 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Land Rover Cars / October 2006More Women
You are all aware of how dangerous it is to use a mobile phone while filling up with petrol - approximately the same as being eaten by a Leopard in Timperley ( next to none at all, I sprinkle anti-leopard powder regularly and none have been sighted since I started ) however nobody has mentioned about clothing made from synthetic materials have they ?http://www.yikers.com/video_woman_sparks_fire_while_pumping_gas.html so next time you decide which pump to use watch out for the biddy firestarters wearing nylon. Derek > You are all aware of how dangerous it is to use a mobile phone while > filling up with petrol - approximately the same as being eaten by a > Leopard in Timperley ( next to none at all, I sprinkle anti-leopard powder > regularly and none have been sighted since I started ) however nobody has > mentioned about clothing made from synthetic materials have they http://www.yikers.com/video_woman_sparks_fire_while_pumping_gas.html (b*gg*r microcrap) > so next time you decide which pump to use watch out for the biddy > firestarters wearing nylon. > Derek > (b*gg*r microcrap) > > so next time you decide which pump to use watch out for the biddy > > firestarters wearing nylon. > > Derek Phew. Was that brave or stupid to remove the hose? Glad I drive a diesel! TonyB >> (b*gg*r microcrap) >> > so next time you decide which pump to use watch out for the biddy [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Phew. Was that brave or stupid to remove the hose? >Glad I drive a diesel! You can quite safely smoke whilst handling diesel. Alex "Derek" wrote in message > You are all aware of how dangerous it is to use a mobile phone while > filling up with petrol - approximately the same as being eaten by a > Leopard in Timperley ( next to none at all, I sprinkle anti-leopard powder > regularly and none have been sighted since I started ). Ah that's why Frank Sidebottom got rid of Tiddles was it ? or have all the Leopards move to the Broomwood ? Dave > "Derek" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Dave It 's a bit worrying theres been a spate of Cat rustling going on round Timperley we had one catnapped (no big loss it was a collossal p.i.t.a.) and a neighbour is short of two as of this week so Frank's may have gone the same way. BTW he's back on the air again http://www.franksworld.co.uk/ though I understand he's off to the US this week so thats the special relationship b*ggered up Derek http://www.yikers.com/video_woman_sparks_fire_while_pumping_gas.html > so next time you decide which pump to use watch out for the biddy >firestarters wearing nylon. seen that one before. this is fun: http://www.evilchili.com/mediaview/5733/Frozen_In_Time_Prank and this: http://www.evilchili.com/mediaview/5681/QVC_Ladder_Mishap  SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that "'Tis a mad world, my masters" John Taylor (1580-1633) Western Voyage, 1 hmm, time to hang up yer shellsuits Derek.... Wolfie > hmm, time to hang up yer shellsuits Derek.... > > Wolfie in Manc? no way thats purely a scouse national costume eh eh calm down http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7VspOs3Qt0 they don't make nylon kilts do they Wolfie? Derek Nylon kilts......funny thing is i knew you would lob that comment back over the net :-) but at least i would have something to fan the flames with hehe. then again the sight of a big hairy jock wafting his kilt about would probably put you off your haggis :-o) Wolfie > Nylon kilts......funny thing is i knew you would lob that comment back > over [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Wolfie I wish, its near impossible to get slicing haggis this far south and saturday brekkies are lacking if you don't have some and at least 1 slice of laun sausage to make it worth the trip Derek > You are all aware of how dangerous it is to use a mobile phone while filling > up with petrol - approximately the same as being eaten by a Leopard in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > firestarters wearing nylon. > Derek Now you know why they removed the ratchet mechanism form British pumps years ago, so you can't leave it filling and get in and out of your car to build up the static. Incidentally, the mobile phone ban is nothing to do with sparks starting fires, they aren't powerful enough, it's because some early pumps had their electronics scrambled by the phone's transmission so didn't properly record the amount of fuel pumped. Of course if they'd said as much people would have been there trying to jam them 8-), so they made up the cover story. Greg >> You are all aware of how dangerous it is to use a mobile phone while >filling [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >ago, so you can't leave it filling and get in and out of your car to build >up the static. I thought that was about not having fuel spilt on the floor if the cut-off didn't. Personally, I have a short bit of wire on my keyring which just happens to fit the holes where the missing pins on the pump are... almost all of them are disabled simply by removing the pin - I've seen one locally where they've actually removed the catches as well. