ejstubbs

Mercedes are now saying that the it was the hydraulics failure that caused the car to run over kerb: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/21/lewis-hamilton-sebastian-vettel-german-grand-prix-qualifying the team said the hydraulic failure caused the power steering to fail on his entrance to the corner, causing him to go so wide

As you say though, the rude, arrogant behaviour is basically enabled by other drivers who are rubbish at queuing: too lazy to move up as the queue advances - or just as likely, too busy fiddling with [the mobile phone nestled in] their crotch to notice when it does. Other annoying queuing behaviour includes people who stop two or three car lengths short of the vehicle in front, then creep forwards sporadically for no detectable reason, the queue in front of them not having moved at all. This makes the queue longer than it needs to be, increasing the likelihood of junctions behind getting blocked, and means that the drivers behind also have to basically creep forward every time the eejit in front does if they are not to end up with an unjustifiably large gap in front of them. When I'm on the VFR I sometimes take perverse pleasure in filtering up the outside of the queue and pointedly pulling in to the unnecessary spaces that such drivers leave. It's a bit like overtaking a middle lane hogger on an otherwise empty motorway by moving all the way over to lane three, and then all the way to lane one again once safely past. Some of them get the message, others are either too stupid to understand or are too thick-headedly stubborn to do what they're supposed to. Less annoying but still difficult to understand are the types who pull up at a red light then after fifteen to twenty seconds start creeping forward as if they think the light is about to change, then stop when they realise it isn't - and then when the light does go green, it seems to take them by surprise and they only react when they notice vehicles in the other lane have already set off. It's as if they're eager to get moving one minute, then suddenly get bored and their mind starts to wander (dare I say, at the risk of appearing to have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about it: quite likely in the direction of their mobile phone). It's almost as if, dare I say it, they're not actually concentrating on the job at hand ie being safely in control of their vehicle. But that couldn't possibly be the case, could it... (By the way, I've heard that the BBC are auditioning for a new series of "Grumpy Old Men". I thought I'd mention it here as some of the regular participants on this thread might be interested in applying. They turned me down on the grounds that I'm not sufficiently "viewer friendly". P.S. Not all of the aforegoing may be strictly true.)

Drifting off topic briefly, I hadn't been aware of this until just now: https://www.motorsport.com/hillclimb/news/dumas-shatters-pikes-peak-record-in-electric-vw-1047461/ First ever sub-eight-minute climb of Pike's Peak, done an in all-electric car. Pretty impressive IMO.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ricciardo-warns-drs-turn-1-german-gp-1061723/ I wasn't aware that DRS was causing the kind of problems described in this article. I had been under the impression that DRS activation was somehow interlocked to track location; if that were the case then I'd have thought that it ought to be possible to have a similar interlock to ensure that the flap closes in good time to brake for an upcoming corner. (Or they could just do away with it because it's a fundamentally daft idea anyway.) Interesting. I wonder whether the ban on tyre blankets will reduce the tactical benefits of tyre stops, if it takes more on-track time for new tyres to become fully effective?

Unfortunately Mike Pett's web site seems to have been AWOL for some time. The phone number listed in the UK Model Shop Directory is 01843 593417. (It would be nice to be able to browse the range online, though.)

If you didn't buy it, you must have made it. (Unless you stole it.)

This is something that the RAIB report seems to let pass rather too easily IMO. It goes on at some length about how the DSD works, states that the foot pedal was found to be working normally, and speculates about why the driver's attempt to reset the DSD after the audible alarm had sounded was ineffective. But it doesn't seem to reach an conclusions about it, or make any recommendations about further action. The fact nonetheless remains that if the train had not stopped in an unexpected place then the incident would never have occurred - it's a clear contributary factor. Granted trains do sometimes have to stop in unexpected places for other reasons eg trespassers, straying livestock or other blockages, some of which may not be under the railway's control. But where the reason for a train having to stop is at least partly within the control of the railway - such as inadequate lineside fencing - then I'd expect that to be called out. How common is it for trains to come to a stop because the vigilance systems have activated the brake? I find it difficult to believe that it's a particularly frequent occurrence - I'm sure you'd hear about it if passenger services were regularly screeching to a halt for no very good reason. Do such incidents have to be reported and monitored?

There ought to be a court record of this case, any idea how I might be able to search for it?

