December 2008
"Another study coming out of the University of Utah Applied Cognition Lab has concluded that driving while talking on the phone is a really bad idea, even if using hand-free kit."
www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/02/hands_free_danger/
The study, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology (pdf),
www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/JEP_A_2008....f
Read more
A sobering thought to the holier-than-though 'the law's the law' brigade who frequent this forum.....
Quote
LANDMARK PARKING TICKET VICTORY THROWS PARKING ENFORCEMENT INTO CHAOS
MILLIONS OF PARKING TICKETS ARE UNENFORCEABLE
From Barrie Segal - founder of AppealNow.com?
In a landmark case at the London Parking Adjudicator, Barrie Segal, the founder of AppealNow.com, got the Controlled Parking Zone for the central zone of London?s West End declared illegal.
Barrie represented transport company, Keystone Distribution UK Ltd in a case against Westminster Council where he claimed that the Council?s massive F3 Controlled Parking Zone in the heart of the West End was illegal and that no parking tickets could be issued to motorists on single yellow lines in that zone. Barrie?s argument was that Zone F3 did not have the correct signs at each vehicle entry point and therefore the zone was illegal. After a site inspection the Parking Adjudicator agreed with Barrie.
The effect of the decision (Keystone Distribution UK Ltd ?v - City of Westminster Case 2080274557), is that every single yellow line must have a time plate showing the parking restrictions along its length (The Department for Transport recommends every 30 metres). As hardly any single yellow lines in the area have these individual signs no parking ticket can be issued to vehicles parked or waiting there.
The F3 Zone is bordered by the whole of Oxford Street to the south, Edgware Road to the West,
George Street /New Cavendish Street to the North and from Centre Point northwards to the East
In a statement Barrie said? This is a victory for motorists in their fight against over-zealous councils. This decision will affect motorists throughout the United Kingdom as I believe that hundreds if not thousand of Controlled Parking Zones are not properly marked as required by law. It is clear to me that millions of parking tickets have been issued illegally in London and the rest of the UK. For years councils have unfairly penalised motorists for trivial contraventions like parking slightly over a parking bay and have said ?that?s the law?. Well this is the law and the council failed to comply and must suffer with the consequences?
Barrie?s advice to motorists who have received parking tickets for parking on single yellow lines in the F3 zone in Westminster is to contest their parking ticket quoting the ?Keystone case ? PATAS number 2080274557) ?
ENDS
Legal Background.
The legal requirement for signs in a Controlled Parking Zone is governed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.
A Controlled Parking Zone must have at each vehicular entrance to the Zone a sign in the form of Diagram 663 0r 663.1 which specified the restricted parking time.
If the Controlled Parking Zone is valid then the council does not need to have a time plate at 30 metres along each single yellow line. As a result the council can issue Penalty Charge Notices (parking tickets) to any vehicle waiting on that single yellow line (unless they are exempt ? e.g unloading goods) during those restricted hours without the need for individual time plates running along the length of the single yellow line.
If Controlled Parking Zone is NOT valid then no parking ticket can be issued to a vehicle parked on a single yellow line UNLESS THEY HAVE THOSE INDIVIDUAL TIME PLATES! As few yellow lines in Central London do then any such parking tickets have been issued illegally.
The F3 Zone is bordered by the whole of Oxford Street to the south, Edgware Road to the West, George Street /New Cavendish Street to the North and from Centre Point northwards to the East. See Westminster website www3.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/publications_sto...f
Extract from decision of the Parking Adjudicator
?Despite three adjournments I have not been assisted by any information from the local authority concerning the Controlled Parking Zone described as ?F3?.
Controlled Zone F3 has no signs in the form 663 or 663.1 at any of the entrances . The definition of its being a controlled Parking Zone under Regulation 3 and Direction 25(2) in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 is not therefore made out therefore
In consequence, if the local authority wish to enforce parking restrictions on any of its streets in that neighbourhood and in particular, Regent Street [My note ? this where this parking ticket was issued] it will not be able to rely upon the signing concession in Direction 25(2) and will need to ensure that the requirements of Direction 25(1) are complied with.
The signing is therefore unlawful here and the appeal is allowed.?
Unquote Read more
what becomes of those who were wrongley ticketed and have
paid the penalty charge?
A big.... '?'
Not sure I'd call it a ? myself. Westminster certainly owes me a few hundred quid morally, but then it already did before this ruling. Problem is, it doesn't think morally. It thinks cash in hand. And we don't think morally either. We think life's too short to bother arguing with lamebrain corporate pickpockets for any length of time.
That's what the carphounds count on of course.
I was surprised to read Honest John's reply to a letter in this Saturday's paper - 'The livid daylights': tinyurl.com/5qe998
Personally I find the use of front fog-lights extremely annoying (though fairly common). They are quite often the brightest lights on a car and they do indeed dazzle, so why HJ thinks they are suitable for use as 'Daylight Running Lights' is beyond me.
I also thought it was against the law to use fog lights when it wasn't foggy? The highway code states so and the police can fine those who do so; in the past my local city (Coventry) has even run a couple of campaigns stopping drivers and fining them for their use. Has the law now changed, or is HJ suggesting we all be selective about which motoring laws we try and obey?