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that "I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine... War is hell" Gen. Sherman (1820-1891) Attr. words in Address at Michigan Military Academy, 19 June 1879. > I thought that was about not having fuel spilt on the floor if the cut-off > didn't. Probably a factor too, though I find most pumps are actually far TOO sensitive. But if you have to hold on to it you can't walk around, get in and out, building up a static charge and then discharge it to the handle as this woman did. Even if it does set on fire, which is not unheard of, it won't keep pumping fuel into the fire because you jump back and it stops. > Personally, I have a short bit of wire on my keyring which just happens to > fit the holes where the missing pins on the pump are... almost all of them > are disabled simply by removing the pin - I've seen one locally where > they've actually removed the catches as well. Most garage attendants will switch the pump off if they spot anything remotely out of order, I know one and the company is sh.t hot about such things on H&S grounds, they're even supposed to stop people filling what they consider unsuitable containers. Greg >> I thought that was about not having fuel spilt on the floor if the cut-off >> didn't. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >they consider unsuitable containers. >Greg ah, but I'm cunning, I don't make it obvious. It annoys me to have to stand there holding the bloody trigger while pumping 70l of diesel. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Blue: The sky is blue for a reason. Blue light is a source of strength and harmony in the cosmos. Create a blue light in your life by telephoning the police from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton. >>> I thought that was about not having fuel spilt on the floor if the >>> cut-off [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> things on H&S grounds, they're even supposed to stop people filling what >> they consider unsuitable containers. aye - but they have no real training and are completely unqualified to assess the suitability of any container. > ah, but I'm cunning, I don't make it obvious. A straw poll of forecourts round here ... Tesco - jumpy, nervous staff think all customers are villainous thugs - these people should be in a rest home - they have no busines in a public facing role. Sainsbury - laid back and relaxed (except about the mobile phone thingie) Traditional forecourt (high st location) - asleep > It annoys me to have to stand > there holding the bloody trigger while pumping 70l of diesel. The petrol cap of a 110 seems to be exactly the right size to hold the handle in place. SignatureWilliam Tasso Land Rover - 110 V8 Discovery - V8 >>Most garage attendants will switch the pump off if they spot anything >>remotely out of order, I know one and the company is sh.t hot about such >>things on H&S grounds, they're even supposed to stop people filling what >>they consider unsuitable containers. >>Greg anything made of metal is supposed to be an unsuitable container according to the official looking H&S literature i used to ignore when i worked as a forecourt attendant back when I was at college. I was supposed to sell it in those 5l plastic containers only. >ah, but I'm cunning, I don't make it obvious. It annoys me to have to stand >there holding the bloody trigger while pumping 70l of diesel. slow LPG pumps are more annoying. I want a big stick (though i recall Martyn saying they started telling him off for doing grumble this way!) a few of the garages round here enforce the no jerry cans rule. So i always do it steathily. Try and get an end pump and/or pull up as though you were filling up the car and then with the door left open (so as to hide it) fill up the jerrycan with it on the floor hidden behind the car. > anything made of metal is supposed to be an unsuitable container > according to the official looking H&S literature i used to ignore when > i worked as a forecourt attendant back when I was at college. I was > supposed to sell it in those 5l plastic containers only. Which is absolutely idiotic of course, far more likely to be a ploy to sell THEIR plastic cans to people who turn up with a jerry and don't want to go home empty handed. Greg >> anything made of metal is supposed to be an unsuitable container >> according to the official looking H&S literature i used to ignore when [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >THEIR plastic cans to people who turn up with a jerry and don't want to go >home empty handed. I think the literature was from an association or official body?. The garage I worked at was a small local indie one (I had regulars! :) ) not one in a big chain. I always thought it was fairly stupid - metal jerry cans are good enough for the army (who generally over spec things) so i'm sure they are good enough for normal people! I always used to sell petrol in whatever people wanted to put it in. "Tom Woods" <news@NOPSAMtomwoods.co.uk> wrote in message > I think the literature was from an association or official body?. The > garage I worked at was a small local indie one (I had regulars! :) ) > not one in a big chain. Everything a trade association does has one eye on keeping their members happy, and safety is often the excuse for slipping in rules that benefit them, I'm only guessing in this particular case but it's true in general. A classic was the IEE insisting on bonding