evest

Anyone that says we need to slow down to prevent accidents is talking out their backside. If that was the case, why dont we all drive round at 5MPH like we used to with a man waving a flag in front of our car?

It might prevent accidents in some cases - if somebody has even a second more reaction time then they might be able to avoid hitting something/somebody. It won't wipe out accidents to 0%, because people will still do stupid things and not pay attention, but at least if the speed is less then the bang won't be as loud.

Yes, policing is based on monitoring speed because this is the only aspect they can realistically monitor on a large scale, without huge additional resources. They can't be everywhere to catch the idiots and the drunks, but they can try to regulate at least part of the problem.

As I said - we have but a basic test to determine whether or not somebody is fit to drive a car on the roads. This test focuses purely on practical ability under regulated conditions.

How can the government begin to weed out the potential idiots that will cause accidents? There has to be a way of these poeple being identified, and driving too fast may be an indication.

I'm not saying speed is the only issue - the cause of accident is more to do with general poor awareness - but speed is the one thing that can at least be quantified and monitored.

but why should i have to go slower becuas some numpty shouldn't be incontrol of a vehicle?

 

and i don't mean going faster than 70, there is a big push at the moment to reduce the 70 in places to 50, some 30's are now 20's etc.

I'm not defending the numpties - far from it. But unfortunately, because there doesn't appear to be anything better than a very basic test to define who should and shouldn't be allowed on the roads - the powers that be have to do something to stop them killing everyone!

The right to drive a car appears to be universal, and therin lies a fundamental flaw...

Less speed = higher survivability in the event of an accident.

All those 80% might not cause the accident - but they will have a lower chance of survival when they encounter said guy coming round the corner on the wrong side.

Were you logged in when you tried to access it?

They are no different from a bobby being stood there with a speed gun

 

Yes they are. They do not have that human element discretion. A police officer can choose how to deal with someone doing 35 in a 30 at 5am in the morning when there is nothing more than a blackbird sharing the road, and they can choose how to deal with that same person doing 35 in a 30 when the primary school on that road has just emptied for the afternoon.

 

A camera deals with those two possibilities in exactly the same manner.

 

I completey accept your point - my meaning was more to do with how drivers react when they see the camera/bobby - they are the same thing in terms of a deterrent

 

 

and most major roads and motorway would work a whole lot better. Plus - they would not get caught in the first place!

 

No, they wouldn't. Motorways are clogged becasue A. Trucks continue to overtake each other for miles on end and B. People do not keep left. People that drive at 65 in the centre lane cause a massive risk to many other road users and themselves, much more than someone doing 80 in the fast lane on a quiet Sunday. But again, which one does the camera prosecute?

 

I still maintain that if people drove at the correct speeds, particulary on the motorway, they would work better. As for people's other poor driving habits, yes I agree with your point

 

The reason there are no accuarte published figures from the office of national statistics on cameras, driving offences and death rates since 2002, is beacuase they know full well they can't be justified.

 

For the record, I have no points and never been prosecuted or warned for speeding. I simply abhore the way that motorists in general (and not just those who speed) are being used as nothing more than a massive cash cow.

I think many of us do. But every individual is in control of whether or not to face a speeding fine.

Some fair points here, the accident figures above make sobering reading. Though they are accidents and apart from the calous minority, no one sets out to cause carnage or break the law.

The Police and CPS have sometimes got it wrong with regards to punishments for driving offences of different severity - that's down to human error.

I agree nobody sets out to cause an accident, but people do set out to deliberatly speed and break the law. It's viewed as not-really-a-crime that you can 'get away with'.

I too have been caught speeding in the past when I was younger, and been on the awareness course - which did make me change my attitude. Before that I DID set out to break the law, by intentionally speeding.

The awareness courses are designed for those people who may have accidentally crept above the speed limit, within a certain tolerance - plus you can usually get away with a couple of mph grace over the limit.

We were told that speed cameras are positioned in order to make you slow down and keep slow as you enter built up areas, towards the bottom of hills where you may have picked up speed a bit, etc... They are no different from a bobby being stood there with a speed gun - but clearly resources are thin, so these things theoretically save money by reducing manpower assigned to the task of policing the roads.

All to often people speed, slam on the brakes in the speed camera catchment area, then speed back up (usually causing a phantom traffic jam in the process), and when they finally get caught, they start moaning about the police having nowt better to do, etc...

I believe it is a driver's responsibility to monitor and be aware of their speed - this doesn't have to mean constant clock watching, but just a better overall awareness of how fast you are going.

