evest

I'd also be up for this

So, driving home along some great country roads at an even 60mph, plenty of straights and bends etc... I get caught up by a bright green Dawoo Matiz, occupied by three lads. Nothing against other people's cars though, just the morons driving them, especially when they tailgate, despite being unable to overtake. These jokers were itching to get round me, but weren't keeping up in the twisties and didn't have the power for the straights and could only catch up. Well they've pi**ed me off so I ain't slowing down for them to pass, and I ain't speeding up - why should I? So they finally get a half chance to pass and 'floor it' so despite a powerful urge to speed up a bit to keep them where they belong, I decided to let it go and let them pass. They got just about level with me when what I thought would happen, did happen - oncoming traffic turns the next corner. As much as I'd love to see them crash and burn, not really fair on the other guy - so I brake giving them room to get back in. They subsequently slam on the anchors to avoid hitting the queue of slow traffic ahead which they hadn't factored in. But they got past a ZED!!!! WHOO HOO!!!! Then the guy on the back seat (sporting a backward red baseball cap which made him look a bit...special) turns round and gives me the V's - clearly the big balls of the outfit. At the next red light I had my door open to get out and 're-align' these arseholes with a few words of 'friendly advice' but sadly the light turned green and so didn't get the chance. Probably a good thing in hindsight... They then decided it would be fun to try and handbrake round some shallow corners - doesn't really work, just create a bit of smoke. Great. Well they didn't crash, and probably just went on to show somebody else what a bunch of tits they are.

Driving towards the M6 - flashed with no reply...

RRL update: 24 March 2011 TEXAS UPDATE – NORTH CHAPMAN RANCH International oil and gas exploration, development and production company, Range Resources Limited (“Range†or “the Companyâ€) would like to announce that whilst fracture stimulation operations continue at the North Chapman Ranch Field, Range is pleased to report that combined test rates (on a 100% basis) from the Smith #1 and Russell-Bevly #1 wells reached 9.2 MMcf of gas and approximately 769 bbls of oil per day this week, compared to the earlier peak combined rate of 3.3 MMcf of gas and 247 bbls of oil per day achieved in September of last year. Added Pete Landau, Executive Director, "Results of the frac program are encouraging, but we have yet to see the full potential of these wells. At least one zone in the Russell-Bevly remains to be frac'd, and we are still unloading frac fluid from the recently stimulated zones. We are pleased with the results thus far and look forward to further long term stabilized data and additional development drilling later in the year.†Sounds good to me!

I got them from USA, various outlets but they are manufactured by a company called Gallery, Check this out: http://www.galleryfresh.com - you can get them in black! I got mine from Evasive Motorsports, aint cheap though... I paid £160 for mine in hindsight - a bit much for a set of nuts and bolts - they do look nice though!

It looks like the mid-March plunge in the BKY share price and loss of some major investors coincided with the appointment of the new MD - or do you think was that just an unfortunate coincidence and more to do with the events in Japan? Sure looks like a good time to get in if they are expected to return to previous levels?

Not had a chance to look at any news - what has happened to CAZA? By pure chance I sold a third of my CAZA holdings yesterday in order to buy some XEL.

Thanks captain - I also keep an eye on this blog; I hope to learn to research on a similar level. I'm into CAZA as well. Sadly had SOU in my stockwatch only as didn't have the funds to buy in! Bugger!

Well if in a couple of years the RRL and CRND shares have performed to a similar scale - I'll contacting your good self to offer my thanks as well!!

Amusing, but don't really understand the guys logic. Somebody from the dealership should phone him to say they've figured out what the fault was

Note that the £10,000 price tag is the starting price only - reserve not met...

It might prevent accidents in some cases - if somebody has even a second more reaction time then they might be able to avoid hitting something/somebody. It won't wipe out accidents to 0%, because people will still do stupid things and not pay attention, but at least if the speed is less then the bang won't be as loud. Yes, policing is based on monitoring speed because this is the only aspect they can realistically monitor on a large scale, without huge additional resources. They can't be everywhere to catch the idiots and the drunks, but they can try to regulate at least part of the problem. As I said - we have but a basic test to determine whether or not somebody is fit to drive a car on the roads. This test focuses purely on practical ability under regulated conditions. How can the government begin to weed out the potential idiots that will cause accidents? There has to be a way of these poeple being identified, and driving too fast may be an indication. I'm not saying speed is the only issue - the cause of accident is more to do with general poor awareness - but speed is the one thing that can at least be quantified and monitored.

I'm not defending the numpties - far from it. But unfortunately, because there doesn't appear to be anything better than a very basic test to define who should and shouldn't be allowed on the roads - the powers that be have to do something to stop them killing everyone! The right to drive a car appears to be universal, and therin lies a fundamental flaw...

Less speed = higher survivability in the event of an accident. All those 80% might not cause the accident - but they will have a lower chance of survival when they encounter said guy coming round the corner on the wrong side.

Were you logged in when you tried to access it?

