|
Speed Camera Avoidance
So does anyone have any experience with this product? or similar kind of
thing. And No this posting is not a spam, althopugh the product IS - its a genuine mail from me to try get an overall picture of whether it is a waste of money or not : http://hamlin.sdlkfjdlkjstown.com/aboutpb.php regards Redtube |
Speed Camera Avoidance
"redtube" wrote in message ... So does anyone have any experience with this product? or similar kind of thing. Actually I just found a UK link to same product: 25 quid Is it money worth spent or not? Also I presume is illegal if they catch you having sprayed youir plates with it?? http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/photoblocker.htm regards Redtube London |
Speed Camera Avoidance
|
Speed Camera Avoidance
redtube wrote:
"redtube" wrote in message ... So does anyone have any experience with this product? or similar kind of thing. Actually I just found a UK link to same product: 25 quid Is it money worth spent or not? Also I presume is illegal if they catch you having sprayed youir plates with it?? http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/photoblocker.htm Did you read the Sale Conditions? "2. The product is for off road use only and is of novelty value only. It may be illegal to use this product on the road. .... 7. It is illegal to tamper or interfere with your vehicle number plate." -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Speed Camera Avoidance
"Richard J." wrote in message
. uk... redtube wrote: "redtube" wrote in message ... So does anyone have any experience with this product? or similar kind of thing. Actually I just found a UK link to same product: 25 quid Is it money worth spent or not? Also I presume is illegal if they catch you having sprayed youir plates with it?? http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/photoblocker.htm Did you read the Sale Conditions? "2. The product is for off road use only and is of novelty value only. It may be illegal to use this product on the road. ... 7. It is illegal to tamper or interfere with your vehicle number plate." I remember at the Birmingham Motor Show a few years ago there was a stand selling a modified number plate that was designed to prevent celebrities' number plates from recording on paparazzis' photos. This was round about the time that speed cameras were being introduced so I asked the salesman about the legality of this plate. He looked very sheepish, which was sufficient answer ;-) |
Speed Camera Avoidance
In message ,
redtube writes Actually I just found a UK link to same product: 25 quid Is it money worth spent or not? Would you really want to buy something from a company that thinks the Scottish Highlands are off-shore? (See Terms & Conditions 1: This product is only for UK inland sale - we will not ship this to Northern Ireland, Scottish Highlands or any international destination) -- Paul Terry |
Speed Camera Avoidance
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:31:27 GMT, Richard J. wrote:
7. It is illegal to tamper or interfere with your vehicle number plate." One frequently sees plates that are so filthy that no camera would pick up any image. Clearly the drivers take this rule very seriously indeed. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632896.html (33 117 in the middle (yes, middle!) of a train at Weymouth Q in 1989) |
Speed Camera Avoidance
In message , Chris Tolley
writes One frequently sees plates that are so filthy that no camera would pick up any image. The most common type of device (GATSO) makes an infra-red image as well as a photographic one. Neither dirt nor, I suspect, the reflective spray that is the subject of this thread, will prevent an infra-red image of the number plate being taken. -- Paul Terry |
Speed Camera Avoidance
"Paul Terry" wrote in message ... In message , redtube writes Actually I just found a UK link to same product: 25 quid Is it money worth spent or not? Would you really want to buy something from a company that thinks the Scottish Highlands are off-shore? (See Terms & Conditions 1: This product is only for UK inland sale - we will not ship this to Northern Ireland, Scottish Highlands or any international destination) -- Paul Terry I never noticed THAT Paul, how hilarious. Seems the product has the thumbs down then and doesnt work. From the other replies it seems its just not a viable product. Thanks for your replies. Interesting comments. regards Redtube |
Speed Camera Avoidance
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:53:51 +0000, Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Chris Tolley writes One frequently sees plates that are so filthy that no camera would pick up any image. The most common type of device (GATSO) makes an infra-red image as well as a photographic one. I didn't know that. Fascinating. -- Not a good picture, but certainly an informative one: http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10862746.html (A "surfer" hanging on to the back of a Manchester tram in 2000) |
