ejstubbs

According to the article, the jury cleared her of death by dangerous driving, which I believe would have had a significantly higher sentence. It does seem that the "there but for the grace of God" sentiment enters in to verdicts and sentencing rather too often in such cases. Magistrates, judges and jurors are far more likely to be familiar with driving as an activity than they are most other activities that have a significant risk of causing serious injury or death to third parties if carried out carelessly or recklessly. More than one study has found that most of the people surveyed thought that they were a better than average driver. And yet in this case a dozen random people seem to have been able to agree that texting while driving at night does not constitute driving that "falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous" (the definition of dangerous driving in the 1991 RTA) even though it's illegal. Arguably, it's tantamount to a tacit admission by the jury that they would do it too. Lack of enforcement contributes significantly to 'normalisation' of law breaking behind the wheel IMO. (And yes, that does mean that I disagree with royaloak's remark in post #2856.)

Ah, so the vehicle in question should have vacuum brake hose fittings (and two brake shoes per wheel I think?) The specific RTR ones I have in mind don't.

Some of the RTR LMS ventilated van offerings feature a white "X" on the van door. Could some kind soul explain to a humble seeker after knowledge what the significance of this was? (I'm aware that there are 'issues' with most of those RTR models. Those have been discussed fairly comprehensively on other threads so I don't think we need to go in to it again here.)

Sub-prime lending turns out to be a bit risky*. Who knew? * Especially once the FCA started to clamp down on the more usurious practices in the industry.

I saw him on Graham Norton's show last week. He gave a solid performance, and then at the end asked "Was that all right?" Would have been partly tongue in cheek but that's all part of his character.

Some sellers are astonishingly slipshod in their listings. I randomly alighted on the listing for item number 332819017754 the other day and in an idle moment decided to peruse it further. Turned out that there are three different coaches in the photos - including close-ups of three different boxes! - although the listing says two. I actually e-mailed the seller to point this out and got the reply "There are two coaches only". No indication of which two are actually for sale! Unsurprisingly, the auction expired with no bids. In this case one couldn't even use the 'excuse' that whatever you get, it's cheap: a £40 starting price (including the swinging £10 postage - I thought eBay had clamped down on nonsense like that) is pushing your luck a bit for a couple of Bachmann LMS Period 1 coaches - more so if you can't actually be bothered to describe them properly.

I haven't bought an AP since some time in the mid 1980s when I stopped buying SLRs. Do they still have a lavishly illustrated article about some aspect or another of 'glamour' photography every other week? I'd be surprised if that was the case: I'd have thought that Rule 34 would have destroyed any lingering appeal it might have had in that regard. (Not for nothing was it nicknamed Amateur Pornographer back in the day.)

I thought I'd posted this before, maybe not: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40862975 "The most points on a valid licence belong to a 44-year-old woman in Oxfordshire. The licence has 51 penalty points." I wonder if the beaks ever take in to account the "exceptional hardship" which could result to a third party if one of these individuals went on to cause a serious accident? In the case cited by laurenceb it could very readily be argued that, if driving is your job, then you should be extra careful about not breaking the applicable laws. If you aren't, and you lose your job because you're banned from driving, then logically the next step should be to find a different job which does not require the skill which you have demonstrated to the satisfaction of a judge that you don't actually have... In other 'hardship' cases which come to light from time to time one might be tempted to bemoan the fact that society has apparently become so organised as to make it unreasonably difficult to carry out a lot of normal activities without having ready access to a car. (Then again, there are such things as taxis and private hire cars*.) Choosing not to ban drivers who are demonstrably unable to abide by the laws which are put in place in order to reduce risks on the road would seem to require a evaluation of the potential residual risk to third parties by doing so. I strongly suspect that this happens rarely if at all. * It's relatively straightforward to find reports online of people who have 'done the math' and decided that using taxis instead of running a car can work out cheaper surprisingly often. The problem is that, once you have bought a car there is an implicit need to justify the sunk costs - including VED, insurance etc. But that argument is void if you're not actually allowed to drive.

The vehicle carrying the cam negotiated said roundabout without any drama. Eejit in the van seemed not even to see it!

Lighter fuel load later in the race might make a difference? (Just a guess: no idea whether it would, wouldn't or couldn't.)

This is local railway for local people. There's nothing for overseas visitors here...

