'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

Stimpy gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

The words about "supervising the driving of a motor vehicle" suggest
that I can't use my mobile whilst supervising my daughter driving on a
provisional license. Interesting.

Nor can you have a snooze etc. There was a bit about precisely that on R4
earlier this week - can't remember if it was You & Yours or Today. You
are in charge of the car.

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

In message k
Stimpy wrote:

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 22:22:55 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote

AFAICT that is not a statutary requirement, merely an action which
provides more certainty in most cases WRT to whether or not the
telephone user is "driving" the vehicle for the purposes of
determining if there is a breach of s.41D Road Traffic Act 1988 :0

"Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile telephones
etc.

41D
A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a construction and
use requirement—
(a)
as to not driving a motor vehicle in a position which does not give
proper control or a full view of the road and traffic ahead, or not
causing or permitting the driving of a motor vehicle by another person
in such a position, or
(b)
as to not driving or supervising the driving of a motor vehicle while
using a hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held interactive
communication device, or not causing or permitting the driving of a
motor vehicle by another person using such a telephone or other
device,

is guilty of an offence."

The words about "supervising the driving of a motor vehicle" suggest that I
can't use my mobile whilst supervising my daughter driving on a provisional
license. Interesting.


No you can't, legally you are in charge of the vehicle.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 09:58:18 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:
"Stimpy" wrote
The words about "supervising the driving of a motor vehicle" suggest that
I
can't use my mobile whilst supervising my daughter driving on a
provisional
license. Interesting.

The AA has given this some publicity this week
http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/...ng-school.html

If you need glasses to drive you must also wear them while you're
supervising your daughter.


How clever of the AA to try to deter people from helping their
relations learn to drive. Of course they should be going here
instead:
http://www.theaa.com/driving-school/index.html

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

Bruce gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

The words about "supervising the driving of a motor vehicle" suggest
that I can't use my mobile whilst supervising my daughter driving on a
provisional license. Interesting.

The AA has given this some publicity this week
http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/...el/aa-populus-
supervising-learner-drivers-aa-driving-school.html

If you need glasses to drive you must also wear them while you're
supervising your daughter.

How clever of the AA to try to deter people from helping their relations
learn to drive.

What's such a "deterrent" in reminding the learner's supervisor of their
legal responsibilities?

I'd have thought it basic common sense that the supervising full licence
holder takes the same responsibilities as if they were driving themself.

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On 4 Aug, 10:51, Graeme wrote:
In message k
* * * * * Stimpy wrote:





On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 22:22:55 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote

AFAICT that is not a statutary requirement, merely an action which
provides more certainty in most cases WRT to whether or not the
telephone user is "driving" the vehicle for the purposes of
determining if there is a breach of s.41D Road Traffic Act 1988 :0

"Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile telephones
etc.

41D
A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a construction and
use requirement—
(a)
as to not driving a motor vehicle in a position which does not give
proper control or a full view of the road and traffic ahead, or not
causing or permitting the driving of a motor vehicle by another person
in such a position, or
(b)
as to not driving or supervising the driving of a motor vehicle while
using a hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held interactive
communication device, or not causing or permitting the driving of a
motor vehicle by another person using such a telephone or other
device,

is guilty of an offence."

The words about "supervising the driving of a motor vehicle" suggest that I
can't use my mobile whilst supervising my daughter driving on a provisional
license. *Interesting.

No you can't, legally you are in charge of the vehicle.

What if you are supervising someone who is named on the insurance, but
you aren't (and therefore can supervise but can't drive)?

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

The words about "supervising the driving of a motor vehicle" suggest
that I can't use my mobile whilst supervising my daughter driving on
a provisional license. Â*Interesting.

No you can't, legally you are in charge of the vehicle.

What if you are supervising someone who is named on the insurance, but
you aren't (and therefore can supervise but can't drive)?

You're liable to get nicked.

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On Aug 4, 11:05*am, Bruce wrote:

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 09:58:18 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

"Stimpy" wrote
The words about "supervising the driving of a motor vehicle" suggest
that I can't use my mobile whilst supervising my daughter driving
on a provisional license. Interesting.

The AA has given this some publicity this week
http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/...ng-school.html

If you need glasses to drive you must also wear them while you're
supervising your daughter.

How clever of the AA to try to deter people from helping their
relations learn to drive. *Of course they should be going here
instead:
http://www.theaa.com/driving-school/index.html

Of course the AA are trying to flog something - in this case the "
Supporting Learner Drivers" course offered by their Driving School -
but that doesn't invalidate the basic points that are made w.r.t. the
responsibilities those who are supervising learner drivers have.