Yes they are. They do not have that human element discretion. A police officer can choose how to deal with someone doing 35 in a 30 at 5am in the morning when there is nothing more than a blackbird sharing the road, and they can choose how to deal with that same person doing 35 in a 30 when the primary school on that road has just emptied for the afternoon. A camera deals with those two possibilities in exactly the same manner. I completey accept your point - my meaning was more to do with how drivers react when they see the camera/bobby - they are the same thing in terms of a deterrent No, they wouldn't. Motorways are clogged becasue A. Trucks continue to overtake each other for miles on end and B. People do not keep left. People that drive at 65 in the centre lane cause a massive risk to many other road users and themselves, much more than someone doing 80 in the fast lane on a quiet Sunday. But again, which one does the camera prosecute? I still maintain that if people drove at the correct speeds, particulary on the motorway, they would work better. As for people's other poor driving habits, yes I agree with your point The reason there are no accuarte published figures from the office of national statistics on cameras, driving offences and death rates since 2002, is beacuase they know full well they can't be justified. For the record, I have no points and never been prosecuted or warned for speeding. I simply abhore the way that motorists in general (and not just those who speed) are being used as nothing more than a massive cash cow. I think many of us do. But every individual is in control of whether or not to face a speeding fine.

The Police and CPS have sometimes got it wrong with regards to punishments for driving offences of different severity - that's down to human error. I agree nobody sets out to cause an accident, but people do set out to deliberatly speed and break the law. It's viewed as not-really-a-crime that you can 'get away with'. I too have been caught speeding in the past when I was younger, and been on the awareness course - which did make me change my attitude. Before that I DID set out to break the law, by intentionally speeding. The awareness courses are designed for those people who may have accidentally crept above the speed limit, within a certain tolerance - plus you can usually get away with a couple of mph grace over the limit. We were told that speed cameras are positioned in order to make you slow down and keep slow as you enter built up areas, towards the bottom of hills where you may have picked up speed a bit, etc... They are no different from a bobby being stood there with a speed gun - but clearly resources are thin, so these things theoretically save money by reducing manpower assigned to the task of policing the roads. All to often people speed, slam on the brakes in the speed camera catchment area, then speed back up (usually causing a phantom traffic jam in the process), and when they finally get caught, they start moaning about the police having nowt better to do, etc... I believe it is a driver's responsibility to monitor and be aware of their speed - this doesn't have to mean constant clock watching, but just a better overall awareness of how fast you are going. I know it sounds a bit like I'm preaching - but really if people drove in accordnace with the speed limits, we wouldn't actually need speed cameras - and most major roads and motorway would work a whole lot better. Plus - they would not get caught in the first place!

Some food for thought... UK Road Stats for 2009 2,222 dead 24,690 seriously injured 195, 234 slightly injured Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of small accidents that keep our insurance high... People berate the police and say "they should be out catching real criminals..." - real criminals don't kill and injure as many people as the above...

7m tune in to listen to try and guess which celebrity is blowing a raspberry. I'm so proud to be British...! However, good job on raising the money, thats important, and whatever I might think about the content, if it gets cash to good causes then fair play. Personally I can take or leave Radio 1, so not a fan as such. I guess every now and then, on the way to work, I don't mind a bit of mindless, purile, childish banter to take my mind off things. Other times I feel like I've definitely grown out it (and I'm only 30!). That said, it beats Singal One where I live, playing the same... effing... playlist... every... effing... morning....zzzzz....

to the forum Regarding the window problem, check this out mate: http://www.350z-uk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=46966&start=0&hilit=passenger+window I'm tackling this problem at the weekend also!

Never used one like this so this is purely my opinion: Just can't help but wonder where the saving is being made over 'branded' ones. How can these be made so cheaply? Personally I always suspect that the materials used will be inferior, filtration not as good, fitment not as good etc.... With ebay you take your chance...

It's a tricky one I think. You would basically be claiming that the wheels were faulty/defective at time of sale, and that the subsequent damage has occurred as a result. Whilst the damage is obvious - what caused it is not. The problem is proving that the damage was caused because of an existing fault - and not as a result of you hitting something (pothole etc..) too hard/fast (no offence meant by that - just being devils advocate). Dealer will probably fight tooth and nail on this point, but it's worth getting further advice at any rate. What does the warranty say?

As an addition to the above - it really depends on whether or not the wheels were like that when you got the car - or if they were potentially in any way defective when you got the car - I appreciate this could be impossible to answer. As stated, within 6 months of sale, if it could be argued that they were weak/defective then the dealer would have to refund/repair or prove otherwise. After that - you would have to provide the proof. If you believe the wheels were fine when you got the car, and they have simply been damaged through the pothole, then it wouldn't really be fair to make a claim against the dealer (as they would have sold them in good condition).

Sorry for very long cut and paste - but it might be helpful... How long have you had the car? If less than 6 months you may have a case - unless this damage was pointed out at the time. From http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk Cars So, you've bought a car, but there's a problem. Here's what you need to do next. If things go wrong If something goes wrong, stop using the car and go back to the dealer straight away and explain the problem and say what you want done. Keep in mind however that if you purchased your car with a Hire Purchase agreement, your statutory rights will be with the finance company rather than the dealer (under the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973). Under this act the car must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, correspond with any description given, and the creditor must have the right to sell the car. Where the car does not correspond to any one of the above, you may be entitled to reject the car for a full refund or claim compensation. If the dealer fails to fulfill their obligations under the Sale of Goods Act, with regard to satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose, and the car's description, they will be in breach of contract and you are entitled to various remedies. The appropriate remedy will depend on a number of factors, including: * how long ago you purchased the car * the type of remedy that you are seeking * the seriousness of any fault or defect * whether the fault or defect keeps recurring * the cost of carrying out repairs or replacing the car Here is a list of remedies to consider based on your specific circumstances: Full refund You may be able to request a full refund if you detected a serious fault, if it is still within a reasonable time of the sale and you have stopped using the car. 'Reasonable time' is not defined in law so it will also depend on the facts - it can vary from weeks to a few months. Be sure to keep all of your documents, such as independent inspections in writing as it is up to you to prove that the car was faulty at the time of the purchase if the dealer disputes your claim. If your complaint is deemed valid, you are also entitled to claim for reasonable losses suffered, including the cost of any independent report you have paid for to prove your case. If you initially choose to allow the dealer to repair the fault within a reasonable period after the sale, you are still entitled to a refund if the repair turns out to be unsatisfactory. If you are not entitled to a full refund - for example, because a 'reasonable time' has elapsed, you may be able to claim compensation for your losses resulting from being supplied with a faulty car. Basic example of when a refund may be applicable: You discover that your one-year old car bought from a dealer for £10,000 a few days ago has a major engine fault. You complain to the dealer straight away and request a full refund but the dealer disputes your claim. You agree to take the car to an independent garage and they confirm that the engine was in a very poor condition when sold. You provide the dealer with a written report of the garage's findings and ask for your money back. In these circumstances the dealer must accept the car back and provide a full refund, as well as pay for any reasonable losses you have suffered such as the cost of the written report. Repair or replacement If you do not want (or are not entitled to) a full refund or to claim compensation, you may request either a repair to the car or a replacement for a similar car. If you want a repair or replacement (or when these are not feasible, a partial or full refund) in the first six months after the sale, it is presumed that the fault or defect was present at the time of the sale. This time, if it is disputed by the dealer, the dealer must prove otherwise - not you. They will need to provide reasonable evidence that the fault was not present at the time of sale, not just a pre-sale 'tick box' check of the mechanical condition of the car at the time it was sold. However, if the fault or defect only becomes apparent after six months, it is up to you to provide evidence that it existed at the time of the sale. Repairs and replacements must be carried out within a reasonable time without causing you any significant inconvenience. Any replacement car you are offered should be of a similar age, mileage and model as your original car at the time you requested the replacement. Basic example of when a repair or replacement might be applicable: You complain to your dealer that the one-year old car you bought from them for £8,000 three months ago has a faulty gearbox so you ask them to repair the car. It will be presumed that the car had a faulty gearbox at the time of sale and the dealer must carry out the repair to the gearbox at no cost to you unless they can prove that the car was of satisfactory quality at the time of sale. Partial and full refund If neither a repair nor replacement is realistically possible, you can request a partial or full refund depending on what is reasonable in the circumstances. For example, it may be the case that a full refund is not an option because you have used the car for some time before the problem appeared. You can switch between certain remedies if you find you are getting nowhere with the dealer. But you must give the dealer a reasonable time to honour your request before you switch and you can never pursue two remedies at the same time. Basic example of when you might switch remedies: You discover that a one-year old car you bought for £10,000 three months ago is faulty. You take it to the dealer who agrees to repair the car. The dealer takes over two months to repair the car but the fault persists. In these circumstances you may request a replacement car or a refund instead because the repairs have not remedied the fault, were not carried out within a reasonable time and have caused significant inconvenience to you. You can usually take court action up to six years from the date you bought the car (five years in Scotland). This does not mean that the car has to last or be fault free for six years; it is the time limit for making a claim in court in respect of a fault that was present at the time of sale. Before taking such action you may want consider obtaining independent legal advice. If the dealer is a member of a trade association such as Motor Codes, Retail Motor Industry Federation, Scottish Motor Trade Association or Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders that follows a code of practice, you should follow any complaint procedure they operate. Look out for businesses displaying the OFT Approved code logo. It means that the business is operating under a trade body that has an approved code of practice- providing you with high standards of customer service and ensuring your rights as a consumer are better protected. The Motor Codes of Practice for New Cars (covering warranties on new cars and older cars where the manufacturer's warranty is still current) is approved under this scheme. For more information visit http://www.motorcodes.co.uk . In Scotland, some district councils require used vehicle dealers to register, and issue them with a licence. If you are in Scotland and have problems with a dealer, contact your local Trading Standards Service. See also: Read more information and advice on buying a car.