ejstubbs

Sophistry. "Approved installer" were your original words: that clearly refers to the person doing the work, not the work being done. Words have meanings. Unless you're Humpty Dumpty (or a certain kind of politician) you can't change their meaning willy-nilly to suit your argument.

The word "reasonable" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. The manufacturers would likely argue that they are already are emplying "reasonable" levels of QC. You can apply the sames levels of mazak testing that defence and medical contractors apply, but that's going to push the price right up, and we know how the UK modeller loves low prices. The decisions on "reasonable" would need to be settled in court with lots of long and expensive arguments. Probably enough to either bankrupt the manufacturer, or at least persaude them that the model railway business isn't worth the effort - which solves all the problems of course as we get no more new models. AND, you may well find a judge who looks at the stuff and says it's toy trains, so how much do they really matter? After all, a faulty OO gauge Class 31 kills no-one. Sounds to me like the argument over whether a Jaffa Cake is a cake or a biscuit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_Cakes#Legal_status IIRC the final judgement was based on the proposition that a cake is something that goes hard (i.e. stale) when left out of the packet, whereas a biscuit goes soft. If only someone could come up with a straightforward criterion like that for deciding whether a model locomotive is a toy or an "adult collectible"*, how much simpler life might be. * Which sounds to me more like the kind of dodgy magazine that you can find for sale in the darker recesses of eBay** - but maybe that says more about me than it does about the phrase itself. ** Er, so I'm told. I'm not speaking from personal experience, obviously.

Normally the case with items like boilers and cars etc. Not so with cars, AIUI, so long as it can be demonstrated that the person/garage performing the regular servicing did so at the recommended intervals and carried out the work as specified by the manufacturer at each service interval. From https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/service-repair/faqs:

Precisely. This is why we have a court system: to examine the facts of each case and, as far as possible, hand down judgements & impose punishments appropriate to those facts. As johnofwessex pointed out, at present it is not really possible for the courts to impose sentences for the most egregious offences committed with a motor vehicle commensurate with those available for offences involving other potentially deadly objects such as guns and knives - or even just hands, fists and feet.

From the article: I find that interesting, because it was my understanding (from the specialist motorsports press at the time) that Ayrton himself was known to have made some pretty unsavoury comments about some of his F1 rivals - including IIRC Nigel Mansell. It was one of the reasons why, despite his brilliance behind the wheel, I never really warmed to Senna. But we didn't have podcasts, Twitter and their like back then, so his remarks probably didn't get anything like the same publicity as Nelson opening his mouth and putting his driving boot right in it in 2022.

For clarity, it was a perfectly innocuous photo of Jochen sitting in the car in front of what looked like some spectators on raked seating behind a barrier carrying an advertisement for whisky. He's clearly not racing - he's not wearing his helmet, for a start - and I suspect that it was actually some kind of publicity shot (I have tried to locate the original with the help of Google's image search but to no avail). There was nothing gory or exploitative about the image used. It had been photoshopped to (a) replace the Gold Leaf Team Lotus branding with the name of a fictional racing team mentioned in the programme*, and (b) to include the wording of a motto which had been mentioned earlier in the programme around the cockpit. I suspect that 99% or more of viewers wouldn't even have known who the driver in the photo was. It's even possible that someone in the production team chose the photo precisely because they were a fan of Jochen Rindt**, and they thought they could slip it in as a quiet personal tribute to their hero without anyone much noticing. (Maybe even Kelvin Fletcher, who had an acting role as something like the team's chief engineer in the episode?) I could post a screenshot of the photo from the programme but it seems that it might offend the sensibilities of some other forumites. * Although the red, gold and white Gold Leaf Team Lotus livery was still clearly visible, even though it was a rather low-contrast B&W photo. ** Though that would either make them at least 60 years old if, like me, they remembered Jochen RIndt from their early childhood interest in F1 - or else someone with a fairly deep interest in F1 history.