every tap etc in a kitchen on safety grounds, that made a lot of work for a lot of electricians but has been withdrawn as it was shown to be making things more dangerous in many cases. Greg > "Tom Woods" <news@NOPSAMtomwoods.co.uk> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > been withdrawn as it was shown to be making things more dangerous in many > cases. ...... and the one they came up with about no sockets to be reachable by anyone with a hand in the sink! > Greg Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive > ...... and the one they came up with about no sockets to be reachable > by anyone with a hand in the sink! I think the next one to become notorious will be the fact you no longer cap wiring buried in walls if it's within a 'zone'. This saves a lot of work but assumes the general public know not to drill a wall in a zone 100mm wide radiating vertically and horizontally from any switch or socket, nor close to an internal corner or ceiling, nor on the reverse side of a thin partition wall that backs on to a zone. I seriously wonder how many DIYers know about that. I did the 16th edition and the electrical inspector's courses last year to get up to date, there's a lot of good common sense in there but also a fair few suspicious bits that would seem to put ease before safety. Greg >> ...... and the one they came up with about no sockets to be reachable >> by anyone with a hand in the sink! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >partition wall that backs on to a zone. I seriously wonder how many DIYers >know about that. very few. and then you get the old places that were wired before there was a wiring code, and have wiring anywhere they fancied it... It'd be good practice to cap any buried wire... although the determined could drill through the capping.. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that "Festina Lente" (Hasten slowly) Suetonius (c.70-c.140) Augustus, 25 > "Tom Woods" <news@NOPSAMtomwoods.co.uk> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Greg Didn't know that had been withdrawn!! Must investigate! SignatureDon't say it cannot be done, rather what is needed to do it! If the answer is offensive maybe the question was inappropriate The fiend of my fiend is my enema! > Didn't know that had been withdrawn!! > Must investigate! You're not alone, plenty of electricians don't know either 8-(, hopefully the recent changes in the law that effectively ban unqualified people from doing most domestic work will improve things. For the record, supplementary equipotential bonding is now normally only required in rooms with baths and showers, rooms where people are going to be immersed so their skin resistance is low. In other areas, particularly toilets and kitchens, adding more places you can touch a solid earth is generally frowned upon because an earth free environment is by far the safest. Apparently the IEE argued against the change on the grounds that even with plastic pipes the water in them could conduct, hence the ludicrous practice amongst large house builders of inserting a foot of metal pipe into an otherwise plastic system so that the bond wire could be strapped to it!. Amazingly enough the IEE didn't know that water is an insulator, only becoming conductive when impurities are added (wet skin has lots of salt in it). This only ended when ERA did the obvious experiment of filling a plastic pipe with tap water from around the country and measuring it's resistance, their conclusion was that less than a metre of water filled pipe will insulate you sufficiently so the IEE backed down. Anyway, I think we're way off topic now 8-) Greg >> Didn't know that had been withdrawn!! >> Must investigate! [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Greg In spite of my email address, the IEE is no more!!!!! its now the IET. Don't get me started!! I reckon Micky F is spinning in his grave! SignatureDon't say it cannot be done, rather what is needed to do it! If the answer is offensive maybe the question was inappropriate The fiend of my fiend is my enema! > In spite of my email address, the IEE is no more!!!!! its now the IET. > Don't get me started!! You too ? Steve aka smtaylor@iee.org Not, ever, IET. >> In spite of my email address, the IEE is no more!!!!! its now the >> IET. Don't get me started!! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Steve > aka smtaylor@iee.org Not, ever, IET. Told you DO NOT GET ME STARTED!! SignatureDon't say it cannot be done, rather what is needed to do it! If the answer is offensive maybe the question was inappropriate The fiend of my fiend is my enema! > In spite of my email address, the IEE is no more!!!!! its now the IET. > Don't get me started!! Yes I know, a while ago I started the process of becoming an member but decided better of it as the professional benefits were limited, now that no one even knows their name I'm convinced I made the right call 8-). That aside, all the piles of 16th edition documents I have will be labelled IEE for a many a year to come so I can't see people stopping calling them that. Greg > anything made of metal is supposed to be an unsuitable container > according to the official looking H&S literature i used to ignore Good for you the licencing regulations state that 10l metal with a proper vapour proof cap and marked "Petroleum Spirit Highly Flammable" (OWTTE) is a suitable container for petrol. Note 10l so 20l jerry cans are out (in theory...). 