From: Bod on 20 Nov 2009 05:16
Dr Zoidberg wrote:
> Ray Keattch wrote:
>> Bod wrote:
>>> Adrian wrote:
>>>> Bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like
>>>> they were
>>>>>> Why would you, unless you were compensating for lights that you knew
>>>>>> weren't working?
>>>>> If your indicators stop working and you're a hundred miles from home,
>>>>> they become somewhat essential, don't you think?
>>>> Have you EVER had that happen to you? No, nor me. And I drive far
>>>> shonkier sheds than you.
>>>>> When I passed my test (44 yrs ago), the examiner said, "assume your
>>>>> indicators have failed, so for the next ten minutes you must use only
>>>>> hand signals". I'm surprised that the modern test doesn't use the same
>>>> Indicators don't "just fail".
>>> Bulbs do.
>> If you know bulbs fail, you carry spares.
> That doesn't follow at all.
> I think just about everyone knows bulbs can fail , but a much smaller
> number carry spares. Plenty of people also know how rarely they fail and
> don't think the risk is worth the effort of buying spares as a precaution.
By the large number of cars that I see with one
stop or back light, I have to disagree. It is very
From: Harry Bloomfield on 20 Nov 2009 11:44
Bod wrote :
> By the large number of cars that I see with one stop or back light, I have to
> disagree. It is very common.
That is because the brake light filament is overrun and people tend to
prefer to use the foot brake than the handbrake.
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
From: Nick Finnigan on 20 Nov 2009 12:40
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>> certainly you could do 100 miles on a
>> motorway without needing an indicator.
> Especially if you stay in lane 1 at 56mph.
More likely to need an indicator there than joining the MLOC at 56 - 70
mph, or staying in the BMW lane at 65-85 mph.
From: Silk on 20 Nov 2009 14:57
On 20/11/2009 10:15, Dr Zoidberg wrote:
> Silk wrote:
>> On 19/11/2009 19:14, Elder wrote:
>>> In article<he440g$f70$4(a)aioe.org>, me(a)privacy.net says...
>>>> As I'm not a pikey, I get mine free with the car.
>>> No, you just pay for it differently.
>> I think you'll find it's given away free with the hope that you'll
>> start paying when the free period is up. Modern cars rarely break
>> down, so it's not as if they're giving too much away.
> But the manufactures will pay the breakdown company a sum for this cover.
> It will be less than a member of the public would pay for a policy , but
> the cost is there and then included in the sales price of the car.
I'm guessing that no money changes hands at all. The customer gets free
cover and the company providing the cover gets first go at getting the
ongoing business. Everyone's a winner.
> The depreciation far outweighs any saving on the cost of breakdown cover
> so it's pretty irreleveant when considering the cost of a vehicle either
I don't really car about depreciation. My allowance easily covers the
full cost of the car and a lot more besides.
From: Silk on 20 Nov 2009 14:59
On 19/11/2009 22:09, Conor wrote:
> In article<he4a1t$nau$1(a)aioe.org>, Silk says...
>> I think you'll find it's given away free with the hope that you'll start
>> paying when the free period is up. Modern cars rarely break down, so
>> it's not as if they're giving too much away.
> As said elsewhere, you're paying for it in other ways. I prefer to have
> the cash back instead.
The equivalent cover I get on my new car would cost several hundred over
the lifetime of the car if bought seperately. There's no way a
manufacturer is going to take that on the chin for a selling point most
people probably wont even notice.