John Isherwood

I agree - and have not suggested that it is. I do, however, understand the reasons why it happens, and I have yet to discover a practicable solution. CJI.

You can represent the speedo mechanism with a circle of plastic card, produced with a leather punch. CJI.

Kevin, I now understand your problem - you live in Oz. Having visited your wonderful country, I appreciate that it is impossible for you to visualise the density of housing in urban UK. Even in your older districts, the occupation density is a fraction of that typical in the UK. As I've explained above, Victorian terraced development had tiny frontages - they were built for workers who walked or took the tram. Nowadays, two car ownership is the norm, and there's no prospect of changing that. UK and Australasian residential circumstances simply don't translate! CJI.

In my professional experience, the worst problems of obstructive parking occur in older Victorian terraced streets. Such properties tend to have minimal frontages - many are one room wide, with the front door opening into that room. Literally two up, two down. During the late 20th century, such properties became 'gentrified', commanding high prices amongst the upwardly mobile - ideal for a couple, each having a demanding but well paid career. Each need a car for work, but their property has a frontage of less than the length of a modern car. Result - traffic and parking chaos, especially when you add in parking by workers in surrounding commercial premises. Land usage is such that there is zero off-highway land available for parking. So, I'd be delighted if anyone can tell me what the ultimate solution is - because I never found it in forty years of trying! CJI.

As far as new design is concerned, land values mean that developers will cram in as many units as possible, with no regard for such things as increased vehicle ownership. Planning authorities could impose higher standards, but central government imposes stringent quotas for new houses - especially unprofitable 'affordable' ones - so higher standards would reduce their ability to fulfil house-building targets. It's a seemingly insoluble conundrum! CJI.

https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6433719 CJI.

If the issue is fire access, the restrictions ARE enforced. CJI.

Because, in most cases, there simply aren't enough parking spaces for the number of vehicles owned by the residents. The antis here are very good at telling us what people SHOULDN'T do - but not so good at coming up with practical solutions. CJI.

That would seem to confirm my impression - the smokebox dart is definitely somewhat undersized. CJI.

Hmm! For my money, the smokebox handrail, door handle and tank front handrails are a little 'spindy' - unless they are that way to compensate for the paint thickness? They do look terribly vulnerable to accidental damage, though. CJI.

I applaud you both; nowadays - for understandable reasons of personal and vehicular security - many drivers feel more comfortable having their cars closer to hand. The essential point that I am trying to get over - and which became strikingly apparent during forty years of associating with the British motorist - is that the MAJORITY will do as they always have done - whatever is the most convenient - unless there is effective enforcement of realistically compiled legislation. We may not like it - but it was ever thus! CJI.

Nope - I know narthing, as Manuel would put it! Mine was given to me - a personal visit to a music shop is recommended, with a request to view some strings. They are, in a larger size, ideal for vacuum pipes, too. CJI.

Having done some (cursory) research online, slew seems to be the accepted UK form - though BR clearly prefer to disagree. (I wonder if this is a Swindonism)? CJI.

The question was - would YOU habitually park three streets away if, on most occasions, there were only 'dodgy' parking spaces available? It's very easy to say what others should do - less easy when it's you. CJI.

'Complete tools' is a subjective opinion. I still await an answer to my hypothetical, late arrival parking dilemma - which I suspect leads to quite a bit of 'dodgy, complete tool' parking. It's all very well having strong opinions on such matters but, if you can't suggest a reasonable alternative, it achieves little. CJI.

1] So we leave all streets free of parked cars at all times for the once-a-year occasion when someone wants 3T of hardcore? 2] If the fire service have accessibility problems, they can and do contact the police and the highway authority in order to get parking restrictions imposed, (which simply displaces the problematic vehicles elsewhere). 3] Just because it was designed in 2007 is no guarantee whatsoever that adequate parking was provided for 2024 vehicle ownership levels. 4] Japan has a national propensity for being crammed, rammed and brow-beaten into whatever restrictions authority imposes on the population - I wouldn't recommend trying that on the typical UK 'I know my rights' citizen! 5] That is your choice - just don't complain here when you have a heart attack or nervous breakdown - CHILL. CJI.

I can't believe that a delivery of two tons of hardcore to a residential property is an everyday occurrence. Are we to leave our streets empty of parked cars, just in case a three ton truck should require access? The problem is that most residential streets were not designed to accommodate even one car per household, let alone the four belonging to my neighbour - and many others. Can you imagine trying to limit car ownership to what an area can accommodate without 'dodgy parking'. Accept it - 'dodgy parking' is an inevitable product of society's 'inalienable right' to have private transport - and that's not going to change any time soon. CJI.

Let me pose a question. Your employment hours mean that you don't arrive home until late evening. All of the non-dodgy parking spaces are full by that time. The alternative option is to park three streets away, where there is usually spare capacity. Please tell us what you would do. CJI.

The LORIOT will (prototypically) accommodate a Ruston Bucyrus crawler face shovel. In fact, the shovel fits the British loading gauge so closely that I suspect that it was intentionally designed to do just that! CJI.

Sorry - I can't agree. CJI.

Here we go - breakvan, shew ....... ! CJI.

... or withdrawral! CJI.

A hypothetical burglary, I hasten to add! CJI.

A typical example taken from my forty year career in local government traffic management. A small enclave of Victorian terraced housing provided a popular rat-run avoiding a congested, traffic-light controlled crossroads. The residents, for once, were united - the rat-running traffic threatened their very existence, and MUST be stopped! A residents' committee was formed; campaigns were organised; protestors blocked roads, etc., etc. Eventually, it became an election issue - and suddenly shot to the top of the priority list. I was briefed to come up with a once-and-for-all, cast iron, no-holds-barred solution. Such a solution was obvious - the area in question had one entrance / exit onto each of the major roads in question. I drew up detailed proposals, including artist's impressions, for physically closing one of the two entrance / exits to motor traffic; pedestrian and pedal cycle traffic would be unaffected. When published, the proposal caused outrage! Such a scheme would add a quarter of a mile to 50% of their car journeys! Who had the effrontery to propose such an ridiculous idea?! A public poll rejected the scheme out of hand. A subsequent meeting established that all that was required was a couple of 'NO MOTOR VEHICLES, EXCEPT FOR ACCESS' signs. These were duly erected; totally ignored and unenforced; and the rat-run resumed as before. This did not prevent the residents from once again demanding that 'SOMETHING MUST BE DONE'! I could relate such episodes ad infinitum - suffice to say that opinions alter when the apparently obvious solution might adversely affect the interested parties! CJI.

Slue? Slew, surely? CJI.