Well, I didn't think it was that bad - at least in the context of the series, which is generally a bit hokey - though it certainly wasn't one of the better episodes. Mind you, the murder weapon was bonkers - almost Midsomer Murders material. There was a not-very-oblique-at-all contemporary reference, with a superstar british driver who just happened to be a person of colour with interesting hair braids, and who was having an unexpectedly poor season. And Paul McGann's appearance was marked with a sneaky blink-and-you'll-miss-it Dr Who reference. Nice use of the Red Room at the Haynes Motor Museum. Anyone recognise the cars used at Castle Combe? I suppose the biggest actual howler could be argued to have been the use of the photo of Jochen Rindt in his Lotus 72 as the driver who supposedly died in the US Grand Prix East in 1979 - Rindt having sadly died at Monza in 1970. I'm sure there were more gaffes which a fan of modern-day F1 would have found easier to spot than an old fogey like me...

All well and good, and I'm glad you got your faulty car repaired, but spamcan61 was responding to cypherman's assertion about manufacturer recalls for inherent faults, not one-off failures occurring outside of the warranty period. Actually, I think cypherman was half right: manufacturers do operate service programs whereby, when an inherent but non-safety-critical becomes apparent, dealers are instructed to carry out the remedial work FoC the next time a vehicle is brought in for a service - often without the owner even being aware of it*. But that isn't the same as as safety-related recall, which involves the manufacturer contacting the registered owner of every vehicle affected, and requesting that they bring their vehicle in for remedial action ASAP. * Although it is usually listed on the service job sheet - typically because the computer adds it to the job sheet automatically for vehicles that require it. But then I suspect the majority of car owners only give the job sheet a fairly cursory skim anyway. To be fair, my local dealer's service manager is very good at taking me through the job sheet point by point each time my car goes in to have work done.

I've conceived a need for a few of the Dapol unpainted wagon bodies* (OO scale) but they seem to be out of stock absolutely everywhere. The Hattons web site suggests that they're due to come in to stock sometime this summer but that's about it. Unfortunately the usual alternative source such as the Bay of e have so far failed to come up with the particular ones I need. Anyone know if these products are ever likely to be available again? * Not the complete unpainted wagons, just the bodies - the product codes for the unpainted bodies start with a "B" whereas for the complete wagons they start with an "A".

Looks fine to me using Edge, Firefox and Chrome on Windows 10, and Safari, Chrome and Firefox under MacOS Mojave.

Ahem: 🙂

I was under the impression that the cars still have the "plank" fitted to the underside of the chassis, and the rules about how much of it should be left at the end of the race still apply. I may be mistaken about that, but I'm pretty sure that I read it in one of the articles linked by Andrew P recently (and a quick Google seems to confirm it). It's intended to ensure that the cars conform to the ride height regulations. I suspect that it might have become somewhat superfluous during the non-ground effect era when ride heights seemed fairly sensible, but if the feeling is that low ride heights are contributing to/exacerbating porpoising then the mechanism already exists to police an increase in the minimum ride height. In fact. the FIA's statement seems to hint that they intend to do exactly that.* Could it in fact also be the case that the new ground effect cars were not intended to ride as low as they do (or at least, as low as some teams seem able to run them), so as to provide some kind of cap on the aerodynamic grip that ground effect can provide, and thus provide better racing? But what if the FIA forgot to amend the existing minimum ride height regulation, or their calculations as to what would be a reasonable one to impose in the new ground effect era were faulty? The observation that some have made, based on Montreal, that DRS has become largely ineffective might seem to support that... * Though the words "closer scrutiny of the planks and skids, both in terms of their design and the observed wear" might be interpreted by a cynical person as suggesting that they'd more or less given up monitoring compliance with that particular part of the rules because it effectively became a non-issue when ground effect was for all intents and purposes ruled out.