Speed Camera Avoidance
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:31:27 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote: redtube wrote: "redtube" wrote in message ... So does anyone have any experience with this product? or similar kind of thing. Actually I just found a UK link to same product: 25 quid Is it money worth spent or not? Also I presume is illegal if they catch you having sprayed youir plates with it?? http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/photoblocker.htm Did you read the Sale Conditions? "2. The product is for off road use only and is of novelty value only. It may be illegal to use this product on the road. ... 7. It is illegal to tamper or interfere with your vehicle number plate." Besides, how would you test it without running the risk of a penalty + points? |
Speed Camera Avoidance
|
Speed Camera Avoidance
"Cheeky" wrote in message ... On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:11 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), (Paul Cummins) wrote: In article , (redtube) wrote: So does anyone have any experience with this product? BARGE-POLE! On a similar sort of theme - I've noticed quite a few number plates around here which are pink-ish in colour. Presumably it's an attempt to achieve this mythical number plate/camera invisibility.... -- How about hanging some luggage over the rear number plate, and not having one at the front? Of course you would need to buy a motobike first... Paul |
Speed Camera Avoidance
|
Speed Camera Avoidance
"Chris Tolley" wrote in message ... On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:53:51 +0000, Paul Terry wrote: In message , Chris Tolley writes One frequently sees plates that are so filthy that no camera would pick up any image. The most common type of device (GATSO) makes an infra-red image as well as a photographic one. I didn't know that. Fascinating. NOT TRUE. 2 standard colour 35mm exposures using flash illumination. Nothing infrared involved with Gatsos. Other systems using Automatic Number Plate Reading Video cameras (such as SPECS average speed enforcement system) use infrared illumination. Gatso doesn't. |
Speed Camera Avoidance
Paul Cummins ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying : Perfectly legal to have a number plate that can't be read by a gatso as long as it can be seen from directly behind the vehicle at the same height. You sure about that? I'm sure that C&U says something about the permissable minimum angles of view of plates. |
Speed Camera Avoidance
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:43:19 +0000 (UTC), Paul Scott wrote:
How about hanging some luggage over the rear number plate, and not having one at the front? Of course you would need to buy a motobike first... Paul I suppose one radical solution would be to obey the road traffic laws. -- Cliff Laine, The Old Lard Factory, Lancaster http://www.loobynet.com * remove any trace of rudeness before you reply * --------------------------------------------------------- Jesus says - whoever comes to me Will never be thirsty Poster outside Fishergate Baptist Church, Preston |
Speed Camera Avoidance
"loobyloo" wrote in message
... I suppose one radical solution would be to obey the road traffic laws. Indeed. I find it amazing how much time people will devote to avoiding being caught by speed cameras, surely outweighing any time saved by being able to drive faster. It's not hard to avoid being caught by a GATSO or other type of camera, even if you routinely disregard speed limits. |
Speed Camera Avoidance
|
Speed Camera Avoidance
In message , Graeme
writes NOT TRUE. 2 standard colour 35mm exposures using flash illumination. Nothing infrared involved with Gatsos. So are websites such as http://www.termsys.demon.co.uk/gatso.htm wrong when they claim ... The photographs taken will be both normal and infra-red. (The infra-red will 'see' your registration mark when the vehicle is caked in dirt.) Also, to collect the proof, two photographs are taken in quick succession, so that the distance travelled can be seen. And http://www.benlovejoy.com/speedtrapdetectors.html ... with its picture of "A forward-facing infra-red Gatso hidden behind a sign" Gatsometer's own site claims that they make GATSOs "with optional infra-red flash", but I have no idea if these are used in the UK. Other systems using Automatic Number Plate Reading Video cameras (such as SPECS average speed enforcement system) use infrared illumination. Gatso doesn't. I believe the Truvelo system also uses I-R. Basically, if I-R is being used at all, and it certainly appears to be, then I cannot see how a reflective spray varnish will help to avoid it. -- Paul Terry |
Speed Camera Avoidance
Paul Cummins wrote:
