A lot is probably learning from previous iterations of the aircraft type. Although these day’s it’s probably all 4D computer modelled, too.

I am small even for a female person and car seats are a problem

On the flip side, at least you have plenty of legroom on aeroplanes 😎👍🏼.

True though; lots of stuff is designed for the average male human, and everyone else has to just put up with it. Re the uniform though, it’s frustrating because it doesn’t have to be that way. My colleagues regularly spend 50hrs+ a week in this uniform; is it too much to ask that some thought is put into making it the right shape?

That’s a bit shit. If I understand correctly, she should, in theory, be liable for prosecution under US jurisdiction. In practice, it probably won’t happen.

but what does a “work uniform” entail?

Cargo style trousers and a logo’d open neck short sleeve shirt. There’s other stuff but these two items are the most grumbled about by female employees.

We have a gender neutral uniform. Its equally horrid on both sexes, the trousers specially.

Adds weight to my opinion that my employer has just done a;
MALE
Unisex.
Type of move, because the trousers and shirts fit most blokes just fine.

Eh? Main beam, Shirley?

Also, it’s probably those (not that)new LED/HID lights, that need active beam levelling to make them legal as they are so effing bright. Which is all very well on a flat road, but on an undulating one still manage to dazzle about 50% of other road users.

Bobbies around here have access to a tactical shotgun type thing that can fire a range of rounds, including a solid slug. It’s apparently for lock obliteration but I would imagine it would work on a bull. Wouldn’t fancy the job, mind you…

Hear hear.

There is still a requirement for a ‘daily act of collective worship’ in the national curriculum FFS.

Well that knocked some of the newness out of that KTM 😂 lucky chap.

minimal hidden changes dictated by modern safety concerns

Airbags, crumple zones, ABS, no sticky out switches, pedestrian safe front end… will be interesting to see how they make such a vehicle road legal in this day and age.

It always amazes me how many people don’t understand what a “ladder chassis” is actually used for!

(hint, it’s nothing to do with “off roading” or “beam axles” or anything like that……)

I’ll bite @maxtorque, as that comment may have been aimed at me. A ladder chassis is the more old fashioned, traditional way of building originally every, and latterly more heavy duty commercial vehicles. It’s the spine that you then bolt everything else to, and it makes a vehicle very versatile especially for aftermarket conversions, See chassis cab lorries etc. It also makes the vehicle very heavy as bodywork is basically weather protection with all the strength coming from the heavy chassis. A monocoque body is multipurpose so much more efficient, but vulnerable to difficult to repair damage as it’s nature is that it is thin walled. In regard to off reading; a ladder chassis is superior because of its strength; I’ve happily skidded the bottom of a land rover chassis over boulders that may have caved the floor of a monocoque 4×4. A ladder chassis also tends to have natural voids that exhaust, fuel, electrics, brake lines tend to utilise; a monocoque tends to run these under the vehicle, where they are susceptible to snagging. Solvable with good design and under body protection, but the former is surprisingly rare and the latter is heavy and impedes ground clearance. Finally, a ladder chassis is very conducive to running live axles (Although obviously most modern ladder framed vehicles run an independently suspended front end for improved road refinement) which is (arguably) the most elegant and simple way of gaining a high degree of axle articulation without losing ground clearance in the way independent suspension can do, but at the cost of high speed handling and road manners.

Mine was 1.5% of annual gross. Mind you, it was a VERY cheap car, and it’s about to cost some money to keep going; fifth gear appears to have disappeared today 🙄, and it’s got a cracked windscreen which between them is going to cost over half the original purchase price. Have decided to stick rather than twist though because it had four new tyres and an exhaust a few months ago. Will do the clutch whilst the gearbox is off.

Aren’t you lucky OP that the error was so obviously erroneous. I wonder how many people have experienced less outrageous errors, and just had to pay up because they fear a large bill for questioning it?

When I worked at a haulage Co we had a wagon NIP’d for 38 in a 30. Tacho proved that the vehicle hadn’t driven above 25 mph for the entire journey. Ticket was quietly dropped (without an admission of error). Chap next door got exactly same speed NIP on the same day, but in a van with no tacho. Had to suck it up. Since then I’ve had little faith in safety camera accuracy, or the SCP’s integrity.