Now, DRLs are completely different and that is what the EC directive for 2011 is about, so I don't know why HJ is confusing the two. Newer cars (Fiat 500, Mini, Ford Galaxy) have these DRLs (or similar low powered lights mounted in front fog-light like positions) and those are indeed not distracting to other drivers.
As for the (unfortunately not that uncommon) combination of sidelights and front fogs, I thought that defied logic, but HJ seems to suggest otherwise since his reply indicated that in his mind front-fogs = DRLs, and DRLs are perfectly acceptable (and indeed wise).
Have I got this all wrong, has the law and policy recommendations changed? What's the opinion here?
Link edited Read more
HJ has e-mailed me directly asking me not to run a campaign and instead to re-read what he has wrote. I have done this and yet can still only conclude that he believes it's okay to use fog-lights during the day.
Fair enough then, but the law clearly states this as illegal.
Thus, it leaves me confused. Surely, if that's his view it would be better stated unambiguously? That way if it builds a collection of like minds then there's the outside possibility of the law being changed. Otherwise it's just encouraging people to break a law and yet not properly try and get it changed (and is that right?).
Do others get the same impression? Just wondering if I'm mistaken (am I the only one?) and something has indeed been 'lost in translation'.
A tenner should do it - just to buy the highways people in Manchester a cheap radio so when the BBC issues a weather warning of heavy snow overnight, they think about sending out gritters.
The two motorways and several A-roads I was on at 6.00 till 7.00 this morning were simply lethal and unadorned by salt.
This is grossly incompetent and costs us all in extra premiums from the RTAs. Hopefully no-one has hurt.
Read more
Followed one (gritter) home from town yesterday evening, he was "gritting" for the whole of the 25miles we followed him, (belt turning, spinner spinning, beacons fashing) and not one grain of salt/grit emerged! when we turned off, he still carried on, obviously heading back to his depot in Whitehaven, a further 30 miles away! He probably thinks he's gritted his full 55mile stretch!. Then the council wonder why people "think" they haven't been out.
Billy
Can you tell me Where 2006 yaris were made ??? Read more
Mark 1 Diesels were built in Japan. 100%.
No idea about Mark2
Made in Japan sticker of bottom of windshield.
Hi UK
Im a guy from Denmark who is a owner of a 214 Si 3d. '96 model.
Im looking for help to buy parts from anywhere (UK) - Could you paste me some homesites?
Read more
Hi have a 1997 fiesta flight
problm i got is i lost 4th gear just grinds still got 1/2/3/5 rev
any ideas???
{subject header amended} Read more
yeah goes in 4th gear no problem when stationary and goes in when on move but when you life clutch its gt grinding noise!
hi could anyone tell me how to stop service mileage from flashing when i start car up?
Anyway of reseting????
thanks Neil Read more
brilliant mate thanks :)
I got a Indicator stalk from the breakers for my car and have trouble replacing it. I thought it is as simple as to remove the steering cover and replacing the stalk but its turning out to be tricky.
Questions :
1. what screw driver will i need for the steering cover? (the two screws on the bottom side)
2. will I need to reset the ECU for airbag etc if I replace indicator stalk ? Read more
1. Probably a T20 or similar - get yourself a cheap set of Torx bits that will allow you get them undone (there's probably more than one size)
2. Unlikely on a 1996 car.
On similar aged Xantias you need to remove the steering wheel to remove the column covers, as the top one goes over the steering column - check this is not the case with yours.
I'm currently running around in a courtesy car at the moment on behalf of my wife's car, which is in for a repair (different thread, which if i'm honest was long and weary, but my excuse is I was pink fluffy diced off at the time).
The vehicle provided, after i'd been mucked about for 3 weeks and i'd decided was all or nothing and stuck to my guns..is... a Land Rover Discovery 3, 2.7 TDV6 SE auto, 08 plate, 5,500 miles, with a few extras.
I quite like it. Never really thought of 4x4's before as I don't need one, but nevertheless quite impressed. So out of curiosity, looked up the prices.
List Price: £39,600
Broker Price new: £31,800
Trade In price now: £26,500
Actual price you'd get: lower to mid 20's?
That is some depreciation in 5 months isn't it? Even my maths can work out that's £1,000 per month if you'd bought it from a broker, (which with 20% off you'd imagine you were doing well) and £2,600 per month if you were daft enough to pay list....and that's presuming you get full trade in price, which looking at the market for these things, you probably wouldn't. Who on earth can afford to take these sorts of hits. Surely leasing has to be the way forward, i'd rather just 'rent' the thing than lose that much depreciation, although I suppose lease costs will have to adjust eventually.
Are these sorts of vehicles going to drop out of the system eventually? Shame, i like it. Read more
Anyone who can afford to pay £39,600 for a new vehicle probably isn't too bothered about depreciation.
Browse
I'd like to think you take that note on a large parchment scroll with gold embossed rollers and you write with a quill pen dipped in an inkwell on the dashboard before blotting it dry with a piece of Italian linen.