There seems to be something odd going on which, albeit peripherally and probably without their knowledge, involves this shop. On the 2K Technologies web site (though not in their eBay shop) they have this item listed: http://www.2ktechnologies.com/?product=Bachmann-30-170-l-m-s-brake-composite-5291-split-from-thames-clyde-set-t48-post I have found three other "shops" which have the same item listed, using the exact same photograph and item title, and with the wording taken from the "Additional Information" tab on the 2k Technologies page. All at different prices, and all substantially lower than what 2K Technologies are asking: http://www.vvogshop.top/locomotives-c-100_101_3851_3859/Bachmann-30170-lms-brake-composite-5291-split-from-thames-clyde-set-t48-post-p-8060.shtml http://www.koitshop.top/locomotives-c-690_749_752_754/Bachmann-30170-lms-brake-composite-5291-split-from-thames-clyde-set-t48-post-p-5707.htm&language=en http://www.vtkoymalls.top/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=7127 The sites themselves all have the same "about us" info which burbles on about being "a leading international online fashion store". Two out of those three web sites show the PayPal logo at the foot of the page but they don't actually take PayPal at the checkout - you have to enter payment card details directly. On the 'French' site I found a listing for a Lima non-powered bogie which is a straight lift from this live eBay listing. These 'parasite' sites smell strongly to me of a scam: fake web sites built using other retailers' listings to lure punters in and steal their card info. I don't believe that 2K Technologies have any involvement in this, they've simply been used unwittingly as a source of fake product info for the scam sites. Bottom line: beware of the above three web sites, but by all means support 2K Technologies either through their web site or their eBay shop.

Screwfix is owned by Kingfisher plc, same as B&Q. So it's not really competition, just a different brand. (Wickes is owned by Travis Perkins, BTW.)

"From November, passengers will still be able to take a small personal bag into the cabin, as long as it fits under the seat in front." As a six-footer with longer than average legs I hate this ridiculous idea that the space for your feet is where you should put your hand luggage. Handbags and smaller items like that maybe, but some airlines ask to see your hand luggage when you check in/bag drop, and put a "goes under the seat in front" label on anything that's not a wheely case of the maximum allowed size. Those labels don't last long on my bags. A 25l or 30l rucksack is easily within the size limits but absolutely will not fit sensibly under the seat in front alongside my size 10s. And no, I'm not prepared to risk DVT by sitting with my feet tucked under and my knees pressing in to the small of the back of the person in front of me for the whole flight.

Those disclaimers mean nothing if the race organisers can be shown not to have taken all reasonable steps to mitigate foreseeable risks. I strongly suspect that the race organisers also have a tidy sum of insurance cover just in case! (Some race series owners, including F1, require this of any venue hosting one of their races: https://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2015/01/09/f1s-100-million-insurance-policy/#63a3b9564b1d.)

Looks like my Hot Wheels track when I was a kid! (Is it really a good idea to have vehicles which such bouncy suspension travelling at very high speed in a built up area? Just wondering. I mean, I can see there fences and stuff but still...)

Isn't the primary reason for printing boarding passes in advance because they charge you and arm and several legs for printing them at the airport? (I usually take one printed copy and one copy of the PDF on my phone. Most security & boarding gates will happily read the bar code off a phone screen.)

I had a Peco Setrack curved point in the fiddle yard of my roundy-roundy and I had few if any problems with it. It was certainly less problematic than one of the Streamline short radius turnouts on the scenic section, which ended up being re-laid twice before certain locos would traverse it without the front pony truck derailing. As for "a section where one rail is curved and the other straight" - don't all turnouts have this? Otherwise they wouldn't be, well, turnouts. (I freely admit that I may be missing something.)

See also this thread: Removing Printed Decals with Sharpie Permanent Markers

Certainly looks that way to me. As eastwestdivide illustrated, if the actual coach letters matter than you get eight combinations.

Stationmaster's post (which I quoted) said: "6 variants if used for GWR 2x5 formations". That would seem to rule out single units. However, it does seem likely that what you suggest may well be what he actually meant.

"Seeks" being the apposite word: all too often he doesn't garner any short-term advantage either. Monza being a case in point.

Why six? Unless there's another criterion that I'm not aware of, or I've missed something blindingly obvious (either is quite possible!) then I can only envisage four: right way/right way right way/wrong way wrong way/right way wrong way/wrong way I must be missing something...

Some people on this thread need to change the flippin' record.

For us terrestrial-only viewers It's going to be much like it was in the 1970s/1980s when the BBC showed highlights of the overseas races on Grand Prix with Murray Walker. I'm not even sure that the British GP was regularly shown live at the start of that era, though I'm more than willing to be proven wrong. I have a feeling that it was that programme that first used The Chain as theme music for F1 on TV. It can't have been much earlier than that because the song was only recorded in 1976! My recollection is that, before Grand Prix we were lucky to get a few minutes' coverage of the occasional grand prix during Wheelbase. TBH I quite like a concise highlights programme. The Channel Four highlights programmes seem to go on for ever in comparison to Grand Prix. But we still got to see some great action, such as Arnoux vs Villeneuve at Dijon in 1979 and Villeneuve winning in Spain in 1981* with four much better handling cars queued up nose to tail behind him for the last half the race but unable to get past (apparently Gilles turned off his rev limiter for the last few laps of the race!) * Odd that that clip has a Sky Sports F1 DOG: presumably Sky have acquired the rights from the BBC as part of their ongoing dominance of F1 TV coverage.