5l is the max for plastic containers for petrol. SignatureCheers new5pam@howhill.com Dave. pam is missing e-mail "Dave Liquorice" <new5pam@howhill.com> wrote in message > 5l is the max for plastic containers for petrol. Then it's a pity all modern cars have plastic petrol tanks much larger than this isn't it 8-), I'm lead to understand there are also laws about how much (or rather little) petrol you can store in your garage too yet you can have as many cars with as much fuel as will fit. If you got rid of all the inconsistent laws I wonder how many would be left?. Greg > "Dave Liquorice" <new5pam@howhill.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Greg Well I have long held the view that we have far too many laws, after all parliaments have been sitting for hundreds of years. My suggestion (come the revolution) it that they should only be able to pass a law if they repeal an existing two laws <G> Perhaps we should revert to the old system where parliament was only convened when there was something to talk about. With the MPs being there all the time they have to justify their existance by over legislation. AWEM > "Dave Liquorice" <new5pam@howhill.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Greg Plus a large number of unemployed lawyers - which is why the government will never do it. for a little more of the farcical regs see http://www.hse.gov.uk/LAU/lacs/65-9.htm which bacically means your local used car lot is breaking the law if it has more than a dozen or so cars containing fuel or not depending on which part of the section on metal containers you read. Derek also available : Explaining the concept of a brewery outing to a politician > > "Dave Liquorice" <new5pam@howhill.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > also available : Explaining the concept of a brewery outing to a politician Some time back I worked for British Rail, both as a Guard and as a Signalman. The Rule Book had evolved over many, many years and was extrememly comprehensive, covering every possible situation and circumstance (note: it was developed by Railwaymen, not Lawyers, so being comprehensive was possible). It was, to all inetents and purposes, "The Law" (legally, too) There was, however, general agreement that it would be impossible to actually run the railway using the book *to the letter*, hence "work to rule" industrial action was so effective. I hate to think what it looks like now, since "accident investigation" (the lessons of which were enshrined in the Rule Book) is no longer carried out by railwaymen under the guidance of an independent Inspector, but by lawyers steering the health & safety executive, often with very dubious motives. My point (finaly!) is this - if the law is too percise, it will collapse becuase it will become unworkable. A case in point is emplyoment law - I want to employ someone, but the risk for a small buiness is massive - I can have some clown trun up and bankrupt my business simply because I didn't give them the job (they can get legal aid to go to a tribunal on *any* grounds, no matter how stupid - I'd get no help at all) - never mind actually giving them the job and then finding that they are theiving gits etc (you can't even sack someone, on the spot if you catch them walking out of the place with armfulls of your stock - really!). Plus, it's pracically impossible to word an advert now describing the sort of person you want without upsetting someone and ending up in front of another tribunal. The lunatics have indeed already taken over the asylum! Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive || that they are theiving gits etc (you can't even sack someone, || on the spot if you catch them walking out of the place with || armfulls of your stock - really!). If you word their contract so that an employee may be instantly dismissed for gross misconduct, and that your list of examples of gross misconduct includes theft from the employer, you would be in a very strong position. Same with drunk at work, drugs etc. We have instantly dismissed people for drinking while on duty, and never had any comeback. There isn't a tribunal in the country that would award damages or demand reinstatement for an employee who was caught red-handed stealing from their employer. SignatureRich ============================== Take out the obvious to email me. >>> that they are theiving gits etc (you can't even sack someone, >>> on the spot if you catch them walking out of the place with [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > would award damages or demand reinstatement for an employee who was > caught red-handed stealing from their employer. I just sacked my accounts manager for the exact same thing. Gave herself a nice payrise & put in a few 'dodgy' invoices for fook knows what & paid it to herself. She has also nicked loads of stuff through Viking direct too, including tons of random sh.t we would never use! Also, she got tons of free gifts that are meant for the company & took the f.ckers home!! I'm off to the Police on Monday, it's only about £900 but i aint wearing that no way. If it where a bloke i would have knocked the twat out. SignatureTa! Nige Subaru WRX (54) Land Rover Turbo Diesel 110 (G) KTM 520 SX (2001) Kawasaki ZZR 1100 (1995) >My point (finaly!) is this - if the law is too percise, it >will collapse becuase it will become unworkable. A case in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >on the spot if you catch them walking out of the place with >armfulls of your stock - really!). Get the employee to sign a contract. We're a small business with a few employees and our contract is worded such that we would have no legal hassle laying them off easily (not that we ever plan to!) >Plus, it's pracically impossible to word an advert now >describing the sort of person you want without upsetting >someone and ending up in front of another tribunal. Put a sign up in the shop and ask around before going onto proper adverts. When we wanted a full time employee we didnt actually need to advertise. We just asked about and pretty quickly 2 of my mates were interested! (and the one who we employed does a great job!) >>My point (finaly!) is this - if the law is too percise, it >>will collapse becuase it will become unworkable. A case in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >employees and our contract is worded such that we would have no legal >hassle laying them off easily (not that we ever plan to!) Additionally - decent contracts are the way forward with anything! All our business contracts are worded hugely in our favour and they are still signed quite happily! (basically nothing is ever my fault and i can quit whenever i like and you still have to pay me!) :) > >>My point (finaly!) is this - if the law is too percise, it > >>will collapse becuase it will become unworkable. A case in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > still signed quite happily! (basically nothing is ever my fault and i > can quit whenever i like and you still have to pay me!) :) But have they been tested? I though my contracts when being a freelance software engineer were pretty thourough, but when tested they meant bugger all. Obvously, that sort of contract is nothing like a "full-timers" employment contract anyway. Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive > But have they been tested? I though my contracts when being a > freelance software engineer were pretty thourough, but when > tested they meant bugger all. Obvously, that sort of contract > is nothing like a "full-timers" employment contract anyway. Exactly the point I was going to make, people think that just because they've got someone to sign something makes it valid, but it doesn't. Any clause in a contract that is in contradiction of some obscure bit of legislation is worthless, and any contract that you can't afford to enforce in court is worthless. A classic example is the disclaimers that some organisations/companies get you to sign before doing something potentially dangerous, they are absolutely pointless as no one can be absolved of a duty of care. Another is all these "The management are not responsible for..." signs we see, in fact the management are responsible for anything they were responsible for before they put the sign up!. Then there are these 'no-win no-fee' claim parasites, they'll make claims against employers knowing full well that it would be thrown out of court but gamble that the employer or their insurers will think it cheaper to settle than contest, and in many cases they do. I go on seminars with Zurich as part of my council work so see the other side of the industry, they reckon it costs them at least £4000 to contest one of these claims so regularly settle unless there is a bigger issue at stake, of course we're all paying for this in our premiums. Greg > > But have they been tested? I though my contracts when being a > > freelance software engineer were pretty thourough, but when [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the management are responsible for anything they were responsible for before > they put the sign up!. Never mind when the sign was put up - one, either as an individual or a company, in either negligent or not. A sign make no adds at all, execpt that probably quite a lot of people will assume it does. > Then there are these 'no-win no-fee' claim parasites, they'll make claims > against employers knowing full well that it would be thrown out of court but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > settle unless there is a bigger issue at stake, of course we're all paying > for this in our premiums. A talk given by the NFU rep a while back said the same thing. > Greg Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive >A classic example is the disclaimers that some organisations/companies get >you to sign before doing something potentially dangerous, they are >absolutely pointless as no one can be absolved of a duty of care. personally, I think that this sucks like an industrial grade vacuum. Provided you supply sufficient information that the choice is "informed", I honestly think that it should be acceptable to have a disclaimer that actually means something. suppose, for example, I want to go off-roading in my landy. I go to a site, and pay for the use thereof. The site operator makes it quite plain to me that by driving on his site I may damage either the vehicle or myself. He does this, for example, by having a big notice, drawing attention to it and also by reading the notice aloud, at the time when I register and pay. I sign my name to a page which has the