In article , (David Splett) wrote: Indeed. I find it amazing how much time people will devote to avoiding being caught by speed cameras, surely outweighing any time saved by being able to drive faster. I think it's something to do with the fact that 80% of British dual carriageways are of a better standard that German Autobahnen, but have slower, and often unreasonably slower, speed limits. How am I endangering anyone by doing 80-90 down the M6 at 3am on a clear morning? What has breaking the speed limit got to do with safety? |
Speed Camera Avoidance
"loobyloo" wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:43:19 +0000 (UTC), Paul Scott wrote: I suppose one radical solution would be to obey the road traffic laws. -- Cliff Laine, The Old Lard Factory, Lancaster http://www.loobynet.com * remove any trace of rudeness before you reply * Arrrgh listen to old self righteousness Lardface out there, - Obey the road traffic laws? oh sure and thats why the overwhelming majority of us *real* people out there find the wretched things things anything but a safety measure and purely as a device to earn revenue? Easy money in other words. Most Dual Carriageway speed limits should be removed anyway cos no pedestrians are involved usually most are barrier proofed with footbridges or traffic lights these days. So why even HAVE a 50 say for instance suddenly turn into a 40 or even 30 on a Dual Carriageway with perfectly good barriers to safeguard the pedestrians? Reason? to catch the motorists out, thats what. redtube |
Speed Camera Avoidance
"redtube" wrote in message
... "loobyloo" wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:43:19 +0000 (UTC), Paul Scott wrote: I suppose one radical solution would be to obey the road traffic laws. -- Cliff Laine, The Old Lard Factory, Lancaster http://www.loobynet.com * remove any trace of rudeness before you reply * Arrrgh listen to old self righteousness Lardface out there, - Obey the road traffic laws? oh sure and thats why the overwhelming majority of us *real* people out there find the wretched things things anything but a safety measure and purely as a device to earn revenue? Easy money in other words. Most Dual Carriageway speed limits should be removed anyway cos no pedestrians are involved usually most are barrier proofed with footbridges or traffic lights these days. So why even HAVE a 50 say for instance suddenly turn into a 40 or even 30 on a Dual Carriageway with perfectly good barriers to safeguard the pedestrians? Reason? to catch the motorists out, thats what. Yes, a lot of main roads near where I live (Oxfordshire) have recently been downgraded to 50 (or are about to be downgraded) "to reduce the number of traffic accidents". This is solving the right problem in the wrong way: to avoid collisions, you need to penalise the person who *causes* the accident, typically a driver who is on a minor road who pulls out into fast-moving traffic without assessing its speed or the pedestrian who crosses the road without regard for the traffic, rather than penalising (by imposing a draconian speed limit) the driver who is in the right and who has priority. Children are a special case, and a 40, 30 or even 20 limit is sensible (with the level set according to the amount of segregation between pavement and road) but otherwise the onus is on the pedestrians or the drivers on side roads to make sure that they do not cause accidents. Any fool can reduce *the effect of* accidents by cutting speed limits, but driver/pedestrian training is the clever solution. The A44 Oxford-Evesham road and the A329 Stadhampton to Thame road are cases in point: the main road where it's safe to do 60 or 70 on the straight carry a 50 limit, whereas the narrow twisty country lanes leading off on either side, where it's often not safe to go above 40, carry a 60 limit. The A415 Abingdon to Berinsfield road has a 30 mph limit almost all the way from Clifton Hampden to Berinsfield, where I would judge 40 on hte bends and 60 on the straights is sensible. There are long-term road-works further west while a cycle track is being made which mostly merit a reduction from 60 to 40 at worst (apart from the rare times when half the road is coned off) but a blanket 30 limit has been imposed. Driving at 30 on a road that previously carried a 60 limit is very hard. Try as I might, I can't keep much below 40 and that feels as if I'm crawling along. Speed limits should be set according to the highest speed that it is safe to drive - a 60 limit on a single-track road with harepin bends is simply taking the ****. I reckon that the speed limit should be set at the speed that a mythical "safe, competant driver" would choose to drive at if there were no speed limits: it's when that driver would choose to drive at 20 mph or more above the actual limit that you get problems with non-compliance. Penalise the serious offenders who think it's safe to drive at 100 on a single carriageway or 60 in a built-up area with parked cars and the likelihood of children emerging from behind them; don't penalise those who drive at 40 in a 30 zone where there is good visibility of hazards. |