I know it sounds a bit like I'm preaching - but really if people drove in accordnace with the speed limits, we wouldn't actually need speed cameras - and most major roads and motorway would work a whole lot better. Plus - they would not get caught in the first place!

as pointless as they are.

Some food for thought...

UK Road Stats for 2009

2,222 dead

24,690 seriously injured

195, 234 slightly injured

Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of small accidents that keep our insurance high...

People berate the police and say "they should be out catching real criminals..." - real criminals don't kill and injure as many people as the above...

The annoying thing for me, is athough they'll raise like £1.5m, they are meant to have what 7m listeners on the breakfast show alone. How many people out there listen and dont text in

7m tune in to listen to try and guess which celebrity is blowing a raspberry. I'm so proud to be British...!

However, good job on raising the money, thats important, and whatever I might think about the content, if it gets cash to good causes then fair play. Personally I can take or leave Radio 1, so not a fan as such. I guess every now and then, on the way to work, I don't mind a bit of mindless, purile, childish banter to take my mind off things. Other times I feel like I've definitely grown out it (and I'm only 30!).

That said, it beats Singal One where I live, playing the same... effing... playlist... every... effing... morning....zzzzz....

to the forum

Regarding the window problem, check this out mate:

http://www.350z-uk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=46966&start=0&hilit=passenger+window

I'm tackling this problem at the weekend also!

Never used one like this so this is purely my opinion:

Just can't help but wonder where the saving is being made over 'branded' ones. How can these be made so cheaply? Personally I always suspect that the materials used will be inferior, filtration not as good, fitment not as good etc....

With ebay you take your chance...

The wheels were fine when i got the car at the beginning of January this year, it happened to one wheel the other week and noticed this on the opposite side today, so im leaning more towards it being to a defect on the alloy wheels and not a pot hole,

It's a tricky one I think. You would basically be claiming that the wheels were faulty/defective at time of sale, and that the subsequent damage has occurred as a result. Whilst the damage is obvious - what caused it is not.

The problem is proving that the damage was caused because of an existing fault - and not as a result of you hitting something (pothole etc..) too hard/fast (no offence meant by that - just being devils advocate).

Dealer will probably fight tooth and nail on this point, but it's worth getting further advice at any rate.

What does the warranty say?

As an addition to the above - it really depends on whether or not the wheels were like that when you got the car - or if they were potentially in any way defective when you got the car - I appreciate this could be impossible to answer.

As stated, within 6 months of sale, if it could be argued that they were weak/defective then the dealer would have to refund/repair or prove otherwise. After that - you would have to provide the proof.

If you believe the wheels were fine when you got the car, and they have simply been damaged through the pothole, then it wouldn't really be fair to make a claim against the dealer (as they would have sold them in good condition).

Sorry for very long cut and paste - but it might be helpful...

How long have you had the car? If less than 6 months you may have a case - unless this damage was pointed out at the time.

From http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk

Cars

So, you've bought a car, but there's a problem. Here's what you need to do next.

If things go wrong

If something goes wrong, stop using the car and go back to the dealer straight away and explain the problem and say what you want done.

Keep in mind however that if you purchased your car with a Hire Purchase agreement, your statutory rights will be with the finance company rather than the dealer (under the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973). Under this act the car must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, correspond with any description given, and the creditor must have the right to sell the car. Where the car does not correspond to any one of the above, you may be entitled to reject the car for a full refund or claim compensation.

If the dealer fails to fulfill their obligations under the Sale of Goods Act, with regard to satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose, and the car's description, they will be in breach of contract and you are entitled to various remedies. The appropriate remedy will depend on a number of factors, including:

*

how long ago you purchased the car

*

the type of remedy that you are seeking

*

the seriousness of any fault or defect

*

whether the fault or defect keeps recurring

*

the cost of carrying out repairs or replacing the car

Here is a list of remedies to consider based on your specific circumstances:

Full refund

You may be able to request a full refund if you detected a serious fault, if it is still within a reasonable time of the sale and you have stopped using the car. 'Reasonable time' is not defined in law so it will also depend on the facts - it can vary from weeks to a few months. Be sure to keep all of your documents, such as independent inspections in writing as it is up to you to prove that the car was faulty at the time of the purchase if the dealer disputes your claim. If your complaint is deemed valid, you are also entitled to claim for reasonable losses suffered, including the cost of any independent report you have paid for to prove your case.