same info on it and accept the risk to my vehicle and person as my responsibility, and absolving the site operator of blame should such damage occur. Under those conditions, why the hell should the operator be at risk? This is part of the compensation and blame culture which sadly is rife. It all comes down to the fact that half the world is intent on not looking where it puts it clumsy feet, falling over some item in plain sight and then hunting someone to blame, sue, and make a tidy bit of money from. It's like people walking along the pavement and falling over a raised paving stone. The paving stone is in plain view and if they watched where they put their plates they'd not fall over it. Why should the local authority have to cough because someone's too daft too look where they're walking? Obviously, there are circumstances where a claim IS reasonable, too: take the pavement, for example: suppose it looks flat and in good condition, but in fact one slab is unsupported and tips when you stand on it, causing you to fall. That's a situation where you could not reasonably be aware of the risk and the authority should really be liable. In the same way, my hypothetical off-road operator could let me onto his premises, take no steps to find out if I had any experience, make no effort to inform me of any risks and say "off yer go". In THOSE circumstances, he'd be negligent and if I were damaged, I'd expect to claim from him. The difference being that the risks were not either inherently obvious nor clearly stated. But as a general rule, I reckon there's far too much of people wanting someone else to take responsibility for their actions going on. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that "Festina Lente" (Hasten slowly) Suetonius (c.70-c.140) Augustus, 25 >> A classic example is the disclaimers that some >> organisations/companies get you to sign before doing something [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > But as a general rule, I reckon there's far too much of people wanting > someone else to take responsibility for their actions going on. That's yer granny state for you. Too many 'new labour' supporters want their arse wiped for them! SignatureDon't say it cannot be done, rather what is needed to do it! If the answer is offensive maybe the question was inappropriate The fiend of my fiend is my enema! > ... > That's yer granny state for you. Too many 'new labour' supporters want > their arse > wiped for them! it's cheaper in Thailand (so I understand). SignatureWilliam Tasso Land Rover - 110 V8 Discovery - V8 || Obviously, there are circumstances where a claim IS reasonable, too: || <snip> In the same way, my hypothetical off-road [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] || being that the risks were not either inherently obvious nor clearly || stated. I'd go a bit further - I'd say (in your hypothetical example) that the site operator should only be liable if he knowingly hid something from you, or otherwise failed to point out something that no reasonable person could have foreseen. To me, if the driver has no experience and no idea of the risks, it's his responsibility to find stuff out first. This is the way we learnt as kids - we'd try stuff out, get into some hellish scrapes, and gradually learn that some things weren't as easy or as safe as they looked. We would then approach them with a greater degree of care and forward planning. If we'd had a grown-up checking on our experience level and warning us of the risks before we started, we'd never have learned anything. So - if the inexperienced off-roader arrives at the site, pays his money, and promptly rolls his vehicle on a side-slope, I'd say that was tough on him, and no-one's fault but his own. If the site owner knew of a clear and unusual risk - say a metal spike hidden at the bottom of a muddy pool - and failed to tell the driver, then perhaps he should be liable for the damage (although I'd still be tempted to say that the driver should have checked the pool first. If he didn't know to do that, well he will next time). || But as a general rule, I reckon there's far too much of people || wanting someone else to take responsibility for their actions going on. Agreed. SignatureRich ============================== Take out the obvious to email me. > I'd go a bit further - I'd say (in your hypothetical example) that the site > operator should only be liable if he knowingly hid something from you, or > otherwise failed to point out something that no reasonable person could have > foreseen. That's about the legal position regardless of any signs he puts up, he has a duty of care and keeping quiet about say a block of concrete in the bottom of a ford would be a breach of it, but typical dammage caused by off roading would not. The only purpose for a sign would be to point out to the terminally thick that offroading is potentially damaging to your vehicle so they couldn't argue in court that it wasn't common knowledge. Any further working claiming no responsibility for anything is at best pointless and it could be argued that it discourages people with justifiable claims from proceeding, which of course is why they post these signs. If it was possible to absolve yourself of your duty of care, as some have argued, it would be a license for cowboys to rip people off big time. What really