Speed Camera Avoidance
Paul Cummins wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 19 Feb 2005:
I think it's something to do with the fact that 80% of British dual carriageways are of a better standard that German Autobahnen, but have slower, and often unreasonably slower, speed limits. Well, German Autobahnen may have a speed limit of 130 kph, but in my experience one can almost never go at it - either there's too much traffic, or there are road works, or it's raining..... French autoroutes, now..... and you get a much better drive quality - I can often read on an autoroute, where I certainly can't on the M1 (I've tried!) How am I endangering anyone by doing 80-90 down the M6 at 3am on a clear morning? Do they actually *have* speed cameras on the M6? Mostly, I've only seen them on parts of the motorway where the speed is limited to 70 mph for whatever reason. -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 23 January 2005 with new photos |
Speed Camera Avoidance
|
Speed Camera Avoidance
redtube wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 19 Feb 2005:
Reason? to catch the motorists out, thats what. Yeah, or perfectly good roads into Brighton, quite safe at 40 mph, suddenly turning into 30 mph without even telling you until you get flashed & penalty points (this one's a very sore point in our family!). -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 23 January 2005 with new photos |
Speed Camera Avoidance
"Mrs Redboots" wrote in message
... redtube wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 19 Feb 2005: Reason? to catch the motorists out, thats what. Yeah, or perfectly good roads into Brighton, quite safe at 40 mph, suddenly turning into 30 mph without even telling you until you get flashed & penalty points (this one's a very sore point in our family!). Presumably there must be 30 signs to make the speed limit enforceable, but they may not be very obvious. I'd like to see much greater use of 300, 200, 100-yard countdown markers in advance of speed limits, especially where the change of speed limit is 20 or more mph - a sort of "Morpeth rules" for cars. With advance warning of limits (especially where the sign is round a corner or hidden by a hedge until you're very close) you can plan ahead and simply lift off the power to slow down gently rather than having to brake - I always try to slow down by coming off the power if I can, but that's the advanced driver in me ;-) |
Speed Camera Avoidance
Martin Underwood ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying : Yes, a lot of main roads near where I live (Oxfordshire) have recently been downgraded to 50 (or are about to be downgraded) "to reduce the number of traffic accidents". This is solving the right problem in the wrong way: to avoid collisions, you need to penalise the person who *causes* the accident, typically a driver who is on a minor road who pulls out into fast-moving traffic without assessing its speed or the pedestrian who crosses the road without regard for the traffic, rather than penalising (by imposing a draconian speed limit) the driver who is in the right and who has priority. Children are a special case, and a 40, 30 or even 20 limit is sensible (with the level set according to the amount of segregation between pavement and road) but otherwise the onus is on the pedestrians or the drivers on side roads to make sure that they do not cause accidents. Any fool can reduce *the effect of* accidents by cutting speed limits, but driver/pedestrian training is the clever solution. applause |
Speed Camera Avoidance
Martin Underwood wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 19 Feb 2005:
Presumably there must be 30 signs to make the speed limit enforceable, but they may not be very obvious. I think so - I always do keep an eye out for such things when I'm in the car (as a non-driver, it's easier for me to navigate & warn of cameras, speed limits, etc) and I certainly never saw it. I'd like to see much greater use of 300, 200, 100-yard countdown markers in advance of speed limits, especially where the change of speed limit is 20 or more mph - a sort of "Morpeth rules" for cars. With advance warning of limits (especially where the sign is round a corner or hidden by a hedge until you're very close) you can plan ahead and simply lift off the power to slow down gently rather than having to brake - I always try to slow down by coming off the power if I can, but that's the advanced driver in me ;-) I think most people who have been driving for any length of time do, no? -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 23 January 2005 with new photos |
Speed Camera Avoidance
"Mrs Redboots" wrote in message
