Bluemarlin

I've heard that Saga are ok, and it might be worth checking companies that don't appear on comparion sites. The bigger ones are Admiral, Aviva and Direct Line. The best deal I got was with Direct Line. Funnily enough my previous car was an XK8, and that was cheaper to insure.

Mark, perhaps if you posted whereabouts you are in London then you might get a few recommendations on here. Also, make a note of what might need to be done according to the service schedule, such a spark plugs, brake fluid, coolant, before getting a quote.

Wind

This thread has really got me thinking, and it's clear that things have been approached the wrong way. We're trying to manage problems instead of providing solutions; and that's the responsibility of the car manufacturers. To their credit, they solved the dilemma of trying to comfortably drink a coffee by doing away with a gear stick and giving us automatic cars. Now they just need to move the steering mechanism to the ceiling, attached to one's head, thus leaving both hands free to drink, text, or even use an ipad.

Be reasonable Linas. Do you know how difficult it is to text whilst smoking and drinking a coffee, let alone trying to stick to a lane 😀

You're almost right Linas, they were clearly designed for somebody who is unable to handle the phone whilst driving. Same as most safety laws, which are designed around the least able/competent. I don't think they doubled down on it, so much as closed an unforseen loophole. That said, you're right, it is arbitrary, as other things can be just as distracting. Don't worry though Linas, I'm sure they'll eventually come around to your view of fairness, and will be after our sandwiches, coffees and cigararettes next 😉

Not at all Eric, I think it's perfectly sensible to question these things without being seen as a tin foil hat wearer, they're entirely valid questions. It's the subsequent assumptions of some kind of nefarious global conspiracy that sees the tin foil hat card being waved. Equally questioning the use of fosssil fuels to manufacture EV's is perfectly valid. Personally I don't see an immediate environmental advantage. That said, I do see the reasoning behind attempting to shift from reliance on fossil fuels, but accept that any such move cant be immediate, and that the transition itself may not be the most efficient. The reasons for doing so may be many and varied, from environmental concerns, to political and economic dependencies, or simply long term sustainability. Either way, it doesn't automatically mean that the alternative is simply to screw over the people.

Fair points with regards to clumsiness when eating drinking or smoking. In fact I often used to get a pannini for my drive to work and, although I preferred the bacon and egg one, I always bought the melted cheese and marimite, as that wouldn't fall out of the sandwich. I'd also assume the same rules apply to an attractive woman as they do mobile phones. It's ok to have one in the car, you're just not allowed to manhandle it while driving. I would take issue with the "let people take responsibility for their actions" bit though. The reason being that it's not just them that faces punishment if they mess up, but potentially also an innocent victim. Like I said, in this case it seems to be about preventing disaster, rather than punishing it after the fact. Look at this way. If you're flying home from your holidays, would you prefer that it was illegal for the pilot to be texting his girfriend to arrange a date whilst landing, or that he be left responsible for his actions and only be punished if he messed up?

I think questioning things is good Eric. However, replacing something you choose not to believe, with an equally questionable narrative, doesn't seem to achieve much in my opinion. I'll skip going down the rabbit hole of climate change, as it would just go on forever, but will comment on your Bill Gates and vaccination points. In a global pandemic I suspect that many people invested in bio med companies. Does that make them evil genuises, or simply savvy investors? In the abssence of evidence to the contrary, I suspect the latter. As for whether vaccines are good, I can only go by the fact that since we have had widespread vaccinations we've seen the number of covid deaths drastically drop. Sure, people still get sick, but far fewer die. The vaccine was never touted as a total prevention, and instead something that would help minimise the effects if one was to get covid, and in that regard it appears to have worked as advertised. Anecdotal examples of people getting very sick whilst vaccinated, or hardly feeling a thing when unvaccinated, are a long way from scientific proof of anything. There will always be exceptions and variations, and so it's the bigger picture that mattters. After all, you wouldn't do away with heart surgery because some people still die having had it, or some live on without it. Like I said, questioning is fine, but often those who rebuke others for taking things they read at face value, do exactly that with the theories they read which happen to fit their agenda or mindset. Much like those who touted Ivermectin, without questioning it, only for it to transpire that much of the data had either been erroneously assumed or fabricated and subsequently withdrawn. I don't believe that the powers that be always act in good faith, but from experience I've found that the claims of many conspiracy theories can be quite easily countered with a little research. Largely because many conspiracy theorists quickly latch on to something they want to believe, and then start spreading it without doing the tiniest amount of fact checking first.

