"If you don't move I'll run you over".
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Polish Bus Drivers
Next: The motorway
From: Francis Burton on 4 Mar 2010 12:24 In article <otlvo59i512shodq6bd1o41s7146se7oso(a)4ax.com>, Mike Ross <mike(a)corestore.org> wrote: >finally get my license this summer), and amateur gas turbine engineer. Currently >building a gas turbine / electric hybrid car. > >Out-of-date turbine stuff is here: http://www.corestore.org/turbine.htm I assume you don't use the BMW/MAN ground power unit to run the PDP11 computer(s)! :-) (I recognized the corner of the RK05 disk drive.) Francis
From: NM on 4 Mar 2010 12:31 On 4 Mar, 16:34, Alex Potter <spam...(a)ap-consulting.co.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:29:59 +0000, Ret. wrote: > > Indeed, but hacking the other person's head off in order to avoid > > confrontation is a bit OTT don't you think? > > Oh, I don't know... > > OTOH, unless and until we see the video of the incident, we have no way > of knowing what went on. > > I do know that whenever I've been close to moving aircraft propellers [1] > I've taken damn good care to stay out of range. > > [1] Was a glider pilot until the money ran out. > -- You can't be too careful, I swung the prop to start a light aircraft, when it fired I felt the draft of the next blade on the back of my hand as I withdrew it, it's faster than you can react and deadly.
From: NM on 4 Mar 2010 12:41 On 4 Mar, 16:55, "Ophelia" <Ophe...(a)Elsinore.me.uk> wrote: > <damduck-...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:bnivo5d77utt6s9gbs0luahk68ij2jv37h(a)4ax.com... > > > > > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:46:10 -0000, "Ophelia" <Ophe...(a)Elsinore.me.uk> > > wrote: > > >><damduck-...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > >>> But in your description below aren't you just overcooking the status > >>> of Long Marston, the RAF moved out over 50 years ago it was hardly a V > >>> bomber base. > > >>It was indeed part of Bomber Command... Victors I think. > > > Bomber command yes, but the RAF left it in 1954, The first V bomber > > base was Gaydon in Warwickshire in 1954 so I stand by my statement > > that Long Marston was not a V bomber base. Victors became operational > > in 1957. > > OK it was just a guess. I used to live under that flight path for > Waddington... Vulcans....lovely aircraft:) Lincolns I suppose?
From: Tony Dragon on 4 Mar 2010 12:45 Steve Walker wrote: > Doug wrote: > >> The traffic is being blocked in the interests of safety. > > That's an absurd claim - if safety was the primary issue they wouldn't be > conducting their arrogant traffic-disrupting promenades at all. > > > Look it's been explained to you over & over again by Doug & you still don't get it. They are committing an illegal act to make themselves safe from the danger they put themselves in by acting in an inconsiderate & illegal manner, which they do to make themselves safe from the danger ..... -- Tony Dragon
From: Tony Dragon on 4 Mar 2010 12:46
Steve Walker wrote: > Doug wrote: >> On 3 Mar, 11:17, NM <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote: >>> On 3 Mar, 08:56, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> I was just reading about a USA CMer who was run over, had is ankle >>>> broken and who then smashed his bike into the windscreen of his >>>> assailant. Naturally, it was the cyclist who was charged with an >>>> offence and not the driver, by the car-centric law enforcers, as >>>> usual. >>> Good, sounds like he deserved it, I hope the motorist was also >>> compensated for his damage. > >>> What is so hard to understand? If you cause deliberate congestion you >>> will get a reaction, remedy is so simple a child (but not apparantly a >>> lycra loon) could understand, don't do it and if you do accept the >>> consequences. >>> >> The consequences are a driver, who has superior force by using a car >> as a weapon, takes the law into his own hands by attacking a cyclist >> by ramming. And you and other motorists here are trying to pretend >> this was a legal act because the cyclist was deliberately corking? > > You are suddenly changing the story to make the initial collision into a > deliberate assault by the driver (rather than an accident). If there is > evidence of that then of course the driver should be prosecuted. > > Well he has already lied by telling us the cyclists were not moving even though the video was shot by a moving cyclist. -- Tony Dragon |