needs changing is the small claims system, not to stop people with justifyable claims but those who abuse the system with totally speculative ones hoping the insurers will pay out anyway. Greg > >My point (finaly!) is this - if the law is too percise, it > >will collapse becuase it will become unworkable. A case in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > employees and our contract is worded such that we would have no legal > hassle laying them off easily (not that we ever plan to!) Would it were so simple - the FSB news letter has had several example cases recently where the ex, or even prospective, employee has taken the business to a tribunal in seemingly blatant cases, and had the FSB member not been a member and able to get free advice, they would either have to have given in and paid out compensation or risked terrible finacial hardship getting legal help (these were one or two man businesses with one enmployee). The point is the tribunal will hear any case, and the claimant will get aid, you won't! Getting a whater-tight contract of employment drawn up isn't exactly cheap, and the tribunals interpretation of those contracts is often only describable as bizarre since they have a laywer go through it, not someone being realistic. > >Plus, it's pracically impossible to word an advert now > >describing the sort of person you want without upsetting [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > advertise. We just asked about and pretty quickly 2 of my mates were > interested! (and the one who we employed does a great job!) That's the way I'm doing it - my point is two-fold - first that I have to do it that way because I can get done if it upsets someone, however stupidly, and secondly that it just makes the whole thing far more complicated than is necessary. Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive > The point is the >tribunal will hear any case, and the claimant will get aid, >you won't! Getting a whater-tight contract of employment >drawn up isn't exactly cheap, and the tribunals interpretation >of those contracts is often only describable as bizarre since >they have a laywer go through it, not someone being realistic. IIRC, the contract cost about the same as I take home in a month - so it better bloody work! :) I imagine that we shall be having words with the legal company that drew it up ift ever gets contested >> The point is the >> tribunal will hear any case, and the claimant will get aid, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I imagine that we shall be having words with the legal company that > drew it up ift ever gets contested I'd rather think they ought to defend it FoC! SignatureDon't say it cannot be done, rather what is needed to do it! If the answer is offensive maybe the question was inappropriate The fiend of my fiend is my enema! > Would it were so simple - the FSB news letter has had several > example cases recently where the ex, or even prospective, > employee has taken the business to a tribunal in seemingly > blatant cases, and had the FSB member not been a member and > able to get free advice, We're with the EEF, and they have a guaranteed employment service that insures us against being taken to a tribunal, provided we route all our employment questions through them before we do anything. Steve > .. > If you got rid of all the > inconsistent laws I wonder how many would be left?. One SignatureWilliam Tasso Land Rover - 110 V8 Discovery - V8 >> 5l is the max for plastic containers for petrol. > > Then it's a pity all modern cars have plastic petrol tanks much larger > than this isn't it 8-), Pedant we were talking about hand portable containers. > I'm lead to understand there are also laws about how much (or rather > little) petrol you can store in your garage ... That depends on the building and it's attachment or otherwise to another building and if you are licenced. 175l, without a licence, in 5/10l (plastic/metal) containers in a building x metres from an occupied building springs to mind. It's all on the web if you look. SignatureCheers new5pam@howhill.com Dave. pam is missing e-mail > >> 5l is the max for plastic containers for petrol. > > > > Then it's a pity all modern cars have plastic petrol tanks much larger > > than this isn't it 8-), > > Pedant we were talking about hand portable containers. I think you missed the smiley!, but even so I totally fail to see why a portable can is now limited to 5l and plastic when the world has been using larger metal ones since petrol was invented, and vehicles carry 50l plastic or metal tanks. Greg > I think you missed the smiley!, but even so I totally fail to see why a > portable can is now limited to 5l and plastic ... It's not, you can have 10l in a metal container. I guess the limit is beacuse portable containers are much more likely to abused and/or placed in stupid places compared to a tank fixed to a vehicle. SignatureCheers new5pam@howhill.com Dave. pam is missing e-mail > It's not, you can have 10l in a metal container. An earlier poster said that petrol stations were refusing to fill metal containers, frankly I haven't a clue what's 'allowed' or not, I regularly fill jerry cans and have yet to be stopped. Greg >> It's not, you can have 10l in a metal container. > > An earlier poster said that petrol stations were refusing to fill metal > containers, In