I get your point Linas, but I suppose the inherent distraction of using a mobile phone whilst both holding it and driving is considered potentially more dangerous than other things. After all, it's a lot more distracting to use a phone than it is to eat a sandwich or smoke a cigarette. If we were to take your suggestion of just applying driving without due and care and attention, or dangerous driving, rather than penalising potentially dangerous activities, then why bother with speeding or drink driving laws? The point being that the intention is to prohibit potentially dangerous things, in order to reduce accidents, injuries and death, rather than simply apportion blame after someone's been killed.

I'm not deeply informed on the subject of Bill Gates so, in the spirit of questioning everything, I'll accept your claim that he has his financial nose in many things. That would hardly be a surprising revelation regarding a billionaire though. My question therefore is: do you have an objective analysis of the relative good or harm that his financial contributions cause? Ball park will do. 50/50 good vs harm? 70/30? 20/80?

From what I understand it's pretty straightforward. Don't use any such device, for anything, whilst holding it in your hand, with the exception of making a mobile payment whilst stationary, e.g at a fast food drive through. Regardless of reason, or relative safety, any such usage (except the one stated) will automatically be an offence. Said device can however be used whilst fixed in a cradle. There is no automatic offence for such usage, although driving without due care and attention etc can be applied if appropriate, in the same way that it can be applied when operating a car stereo, aircon, etc. Not sure why there's any confusion.

Does anyone have any experience of Lexus Guildford. I too have a service plan with Battersea, so it would be less faff for me to just switch to another Inchcape dealer like Guildford, rather than cash in and start again.

Hi Brad Found one of his listings. It's for a different model, but ad says to contact him for other models. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/154691086057?hash=item24044ea6e9:g:ixEAAOSwEnVf~38T

Brad I have a 2010 RX450h and got a spare key last year from a guy on ebay. Total cost for fob, programming, blade and cutting was £170. Took him about half an hour to do and it works perfectly. I can't seem to find details right now so you'll have to search, but he's in Walthamstow (E17), and his ebay name was moleberet or something similar, if I recall correctly.

Perhaps my experience will clarify things a little Linus. I bought a 12 year old (2009) RX450 last August from a private dealer, with 96k miles on the clock. I read about the 10 year plus extended warranty on here so I emailed my local Lexus dealer asking for details, and received a reply saying my car was too old for an extended warranty. I then phoned Lexus customer services, who confirmed the existence of the 10 year plus warranty, and emailed details to my dealer. I was then provided with the extended warranty for around 500 quid a year, renewable annually until car is 15 yrs old or 150k miles. Warranty also includes UK and European breakdown cover. So, it seems no existing warrranty is required, and you can just go in and buy it. Car needs to be serviced by Lexus to keep warranty valid, and I think they might want to carry out an inspection first if they didn't service it last. In short, there is a standalone extended warranty for cars 10-15yrs old and 100k-150k miles, but not all dealers appear to be aware of it, and so it may require a call to Lexus to send them the info.

Not just for petrol stations. My local Mcdonalds drive through has a couple of rapid chargers in the car park. The EV world is also going to bring a long more competition to the petrol stations.

My car is 12 years old and I use Lexus for servicing. I checked pricing with my nearest specialists and there wasn't much difference, so I took out a Lexus service plan. I have a local garage I use for other work if and when needed. The main reason I've stuck with Lexus for servicing though is that I have an extended warranty that I can run until the car is 15 years old.

Thank you for further clarifying your point Linas. I agree that the wording could be better, but don't feel it will erode good will, and imagine it will all be forgotten once the initial fuss dies down. I don't agree that hierarchies are based on competence though, nor that motorists are more competent. Hierarchies are also based on risk and, in this instance, those who pose the greatest risk to others are also the least risk averse. That's an imbalance that results in death and injury to the more vulnerable, and so needs to be mitigated. If motorists were likely to face death or serious injury in a collision with a pedestrian or a cyclist, then risk aversion would be equal, but they don't, and so the only way to try and equalise it is through greater responsibility and consequences. Granted, it may not be ideal, but I can see the logic. There is also a consistency to it as, when driving in an outer lane, it's your responsibility to ensure that it's safe for you to change to an inner lane and/or turn left. These new rules simply reinforce that responsibility towards cyclists and pedestrians, in addition to other motorists. It seems to me that the biggest problem people have is the assumption that it will lead to cyclists permanently blocking the centre of a lane, and pedestrians walking out dangerously in front of traffic. I don't know why people assume or fear this, as the rules advise against these things, and merely formalise the right of way in a couple of specific circumstances. I get where you're coming from though Linas, although I don't agree. However, in the spirit of open debate, I fully support, defend and respect your right to be wrong 😉

