Tonka54
-
Posts
229 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
PW Shop
Posts posted by Tonka54
-
-
+1 for impact adhesive , as said, coat both surfaces and set them down until they are dry or almost dry to the touch, place the two surfaces together and they instantly bond together. This is both good news and bad, the bad is there is absolutely no working time so be sure before you place the surfaces together.
-
2 minutes ago, Scully said:
This isn’t a recent thing though is it? I haven’t been a BASC member for many a year, and even back then it was a serrated paper card you popped from the letter.
I think I still have most of mine somewhere, including a smaller version for my key ring, or was that Morrisons? 🙂Sounds like CPSA is the way to go then , particularly as BASC members with queries would probably get a better response from Morrisons.
-
4 minutes ago, mel b3 said:
The problem with making it equal , is that it isn't equal . The car driver is much more likely to kill the pedestrian, so the pressure is completely placed with the driver to not hit the pedestrian.
Your point about the new rules being open to abuse is right , but , the type of idiot that'll play face of with a car under the new rules , is the same idiot that would play face off with a car under the old rules .
At the end of the day , the problem isn't with normal , car drivers , pedestrians, horse riders , bike riders , or , legislation. The problem is with selfish, unthinking , uncaring , idiots , with no respect for others.
Totally agreed Mel, it's always been the case that the motorist has a duty of care to avoid all accidents especially those involving pedestrians if at all possible. The problem is non motorists can, and do cause accidents as well.
In the past, if such an accident was investigated and it was found to be caused by a non motorist, and that the said motorist had done all within his power to avoid the accident, then most likely, the motorist would have been exonerated.
Under the new rules, I am not so sure this would be the case.
-
35 minutes ago, WalkedUp said:
You must be able to stop in the distance visible or before the driver ahead. A HGV driver rear ending a driver ahead that stops abruptly should not be driving HGVs, that’s why so many end up in prison for doing so into queues of traffic on motorways. Several of my friends are HGV drivers, it is a hard job requiring constant concentration.
Exactly, so why introduce new rules that are more likely to increase not decrease rear end RTA's.
And yes I totally agree HGV drivers, or any driver for that matter, that runs into the back of a stationary traffic is guilty of lack of attention and concentration. However it's not so clear cut in an emergency situation, yes, in the eyes of the law if a vehicle stop dead in front of you and you cannot stop you are at fault.
But lets be realistic here, British roads, including the motorways were never designed to cope with the sheer amount of traffic that now uses them on a daily basis. if every motorist stuck rigidly to the recommended / not legal , stopping distances for dry roads at 40mph, highway code recommends 36metres, Brake research recommends a whopping 51metres, then there would not be enough road surface in Britain to accommodate todays traffic especially as these distances increase in bad conditions.
So on roads such as main roads or motorways where there is a steady traffic flow under normal conditions, with sudden stops possible but not expected, it's normally the case that these stopping gaps are closed up a good bit. This is one of the reasons why you get motorway pile-ups
-
44 minutes ago, mel b3 said:
I do get what your saying 👍 .
Kids can't really be counted in it , as they just haven't learned roadcraft yet (a pet hate of mine , you should teach your kids roadcraft , swimming etc , as soon as possible) , and even with the new legislation, no driver would be convicted for a totally unavoidable accident.
You've been on the road longer than me , and will have done many more miles( I do very little distance work these days) , so you're probably even more aware than me just how quickly things are changing on the roads (especially the last five years or so) . Road manners and common sense seem to have vanished over night , and the government have to do something to try to make the roads safer for all of us .
As I said earlier, I live on a small suburban road , with a school at either end ,and at the bottom of my street is a small posh estate . The posh estate has several very well to do idiot drivers with very fast cars , that regularly pass my house at around 60mph . This type of driving just wouldn't have happened 30 years ago , but seems to be more and more acceptable these days , so something has to be done , in an attempt to make the roads safer .👍
Yes point taken Mel, Kids was maybe a bad example for the reasons you have stated. But many will feel, myself included, that it is really unfair to put the onus of responsibility completely on the motorist for any incidents that happen between pedestrians/cyclists and horse riders.