... Martin Underwood wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 19 Feb 2005: Presumably there must be 30 signs to make the speed limit enforceable, but they may not be very obvious. I think so - I always do keep an eye out for such things when I'm in the car (as a non-driver, it's easier for me to navigate & warn of cameras, speed limits, etc) and I certainly never saw it. I'd like to see much greater use of 300, 200, 100-yard countdown markers in advance of speed limits, especially where the change of speed limit is 20 or more mph - a sort of "Morpeth rules" for cars. With advance warning of limits (especially where the sign is round a corner or hidden by a hedge until you're very close) you can plan ahead and simply lift off the power to slow down gently rather than having to brake - I always try to slow down by coming off the power if I can, but that's the advanced driver in me ;-) I think most people who have been driving for any length of time do, no? Actually no. Following behind cars, I very often see them brake where I don't - not because I take the bend any faster but because I've planned ahead. When I was a passenger with one driver recently I was surreptitiously watching and his right foot was permanently on either the accelerator or the brake - he never lifted off the power and just let the car slow down by friction. Admittedly it was in an automatic and you get less engine braking with them, but even so... I dread to think how quickly he goes through brake pads :-( |
Speed Camera Avoidance
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:56:48 -0000, Martin Underwood wrote:
I reckon that the speed limit should be set at the speed that a "safe, competant driver" would choose to drive at I entirely agree - if, at the same time, you ensure that all the people who do not meet this standard are disallowed from driving on the said roads. -- Not a good picture, but certainly an informative one: http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10862746.html (A "surfer" hanging on to the back of a Manchester tram in 2000) |
Speed Camera Avoidance
Chris Tolley wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:56:48 -0000, Martin Underwood wrote: I reckon that the speed limit should be set at the speed that a "safe, competant driver" would choose to drive at I entirely agree - if, at the same time, you ensure that all the people who do not meet this standard are disallowed from driving on the said roads. I've still not heard a compelling reason why mandatory periodic re-testing isn't a good idea |
Speed Camera Avoidance
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 23:24:37 -0000, Stimpy wrote:
I've still not heard a compelling reason why mandatory periodic re-testing isn't a good idea Logistics? If one presumes that people take a test and then drive for 40 years on average, then it follows that he testing system has to cope with 2.5% of the drivers per annum. Give people a test, say every 5 years, and it will have to cope with 20%. That's an awful lot of appointments to fit in. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632911.html (Skye seen through mist and low cloud from Kyle of Lochalsh in 1999) |
Speed Camera Avoidance
Chris Tolley wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 23:24:37 -0000, Stimpy wrote: I've still not heard a compelling reason why mandatory periodic re-testing isn't a good idea Logistics? If one presumes that people take a test and then drive for 40 years on average, then it follows that he testing system has to cope with 2.5% of the drivers per annum. Give people a test, say every 5 years, and it will have to cope with 20%. That's an awful lot of appointments to fit in. Yes but I'm not sure that's a *compelling* reason. If the standard of driving is as bad as we're led to believe then presumably the cost of repeat testing would be offset to some degree by the reduced consequential cost of accidents. If we can academically test all 16 and 18 year olds every year then surely the logistics involved in testing (say) 4 million drivers (?) a year aren't insurmountable |
Speed Camera Avoidance
In message , at
19:19:06 on Sat, 19 Feb 2005, Martin Underwood remarked: Yeah, or perfectly good roads into Brighton, quite safe at 40 mph, suddenly turning into 30 mph without even telling you until you get flashed & penalty points (this one's a very sore point in our family!). Presumably there must be 30 signs to make the speed limit enforceable, but they may not be very obvious. What has happened in some places is they've removed a section of "40" road, between two sections of "30". So you don't have a 30 sign to miss seeing. Sometimes they'll put up signs saying the road is no longer 40, but sometimes they won't. -- Roland Perry |
Speed Camera Avoidance
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:19:06 -0000, "Martin Underwood"