The tax argument is an irrelevant distraction, unless you want to claim that electric vehicles should have less rights on the road. One's priority on the road isn't based on how much you pay. Despite knowing better though, I'll continue down this surreal rabbit hole, as part of me is curious. I drive a lot in London and the surrounding suburbs, as well as more rural areas, and don't experience anything like the difficulties you seem to face. Are you really inconvenienced to such a degree? And no, there aren't only two possible outcomes, there's a third. Drivers could carry on as they do now, and simply be mindful that they have to give way if a pedestrian wants to cross at a junction. This is quite easy for two reasons; the first being that you would naturally be slowing down anyway to make the turn, and the second being that in 99% of cases it's blindingly obvious when a pedestrian is wishing to cross a road. It's really no different than managing a zebra crossing, which most drivers seem able to handle. You've simply created a bunch of strawman arguments to rail against, as nowhere does the highway code encourage pedestrians to walk out into the road. In fact it says the opposite, and instructs them to only do so if it's safe for both them and other road users. Equally, cyclists have always been encouraged to take the centre of the lane where appropriate, and the new rules make it clear that it's a temporary move, and that they should move back over when it's safe to do so. The fact that some might abuse this means that they are breaking the rules, not that the rule is wrong. And I can't even begin to understand your views on hierarchies. Giving the most vulnerable people greater protections doesn't mean they're more important, it just means they're the ones most likely to be hurt by the actions of any and all parties involved. You also also claim that hierarchies should be based on competence, so how do you propose to do that? If you're trying to assert that motorists are the most competent, then you'd need to back that up somehow, because it's unlikely to be true. Linas, despite cycling, I'm primarily a motorist, who happily moans about the actions of some cyclists. I believe cyclists should have mirrors, should stick to cycle lanes, and have third party insurance. However, I'm struggling to see why you have such an issue with the new rules, as they appear to just be formalising common sense, and don't seem to be particularly onerous.

Haha true on the first part. As for the second part, the only risk many drivers are averse to is the risk of being fined for not wearing one.

Firstly, many cyclists are drivers too, as well as taxpayers, so cyclists don't pay "nothing". Secondly, the antagonism felt by drivers that you describe is illogical. On the one hand you say drivers get annoyed that cyclists are in the way, perfectly legally, and then just as annoyed when they get out of the way illegally. So, it's not about the law at all, and just a general dislike of cyclists. That seems apparent when describing cyclists as "generally a nuisance". The reason pedestrians, cyclists and motorists are treated differently is because of risk of harm. The first two largely only risk hurting themselves if they make a mistake, whereas drivers are more likely to hurt others. As a consequence, drivers are the least risk averse. The hierarchy of rules therefore is an attempt to try and level out risk aversion by placing more responsibility, and more risk of consequences, on the group most likely to cause harm and most likely to take risks. Whether the rules have got it right or not, there is a logic to that approach. The whole point is to try and reduce injury and death. Its purpose is neither to hurt or spare anyone's feelings.

I don't often see cyclists inappropriately in the middle of the lane, so can't comment. Of course that happens, but it isn't the norm. I think hierarchy was a poor choice of wording, as it's clearly caused some issues of sensitivity around perceptions of importance, which is really not the point.

In a literal sense you're right. When I assumed that a cyclist running a red light doesn't hurt anyone, I wasn't taking into account the hurt feelings of a motorist. As a curious aside, in other posts you've mentioned how governments condition people to be againsts each other, and I think this is as area where people are conditioned to feel one way without really thinking about it. If for example motoring groups had campaigned for cyclists to be able to run red lights, because it improves traffic flow, then instead of getting mad about it, you'd be seeing the same drivers shouting at cyclists to get a move if they waited for the lights to change.

I fail to see what's woke about preferring the practical advantages of cyclists running red lights, over the emotional trauma some seem to feel at seeing them break the law. I'm not familiar with the smoking kits Phil, so can't comment. Nor am I partcularly condoning law breaking, and only saying it's hardly a big. That said, I did consider your point Phil, and on balance don't feel that jumping a red on a light on a bicycle is a gateway crime to shoplifting or mugging etc 😉 In short, my whole point is not about the legalities of the issue, but the practicality of it.