These days it's often not even a case having to buy and fit anything. Many (I'd even suggest the vast majority) of new cars come with bluetooth connectivity: this allows you to play music on the phone or streamed to the phone through the car's audio system, and to make calls without having to hold the phone. As for texting, the more recent Apple and high-end Google phones allow you to have incoming texts read to you, and to send texts by voice. But then far too many people seem to more than happy to pay extortionate amounts every month for the latest smartphone without using even 1% of its available functionality - so long as it's got a tricksy camera and whatstwitfaceagram they're content. (And having spent the money there's a subconscious urge to make use of the thing, even when it's far from appropriate to do so. Much like driving, in all too many cases, in fact.) Going one better, my car has a software add-on to the ICE which will connect to a phone with the Android Auto or Apple CarPlay app installed. Amongst other things, that gives you hands-free texting through the audio system just like hands-free calling, all voice controlled. (It also gives me hands-free sat nav on the audio head unit via Google Maps, which can be handy.)

You'd think this sort of thing would be easy pickings for those employed to enforce the law, especially since there would be a ready-made response to anyone claiming that it represents an escalation of the "war on motorists*": Similar levels of offending are easily observed from the top deck of a bus. * A war the motorists appear to be winning, based on the levels of casualties inflicted by each 'side'.

I thought the correct procedure was to drive past, find a suitable place to turn around, then come back and park from the correct side. Another option might be to find somewhere safe to park on their side of the road, and walk back. Oops, silly me: I forgot that certain types of motorist seem to regard it as their God-given right to be able to park within 20ft of their ultimate destination. After all, what's the point of owning a car if you have to actually use your legs? (A similar aversion to muscular exertion probably explains the oft-observed reluctance to use indicators, or even to turn the steering wheel sufficiently to avoid egregious corner-cutting. Actually, now that I think about it, perhaps it's another more cerebral organ of the body that such individuals struggle to use?)

Is it also now required to teach remaining stationary at the lights after they have been green for several seconds, with your head down apparently staring at something in your lap, then suddenly looking up and moving off with a guilty, slightly furtive air? Difficult to find a logical explanation for this* but it seems to be increasingly popular. Actually, the manoeuvre described by Tim Hall sounds like it might be meant to simulate parking on the opposite side of the road. (Although Highway Code Rule 239 does advise against this, albeit not in very strong terms.) * Actually it's not.

Hmm, according to that we don't have police in Scotland. Could explain a lot about some of the behaviour you see on the roads round here... (Actually we do have police here, and I did once report an incident of illegal driving to them of which I had dashcam footage. They had to send two officers round to my house to view it. Presumably then, although we have police here, they don't have computers...)

The new bill isn't about carrying (for which, as I said before, the 1988 Criminal Justice Act specifically allows a "good reason" defence. The new bill is about selling, and specifically makes it an offence for someone to sell a knife if they are not in the presence of the buyer at the time of the sale, and the knife is to be delivered to residential premises which are not where "a person" (the bill doesn't say "the buyer"*) carries on a business. (Having skimmed in a bit for detail the draft of the bill currently posted on the publications.parliament.uk web site, I cannot find any reference to knives with a blade of less than 3 inches being exempt. That said, a good part of the bill does reference other acts, and in a way which makes it difficult to work out exactly what the law will actually say if/when the bill passes.) * There does seem to be a fair bit of loose wording in the bill. That could mean one of two things: either a decent lawyer should be able to drive a coach and horses through it, or the CPS will be tempted to try and apply the law as widely as possible. Or, indeed, both.