(Also, I think there's some research to suggest that learning with a
relative isn't always a great idea - all rather depends on the
familial dynamics of course.)

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 04:20:01 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:
On Aug 4, 11:05*am, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 09:58:18 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

"Stimpy" wrote
The words about "supervising the driving of a motor vehicle" suggest
that I can't use my mobile whilst supervising my daughter driving
on a provisional license. Interesting.

The AA has given this some publicity this week
http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/...ng-school.html

If you need glasses to drive you must also wear them while you're
supervising your daughter.

How clever of the AA to try to deter people from helping their
relations learn to drive. *Of course they should be going here
instead:
http://www.theaa.com/driving-school/index.html

Of course the AA are trying to flog something - in this case the "
Supporting Learner Drivers" course offered by their Driving School -
but that doesn't invalidate the basic points that are made w.r.t. the
responsibilities those who are supervising learner drivers have.


Perhaps the AA should choose whether it wants to (a) give useful,
practical and responsible advice or (b) brazenly advertise its
commercial services. There seems to be some confusion between the two
possible objectives.


(Also, I think there's some research to suggest that learning with a
relative isn't always a great idea - all rather depends on the
familial dynamics of course.)


I learnt with BSM but was "supported" by my father. Poor man, it must
have been very stressful for him.

Later, I got my just desserts when, after he died, I "supported" my
mother in her attempts to learn to drive. It was the most stressful
experience I have ever had. :-(

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On 4 Aug, 12:01, Adrian wrote:
MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

The words about "supervising the driving of a motor vehicle" suggest
that I can't use my mobile whilst supervising my daughter driving on
a provisional license. *Interesting.
No you can't, legally you are in charge of the vehicle.
What if you are supervising someone who is named on the insurance, but
you aren't (and therefore can supervise but can't drive)?

You're liable to get nicked.

On what grounds (this is just a question)?

I am not clear that you have to be physically capable of driving at
the time in order to be able to supervise. I haven't got anything in
front of me, but I can only recall having to have a licence to drive
the type of vehicle concerned, rather than actually be able to drive
it (eg through being insured, or not having a broken leg).

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

The words about "supervising the driving of a motor vehicle"
suggest that I can't use my mobile whilst supervising my daughter
driving on a provisional license. Â*Interesting.

No you can't, legally you are in charge of the vehicle.

What if you are supervising someone who is named on the insurance,
but you aren't (and therefore can supervise but can't drive)?

You're liable to get nicked.

On what grounds (this is just a question)?

I am not clear that you have to be physically capable of driving at the
time in order to be able to supervise. I haven't got anything in front
of me, but I can only recall having to have a licence to drive the type
of vehicle concerned, rather than actually be able to drive it (eg
through being insured, or not having a broken leg).

AIUI, the supervising driver is effectively in the exact same legal
position as if they were driving.

I'll have a rummage for the actual bit of the law that covers it, but
http://www.helpingldrivers.com/law/supervisor.htm seems to heavily imply
it.

rummages
Excuse me, my head's about to explode.
Anyway - The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 and about
a dozen subsequent amendments are the relevant stuff. Good luck...

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

In message , at 23:28:45 on
Tue, 3 Aug 2010, Peter Masson remarked:
(b)
as to not driving or supervising the driving of a motor vehicle while
using a hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held interactive
communication device, or not causing or permitting the driving of a
motor vehicle by another person using such a telephone or other
device, is guilty of an offence."

Is there a definition of 'driving' in there somewhere?

Not in there, but somewhere else.

Does sitting in the driving seat when the engine is running, even if
the vehicle is stationary, count as driving?

Absolutely.
--
Roland Perry

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On Aug 4, 1:45*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 23:28:45
on Tue, 3 Aug 2010, Peter Masson remarked:

(b)
as to not driving or supervising the driving of a motor vehicle while
using a hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held interactive
communication device, or not causing or permitting the driving of a
motor vehicle by another person using such a telephone or other
device, * is guilty of an offence."

Is there a definition of 'driving' in there somewhere?

Not in there, but somewhere else.

Does sitting in the driving seat when the engine is running, even if
the vehicle is stationary, count as driving?

Absolutely.

I wonder how these interpretations pan out when the vehicle is a
motorhome?