Can’t do a ladder chassis. Production costs would be astronomical as thhtey’d have to have a dedicated production line and dedicated parts as they wouldn’ Be able to be built on a shared production line and share loads of parts with other models. Plus stuff like crash protection, pedestrian impact protection, actually being able to put a body on it without it standing proud on top of a ladder chassis compromising the design.

It’s a modern car for the modern market.

I agree with your final assertion but not particularly how you got to it. JLR have chosen to move away from ladder chassis for sensible business reasons of weight, on road refinement and cost. But that move has, IMO, taken the brand away from its utilitarian roots to the point that it’s just trading on an image. Jeep have kept the Wrangler on a ladder chassis with live axles because their main market demographic values the pedigree of a real ‘off roader’ in the line up, even if the rest of the range are just ‘modern cars for a modern market’. The Jimny is built on live axles and a chassis because it’s a cheap and reliable way to get real off road ability, albeit at the cost of the road manners that drivers of expensive modern cars expect.

So yes, the new defender is a modern car for a modern market, but that’s because it’s been specified by stylists, market researchers and accountants. It’s just another jelly mold car with some fancy electronics to justify its ‘premium off roader’ price tag.

It’s of no interest to me.

Ooh. It would be the Catalina or the Super Goose for me. Wild camping to the power of infinity! How awesome would lake hopping around Canada with the kids be? Fairly, I reckon.

🤮

Sad day when a Suzuki Jimny has more off road credibility than a ‘Defender’, or rather a D.I.N.O.

The ironing in this thread is strong. WTaF are you all on about?

Wow. 😳 I wish I had a little bit of OCD. It would probably come in useful…

I (VERY) occasionally use a bucket and a brush. A little bit of fairy liquid goes along way, too.

I’ve been to few suicides where they’ve used those burners in the cars to kill themselves.

You can see it’s a butane burner not a charcoal bbq right? Not wanting to doubt your experience, but I’d be astounded if you could displace enough O2 in a car for a butane burner to start burning inefficiently enough to produce CO, (let alone enough to cause a fatal CO dose) from a single canister of Butane. Those disposable BBQs however; deadly.

(Source of experience; HART responder for a few years)

Not normally, but if you lit one in a car with the windows up the o2 level drops and it will.

Interesting theory; I feel you be overestimating the airtightness of a Ford Focus though. Also I’m pretty sure the windows are open…

Carbon Monoxide poisoning??

This may not be the best idea when it comes to the resale value of your car, but other than stained and smelly upholstery I can’t see a great deal of risk. Those little butane burners don’t give off anything particularly nasty (certainly not CO) and the bottom of them doesn’t get particularly warm either. If she was multitasking cooking a full English whilst on her morning commute I’d be more impressed concerned…

You’re better off without it anyway.

V8ninety – 756 days clean

Depends whether she was on a motorway or an A road really

Charging distances those that can not pay from the healthcare they need.

You know, I’d generally agree (and I cannot BELIEVE that I’m actually advocating point of care charging, given my political persuasions) but honestly, societally, many peoples attitudes have changed. No longer is universal access to healthcare seen as the massive and amazing privilege that it really is by many, rather it’s a right to be squandered without a thought. It would be interesting to hear from the GPs who frequent this place about how many appointments would be freed up if we could just persuade people to engage their brain and maybe seek more appropriate help than they currently do. The NHS is creaking at the seams At the point of access and it’s because it is massively taken for granted, and chronically (ideologically) underfunded.

This is a much trotted out Sun headline that’s about as accurate as most Sun headlines

You know what though; a broken clock is right twice a day. And this one happens. Lots. I’ve got the T-shirt.

You need to give us a clue as to monthly budget/ capital he’s willing/able to spend.

Leasing worked for me when I could afford to write off £300 a month in return for hassle free motoring, but that was a golf, not a seven seater.

I read that as you saying the NHS should discriminate against thick people.

I don’t think ‘thick’ is a protected characteristic, and obviously there could be exemptions for certain categories of people.

Seriously; People should have some personal investment in their health care. A good analogy would be a national car insurance scheme; you’d need a significant excess and strict terms and conditions to stop people upping the national premiums by claiming for every little scuff repaired from the nations purse. And car mechanics are a LOT cheaper than GPs.

Seeing your GP, visiting ED, calling an ambulance. It’s all just making a claim on your national insurance. Why shouldn’t there be a fair use excess payable? It’s a lot more palatable and socially just than the private sector model, that’s for sure.

and granny who’s maybe very poorly will be put off.