which case that is rule from those particular filling stations. Petrol in 10l in metal and a proper vapour seal cap is legal as is 5l with a proper vapour seal in plastic. These rules don't apply to diesel, I'm not sure what limits apply for diesel. > I regularly fill jerry cans and have yet to be stopped. Not particulary often but I've yet to be stopped as well, mind I don't make a big sond an dance about it and generally to it at the back of the Disco to save humping a full can any further than I have to. SignatureCheers new5pam@howhill.com Dave. pam is missing e-mail >> It's not, you can have 10l in a metal container. > >An earlier poster said that petrol stations were refusing to fill metal >containers, frankly I haven't a clue what's 'allowed' or not, I regularly >fill jerry cans and have yet to be stopped. Ive been stopped at a local BP garage. Told me over the intercom that i coulnt fill that up and wouldnt turn the pump on. I've also filled jerry cans up very obviously at the same place and been ignored so some of it must be down the the person working there. It may also be because theyve had a load of pikeys/kids filling up jerry cans and running off or something? I really did read the 'rules' while i worked at a garage! > It may also be because theyve had a load of pikeys/kids filling up > jerry cans and running off or something? Blimey have you ever tried running with a full jerry can? They've got minds of their own! SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > > It may also be because theyve had a load of pikeys/kids filling up > > jerry cans and running off or something? > > Blimey have you ever tried running with a full jerry can? They've got > minds of their own! What the pikeys/kids? Never....... Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive I've seen many vehicles (mostly LR 110's incidentaly) pull up to the pumps, and either open the back, or even better take the lid off a 6x4 trailer full of jerry cans (20L ex-army of course) - we're talking 30+ cans, and fill them all up with petrol. This is usually at Tescos in Oban, or morrisons in Fort William. They either live on an island or in a very remote place (I'm in the highlands) and come to fill up once a month or so. Andrew > > > It may also be because theyve had a load of pikeys/kids filling up > > > jerry cans and running off or something? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine > Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive >> I think you missed the smiley!, but even so I totally fail to see why a >> portable can is now limited to 5l and plastic ... > >It's not, you can have 10l in a metal container. Which is bloody stupid as a jerry can holds 25 litres. and if the army use em, i dont see why i cant. Alex > Which is bloody stupid as a jerry can holds 25 litres. and if the army > use em, i dont see why i cant. If I could only fill a 5l plastic can at a visit I would have to make two trips a week just to keep my ride-on mower going in the summer, not to mention those silly plastic things have very ill fitting spouts that spill petrol all over the place. Greg >>> why a portable can is now limited to 5l and plastic ... >> >> It's not, you can have 10l in a metal container. > > Which is bloody stupid as a jerry can holds 25 litres. Funny all the jerry cans I've ever seen have be 10 or 20l not 25... > and if the army use em, i dont see why i cant. 'Cause the army is law unto itself? SignatureCheers new5pam@howhill.com Dave. pam is missing e-mail >>>> why a portable can is now limited to 5l and plastic ... >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Funny all the jerry cans I've ever seen have be 10 or 20l not 25... really old ones were 5 gallons, but more recent ones are 20l. >> and if the army use em, i dont see why i cant. > >'Cause the army is law unto itself? Cause the army are putting diesel in 'em? SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Appearances: You don't really need make-up. Celebrate your authentic face by frightening people in the street. from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton. > Cause the army are putting diesel in 'em? Not the ones I have which came with a metal sign attached saying petrol 8-). Greg >> You are all aware of how dangerous it is to use a mobile phone while > filling [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Greg wasn't it the same for AM radios (when everyone was getting FM CB radios)?? a few clicks of the mike to initiate a transmit signal and the pump "forgot" how much fuel you'd drawn. or is that another UL? Peter > wasn't it the same for AM radios (when everyone was getting FM CB radios)?? > a few clicks of the mike to initiate a transmit signal and the pump "forgot" > how much fuel you'd drawn. > > or is that another UL? Quite possibly, back then most electronics was vulnerable to interference in some way or another. Now it's routine, and in fact a legal requirement, for all electronics to reach defined levels of immunity, we have our own test facilities to prove our products are immune to industrial levels of interference, it adds to the cost of everything though. Of course back in the heyday of CB people were boosting their transmitters to quite illegal power levels and could literally cause sparks at petrol stations!. Greg |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.