wrote: "Mrs Redboots" wrote in message ... Yeah, or perfectly good roads into Brighton, quite safe at 40 mph, suddenly turning into 30 mph without even telling you until you get flashed & penalty points (this one's a very sore point in our family!). Presumably there must be 30 signs to make the speed limit enforceable, but they may not be very obvious. No the speed limit on roads with streetlights is 30mph unless there are signs to indicate otherwise, I'd expect advanced drivers to know that :-} http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 -- Peter Sumner |
Speed Camera Avoidance
|
Speed Camera Avoidance
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:56:48 -0000, Martin Underwood wrote:
Yes, a lot of main roads near where I live (Oxfordshire) have recently been downgraded to 50 (or are about to be downgraded) "to reduce the number of traffic accidents". This is solving the right problem in the wrong way: to avoid collisions, you need to penalise the person who *causes* the accident, typically a driver who is on a minor road who pulls out into fast-moving traffic without assessing its speed or the pedestrian who crosses the road without regard for the traffic, rather than penalising (by imposing a draconian speed limit) the driver who is in the right and who has priority. I'd agree with that if it weren't for the fact that one party (the pedestrian) is an entire magnitude more vulnerable than the other. One is carrying round has a set of fragile bones at a maximum of about 4mph, the other several hundredweight of speeding metal. If you are in charge of such an object then I think you should accept that the restrictions placed upon the motorist are going to be greater than those placed on pedestrians. Children are a special case, and a 40, 30 or even 20 limit is sensible (with the level set according to the amount of segregation between pavement and road) but otherwise the onus is on the pedestrians or the drivers on side roads to make sure that they do not cause accidents. Any fool can reduce *the effect of* accidents by cutting speed limits, but driver/pedestrian training is the clever solution. I'd be in favour of that. As someone else has said later in teh thread, there's not much post-test training available for drivers. it's when that driver would choose to drive at 20 mph or more above the actual limit that you get problems with non-compliance. Penalise the serious offenders who think it's safe to drive at 100 on a single carriageway or 60 in a built-up area with parked cars and the likelihood of children emerging from behind them; don't penalise those who drive at 40 in a 30 zone where there is good visibility of hazards. But then, you could argue that you need to set a deliberately cautious speed limit, to take account of lapses of concentration, mechanical failure, unpredictable road conditions, and oncoming idiots. The number of times I've had close shaves on my bike on roads like the ones you've described, where I'm at a total loss as to why, in perfect conditions, and wearing my fetching flourescent jacket, a driver has obviously failed to see me until the last minute. -- Cliff Laine, The Old Lard Factory, Lancaster http://www.loobynet.com * remove any trace of rudeness before you reply * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using words well is a social virtue. Use 'fortuitous' once more to mean 'fortunate' and you move an English word another step towards the dustbin. If your mistake took hold, no one who valued clarity would be able to use the word again. John Whale |
Speed Camera Avoidance
In message , at 09:44:03 on
Sun, 20 Feb 2005, Peter Sumner remarked: Presumably there must be 30 signs to make the speed limit enforceable, but they may not be very obvious. No the speed limit on roads with streetlights is 30mph unless there are signs to indicate otherwise, I'd expect advanced drivers to know that :-} No, that's a common fallacy. The streetlights have to be less than a particular distance apart, and for a minimum distance. It's not very easy for the average motorist to benchmark short stretches of streetlights (eg) at intersections on an otherwise de-restricted road. But you can be sure that most times the limit doesn't suddenly drop to 30mph for a couple of hundred yards. -- Roland Perry |
Speed Camera Avoidance
loobyloo wrote:
But then, you could argue that you need to set a deliberately cautious speed limit, to take account of lapses of concentration, mechanical failure, unpredictable road conditions, and oncoming idiots. The number of times I've had close shaves on my bike on roads like the ones you've described, where I'm at a total loss as to why, in perfect conditions, and wearing my fetching flourescent jacket, a driver has obviously failed to see me until the last minute. A friend's brother-in-law heading home from work one night was similarly attired with lights etc so as to make himself as visible as possible, wasn't seen by a lorry driver and is now on the great cycle lane in the sky. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk