Jump to content

reluctant

Approved Member
  • Content Count

    919
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About reluctant

  • Rank
    Over 500 posts
  • Birthday 13/03/1959

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Leeds
  • Interests
    Lions International, walking, relaxing and imbibing
  • Towcar
    Not required
  • Caravan
    Auto-Trail Tracker FB

Recent Profile Visitors

1,526 profile views
  1. Despite the fact that you might just have a point...I do sometimes rely on my wife to drive me after I have had a few bevies. It would by a tragedy if she couldn't. So sorry, but that idea doesn't get my vote.
  2. We always empty and clean out all cupboards for overwintering the van, and leave all locker doors open, with the seat cushions lifted. It makes it easy to see all is empty on the final check and allows for full ventilation.
  3. No one can say with any degree of accuracy how much it is 'safe' to drink before driving (or how long after drinking it is safe to drive. For this reason the advice from Government has always been not to drink and drive. A persons metabolism will determine at what rate the alcohol is metabolised from the bloodstream. There is no fixed rate. An individuals metabolism can vary day to day and is dependant upon many factors. Eating can reduce the speed at which alcohol is absorbed into the bloodstream but this is not a guarantee that it would be safe to drink with a meal then drive. Body mass and other general health conditions can also have an effect, either to speed up or slow down absorbtion. Hence the question 'How much can I drink and be safe to drive' becomes a hypothetical one. Anyone asking that question and expecting a simple answer is deluding themselves. The standard of driving in this country varies so much that one person just below the legal limit may well still be a better driver with faster reactions than another who has zero alcohol in their system. Perhaps compulsory re-testing might have a greater effect on accident reduction than reducing the blood alcohol level to zero. A comedian once said 5% of injury accidents are caused by drink drivers, so 95% must be caused by people who are sober. So for safer roads ban the sober ones! (Not saying I agree,,,but it does show how statistics can be used to prove anything you want!)
  4. The immediate assumption being made is that the driver was drunk. What if he were ill, such as a diabetic going into a coma, or someone suffering a heart attack. If no-one calls the Police that person could die! Over the years I have attended several incidents where a 'drunk driver' was actually someone taken ill at the wheel. I fully understand that Police are short staffed, but if no one informs them of something like this, what are the chances they will come across it? Those I attended, an ambulance was called and a life possibly saved. I am not suggesting that anyone tries to intervene in a drunk driver driving off again, and there may be several good reasons why a member of the public would be unable to do so. But anyone could go and investigate if the person was in drink or taken ill. They can always back off if it is drink rather than physically taking action to prevent the person driving off again. But they can dial 999 and alert the Police or ambulance if so required. Even where your own phone provider has a low signal strength, as far as I know a 999 call can be routed through any provider.
  5. Much noise is made by the media on the increase of drug driving, based on figures obtained by FOI requests from Police. The number of tests and consequent positive tests is increasing at (an alarming) rate. But putting the hype to one side, it is only in the past five or six years that reliable roadside drug test devices have been readily available to Police Forces, and as the practicioners get more used to them they are more prepared to use them... So taking that into account even if the actual number of drivers under the influence of drugs had remained a constant, the testing and detection rates would increase over time. Yes it is a problem, a big problem in some areas. Hype from the media however, perpetuated by the social media outrage makes it look as though the situation is worsening, not the detection improving. Headlines sell papers (and other news media) and theres nowt like making news 'sexy' to attract readers. I will end by saying I do not approve in any way, shape of form driving under the influence of drugs (or drink) over the prescribed limits.
  6. Ours arrived just before Christmas...I decided to wrap it for SWIMBO as an extra pressie...I can just manage to open my left eye now and the doctor says once the swelling goes down I should regain the use of my left leg!
  7. I am not saying that we will not need them as there may be some anti-Brit feelings around Europe post Brexit (and who can blame them) But: The International Driving Permit is not in itself a driving licence, it is simply a translation into other languages of the entitlements granted by our UK licence. Our current UK driving licences are in the European standard layout with each section numbered the same throughout Europe. The current licence catagories (A,B,C +E etc) are European standard, again throughout Europe. No Police Officer could honestly (or perhaps legally) state that they couldn't understand it. Perhaps at some time in the future if the UK Government in their infinite wisdom decide to change the catagories simply to 'not be ruled by Europe' then perhaps an argument may exist for an International Driving Permit. But until then it is all smoke and mirrors.
  8. There was a time when repeater signs were required by law, but the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 issued by the Dept. for Transport removes the requirement for at least one repeater sign. The legislation now states that Traffic Authorities are best placed to decide how many repeater signs are needed and where they are placed having regard for the legislation and guidance in Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs manual. Sect. 8.3 of the Traffic Signs Manual covers repeater signs on pages 74 and 75 via this link https://tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/tsm/tsm-chapter-03.pdf
  9. They might park them in clear sight, but with the long lens on the cameras, they will have the speed recorded long before most will spot the van as they come over the crest into sight.
  10. I have both a cadac Chef and a Cadac 2 cook. I run both from the LP van supply (propane) or from a blue butane bottle with it's own bottle mounted regulator. Can't beat them in my opinion
  11. RIDDOR - Reporting of Injuries, Disease and Dangerous Occurences I think you may be confusing legislation, as has been said, it is for the reporting of injuries etc at work
  12. Not to be pedantic, but water weighs about 1 kg per litre. 20 gallons is aproximately 90 litres, so that would be 90kg ... Is your car powered by some unknown but very heavy fuel Commander?
  13. reluctant

    Ouch

    I hope you always chose 'less than'....Don't want to be giving the public the wrong impression. Afterall they dont know it's a 'civvie' driving it and just assume it's the Police rushing to get to the next tea stop!
  14. Buy her some 'Old Lady' gin in one of the French supermarkets and then hide behind something solid!
  15. The law refers to 'mobility scooters' as invalid carriages (class 2 or class 3) and these are subject to very specific regulations including amongst other things, who can use them, the speed they can do on pavements and on the road and even when they are prohibited from the road! I have heard nothing to suggest anyone is considering banning their use. As Mr Plod has said, the 'toy' scooters with two or three wheels are classified as mechanically propelled vehicles. Since the early days of vehicles the various Road traffic Acts have defined classification of vehicles, and as has been rightly pointed out these laws were passed by politicians. What is not happening is politicians of today trying to outlaw electric 'toy' scooters.. (They have no need to do so as they are already outlawed)
×
×
  • Create New...