If you initially choose to allow the dealer to repair the fault within a reasonable period after the sale, you are still entitled to a refund if the repair turns out to be unsatisfactory.

If you are not entitled to a full refund - for example, because a 'reasonable time' has elapsed, you may be able to claim compensation for your losses resulting from being supplied with a faulty car.

Basic example of when a refund may be applicable:

You discover that your one-year old car bought from a dealer for £10,000 a few days ago has a major engine fault. You complain to the dealer straight away and request a full refund but the dealer disputes your claim. You agree to take the car to an independent garage and they confirm that the engine was in a very poor condition when sold. You provide the dealer with a written report of the garage's findings and ask for your money back.

In these circumstances the dealer must accept the car back and provide a full refund, as well as pay for any reasonable losses you have suffered such as the cost of the written report.

Repair or replacement

If you do not want (or are not entitled to) a full refund or to claim compensation, you may request either a repair to the car or a replacement for a similar car.

If you want a repair or replacement (or when these are not feasible, a partial or full refund) in the first six months after the sale, it is presumed that the fault or defect was present at the time of the sale. This time, if it is disputed by the dealer, the dealer must prove otherwise - not you. They will need to provide reasonable evidence that the fault was not present at the time of sale, not just a pre-sale 'tick box' check of the mechanical condition of the car at the time it was sold.

However, if the fault or defect only becomes apparent after six months, it is up to you to provide evidence that it existed at the time of the sale.

Repairs and replacements must be carried out within a reasonable time without causing you any significant inconvenience.

Any replacement car you are offered should be of a similar age, mileage and model as your original car at the time you requested the replacement.

Basic example of when a repair or replacement might be applicable:

You complain to your dealer that the one-year old car you bought from them for £8,000 three months ago has a faulty gearbox so you ask them to repair the car. It will be presumed that the car had a faulty gearbox at the time of sale and the dealer must carry out the repair to the gearbox at no cost to you unless they can prove that the car was of satisfactory quality at the time of sale.

Partial and full refund

If neither a repair nor replacement is realistically possible, you can request a partial or full refund depending on what is reasonable in the circumstances. For example, it may be the case that a full refund is not an option because you have used the car for some time before the problem appeared.

You can switch between certain remedies if you find you are getting nowhere with the dealer. But you must give the dealer a reasonable time to honour your request before you switch and you can never pursue two remedies at the same time.

Basic example of when you might switch remedies:

You discover that a one-year old car you bought for £10,000 three months ago is faulty. You take it to the dealer who agrees to repair the car. The dealer takes over two months to repair the car but the fault persists. In these circumstances you may request a replacement car or a refund instead because the repairs have not remedied the fault, were not carried out within a reasonable time and have caused significant inconvenience to you.

You can usually take court action up to six years from the date you bought the car (five years in Scotland). This does not mean that the car has to last or be fault free for six years; it is the time limit for making a claim in court in respect of a fault that was present at the time of sale. Before taking such action you may want consider obtaining independent legal advice.

If the dealer is a member of a trade association such as Motor Codes, Retail Motor Industry Federation, Scottish Motor Trade Association or Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders that follows a code of practice, you should follow any complaint procedure they operate.

Look out for businesses displaying the OFT Approved code logo. It means that the business is operating under a trade body that has an approved code of practice- providing you with high standards of customer service and ensuring your rights as a consumer are better protected. The Motor Codes of Practice for New Cars (covering warranties on new cars and older cars where the manufacturer's warranty is still current) is approved under this scheme. For more information visit http://www.motorcodes.co.uk .

In Scotland, some district councils require used vehicle dealers to register, and issue them with a licence. If you are in Scotland and have problems with a dealer, contact your local Trading Standards Service.

See also:

Read more information and advice on buying a car.

No worries mate - thanks for giving it a go, as others have said, sounds like quite a lot of hassle to overcome on your part.

I'll be watching out for your next delivery of bonnet struts!!

I've heard various people talk about the fact that Japan is rich and doesn't need/want donations - this may be true. Personally I don't think we should think too deeply about the wealth or otherwise of the country - sometimes it's the offer of help that means a lot. The point is that the charitable organisations that do a great deal of 'first aid' so to speak - shelters, food etc... DO need donations in order to work.

The Red Cross, for example, can't simply say to the Japanese government "give us £xxxx" in order to do our work. Even if they could, bureaucracy causes delays in getting this cash moving.

Japan may have the means to rebuild after this situation is stabilized, but charities need the money ASAP in order to keep on working.

