|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 29, 2017 9:15:13 GMT
They say that there will be also chaos as a full lot of "Chauffeurs" are made redundant...
I think not.
There will be a few, but then again, there will now be a need for extra driving instructors, and if you have the maths there, you can see that there will be a call for people who drive for a living, so the chauffeurs will just swap trades for a while?.
I also believe if you can afford a chauffeur for the Wife, she is still going to use one, because iots not normal that those people are out unaccompanied, so they will need some form of companion?.
Until they change the law/local belief system/religious need that lets Women out without chaperones, anyway?.
Greg, give the right to drive, the crown prince has "Decreed" it, and no one has the chutzpah to challenge him on that, because he is doing so much good for the country, no one DARE speak out...
He is popular, because its his business to drag the outdated belief system out and kick several buckets of crud outa it where it needs to be, and force his country to change to fit in with the rest of the world.
They know they have institutionalised problems that need sorting.
Sometimes it takes just one man or woman to do the things that need to be done to make that change...
And he is that "Deity" to them, who has the ear of the real people, isnt afraid to go against the flow, and is gently guiding the rest of his country to get with the plan.
The pope that said "Other religions exist", he made a great change in Catholicism to be more tollerant to other religions and guide his own faith towards religious tolerance.
The new pope now is carrying on that work.
It has to start somewhere, and it has started.
The Crown Prince of Saudi is a "Modern man", and has started to make the change...
Maybe not in his own lifetime, maybe it will be, but the change has started to give the Women of the country some form of equality.
SMALL steps.
One at a time.
But that is how it starts, and that is how it will continue.
Perhaps the leaders of other Muslim countries are watching with interest?.
I should bloody well hope they are.
If this leads to a more tolerant world where in the future Muslim Women have as many rights as westernised women of other faiths, then we are here and now witnessing the first steps along the way?.
They have the right to drive, from next September I think it will be, which gives them enough time to apply for a licence and sort the paperwork out, and sort the laws out, and maybe decide if they will insist that all drivers drive "Uncovered"...
Its not as if they will agree to some form of "Bar code" for identification purposes, so they have to sort this out somehow.
And they have to insist, just like other countries, that being allowed to drive is a privilege, not a right.
You have the right to apply, and learn, and show competence.
But they also have the right to say "You aint good enough" and fail the worst drivers?.
As yet, no word on the Chaperone status.
If that has not yet changed, then you wont be allowed to drive unaccompanied, ...
Perhaps that will be the next step.
But who are we to insist on their rules?.
As long as there is progress, we must work with them, and help them, to make their change to Human Rights an easier path, not impose our own beliefs.
Photo ID, I am sure there will be some form of that.
How that affects the ability to drive, I dont know.
However.
I do know that wearing the headdress can/does impair the field of view....[dependant on what type of headdress that is..]
Perhaps they will look at that and make the change on that reasoning.
Perhaps they will insist on a change of headdress "Just for driving".
Its still progress?.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 29, 2017 13:02:47 GMT
Simple observation shows us that hats, especially on old men, seem to impair driving ability. Yet they are not banned.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 29, 2017 14:15:29 GMT
Simple observation shows us that hats, especially on old men, seem to impair driving ability. Yet they are not banned. give it time. starting sunday, driving with anything electronic that can communicate in contact with your hand, except a CB radio, or a HAM radio is banned. unless it is built into the car. so yes, if I read the text of the law right, you can twiddle with your built in satnag all you want, but if you have your phone clipped to your dashboard, you'd better not touch it. and if you have an aftermarket satnag, it better be a model that can't download live updates. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 1, 2017 7:50:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Dec 1, 2017 15:57:28 GMT
My verdict?. Good. Now go get the rest of them. Meanwhile, in my town, a female police officer was just found not guilty of manslaughter charges after a fetal high speed accident. The officer says she saw a pick-up driver go past her holding a cell phone. She waited about 3 minutes and then decided to go after him. Trying to catch up to the truck, she was going 70 mph in a 25 zone when she collided with another car killing the woman driving it. The driver of the truck was never found. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 1, 2017 16:16:51 GMT
My verdict?. Good. Now go get the rest of them. Meanwhile, in my town, a female police officer was just found not guilty of manslaughter charges after a fetal high speed accident. The officer says she saw a pick-up driver go past her holding a cell phone. She waited about 3 minutes and then decided to go after him. Trying to catch up to the truck, she was going 70 mph in a 25 zone when she collided with another car killing the woman driving it. The driver of the truck was never found. wow. so much fail in that one. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 10, 2017 11:19:36 GMT
 Get me one of them..... www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-42263757I see no reason why a small light one person "Cart" can not be utilised as personal transport, and I ask why not, as long as you dont do da stupid. So asking for Seatbelt and Helmet, yes, go for it, get it done, and good luck. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 10, 2017 15:18:20 GMT
Get me one of them..... www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-42263757I see no reason why a small light one person "Cart" can not be utilised as personal transport, and I ask why not, as long as you dont do da stupid. So asking for Seatbelt and Helmet, yes, go for it, get it done, and good luck. I believe, here, there is a rule that you have to follow all the required safety standards of anything you claim to be. so if it claims to be both a scooter AND a car, then it has to follow all the safety standards of both. I believe there is a rule that a car has to have sufficient rollover protection to allow it to be dropped upside down without putting the weight of the vehicle on the passenger's head. I know we have people driving these, though, with both helmet and seatbelt.  |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Dec 10, 2017 15:38:15 GMT
As I understand it pretty much the same thing exists here.