I have today received a copy of the Government's response to the petition. Stripped of the "something must be done, this is something therefore it must be done" BS, I found this: Following concerns expressed in the consultation, certain defences were introduced into the Bill that has been published. The prohibition on the delivery of knives to residential addresses is now limited to those knives that can cause serious injury. If ordered online these knives will need to be collected from a place where age verification can take place, either by the purchaser or their representative. In respect of other bladed items and knives, the Bill provides a number of defences around the prohibition of delivery to a residential address. For example, deliveries to business premises, including where a business is run from home, would not be affected by the prohibition placed in the Bill on delivery to a residential address. Other items that would be exempt from the prohibition on delivery to a residential address would include encased razor blades; knives with a blade of less than 3 inches; knives that cannot cause serious injury, for example table knives; bladed products designed or manufactured to specifications from the buyer such as bespoke knives. There are also exemptions for bladed products that are used for sporting purposes, such as fencing swords and bladed products that would be used for re-enactment activities. Some things that jumped at out me from this are: ...If ordered online these knives will need to be collected from a place where age verification can take place, either by the purchaser or their representative. So that suggests that click-and-collect type purchases might be OK, but rules out Amazon and Amazon Marketplace - unless they partner up with a bricks and mortar retail network eg one of the supermarkets (but how likely is that, just to be able to sell knives?) Any small retailer trying to run a standalone UK-wide web shop would be stuffed - and an example comes immediately to mind: I like Global kitchen knives and I have in the past bought ex-display knives at discounted prices from a small retailer on Amazon Marketplace. They wont be able to sell these through Amazon Marketplace if the bill goes through as it currently stands. Maybe they'll move to eBay (which does offer collection from Argos stores). Or maybe the market for ex-display kitchen sharpware will simply evaporate, and they'll all just get melted down as scrap and I'll have to pay full price in future ...deliveries to business premises, including where a business is run from home, would not be affected by the prohibition placed in the Bill on delivery to a residential address How are "business premises, including where a business is run from home" defined? Would it be sufficient for me to put "Bodgitt Enterprises" as the first line of my home address and it'll be fine!? Other items that would be exempt from the prohibition on delivery to a residential address would include ... knives with a blade of less than 3 inches It looks as though the "knives with a blade of less than three inches" criterion is trying to mirror Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. However, the length criterion in the CJA applies to folding pocket knives - longer than 3 inches and it's illegal. Carrying any knife with a fixed blade is illegal under the CJA. I'm not sure whether the current draft of the bill makes that distinction - if not then it would still be legal to buy a knife that would be illegal to carry. (Whatever happened to joined up thinking?) I don't actually recall seeing the length criterion listed in the draft of the bill that I looked at when the petition first came out, and I don't have time to check the various versions right now. I do wonder whether it has been tacked on in a hamfisted attempt to address some of the issues raised during the consultation. On the positive side, this criterion would at least make your Swann Morton blades legal to sell online to a residential address. Whatever you were planning to do with them... A significant difference between the CJA and the draft bill is that the CJA allows a "good reason or lawful authority" defence. Such a defence is not available to retailers in the draft bill. You can understand why - how is a retailer supposed to know, or trust any answer you give them, about what you're intending to do with your purchase? - but it does mean that the new law would end up being notably more oppressive by removing any kind of reasonableness defence. I wonder whether a way out of this might be allow deliveries to residential addresses provided that the carrier only hands over the package on receipt of a signature by the named addressee as verified by presentation of photographic proof of their identity - a bit like when picking up a signed for or special delivery package from your local Royal Mail delivery office, in fact, but on your doorstep. Such a control could still be circumvented by someone sufficiently determined - but as others have already pointed out on this thread, there are already plenty of ways that the current prohibitions can be be got around which don't involve lying about your age online, or to the postie at your door should it come to that.

Diesel emissions scandal: VW fined €1bn by German prosecutors Volkswagen has been fined €1bn (£880m) over diesel emissions cheating in what amounts to one of the highest ever fines imposed by German authorities against a company. Remind me again what penalties the UK government has imposed?

The answer is in in the link I provided - which is why I provided it. To save people the bother of clicking, here it is in full: Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations. Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, 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. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

Which is indeed contrary to what is shown in the Nov '17 RM article - the diagram in that article clearly indicates that the through rails are bonded to the switch rails. However, on reading the article again more carefully, I see that it implies that the digram is based on the HOn3 unifrog turnouts, not the bullhead OO ones. This suggests that the bullhead OO and the HOn3 turnouts are actually wired differently. This would seem to be supported by the description of the HOn3 turnouts on Peco's web site, which seems to match the diagram in the RM article: The wiring of these new turnouts is a development of both the Insulfrog and Electrfrog [sic] designs. The stock-rails are wired to the centre-rails at the factory, which in turn are connected to the corresponding frog-rail. This means the turnout is completely live(except for the tip of the frog) with no extra wiring required. If the turnout is being used as a switch to isolate a section of track then it is simple job to remove the wire that joins the centre-rail and stock-rail and it will work like a current Insulfrog. [Highlighting is mine.] The highlighted sentences seem to make it pretty clear that the HOn3 turnouts are not wired in the same way as the OO bullhead turnouts, as evidenced by Phil's useful photo of same, which would clearly need something more then just cutting the stock-switch rail bonding to make them self isolating in the same way as insulfrogs. The RM article doesn't claim to be specifically about the OO bullhead turnouts - it also mentions the HOn3 and O gauge Setrack turnouts, and the code 83 double slip - but it was pretty obviously timed to coincide with the OO turnouts becoming available. The standfast says: The brand new Peco code 75 bullhead points...are the first items equipped with Unifrog to join the manufacturer's OO gauge range. Here Steve Flint and Craig Tiley explain the principles of Unifrog wiring and how the points can be used as either live or dead frog units on 12v dc [sic] analogue or DCC control systems. That they then use a diagram of an HOn3 turnout to illustrate the article without mentioning that the OO turnout wiring is different seems very poor to me. So it seems that the N gauge turnouts with unifrog are different again, with what looks like a confusing hybrid of the OO and HOn3 wiring. (I am left wondering how the through rail for the other route is powered - maybe the wiring is buried in the plastic track base?) Given that Peco seem to be wiring different models of unifrog turnouts in different ways, it's hardly surprising that people get confused about what modifications might need to be made to get the different functionalities that people might want from them. IMO this is only compounded by the paucity and poor quality of the information that Peco are making available online and in their paper publications. It is to be hoped that the documentation shortcomings will be addressed over time. For now, though, it seems that we have to get along by knowing the fundamentals of how unifrog is supposed to work, but only being able to work out exactly what we modifications we might need to make to a particular turnout when we have one available for physical inspection. [Footnote: I have no idea how the O gauge Setrack turnouts with unifrog are wired. They're not even listed on the Peco web site yet. Another example of their unsatisfactory approach to product documentation IMO. Basic rule of managing change: if you're going to do something which is going to require people to do things differently, it really does help to explain it to them first, rather than leave it to them to waste time working it out for themselves after it's happened.]

