing families, and so the time freely given to campaigning on behalf of ourselves and millions of other motorists is both limited and precious. Unlike some of our opponents, we are not inclined to climb trees, storm security offices or paint slogans on our naked bodies. The published arguments in support of this erosion of rights have, in our opinion, been ill thought out and one sided at best, and have all too often been presented as fact and have gone unchallenged. Whilst we respect the rights of others to promote their views, we believe it is time to redress the balance. The British public has a right to know that they have been conned into accepting Speed Cameras under false pretences.

Accuracy of information is important I understand that where the insurance requires supply of information relating to other people who may be insured under the contract, the information must be accurate and factual to enable correct assessment of the risk. I confirm that I have the consent of these individuals to supply their personal details to its4me and their insurer. Making false statements, failing to reveal or withholding relevant information is illegal when done to obtain a certificate of Insurance and can make the insurance invalid. This may result in a claim not being paid and your insurer seeking repayment of any amount they are legally required to pay to third parties, if you are not sure if you need to tell us about certain facts, you should provide the information regardless. You must keep us informed of any changes likely to affect your insurance. Withholding information or giving false information is now an ARRESTABLE OFFENCE under the road traffic act. hope this helps.

I'm sending the boys round ......... ← Send the girls and i'll nick a porsche

its CLASS

Two teams of American and Japanese corporations have a boat race. On the big day the Japanese win by a mile and the discouraged Americans hire a consulting firm to investigate the problem. The findings are that the Japanese team had eight people rowing and one person steering while the American team had one rower and eight people steering. Based on these results, the American team is completely reorganized to include four steering managers, four steering area managers and a new performance review system for the person rowing the boat to provide work incentive. The following year the Japanese win again, so the Americans lay off the rower for poor performance and give the managers a bonus for discovering the problem. Now where have I heard that before ?

congratulations to both of you.

This one had just reached £10,000,000.00 no wonder it was pulled