|
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Dec 10, 2017 18:14:10 GMT
Vehicle safety regulations are not based on what the manufacturer calls it, they depend on various key characteristics.
Also some unique vehicles were invented to circumvent regulations and laws. In Europe, 3-wheeled vehicles were made for various reasons, none of which are making the vehicle cheaper, more reliable or safe.
The main reason to use 3 wheels are that motorcycles are defined by "less than 4 wheels".
The Italian 3-wheeled "trucks" were invented to circumvent the ban of cars in Rome. Since the streets are very narrow, only motorcycles are allowed. So everybody has to drive a Vespa or one of those 3-wheeled delivery trucks.
The Messerschmidt Kabinenroller was made because you didn't have to own a driver's license to use it. Later, a driver's license became mandatory but you still paid no tax for cars and were able to use an easy to obtain motorcycle license.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 10, 2017 23:53:48 GMT
Vehicle safety regulations are not based on what the manufacturer calls it, they depend on various key characteristics. Also some unique vehicles were invented to circumvent regulations and laws. In Europe, 3-wheeled vehicles were made for various reasons, none of which are making the vehicle cheaper, more reliable or safe. The main reason to use 3 wheels are that motorcycles are defined by "less than 4 wheels". The Italian 3-wheeled "trucks" were invented to circumvent the ban of cars in Rome. Since the streets are very narrow, only motorcycles are allowed. So everybody has to drive a Vespa or one of those 3-wheeled delivery trucks. The Messerschmidt Kabinenroller was made because you didn't have to own a driver's license to use it. Later, a driver's license became mandatory but you still paid no tax for cars and were able to use an easy to obtain motorcycle license. in our nicely spacious country, it is a completely different dynamic. the three wheeled vehicles are driven by people who want to not be just another car, but don't want to take the final step and be on only two wheels. and the little under-50-cc bikes are allowed to be driven on the east to get car license. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 11, 2017 7:47:06 GMT
3-wheel vehicles can be driven, importantly, on a Motorcycle licence, and are road taxed about the same as a two wheel vehicle.
In the pic above, with the two wheels at the front, is the configuration I would prefer if I had to have a 3wheel... its the stability issue, we all seen the Clarkson roll a reliant Robin episode didnt we?.
However, I have the licence, why not have extra extra stability and get one with 4 wheels.
In UK, you either have Lid, seat belt , or preferably both.
I would go for BOTH, because, it rains here, and having a hat is priceless.
No seriously, I dont doubt at all the vehicle's ability, if you follow instruction and dont rag it past its safety box, you will manage quite well.
But the other ijurts on the road?.
Dont trust them further than I can throw the delivery truck they came in.
"See and be seen", get the lights on, drive in a defensive position, and expect everything...
Bit other than that, a "Mario cart", I can see it being a lot of fun and useful for maybe a commuter machine where small and light is of great importance.
But maybe a dome over it to 1, make it more visible,
2, make it weatherproof....
