Hobby

Back on topic, Romania yesterday: https://www.sursazilei.ro/video-accident-la-suceava-mocanita-aruncata-de-pe-sine/

Anything called that deserves it! ;)

and what's wrong with Mansfield, they held a motor race in Birmingham!!

That i do need to reply to as I'm sure I never said that, simply pointed to others' interpretation of the law, from the Police, Law Firms and other motoring sources which all agree that it is legal to put them in the bottom-right as long as they don't obscure viision.The laws you quote do not prevent their use unless they obscure the forward vision of the driver, there is no precedent that I'm aware of, just individuals (police) interpretation of them. In fact if there is a precedent it is that Twitter post by the GMP. As I said I'll agree to differ, even if you wont, there is plenty of evidence to support the sources I have quoted (NOT my views), prosecutions have taken place, but where the phone or satnav was obstruction line of vision.

I've no doubt it does, Stewart, but it has to be proved that it obscures the drivers line of vision for the driver to be prosecuted, which the dice would do but a properly mounted satnav/phone like the one in that video won't, I'd refer you back to the GMP Twitter/X link. Also the case to which you refer to (includes air fresheners as well!): https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/cabbie-fined-for-hanging-furry-dice-961482

Probably those air fresheners as well!

OK, just looked both of them up and they do not prohibit the use of a windscreen mounted satnav or mobile phone. What it does say is: "A person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits another to use, a motor vehicle or trailer on a road when— (a)the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer, or of its accessories or equipment, .... is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person.” Which I assume is the section you are referring to, in this case mounting a satnav/phone directly in your line of sight and therefore blocking your view of the road would qualify. But that isn't what he's done, he has mounted it well below the level of his eyesight and therefore the provision of that act does not apply, in fact if mounting a satnav on a windscreen was illegal then the police would spend all of their time prosecuting people judging by the numbers i see, not to mention the prosecution of people who sell the mountings. I will go back to the advice given online by numerous websites which cover such things and, I feel, they would not give such advice if it contravened either that act or it's amendment, the key point is that it does not interfere with your field of vision. This is from Honest John's website: https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/askhj/answer/159890/i-was-stopped-by-police-for-my-sat-nav-placement-where-should-i-place-it- Greater Manchester Police Twitter/X post: I'm not sure of where we can go with this other than I'll have to "agree to differ" with Stewart and Craneman!

In which case any satnav mounted along the bottom of the windscreen in any place, middle or either edge, would fall foul of that. If you do a search it says that the rule is simply that it doesn't block the driver's view, nothing more. I made my comment based on that it was a body cam that he was using and therefore below neck level. If you look at the section where he gets into the van before crossing, the cam is just about level with the top of the phone in it's holder, that would mean it's well below his eye level and therefore legal. Personally I prefer one that mounts to the vents which makes it lower, I don't like windscreen mounted ones, but that's just personal preference, I don't see anything illegal in that video unless one of you can link me to the law which prohibits it?

Why? It's clear from his body cam that it's not blocking his view forward and bottom right is one of the recommended places to put it.

Dad had a two tone grey A60 Cambridge in the early 60s as his company's commercial traveller's car, it was certainly a mile muncher, he reckoned he could get about 84mph out of it!

Perhaps not the best choice of driver/car combination for Dunlop considering what Mike Hawthorn died in...

Is the reading of the plan that difficult? I thought map reading was supposed to be a male strength!

Ah, 27/28 April, LaGrange got his date wrong! Thanks C126!

April 24, 2024 is a Wednesday according to my calender. So what show is it?

TBH I always use the plan so never really looked at the stand numbers which half the time weren't very clear to see anyhow. What's on on April 24? That's midweek!

What's going on in that first photo, @monkeysarefun, there's a group of people in the bottom right all looking one direction? That last photo looks at first glance like the UK until you look closer, the loco (obviously to us!), the telegraph/electricity poles and the yellow and black roadwork barriers being the most obvious giveaways!

Payback isn't straight away, though, it's over several years, even decades, and I suspect they'd be aware that Hornby's initial prices were artificially low as has been said as introductory prices so were more than likely to increase, as they have. To me Heljan backed out with undue haste, if they were serious they could have had their 31 out long before Hornby's. Anyhow, as usual, just speculation! Keeps the thread going until the arrival of the HSTs and 50s, though I'm not interested in them or a 66, it's what comes next that interests me!

Definitely not Bridgnorth, their building isn't as posh as that one!

I was at the Classic Car show in hall 5 a couple of weeks before and the PAs were all clear enough, though the hall was full, I do wonder if it might be down to the fact the hall is half empty, thus distorting them? TBH where we were (B43) we could hear them clear enough.

Did Hornby ever officially put a price tag on the 66 in the early days, I don't remember any "below £100" quote? Regards Heljan, of course it makes sense to let someone else take the risk, but having said that they were prepared to go ahead on their own with one loco, surely Hornby then coming in should have been a positive move as it will help their initial sales... Or perhaps they just weren't that interested and took the easy option.

Stick microphones on refs like they have in Rugby, if they knew their rants would be heard I doubt they'd be as vocal.

Of course many classic car shows are also free to the car owner, I've been to lots over the last couple of years years in our car and haven't had to pay at any.

That's an interesting point, I'd regard those shows as different to a Club show (which, it's worth remembering that despite it's size that's what Warley is!). I'd assume that a show run by a commercial business will firstly look to make a profit for that business and secondly will have factored in exhibitors expenses and made it clear at the outset what people can claim for. Perhaps that's the one positive thing that came out of this sorry part of the discussion, the need for clarity at the outset from both sides, hence my original post on the subject where I felt (and still feel) that it would have best been discussed between the individual and the club privately rather than aired on here.

Surely someone doing one of the Demo stands is the same unless it's demonstrating a product/service which they are then selling, in which case they're a trader? Thanks to the others for clarifying the "Ltd Co" background and why many clubs do it, I think many Societies are the same, certainly the 009 Society is.