I fully appreciate these groups are more vulnerable to the dangers of public roads, but I feel the answer is to make all road users equally responsible for their actions in the event of an RTA or traffic incident.
Sadly though my other point about the new rules on junctions being open to abuse by those that would seek to purposely cause chaos and disruption remains valid.
-
35 minutes ago, mel b3 said:
Well I can only speak from my own experience with this , but I've been giving way to pedestrians on junctions for around 35 years , and so far , nobody has rear ended me , so considering that I'm a hgv driver , that spends my whole working life on the road , then I drive backwards and forwards to work , then I drive to go fishing or shooting, then I drive to my land in Wales, I must just be very lucky , as I've managed to avoid the carnage that comes with giving way to pedestrians and cyclists.
People are getting bent out of shape over nothing at all . Any half decent driver , with any sense of right and wrong , already gives way when a pedestrian is in your way , or is about to cross a junction . Anyone that doesn't, really shouldn’t be driving anything other than a toy tractor.
Many people get behind the wheel , and think that they own the road , and that everyone else has to get out of their way . The reality of driving is that its a team game , and everyone needs to play their part ( it's more important now than ever). I fully agree that their are plenty of idiot pedestrians, just the same as their is many idiot drivers , but , it's up to every driver to do their best .
I'll also add that I'm by no means a perfect driver , and I make my share of mistakes , but whenever I'm behind the wheel , I'm always doing my best 👍.
I should also add , that their is a school at each end of my street , so I'm more aware than most , what it's like to have , unthinking or self righteous pedestrians around , and other drivers that swing their car doors wide open without looking , or block junctions , or block your drive , or even park on your drive 😄.
I am sorry Mel but you appear to have missed the point I was trying to make. I have just retired from a 40+ year career as a class 1 lorry driver myself, I also have had no problems with pedestrians at junctions, by and large making common sense judgements to "give way" to a pedestrian, or not. On some occasions it has been better for the pedestrian to give way to the driver ie. when traffic lights just after a junction favour the flow of traffic, common sense would mean that the pedestrian wait for the lights to change and then expect a driver to let him cross.
Further more, with regard to the example above, again common sense would normally mean drivers behind the driver giving way will have realised the lights had changed and come to a stop themselves.
So I agree the point that for years, most good drivers with common sense and experience have had no problems thus far. However, these new rules have removed the need for the pedestrian to use common sense. In theory, a driver could be travelling at say 40mph on a main road but passing side roads, when all of a sudden a kid running down one of these side roads, (knowing he now has the right of way) decides to run straight out into the main road.
The driver, having no time to come safely to a stop has to take avoiding action and slam the brakes on, driver behind not expecting this on a main road because they did not see the kid, rear ends driver in front. Or worse, driver try's to stop in time but fails and hits the kid. kid was at fault but due to new rules driver gets blame.
-
7 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:
And your next insurance renewal
Yes, good point. Specially if you are third party only or have no NCB protection.
-
18 minutes ago, Walker570 said:
Have to ask, why would they turn up unnanounced and take your guns without explanation or warrant?
I would hazard a guess that they thought you had transgressed the law in some way, omitted some info on one of their forms or your sgc had run out and you had guns in storage on your premises.
-
4 hours ago, mel b3 said:
What would you do then ?, run the pedestrian over ?, or just carry on driving past your junction ?. If the driver behind you isn't paying attention, then it's their problem to worry about . If you turned into a junction and a vehicle was there , you'd have to stop , just the same as if it was a pedestrian.
My opinions are based on being a hgv driver for over 20 years 👍.