Indeed, but Happy Hippo was complaining about lack of enforcement. The police can't enforce a law which doesn't exist - as the Highway Code clearly states.

Rule 201 says "Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can." Nowhere does it say "You MUST..." or "You MUST NOT...". Absent such wording, failure to comply will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted - see "Wording of the Highway Code" in the Introduction.

Is the diagram in the November 2017 RM wrong, then? That clearly show the switch rails bonded to the stock rails, and the through rails bonded to the switch rails - not the stock rails. Given that it's Peco's own publication, it would seem to be a fairly catastrophic mistake to publish incorrect information, especially since they don't seem to have put any useful guidance on their actual web site. (Then again, the bullhead points themselves aren't even listed on their web site yet so it seems that seeking up-to-date information there is a bit of a waste of time.) (Or - worse still - is the N gauge unifrog implementation different to the OO bullhead one?) My understanding - again based on the diagram of the wiring in the November 2017 edition of RM - is that this is precisly what they they do on the unifrog points. I'd scan the diagram from RM and post it on here but I think I might get told off 'because copyright'. Which is a shame, seeing as how it's useful information which doesn't seem to appear anywhere else. (Not so useful if it's wrong, of course...) On the other hand, if someone has a photo of the underside of a unifrog point which clearly shows the wiring, that would also do the job.

Steady on: Portpatrick has already explained that he suffers from an ailment which means that it is very difficult, nigh on impossible for him to carry out delicate soldering.

That's not self isolating, though ie the point itself isolating the route the point is set against. I believe that it is possible to make a unifrog point self-isolating by cutting the connections between the stock rails and the switch rails. This then means that you are relying on the contact between the switch rail and the stock rail to provide electrical continuity for the route the point is set to (which some people regard as unreliable). What you have then is effectively an insulfrog point but with the unpowered part of the crossing actually being larger than it is in an insulfrog point. The only way around the potential running problems that might be introduced by that is to introduce polarity switching for the isolated part of the crossing. I can kind of see Portpatrick's point about the out-of-the-box simplicity of electrofrog being lost. I do think some of his rhetoric about it is more than a little overblown, though.

Dicholormethane (CH2Cl2) is not the same compound as butanone/MEK (CH3C(O)CH2CH3), which is what Ron Heggs suggested using. Both can be easily bought for modelling purposes in the UK, eg: https://eileensemporium.com/index.php?option=com_hikashop&ctrl=product&task=show&cid=3084&name=butanone-60ml&Itemid=189&category_pathway=1007 https://eileensemporium.com/index.php?option=com_hikashop&ctrl=product&task=show&cid=1150&name=plasticweld-57ml&Itemid=189&category_pathway=1007 (Plasticweld is dichloromethane - it says so on the label.) JohnGi's statement about the controls on dichlormethane's use in paint strippers is correct. In that use case it was being slappped on by the bucketload or even used in a submersion bath, which is not the same as a few drops on a joint. If butanone will do the job, though, then I think I would be inclined use that since there seems to be less risk identified with it. Still a good idea to use either compound in a well ventilated area, though.

The existence of a law which is routinely ignored does not mean that no-one will ever be prosecuted under it. For those who are interested, the progress of the bill and its various versions as it makes its way through the parliamentary process can be found here. "Repeal" is not the correct word in this case, since the bill is not yet law and has a fair few steps to pass through before it can be enacted. What is required is an amendment, to remove or change the problematic article.