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:36:05 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:


On Aug 4, 1:45*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 23:28:45
on Tue, 3 Aug 2010, Peter Masson remarked:

(b)
as to not driving or supervising the driving of a motor vehicle while
using a hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held interactive
communication device, or not causing or permitting the driving of a
motor vehicle by another person using such a telephone or other
device, * is guilty of an offence."

Is there a definition of 'driving' in there somewhere?

Not in there, but somewhere else.

Does sitting in the driving seat when the engine is running, even if
the vehicle is stationary, count as driving?

Absolutely.

I wonder how these interpretations pan out when the vehicle is a
motorhome?

I tried to dig up any specific definitions of "driving" but there
don't seem to be any in this respect. I think it is one of those
actions which the law requires to be decided on the facts in a
particular case or type of case where it is not blatantly obvious;
there are times when Joe Public's "driving" is not the law's "driving"
such as IIRC when someone is steering a traction engine but they are
not the person "driving" it.

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 00:02:51 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

Probably not, it is the equivalent of using the controls on a car radio. The
problem with mobile phones is largely the dislocation effect of conducting a
conversation with someone remote from the vehicle. That's why even handsfree
kits are not that effective.

The legislation specifically mentions mobile phones, not any other devices

It actually refers to "hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held
interactive communication device," and "causing or permitting the
driving of a motor vehicle by another person using such a telephone or
other device." .




Umm.. there are more bits to that law some of it related to the
frequency bands the comms device works on.

Those bits are in which section of RTA 1988 ?

There're are aimed at Mobile
cellular phone equipment's and not two way radios which are also comms
devices...

If it was for mobile phones alone then ITYF it would have said so.

The explanation
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/en/ukpgaen_20060049_en.pdf
in the notes to the Road Safety Act 2006 (which amended s.41 of the
Road Traffic Act 1988) include :-

"Section 26: Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile
telephones etc

93. This section inserts a new section 41D into the RTA, and amends
the RTOA, to provide for obligatory endorsement (with disqualification
at the court's discretion) for the offence of contravening or failing
to comply with a construction and use requirement if the requirement
relates either to failure to have proper control of the vehicle or a
full view of the road or to the use of a hand-held mobile phone or
similar device. A "construction and use requirement" is a requirement
imposed by a regulation made under section 41 of the RTA (most of
which are contained in the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use)
Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986/1078) as amended)."

So the purpose is not creation of a new offence (as it was already
illegal not to be in proper control of a vehicle) but alters the way
in which a particular increasing hazard is to be dealt with, including
AFAICT a change in the penalty for this and the less-specific
associated offences.


though with the latter your caveat below will always apply.


(yes, I know it could be covered under dangerous driving etc, that's not
the question I'm askng)

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

In message , at 06:08:00 on
Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Charles Ellson remarked:
The legislation specifically mentions mobile phones, not any other devices

It actually refers to "hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held
interactive communication device," and "causing or permitting the
driving of a motor vehicle by another person using such a telephone or
other device." .

Umm.. there are more bits to that law some of it related to the
frequency bands the comms device works on.

Those bits are in which section of RTA 1988 ?

There're are aimed at Mobile
cellular phone equipment's and not two way radios which are also comms
devices...

If it was for mobile phones alone then ITYF it would have said so.

The law about driving(qv) while using a mobile phone says:

110. - (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is
using -

(a) a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b) a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4)

....

(4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and
(3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which
performs an interactive communication function by
transmitting and receiving data.

and the devil in the detail:

(6) For the purposes of this regulation -

(a) a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held
if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of
making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive
communication function;

(b) a person supervises the holder of a provisional licence if he
does so pursuant to a condition imposed on that licence holder
prescribed under section 97(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988
(grant of provisional licence);

(c) "interactive communication function" includes the following:

(i) sending or receiving oral or written messages;
(ii) sending or receiving facsimile documents;
(iii) sending or receiving still or moving images; and
(iv) providing access to the internet;

(d) "two-way radio" means any wireless telegraphy apparatus which is
designed or adapted -

(i) for the purpose of transmitting and receiving spoken
messages; and

(ii) to operate on any frequency other than 880 MHz to 915 MHz,
925 MHz to 960 MHz, 1710 MHz to 1785 MHz, 1805 MHz to 1880
MHz, 1900 MHz to 1980 MHz or 2110 MHz to 2170 MHz; and

(e) "wireless telegraphy" has the same meaning as in section 19(1)
of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949[3]."