And 3, to hold a roll cage.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 11, 2017 15:15:31 GMT
3-wheel vehicles can be driven, importantly, on a Motorcycle licence, and are road taxed about the same as a two wheel vehicle. In the pic above, with the two wheels at the front, is the configuration I would prefer if I had to have a 3wheel... its the stability issue, we all seen the Clarkson roll a reliant Robin episode didnt we?. However, I have the licence, why not have extra extra stability and get one with 4 wheels. In UK, you either have Lid, seat belt , or preferably both. I would go for BOTH, because, it rains here, and having a hat is priceless. No seriously, I dont doubt at all the vehicle's ability, if you follow instruction and dont rag it past its safety box, you will manage quite well. But the other ijurts on the road?. Dont trust them further than I can throw the delivery truck they came in. "See and be seen", get the lights on, drive in a defensive position, and expect everything... Bit other than that, a "Mario cart", I can see it being a lot of fun and useful for maybe a commuter machine where small and light is of great importance. But maybe a dome over it to 1, make it more visible, 2, make it weatherproof.... And 3, to hold a roll cage. people say that Clarkson's reliant robin was modified to roll over more easily. and we do have a thread buried in the transportation thread about reverse tricycles being inherently more stable than tricycles. but yeah, as I said, the default license here is for a car. you have to do additional testing to get a motorcycle endorsement, unless it is under 50ccs displacement. as for the savings, polaris won't give a straight price, but there is one on ebay for over 22,000.00. for comparison, that is in the same ballpark as a Honda Accord, or a Toyota Camry. |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Dec 11, 2017 19:40:45 GMT
people say that Clarkson's reliant robin was modified to roll over more easily. Not at all. Driving a Reliant Robin, there is one thing you may never, ever do: Brake hard and steer hard at the same time. It is even easier to roll over going downhill. The single wheel at the back is not better since the car just spins out of control instead of rolling over. The Robin is designed to roll over with minimal damage. You need a new mirror and some paint, that's all. The one in each Mr. Bean Episode is owned by Roan Atkinson, the actor of Mr. Bean. It rolls over many, many times during making of the episodes and every time it looks just like new. They usually install the old broken mirrors before the roll over and paint over the scratches afterwards. But it's not just the missing wheel of the Reliant Robin which causes the problem. It is far too light! All "super light" cars tend to trip over instead of over/under steering or drifting. Those cars are just able to follow tighter turns than it is good for them. The most famous example was the Mercedes A-class which could be tripped over. It was fixed by using tires that can't handle much forces sideways and installing an ESP which increases the turn radius artificially when necessary. So instead of rolling over when trying to drive tight turns too fast, you simply crash by driving a much wider turn than you want or need. Same for the Trabant 601. But this one can handle tighter turns than the Mercedes A-class but even tighter turns will make it roll over as well. It's just funny that a car design from the early 1960s even more simplified for East-German mass production is more safe from rolling over than the 1990s A-class! While the speed doesn't look impressive, a large metal car can't do that at all! It either drifts into a larger circle or you have to be a lot slower. While those Trabants look funny while hopping around turns, there are not many standard mass produced cars which can do it as quickly! |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 12, 2017 7:29:37 GMT
3-wheel vehicles can be driven, importantly, on a Motorcycle licence, and are road taxed about the same as a two wheel vehicle. In the pic above, with the two wheels at the front, is the configuration I would prefer if I had to have a 3wheel... its the stability issue, we all seen the Clarkson roll a reliant Robin episode didnt we?. However, I have the licence, why not have extra extra stability and get one with 4 wheels. In UK, you either have Lid, seat belt , or preferably both. I would go for BOTH, because, it rains here, and having a hat is priceless. No seriously, I dont doubt at all the vehicle's ability, if you follow instruction and dont rag it past its safety box, you will manage quite well. But the other ijurts on the road?. Dont trust them further than I can throw the delivery truck they came in. "See and be seen", get the lights on, drive in a defensive position, and expect everything... Bit other than that, a "Mario cart", I can see it being a lot of fun and useful for maybe a commuter machine where small and light is of great importance. But maybe a dome over it to 1, make it more visible, 2, make it weatherproof.... And 3, to hold a roll cage. people say that Clarkson's reliant robin was modified to roll over more easily. and we do have a thread buried in the transportation thread about reverse tricycles being inherently more stable than tricycles. but yeah, as I said, the default license here is for a car. you have to do additional testing to get a motorcycle endorsement, unless it is under 50ccs displacement. as for the savings, polaris won't give a straight price, but there is one on ebay for over 22,000.00. for comparison, that is in the same ballpark as a Honda Accord, or a Toyota Camry. I have driven the Robin, once, and once only. Getting it to be a 2-wheeler is surprisingly easy... Thats why I dont repeat that drive. There is a trick to driving them, in that you need to be extremely slow in and fast out of a corner,,and you may need to think Bike balance rather than car balance, and in truth, a good driver of one will have had some Bike experience. If not a lot. Myth, you can take corners in one direction quicker than the other, confirmed, what side ifs the driver on, if solo, that driver is balance, and taking a corner with them on the inside of the corner is more stable than being on the outside. Note most of the corners Clarkson took were him on the inside of that corner. In this way, the steering is sensitive to sudden movement, and can tip you quickly. Therefore, you need a delicate touch, such as Bikers learn, on the steering. And having two passengers weighs down the front to get better grip... Also, dont think of them as a quick drive. They get you there faster than walking, and therefore faster than public transport on a strike day, so take it as a slow drive, and your just fine. The suggestion that Clarkson "Modified" it to tip easier is only true if you consider that Clarkson is no slouch in knowing how to drive, and knows how to drive badly as well, so can easily find the tipping point of one of them, and used that to the advantage there. I doubt it was modified, all you had to do was find the right tight corner, and he found a few easily. If you get the right driver, that car will spend more time on its doors than its wheels. BTW, Grabbing a handful of handbrake as you corner in one of them is a suicide run. Mainly as this wears out the awful brakes, and when you go to stop, you aint got none?. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 21, 2018 10:47:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 21, 2018 11:02:36 GMT
You aint no special princess.