This is a much trotted our trope, that could be avoided by waiving the charge for anyone who claims a state pension, and also, It happens anyway. In my sphere of experience, I’ve lost count of the number of old dears who ‘didn’t want to bother you dear’ with their stonking MI (heart attack), whilst simultaneously ambulances are attending 20 and 30 something people who’s RIGHT it is to have a free ride to hospital with their sniffles because ‘I pay your wages innit!?!’

Something has GOT to give.

It may put off people attending.

Some people NEED to be put off; at least until they’ve engaged their brain. A bit of personal responsibility for their health would do some people a lot of good.

I’ve had good experiences with ifixit.com (co.uk? Not sure) was a while ago mind, but I still get the odd email from them so they must still be a going concern. Seemed good quality 👍🏼

small charges to eg GP appointments and A&E attendances (for minor not major conditions) which would help manage demand,

I’ve been of this opinion for some time. You could call it a ‘national insurance excess charge’. Let’s face it, if contents insurance paid out without question no matter how small or petty the claim, and no matter how the insured property was lost or damaged, no one would be able to afford the premiums after a while. The charge needs to be just enough to make people feel invested in the process; not an onerous amount. For an ambulance for example, double the cost of an Uber would be more than enough…

Makes you wonder who buys new Apple products still as £1500 for a mobile handset is just – well BONKERS

Silly question. I don’t really get it either, but it’s the same people who buy Audis, Mercedes, BMWs, etc

There’s one at Upton Warren near Bromsgrove; going tomorrow I think so will report back…

It’s about being a decent person, that’s all, and it’s what any religion is about, but not taking it to extremes. It’s about respecting yourself and respecting other folk.

That’s a lovely sentiment, but you can do all of that without religion or a belief in an all powerful deity; Wheaton’s law has it pretty much covered. Some religious types (not the lovely ones on STW, obviously) seem to assume that morality originates from religion, when actually morality probably predates religion, and CERTAINLY predates the Abrahamic big three.

Atheism is being absolutely sure there’s no God.

You keep asserting this position. It’s incorrect. Given the effort that you put into trying to understand the position of theists, you’d think you could spend a bit more time trying to understand atheism.

There is no common ‘belief system’ amongst atheists. Atheism is NOT a belief system. It is simply a label for ‘everyone else’. I’m an atheist; I’m not ‘absolutely sure’ that there is no God. I’m just sure I’ve seen no evidence for any supernatural deities, and I’ve not been convinced by any theists argument. It’s just an irrelevant but sometimes interesting subject.

The ‘sureness’ that you speak of is not to to with the existence or otherwise of a deity. I couldn’t care less, in the nicest possible way. It’s to do with the special privileges granted the religious on the grounds of their beliefs, and how theism impacts upon those who don’t want it to. I’m SURE that that is unjust, and I will always position myself against it, whether it be State sponsored homophobia, repression of women’s rights in the name of Christianity in Northern Ireland, or indoctrination in State schools, etc etc.

That shit is not okay, I’m sure of that.

Edit;

Exactly. If you’re believing something, that is the position. A lack of belief in something is not faith in not believing, or whatever you are trying to suggest. If you don’t believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, then that is not a belief that there are not fairies at the bottom of the garden, its just an absence of belief.

most organised religions are utterly boring. The big three especially.

True; reminded me of this meme…

In all seriousness; I have a question for those who quietly found religion later in life; was there anything specific about (I presume) Christianity hat attracted you to it? Or was it a friendly community of decent people that attracted you, and in order to gain acceptance some from of professed belief was required? Because I would imagine that sort of thing happens all over the world, into all sorts of contradictory faiths.

Which one is the ‘true’ faith?

Really – killing homosexuals, stoning people, beating women?

They’re the bits that we are meant to ignore, silly! The way it works is you choose the bits that you like and disregard the rest. Definitely no problem with that at all…

Pissing myself laughing at some of the atheists on this thread thinking they’re more rational than the religious.

Seriously though; does rationality even come into it? I don’t see anyone being ‘more rational’ than anyone else; it’s an irrelevance. Rationality doesn’t really come into the faith equation, and that’s okay.

I stand by my assertion that faith is a (strongly held) opinion, put on a pedestal, though, and it’s not meant in derogatory manner. I don’t have any problem with most opinions/faiths, until the opinion or faith impacts upon myself or my loved ones.

Pissing myself laughing at some of the atheists on this thread thinking they’re more rational than the religious.

Classy