This any good? https://www.elginmodelrailwayclub.co.uk/2010/articles/advice/standard-railway-modelling-dimmensions.html "The following diagrams show the structure dimensions with the table indicating the appropriate measurements in various scales as devised by the British Railway Modeling Standards Bureau (BRMSB)." It's not the BRMSB web site as mentioned by Les Bird - but then I'm not sure that such a thing exists, given that the BRMSB itself seems to have ceased to operate 60 years ago or more, before the world-wide web was even a twinkle in Tim Berners-Lee's eye. There's another thread about the BRMSB standards here.

The Dalmunzie Railway is shown on the current OS 1:50,000 map, including the zig-zag that was used to gain height before the crossing of the burn which is shown between the words "dismantled" and "railway": For some reason the 1:25,000 map just shows it as a path. I went up that glen one winter a few years ago with some pals to refresh our winter hillwalking skills (navigation, ice axe arrest, snow bollards, that sort of thing). I can't remember exactly what state the railway was in, and I don't seem to have taken any photos of the outing, unfortunately. My recollection is that there was a remnant of some kind of buffer stop at the eastern end of the upper zig-zag, so there was probably some evidence of rails in place as well. ISTR that the line of the railway faded away as you got closer to the farm, and was basically no longer visible at the point where it crossed a field/paddock between the farm and the "big house". However - again a vague recollection - I think there was a shed with some rather neglected-looking rolling stock round the back of the hotel. It's possible to trace most of the route on Google Maps satellite view: start at the Dalmunzie Castle Hotel and work westwards. EDIT: I had an inkling that this had been discussed here before, and found this in the "abandoned rails in the road..." thread: which includes a link to a Railscot page about the railway complete with photos, and this Press and Journal article about it (which itself includes the video linked above, and a reference to Rod Dingwall's book about the line, which is still listed on Amazon).

In a criminal lawsuit, the conflict is generally between the government authority and a person or persons. In civil cases, the conflict is generally between two or more private parties. The trial process and punishment are different between criminal and civil law. In a criminal case you are found guilty or not guilty. In a civil case one party wins and the other loses, and typically the loser has to pay some form of restitution to the winner. You can't be fined, sent to jail or suffer any other statutory punishment for losing a civil case (though you can, up to and including being jailed, if you lose a civil case and fail to provide the restitution ordered by the civil court e.g. paying damages to the other party - but that's because failure to comply with the direction of the court is a criminal offence). Driving without due care and attention (I think more properly referred to these days as "careless driving") is a criminal offence. However, leaving a gap of 1.5m when passing a cyclist* is not enshrined in law, but it is given as guidance in Highway Code Rule 163. As The Highway Code itself states in its introduction: The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. So failure to follow the guidance in the Highway Code can be argued to constitute driving without due care and attention, which is defined in law as: 1. Driving that falls below the standard expected of a competent driver; or 2. Driving that does not show reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or pathways. In simple terms, the Highway Code defines the "standard expected of a competent driver", so failure to comply with even the rules which do not have a specific legal underpinning (i.e. the ones which do not use the MUST/MUST NOT wording) can be construed as careless driving. (I'd also suggest that scaring the bejeesus out of someone not cocooned in a steel shell by passing them unreasonably close and/or fast probably fails the second criterion as well, pretty much regardless of what else the Highway Code says.) Given that the passing distance given in Highway Code Rule 163 is guidance rather than an absolute specification, there is scope for variation in the precise interpretation by the court. Exacerbating factors (such as failing the 'attitude test') may also affect the final judgement. * At speeds of up to 30mph - it says you should leave more room at higher speeds.