I shout that at anyone I see going through a red light, or breaking any other road laws, and there is no discrimination on sex race religion or any other preference?.
How to deal with this.
Get all soddin' Cyclist to take a basic road safety test.
Cyclists are bar far the greatest menace of unlicensed road users, and by far the greatest usual suspects when it comes to jumping red lights. Not Women, just ALL cyclists, minus the small minority that do adhere to the law and prove themselves worthy road users.
I call B/S on that.
Men are JUST as concerned about road safety, its just we dont bang on about it again and again and again to anyone who cant escape listening.
Road aint safe?. Well who knew that then?. Thats Why you need a bloody licence to drive a car, to teach you how to be safe, yet again, you refuse to allow cyclists to be tested?..
This has to start at an early age.
As soon as you are able to ride a bike, you should get road safety classes in schools.
Never mind trying to teach them complicated things on subjects they will never use outside school, how about teaching them how to survive long enough to reach the end of school?.
I have said this all before, many times, the problem is education, and we need to start thinking that Road safety is MANDATORY for anyone liable to be using them.
And that includes pedestrians.
And as for cycling and fashion...
If skin tight Lycra doesnt work for you, then as a Kid, I used to cycle everywhere in Jeans, and it never did me any harm.
You dont have to look like several pounds of badly skinned sausages to ride a bike, you wear what you would feel comfortable in, and considering would I go shopping in this outfit is probably key to those who feel they dont want to look peculiar.
You do NOT have to wear a one-piece rubber joy suit to ride a bike.
In fact, your on a bike, wear something PADDED, one for warmth, two in case you fall.
And three, something waterproof if you live in a place that gets wet frequently?.
And get a bloody helmet please?. a FULL helmet, not just a nooddy cap that only protects the top of your head.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 21, 2018 15:56:01 GMT
I agree on the topic of teaching cyclists to obey the rules. in fact, I think any cyclist over 16 SHOULD be licensed - with proceeds from the licensing program going to fund the licensing program AND road improvements to improve bikeways and while the claim that men are not as concerned about safety is a sexist opinion, I believe that on average, it is accurate. men tend to be more willing to engage in activities with a closer risk-benefit ratio than women tend to. I also agree about bike clothing.  I have worn dorky pants tm under other clothing, and I have a pair of shorts made to provide the same benefit without being dorky, but it is true that for long distance riding, it IS beneficial to wear special pants to compensate for the fact that bicycle seats are specifically designed to encourage you to get to your destination as soon as possible. but to be entirely fair, there is a dearth of fashion that fills the niche in between non-cyclist and lycra loonie. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 22, 2018 8:55:33 GMT
I will agree to "Some" men and "some" women, however, this is something that once you know, you cant undo, next time you see a stupid driving, and please feel free to report back, note the sex of the driver...
Around these parts, its 10:1 that its a woman if its not an under 25 yr old.
Most men, however, calculate the risk, and deal with it, move on, dont dwell, forget about it and concentrate on the next ijurt thats trying to decorate the scenery with you.
We do that in silence, [afterwards that is...]because we all know that some drivers are jerks, endless discussion wont help, however, calling for better laws will, and the law that now states that you can be guilty of riding a bike with no due care and attention is a hole in the legal system that is now filled.
This is why I keep calling for a omnipresent legal system that punishes quickly all transgresses, and to include red light jumpers, and those riding dangerous bikes, to enforce that the road laws are for all of us road users and not a pick-and-chose sweety shop.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 22, 2018 15:02:53 GMT
I will agree to "Some" men and "some" women, however, this is something that once you know, you cant undo, next time you see a stupid driving, and please feel free to report back, note the sex of the driver... Around these parts, its 10:1 that its a woman if its not an under 25 yr old. Most men, however, calculate the risk, and deal with it, move on, dont dwell, forget about it and concentrate on the next ijurt thats trying to decorate the scenery with you. We do that in silence, [afterwards that is...]because we all know that some drivers are jerks, endless discussion wont help, however, calling for better laws will, and the law that now states that you can be guilty of riding a bike with no due care and attention is a hole in the legal system that is now filled. This is why I keep calling for a omnipresent legal system that punishes quickly all transgresses, and to include red light jumpers, and those riding dangerous bikes, to enforce that the road laws are for all of us road users and not a pick-and-chose sweety shop. Now you're getting confused between being willing to take risks and being stupid. |
|