Well no, you would not run the pedestrian over or carry on past your junction. But if a group of pedestrians were talking at the pavements edge or it was a typical youth of nowadays, with their earphones in and their mind on the text message they were sending or receiving, you could be blocking the road for some time, especially if you "toot" the said youth, just to make them aware your waiting for them to move and their response is again the typical "V" sign or finger.
Then there is the all to possible scenario that yobs, school kids or even adults, out of spite/boredom etc. etc. Will purposely stand at the junctions of roads with no intention of wanting to cross, just to cause chaos. How many times have people pressed the button on traffic lights and then carried on walking.
Insulate Britain, remember them, Sat in the middle of the M25 having no legal way to cause chaos and disruption. These new rules would have been a godsend to them curtesy of the transport minister who, just maybe, should have thought a bit more about this instead of worrying whether he was going to be invited to Boris's next
party, sorry my mistake, "work meeting".Then whilst your waiting for a person to cross from your path, a vehicle hits you up the ****, it's their fault but it's both your problem to worry about, don't forget it's going to **** your day up as well.
So no, these new additions to the highway code have not been well though out at all.
-
Yes as above, they are just little slits that close back up after the screw heads have cleared, just feel around with a screwdriver and you will find them.
-
I believe some of the well known high street opticians can supply prescription glasses tinted to your preference.
This may be a better option for you rather than clip on ones, less to get in the way and no distortion between the lenses.
(see attached ) https://www.safetyspecs.co.uk/
-
😁 Yes wife's can be so unreasonable, Today mine said that for her birthday she would like me to buy her a pair of ski's.
I said no way, that's down right ridiculous, there is absolutely no snow between the kitchen and the bedroom.
-
Well, In the eyes of the law the facts of the incident are what count. Although the driver was trying to stop the attack of this woman, however well intentioned, the fact is he used his vehicle to intentionally hit another person and in doing so, caused a fatality.
In my honest opinion, he was trying to stop the attack rather than intentionally kill, so 1st degree murder should be off the cards and mitigating circumstances should be took into account, much as they were with the London bridge incident involving two members of the public attacking a knife wielding assailant, which, should set a precedence along with general public opinion.
-
43 minutes ago, Good shot? said:
Has anyone read about the proposed Highway Code changes to be made regarding the hierarchy of road users.
I have not read yet, wasn't even aware there had been any proposals. Even if some changes are made I doubt they will make any difference.
As I understand it, the highway code is just that, (A code of practice ) the majority of it's content is not legally binding, so I think things will continue as they are regardless.
Lorries/bus's/vans/motorcyclists and cars owners will still pay the road tax so that roads are kept in relatively good condition, so this will continue to allow non road tax payers to take priority of road use.
As a lorry driver I witness daily youth and adults ignoring traffic lights whilst riding bicycles, riding 2 and 3 abreast on busy main roads when there is a dedicated cycle lane available, and if you do have the downright cheek to "toot" them to move over all you get is the finger. I have also witnessed big packs of weekend road race cyclists take up the whole road with no thought for any other road users and, as I know from bitter experience, if your vehicle gets damaged by a cyclist you have little chance of a successful claim as most do not have insurance cover, Hell they don't even have to have passed a cycling proficiency test.
Then there's Horse riders, who insist on riding, again sometimes 2 abreast, a timid, non bomb proof horse on the side of a busy main road yet moan like hell at a passing motorist that has slowed down and moved over to pass but still managed to startle the horse by overtaking, on another note, If I am walking my dog and it poo's on the grass verge or pavement, If I then get caught not cleaning up after it I can expect a hefty fine, and rightly so. Horse riders however, can let them **** wherever they like with impunity.
-
34 minutes ago, jeffgg said:
Some MPs would probably like a good whipping
Some MPs would probably deserve a good whipping
-
Yes, online they range from about £23 to £27, as long as you keep the inserts flush with side of the comb that your cheek sits on, then the cast will only be altered by the thickness of the neoprene sleeve, which looks to be about 5mm.