--
Roland Perry

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:47:07 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 06:08:00 on
Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Charles Ellson remarked:
The legislation specifically mentions mobile phones, not any other devices

It actually refers to "hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held
interactive communication device," and "causing or permitting the
driving of a motor vehicle by another person using such a telephone or
other device." .

Umm.. there are more bits to that law some of it related to the
frequency bands the comms device works on.

Those bits are in which section of RTA 1988 ?

There're are aimed at Mobile
cellular phone equipment's and not two way radios which are also comms
devices...

If it was for mobile phones alone then ITYF it would have said so.

The law about driving(qv) while using a mobile phone says:

110. - (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is
using -

(a) a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b) a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4)

...

(4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and
(3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which
performs an interactive communication function by
transmitting and receiving data.

and the devil in the detail:

(6) For the purposes of this regulation -

(a) a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held
if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of
making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive
communication function;

(b) a person supervises the holder of a provisional licence if he
does so pursuant to a condition imposed on that licence holder
prescribed under section 97(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988
(grant of provisional licence);

(c) "interactive communication function" includes the following:

(i) sending or receiving oral or written messages;
(ii) sending or receiving facsimile documents;
(iii) sending or receiving still or moving images; and
(iv) providing access to the internet;

(d) "two-way radio" means any wireless telegraphy apparatus which is
designed or adapted -

(i) for the purpose of transmitting and receiving spoken
messages; and

(ii) to operate on any frequency other than 880 MHz to 915 MHz,
925 MHz to 960 MHz, 1710 MHz to 1785 MHz, 1805 MHz to 1880
MHz, 1900 MHz to 1980 MHz or 2110 MHz to 2170 MHz; and

(e) "wireless telegraphy" has the same meaning as in section 19(1)
of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949[3]."

It would have helped if you had said that was from SI 2003/2695 ("The
Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations
2003"). However, it is not "the" law but only one of a number of laws
and regulations which can be breached by using different devices (not
being necessary for control of a vehicle) while driving. It does not
endow legality upon the use of other devices excluded by the wording
of the above reg.110 nor does it prevent the option of a driver being
charged with driving without due care and attention.

S.41D (Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile
telephones etc.) of RTA 1988 is one of four sections following s.41
which select certain breaches of the Road Vehicles (Construction and
Use) Regulations 1986 for independent description as offences (which
appears to be for the purpose of enabling different punishment) but if
those do not apply then s.42 defines breach of any of the rest as an
offence anyway (but not necessarily with the same penalties as apply
to the s.41A-D offences). AFAICT the main difference WRT penalties is
that s.41A-D incur penalty points but s.42 does not.

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

In message , at 23:47:45 on
Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Charles Ellson remarked:
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:47:07 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 06:08:00 on
Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Charles Ellson remarked:
The legislation specifically mentions mobile phones, not any other devices

It actually refers to "hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held
interactive communication device," and "causing or permitting the
driving of a motor vehicle by another person using such a telephone or
other device." .

Umm.. there are more bits to that law some of it related to the
frequency bands the comms device works on.

Those bits are in which section of RTA 1988 ?

There're are aimed at Mobile
cellular phone equipment's and not two way radios which are also comms
devices...

If it was for mobile phones alone then ITYF it would have said so.

The law about driving(qv) while using a mobile phone says:

110. - (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is
using -

(a) a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b) a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4)

...

(4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and
(3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which
performs an interactive communication function by
transmitting and receiving data.

and the devil in the detail:

(6) For the purposes of this regulation -

(a) a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held
if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of
making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive
communication function;

(b) a person supervises the holder of a provisional licence if he
does so pursuant to a condition imposed on that licence holder
prescribed under section 97(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988
(grant of provisional licence);

(c) "interactive communication function" includes the following:

(i) sending or receiving oral or written messages;
(ii) sending or receiving facsimile documents;
(iii) sending or receiving still or moving images; and
(iv) providing access to the internet;

(d) "two-way radio" means any wireless telegraphy apparatus which is
designed or adapted -

(i) for the purpose of transmitting and receiving spoken
messages; and

(ii) to operate on any frequency other than 880 MHz to 915 MHz,
925 MHz to 960 MHz, 1710 MHz to 1785 MHz, 1805 MHz to 1880
MHz, 1900 MHz to 1980 MHz or 2110 MHz to 2170 MHz; and

(e) "wireless telegraphy" has the same meaning as in section 19(1)
of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949[3]."