And the cyclist actually tucks closer in to the verge as the offender's vehicle passes, presumably because it was so close. Based on that footage, I think the defence's assertion of 4ft clearance is generous at best - possibly it was that much after the cyclist had taken avoiding action. And as you say, there was nothing coming the other way so no reason not to have allowed more room. As someone who regularly passes cyclists safely* on suburban roads, I'm happy to call that out as exaggerated nonsense in the case of cyclists. Likewise passing pedestrians and horse riders on country roads without footways (I don't believe that the 2m rule applies to pedestrians on a separate footway, in the same way that the 1.5m rule doesn't apply to cyclists in physically segregated cycle lanes). I do agree that a degree of consideration from non motor vehicle users is helpful. I don't think there can be much doubt that Highway Code Rule 169 applies to all road users - it's in the "Using the road" section of the code which is not specific to any particular category of road user (unlike the preceding "Rules for..." sections). The actual wording of rule 169 is: Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass. Note the use of the word "especially": the rule is about not holding up a queue of traffic, and it applies to all road users, not just drivers of large or slow-moving vehicles (which is open to interpretation anyway). You could be doing 50mph on a derestricted single carriageway but if there is a queue of people behind you who want to go faster - as they are legally entitled to do, road conditions etc permitting - then you're supposed to let them pass. However, the idea expressed elsewhere on this thread that the police are mustard at dealing with slow-moving motor vehicles I find somewhat laughable, having been stuck in queues behind agricultural vehicles and HGVs on rural roads with laybys and other usable passing places more times than I can remember, and with nary a police officer in sight. It's a rare breath of fresh air when one does pull in to let the queue disperse a bit. (Some of the worst offenders seem to be the tractors that are permitted to do 40mph, since the drivers seem to regard that as being fast enough not to count as being obstructive. Maybe they work on the basis that they're no slower than an HGV but, as is clear in rule 169, it's not how slow you're actually going, it's whether there's a queue of people being held up behind you that matters.) And just in case anyone thinks that I somehow believe that cyclists can do no wrong: I completely agree that random "peletons" of leisure riders can be problematic, and that they should in general be more considerate of other road users both in choice of routes and in complying with Highway Code Rule 169. That they all too frequently aren't is IMO partly due to the widespread use of modern tools like Strava which make it easy for people to chase their "personal best" and compare their times against other riders - which always struck me as being contrary to at least the spirit of the laws against informal time-trialling on public roads, if not the letter. But what do I know... * As someone who regularly gets on a bike myself, I believe I'm adequately qualified to make that judgement.

Thanks for confirming what I thought I'd seen. However, as I don't "do" Facebook on a regular basis, I'm quite sure that wasn't where I read it!

I'm sure that I read that the railway scenes were filmed on the East Lancs, but I can't track down the source now.

I don't know if it's the one you have in mind, but this is the one I usually refer to: No idea where I first got it from, I'm afraid.

Ah, thanks. Somewhat non-obvious if you don't do it very often. I'd only ever done it once before, to cut down a bit what showed up in VNC when the forum software was upgraded. So I knew it could be done, just couldn't remember how!

Is it possible to edit an activity stream - either a custom one, or one of the default ones? I can't see any way to do this from the "My Activity Streams" drop-down, or when actually viewing a stream. I'm sure this has been explained before but my searches have so far come up blank.

Quite agree. They should follow cricket's example: "on the line is out". (The rules were clarified a while back so that the batting crease "belongs to the umpire", and simply touching the crease with bat or body is not sufficient to be in your ground.) The latest FIA "clarification" is (a) not much clearer than the original rule (IMO it's still wide open to weaselly 'interpretations'), and (b) makes absolutely no sense in terms of safety.

Any "business" that relies on its employees breaking the law in order to make a profit is nothing more than a criminal racket and should be prosecuted as such.

Currently on holiday in Portugal (so perhaps not strictly appropriate in the UK prototype forum) and yesterday took the train from Lisbon to Sintra. Was somewhat surprised to see a short turntable complete with bridge and rails in situ - though not connected to anything - as we emerged from the tunnel on the approach to Campolide station: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7304501,-9.166735,19z/data=!3m1!1e3

Is Alonso trying to make a point of some kind, or....what?