It is a fair point made about past disasters which have now disappeared from our screens - well that's the media for you - a lot of people out there are very concerned about the Nikkei and how it will affect the economy here (questionable priorities I would say). That said, I haven't seen the same level of donation appeal on the TV as there has been for disasters in poorer countries.

With that in mind, charities need ongoing donations in order to carry on giving support even when the rest of the world isn't watching.

If the forum wants to do something to help the Japanese, then it can't be a bad thing. People can make their own choice whether or not to support it. If a mate, rich or poor, had his house burnt down, I'd put him up for the night.

My name's on the list.

1. Beavis

2. martinmac

3. octet

4. Tarmac

5. ChrisS

6. Chesterfield

7. 350Russ

8. Stew

9. bladesgrant

10. JetSet

11. Sam McGoo

12. mbs

13. NeilMH

14. AK350Z

15. Bockaaarck

16. DoogyRev

17. GT4 Zed

18. P15ULT

19. evest

Are coilovers better then the actual springs then?

 

And also I found this

 

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/FK-LOWERING-SPRIN ... 1715wt_932

 

It's cheap but is it any good?

 

Thanks

Well they are £140 cheaper than the Eibach kit - so where is the saving being made? That would be my main worry - possible inferior materials.

I would certainly find out more about them before committing any money - whereas the Eibachs come recommended, tried and tested.

I agree that a wiper on such a car as a Z looks silly.

However, how do we stand legally by removing it?

Does it affect the MOT, Insurance or general legality of the vehicle?

I'd like to remove it myself.

Loads of different cars out there without them - no legal requirement for rear wiper

Personally I like having the function - compromise: off for summer, on for winter!

Share prices down everywhere it seems...

RRL sub 18p - couldn't resist a top up at that price! Hope to see some positive results in the coming weeks! Also topped up with CRND, looking forward to some (hopefully positive) news from South African Government soon.

News from RRL today:

TEXAS DRILLING UPDATE – EAST TEXAS COTTON VALLEY, ROSS 3H #1 WELL

International oil and gas exploration, development and production company, Range Resources

Limited (“Range†or “the Companyâ€) is pleased to announce that the Company and its partners have drilled the Cotton Valley objective section to a depth of around 5,500 ft (1,680m) in its Ross 3H #1 Well at the East Texas Cotton Valley Project. The partners will now cease drilling in order to log the well before plugging back and initiating horizontal drilling operations. Mud logging results have been encouraging thus far, with oil shows over an interval more than 400 ft. thick, including oil in the mud pits while drilling.

The well has a projected total hole length of 8,200ft (2,500m), including a 2,500ft (762m) horizontal section through the Cotton Valley oil reservoir. The Company will continue to provide further updates as information becomes available.

Yours faithfully

Peter Landau

Executive Director

Gains on the way?

I got a Cobra Sport System from Exhuasts UK - love it; see below:

http://www.370z-uk.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=42545&start=0

Join the COBRA KAI!

COBRA KAI! COBRA KAI! COBRA KAI!

We do not train to be merciful here, mercy is for the weak! Here, on the street, in competition, man confronts you he is the enemy and enemies deserve NO MERCY!

Legend.

"My favourite holding period - forever"

 

Warren Buffet

...and he knows a thing or two! Sage words

I'm a patient man, will just keep building up my holdings each month - learning as I go!

Sold £2k of CAZA at 56.05 and bought another 10,500 RRL at 18.9. Could have done better on both but pretty pleased with deal. £2k was the day's profit for CAZA so the extra RRL shares feel "free".

 

Roll on Friday. If the rumours are true.

Can't help but feel a little jealous - my 2K is spread across RRL, CRND, CAZA and Standard Life UK Small Companies Fund - and I'm sitting on £200 losses!

Must have bought on a spike or something rookie like that

Ah well, I'm holding on to them, I feel they'll come good before long

Hi mate,

Got a spare back box with about 50'000 miles on it, good condition; welded as per usual place!

I'm up the road in Nantwich and free evenings or for the whole of next weekend if you're interested. Happy to send you pics etc if you want.

Drop me a PM.

Not sure whether Roberts do kit fitting - they're mainly in to body repair work. I can't see why they wouldn't fit a kit though - still body work!

You gonna tell us what you're getting done then??????!!!!!!

Hi mate,

Roberts Refinishing - Ellsemere port

Not exactly where you asked for - but I recently had some damage repaiered by these guys.

They are Lexus approved and did a perfect colour match; perfect job - in fact I'd say the paint finish was better than the factory job!