-
1 minute ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:
No, with the beartooth system you can get all the height without moving your cheek across.
Oh OK, that's great news , I also have a spare gun that's a little low in the comb for me, I will be getting the Beartooth system for my self then.
-
Looking at the picture, that's a pretty substantial amount of comb raise. Most aftermarket products to raise the comb by that much tend to be of the butt sleeve type with the internal pocket for the raising piece, (such as the beartooth system).
The possible downside of a system like this is that it will raise the comb height but also add thickness to the stock at the point where your cheek sits on the comb, thus affecting the cast.
So as previously said, for a sub £100 shotgun, glue or double sided tape the comb raiser in place and away you go.
-
16 minutes ago, bruno22rf said:
So the phone rings today and it's from the local Firearms licencing dept.
Them, " Hello, is that Mr ****,I'm ringing you concerning your FAC Air variation back in December"
Me, "OK, is there a problem?"
Them, "Yes, it would appear that you have not informed us of the details of the Rifle purchased"
Me, " Which Rifle are we talking about?"
Them, " Air Arms Serial Number ******"
Me, "If I haven't informed you, how do you know the serial number?"
30 Seconds of silence.
Them, "We cant find any email from you in our inbox"
Me, "I have my FAC here with all the details issued by yourselves in December, if I had not informed you, as already mentioned, how do you have the correct number?"
Them, "Mmmm, well if you could send them again it would help us out, in the meantime I am going to have to report this to your local FEO"
Me, "You are going to report me for not giving you the information that you have just given me? Information that can only have come from me, and I have a confirmation email to prove?"
Them, "I'm afraid so".
Phone call half an hour later, my FEO explaining that all is all and that the email has been found, the Numpty that rang me, I am told, "Does not have access to email communications"
Made my day.....
Lol , Well it's a well known fact that MENSA membership is not a prerequisite for joining the Firearms licencing dept.
-
23 minutes ago, Penelope said:
Sorry, but no, that is a Mirror carp. This is a Common carp
Looking at your very nice example P, I would have to agree. It was the lack of big scales that had me convinced it was a common. Or, could it be a leather/hybrid?.
-
I strongly suggest you look into the ongoing maintenance costs of such systems, with regards to filter changes and the regularity in which this needs carrying out.
There is also the amount of cupboard space these systems require and the frequency of having to empty and refill the cupboards after maintenance of the various filters.
In most cases, after a very short period of time, they turn out to be a very expensive and unused novelty.
-
9 hours ago, billytheghillie said:
That looks like A Bonnie Scots Lass on your shoulder.
Thank you, yes she is, she loves to fish as well which is a great bonus.
-
2 hours ago, Weihrauch17 said:
Very nice but isn't that a Mirror Carp?
No it's a common, I know the photo makes it look like there are area's with large scales but it's just a discoloured patch.
-
1 hour ago, ratchers said:
Can you believe this
Yes, not the first time its happened though, A UK soft drink called "Snow White's Favourite" had to have it's name changed to "7 Up"😁
Barrel Weights
in Clay Pigeon Shooting
Posted
I have not been shooting that long myself, so I am no great sage on the subject and this is basically information that I have received when asking a similar question of my instructor.
For clay shooting, most prefer the point of balance to be over the pin or slightly stock heavy. Your question suggests to me that the problem you are having is with swing speed, One cure for this that gives you more control is to make the gun a little heavier in general. Adding barrel weights alone will make the gun a little heavier and in the case of a stock heavy gun, would also improve the balance.
However, as yours already balances over the pin, adding just barrel weights would make your gun barrel heavy. I would think a better option would be to add weight at both ends of the gun, this would both preserve the balance and make the gun less whippy.
In my case, the balance and weight of my gun was about spot on, but I was struggling with running through the clay to fast and then stopping the gun to wait for the clay to catch up then missing behind.
My instructor pointed this out and suggested that I should move my forend grip a little further forward and this would improve my swing speed and control, sure enough it did.