In article , lid (Ivor
Jones) wrote:

My favorite was MXX 1 which was on an RF single decker (don't
recall which one). That would have been worth a bob or two, wonder
where they are now..? (Reg and bus..)

RF359 it says here.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Aug 9, 2:11*pm, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 05:19:19 -0700 (PDT), dfarrier

wrote:

Nice constructive arguement, Bruce.
I'll rephrase my original statement:
The problem is that the centre lane on the motorway is "blocked" by
lorries limited to 56mph *and modern coaches limited to 62mph.

I note you corrected your error using
the information I supplied in my reply.

Then go to the top of the class.

It still stands that in daylight hours it is not possible to drive a
coach that can legally do 70mph because of its age at 70mph for
economic reasons that would justify a £100,000 rebody to gain an
advantage over new coaches when the middle lane is blocked by legally
slower trucks and coaches.
I can't make it any simpler.

You could have chosen to read my original statement as:

....blocked by lorries.... (deep breath) ....and coaches that are
limited to 62mph...

but you chose to come in with all guns blazing.


If it is car drivers holding up the middle lane at 56mph, then what
speed are the lorry drivers trying to do?

Why do you get a lorry in lane 1 doing 55.9 mph and one in lane 2
doing 56.0 mph and taking 4 miles to overtake? I've seen it on the M62
many times.

On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 07:55:01 -0700 (PDT), dfarrier
wrote:
On Aug 9, 2:11*pm, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 05:19:19 -0700 (PDT), dfarrier

wrote:

Nice constructive arguement, Bruce.
I'll rephrase my original statement:
The problem is that the centre lane on the motorway is "blocked" by
lorries limited to 56mph *and modern coaches limited to 62mph.

I note you corrected your error using
the information I supplied in my reply.

Then go to the top of the class.


While you stand in the corner wearing a tall hat with a D on it. ;-)

On 09/08/09 09:34, Adrian wrote:
Ivor gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

It is purely a mistaken belief by operators that a Northern Irish
registration disguises the age of a vehicle when it does the exact
opposite and highlights its elderly state.

Erm.. so my 2007 car looks older than it is purely because of its NI
registration then..?

Probably not, but it almost certainly looks far chavvier than it could.

Congratulations, you've just managed to alienate the entire
vehicle-owning population of Northern Ireland.

I was talking from a mainland perspective, of course, since a Nor'n Iron
plate would not provide any differentiation in NI itself.

True enough I suppose, but you don't know whether I'm there or not..!
(I'm not as it happens, but that's not the point).

Personally, I've never understood why plates in the UK have to show the
year of issue anyway. Most other countries don't seem to think it
necessary. And why change *twice* a year..?

I've always been an advocate of the US system of registrations - you can
have whatever you like as long as it isn't obscene and someone else
hasn't already got it. Also none of this silly conforming to the normal
standard issue format, meaning someone can't have a plate that might
have (say) their initials on purely because their initials might be I or
Z for example.

Also in the US (and this one is particularly important for me) radio
amateurs are *automatically* entitled to have their radio callsign as
their number plate and *nobody else* can have it, whether or not the
amateur chooses to or not, and if your callsign happens to have a 0
(zero) in it or a Q or a Z you can still have it, unlike here.

Also they don't charge silly money, the typical cost of a "vanity" plate
as they're called there is around $25 - $30, not the hundreds (or
sometimes thousands) they rip you off for here.

Ok rant over..!

checks under own car for "suspect packages"

A wise move ;-)


Ivor

Ivor Jones wrote:

Personally, I've never understood why plates in the UK have to show the
year of issue anyway. Most other countries don't seem to think it
necessary. And why change *twice* a year..?

Lobbying by the car makers, trying to stop the annual surge in car
buying in August caused by the annual change. This in its turn was due
to lobbying by the car maufacturers in the 1950s, who wanted to increase
sales by making it painfully obvious that your current car was *far* too
old to be fashionable.

France, Germany, Holland and Belgium, to name just a few, have plates
that relate to the owner, not the car, so when you buy a new car, you
keep the plate, while the new owner puts his plates on. We're one of
very few countries that keep the plate with the vehicle for the life of
the vehicle.

--
Tciao for now!

John.

In message , at 17:38:39 on Sun, 9
Aug 2009, Ivor Jones remarked:
Personally, I've never understood why plates in the UK have to show the
year of issue anyway.

It was a way of supporting the car industry, by making it obvious how
old people's cars were, so they felt more obliged to buy a new one. And
they chose August to change because that's otherwise the quietest month
of the year for sales.

In the USA the car makers have a similar scheme, which they implement by
making visible annual changes to the look of the car.
--
Roland Perry

John Williamson gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

France, Germany, Holland and Belgium, to name just a few, have plates
that relate to the owner, not the car

Belgium does.
France most certainly does not.
I'm fairly certain Germany and Holland don't, but wouldn't swear to it.

Adrian wrote:
John Williamson gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

France, Germany, Holland and Belgium, to name just a few, have plates
that relate to the owner, not the car

Belgium does.
France most certainly does not.
I'm fairly certain Germany and Holland don't, but wouldn't swear to it.

Germany does, with the plates being removed when the vehicle is sold,
and according to a Dutchman I knew, Holland does, too.

The French plate, last time I checked, relates to where the owner lives,
and does not follow the vehicle. If the owner moves home to a different
Département, then new plates are necessary within a short period of moving.

Shrug

--
Tciao for Now!

JOhn.

John Williamson gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

France, Germany, Holland and Belgium, to name just a few, have plates
that relate to the owner, not the car

Belgium does.
France most certainly does not.
I'm fairly certain Germany and Holland don't, but wouldn't swear to it.

Germany does, with the plates being removed when the vehicle is sold,

Yes, but they can't legally be swapped between vehicles in the same way
as Belgian ones are.

The French plate, last time I checked, relates to where the owner lives,
and does not follow the vehicle. If the owner moves home to a different
Département, then new plates are necessary within a short period of
moving.

Indeed. But if the car stays within the same dept, the same plate stays
on it. Anyway, they've changed that completely as of this January, and
have moved to a single national registration scheme with cars wearing the
same plate "for life".

On 10 Aug 2009 06:21:50 GMT, Adrian wrote:
John Williamson gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:
The French plate, last time I checked, relates to where the owner lives,
and does not follow the vehicle. If the owner moves home to a different
Département, then new plates are necessary within a short period of
moving.

Indeed. But if the car stays within the same dept, the same plate stays
on it. Anyway, they've changed that completely as of this January, and
have moved to a single national registration scheme with cars wearing the
same plate "for life".


Is the plate still in the same format, though, with the Département
number still being shown? Or is it a completely new system?