Ekona

I just want to drive my car, not put my willy in it.

I always sound very old! Hell, at 36 I'm well into middle age by my reckoning anyway. Gadgets that are helpful I like, but gadgets for the sake of gadgets or gadgets that take away from driver control I don't want. MP3 compatibility? Yes please! Being able to stream FB to the HU? No, do not want. Bendy headlights to go round corners? Yeah, helpful. Lane assistance? No, if you need that turned on you're a 'tard I don't want to share a road with. As for driver-less cars, I can't think of anything I'd like less. Apart from electric ones.

Don't be ridiculous. Clearly you just need a bucket of tar and a brush.

Which for most people, is probably what they want. Something that takes little effort, delivers good results but with little risk. It won't last as long, but it'll certainly give that wow factor. But yeah, I'm pinching bullshit products as a new catchphrase

I think walking is preferable to a mk3 Golf. VW are so lucky they were able to pull the brand through that particular screw up.

So Astra, Golf, Astra, Golf?

Just another reason not to buy a modern car overloaded with useless tech that can go wrong.

Game thread ongoing here, there's a few players of that in there

Which normally turns out to be chuff all.

I agree, i wouldn't put anything other than the Rays on the 350 unless it was for purely style reasons. To get lighter than them, you've got to spend the big bucks which is better put elsewhere IMHO.

Apparently that's only the testing livery: The actual car will have much more yellow on it.

Assuming he has the Rays, of course.

But he has committed a crime, not filing in the s192 request, for which he was fined and given points. You cannot start charging people with PTCOJ for not telling people stuff. If you did, you'd have to start charging rape victims who didn't name their attacker, which is plainly ridiculous.

If you want to go faster, do the brakes, wheels and tyres first. If you just want bigger numbers, then a plenum spacer and a remap with what you've got will be fine.

You would hope it's not down to using low octane fuel, and that you read the label inside the fuel cap before filling up, so you didn't actually put low octane fuel in. Get the codes read, either a reader or using the pedal dance.

Also, the M4 is a pile of crapness. Review coming soon, but suffice to say it was a huge disappointment.

But how do you know he knows? You don't, and neither do the police, hence they can't bring the case. You say it's quite clear, but it's clear that it's not quite clear (!), else CPS would prosecute. My point isn't about this case, it's about what happens if you change the law so this case works out okay but then Mr Innocent gets screwed because of it. I'd rather see ten guilty men go free than one innocent man behind bars.

With Renault ditching Pastor and picking up KMag along with Palmer as drivers, they're in danger of making me like the team again.

I want to protect the majority, which is what the current law does. I want to live in a land where I'm not forced by any method to tell the police anything I don't want to, and even more so if it might be something I don't actually know the answer to anyway.

DO NOT BUY THE CRAP FROM JAPSPEED Buy the proper stuff, you'll be glad you did in the end.

What have you tried so far? On the alcantara part, then regular interior shampoo cleaner usually works, along with a stiff brush but be careful not to tear it. You can also try a bit of water with lemon juice in as a gentle solution if that doesn't work.

If they're both in the car, and CCTV is inconclusive, you cannot charge them both. If they weren't in the car, you cannot force them to name who was. As always, the best case scenario is usually to stay quiet and let the police prove their case.

This is exactly why I keep buying ugly cars!

What if it wasn't him driving? What if it was one of his mates? What if you knew it wasn't him, but he was covering for someone else who would beat the sh*t out of him if he told the police? Would you admit it then? I doubt it. I wouldn't.

That could be joint enterprise, which would not apply in this case. Why not, both are conspiring to protect each other knowing one of them committed the act? Because it requires forethought. Is it reasonable to assume that when you get into a car with someone, that they are going to suddenly decide to ram someone off the road? No, of course not, hence joint enterprise would not be valid. Would it be reasonable to assume that if you go out with a group of lads and one of them has a baseball bat but doesn't particularly follow the sport, that ABH/GBH could occur? Potentially, yes.