It would have helped if you had said that was from SI 2003/2695 ("The
Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations
2003").

You asked for the amended law (although it's The Road Vehicles
(Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, not RTA 1988), so that's what I
gave you. If you wanted to know where they came from, typing a fragment
into Google will take you there. This is Usenet, not a law textbook!

However, it is not "the" law but only one of a number of laws
and regulations which can be breached by using different devices (not
being necessary for control of a vehicle) while driving.

Are there any other laws that define what a mobile phone is for the
purposes of banning driving while using one - I very much doubt it.

It does not endow legality upon the use of other devices excluded by
the wording of the above reg.110

But it means that those excluded devices (largely two-radios) are not
criminalised by this will known and much publicised bit of legislation.
On the other hand, using a phone-in-flight-mode as an MP3 player is
criminalised, whereas using an MP3 player (or iPod or whatever) isn't!

nor does it prevent the option of a driver being
charged with driving without due care and attention.

That has always been the case.

--
Roland Perry

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

In article , Charles Ellson
scribeth thus
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 00:02:51 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

Probably not, it is the equivalent of using the controls on a car radio. The
problem with mobile phones is largely the dislocation effect of conducting a
conversation with someone remote from the vehicle. That's why even handsfree
kits are not that effective.

The legislation specifically mentions mobile phones, not any other devices

It actually refers to "hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held
interactive communication device," and "causing or permitting the
driving of a motor vehicle by another person using such a telephone or
other device." .




Umm.. there are more bits to that law some of it related to the
frequency bands the comms device works on.

Those bits are in which section of RTA 1988 ?

There're are aimed at Mobile
cellular phone equipment's and not two way radios which are also comms
devices...

If it was for mobile phones alone then ITYF it would have said so.

The explanation
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/en/ukpgaen_20060049_en.pdf
in the notes to the Road Safety Act 2006 (which amended s.41 of the
Road Traffic Act 1988) include :-

"Section 26: Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile
telephones etc

93. This section inserts a new section 41D into the RTA, and amends
the RTOA, to provide for obligatory endorsement (with disqualification
at the court's discretion) for the offence of contravening or failing
to comply with a construction and use requirement if the requirement
relates either to failure to have proper control of the vehicle or a
full view of the road or to the use of a hand-held mobile phone or
similar device. A "construction and use requirement" is a requirement
imposed by a regulation made under section 41 of the RTA (most of
which are contained in the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use)
Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986/1078) as amended)."

OK the one I was looking at was in far more detail and was IIRC a
statutory instrument and it did make the bit about frequency of
operation very clear and that was about 2 years ago..

I'll look it up later if I've got time...



So the purpose is not creation of a new offence (as it was already
illegal not to be in proper control of a vehicle) but alters the way
in which a particular increasing hazard is to be dealt with, including
AFAICT a change in the penalty for this and the less-specific
associated offences.


though with the latter your caveat below will always apply.


(yes, I know it could be covered under dangerous driving etc, that's not
the question I'm askng)




--
Tony Sayer

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

In message , at 14:28:11 on Fri, 6 Aug
2010, tony sayer remarked:
OK the one I was looking at was in far more detail and was IIRC a
statutory instrument and it did make the bit about frequency of
operation very clear and that was about 2 years ago..

I'll look it up later if I've got time...

It's the one I posted yesterday (and discussed earlier this morning).
--
Roland Perry

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

In article , Roland Perry
scribeth thus
In message , at 14:28:11 on Fri, 6 Aug
2010, tony sayer remarked:
OK the one I was looking at was in far more detail and was IIRC a
statutory instrument and it did make the bit about frequency of
operation very clear and that was about 2 years ago..

I'll look it up later if I've got time...

It's the one I posted yesterday (and discussed earlier this morning).

I'm indebted to my 'learned friend .. as they say;)...
--
Tony Sayer

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

In message , at 19:00:57 on Fri, 6 Aug
2010, tony sayer remarked:
It's the one I posted yesterday (and discussed earlier this morning).

I'm indebted to my 'learned friend .. as they say;)...

You are very welcome.

It's m'learned friend, btw ;)
--
Roland Perry

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

In article , Roland Perry
scribeth thus
In message , at 19:00:57 on Fri, 6 Aug
2010, tony sayer remarked:
It's the one I posted yesterday (and discussed earlier this morning).

I'm indebted to my 'learned friend .. as they say;)...

You are very welcome.

It's m'learned friend, btw ;)

I sit corrected;)..
--
Tony Sayer