On or around Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:27:37 +0100, Dave Gibbs
<daveNOSPAM@netjump.STILLNOSPAM.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:

>Greg wrote:
>> "Bob Hobden" <bobh@invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:4pf9l9FijqdeU1@individual.net...
>>
>>
>>>So what's all this rubbish about speed cameras significantly cutting
>>>accidents
>>
>>
>> You said it yourself, it's rubbish, speed cameras are another stealth tax
>> pure and simple.
>> Greg
>>
>>
>
>I get the last laugh with speed cameras as I avoid the tax by sticking
>to the speed limits. Clever me, the government won't get any of my cash

I keep me eyes open and spot the cameras in time to slow down to a speed
they won't trigger at.

I refuse to accept that a single speed limit has any meaning other than for
one set of conditions. A lot of the time, the fixed limit is too high for
safety. Sometimes, it's safe to drive faster.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Festina Lente" (Hasten slowly) Suetonius (c.70-c.140) Augustus, 25

On or around Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:19:17 +0100, "Oily"
<martinhill100@nospambtconnect.com> enlightened us thusly:

>
>"William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in message
>newsp.thh1auqnm9g4qz@jupiter.cavern.tbdata.com...
>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:36:01 +0100, Greg
>> <news@SPAM123voyager2.nildram.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > ...
>> > In my
>> > view cameras make the roads more dangerous, apart from the distraction
>> > there's the panic braking when people do see them and the flat out
>> > acceleration and braking of those familiar with the road.
>>
>> LOL @ the very idea of "flat out acceleration and braking" in a Land
>Rover.
>>
>>
> LOL? Try it in a 109" 2 1/4 D (collapses into fit of hysterical laughter)
>
>Martin
>

that's the only way to drive 'em, if you've not got your foot to the floor,
it won't accelerate at all, and you have to stand on the anchors to make it
stop anyway.

well, on mine, you have to stand *twice* on the anchors. Have to track down
the excess play sometime...

odd thing is that all the shoes (2 on each wheel, 11" brakes) adjust up 'til
they touch the drums - one in fact just touches at the end of the travel.
There doesn't seem to be air in the system; it's not spongy, just lots of
pedal travel. I've an idea that I replaced the master cylinder, too, so
that shouldn't be faulty. might be worth a check of the master cylinder
pushrod play...
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Festina Lente" (Hasten slowly) Suetonius (c.70-c.140) Augustus, 25

On or around Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:02:00 +0100, "Autolycus"
<mar2006@mainbeam.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:

> If what really matters is the severity of an
>accidents, then one can very broadly think of the probability of a
>particular level of severe accident happening as the product of the
>probability of it happening at all (which many folk here do not believe
>correlates closely with speed) and the probability of that accident
>having severe consequences, which I'd guess rather more people accept as
>being a function of speed.

now that's a good point. I don't believe entirely the "speed causes
accidents" mantra - apart from anything else, it's way to simplistic. Some
"accidents"[1] are principally caused by going too fast FOR THE CONDITIONS,
which is of course NOT the same as "exceeding the arbitrary speed limit" - a
lot of my driving is on roads where the "national speed limit applies", yet
the roads are for the most part such that to drive at 60 mph would be
criminally reckless.

However, the energy in the collision is a major aspect, and there speed
makes a huge difference as you say. double the speed gives you 4x the
energy to dissipate, and as you point out, 40% (ish) more speed doubles the
energy.

[1] Actually, I dislike the term "accident" as applied universally to road
collisions. It implies a lack of fault which is in the vast majority of
cases absent. I prefer the term "collision". It's only a genuine accident
if a reasonable person could not have foreseen or avoided it, and that's not
at all common.

There are very few collisions where the driver(s) are all not at fault -
certainly, such collisions with both scenery and other vehicles as I've had,
I can't in all honesty say that I was blameless in any of them - by the same
argument, I've only once seriously damaged a vehicle (in a collision with
scenery) where it was entirely my fault. Such collisions as I've had with
other vehicles, while I've never been blameless, there has always been
another party partly to blame as well.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"You praise the firm restraint with which they write -_
I'm with you there, of course: They use the snaffle and the bit
alright, but where's the bloody horse? - Roy Campbell (1902-1957)

"Austin Shackles" <austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote in message
news:3789j2he3pbgdpeqv4c6dleh3gpgble73t@4ax.com...
> On or around Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:19:17 +0100, "Oily"
> <martinhill100@nospambtconnect.com> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >
> >"William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in message
> >newsp.thh1auqnm9g4qz@jupiter.cavern.tbdata.com...
> >> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:36:01 +0100, Greg
> >> <news@SPAM123voyager2.nildram.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> > ...
> >> > In my
> >> > view cameras make the roads more dangerous, apart from the
distraction
> >> > there's the panic braking when people do see them and the flat out
> >> > acceleration and braking of those familiar with the road.
> >>
> >> LOL @ the very idea of "flat out acceleration and braking" in a Land
> >Rover.
> >>
> >>
> > LOL? Try it in a 109" 2 1/4 D (collapses into fit of hysterical
laughter)
> >
> >Martin
> >
>
> that's the only way to drive 'em, if you've not got your foot to the
floor,
> it won't accelerate at all, and you have to stand on the anchors to make
it
> stop anyway.
>
> well, on mine, you have to stand *twice* on the anchors. Have to track
down
> the excess play sometime...
>
> odd thing is that all the shoes (2 on each wheel, 11" brakes) adjust up
'til
> they touch the drums - one in fact just touches at the end of the travel.
> There doesn't seem to be air in the system; it's not spongy, just lots of
> pedal travel. I've an idea that I replaced the master cylinder, too, so
> that shouldn't be faulty. might be worth a check of the master cylinder
> pushrod play...
>

I wouldn't mess with the master cylinder adjustment if it has a small amount
of free play, that's how it should be, but the two most common faults are
getting the shoes mixed up on the back, i.e. leading shoes on the back, as
the adjusters are at slightly different positions so they cannot be adjusted
properly and failure to bleed out the front cylinders completely but this
would give a slightly spongy pedal.

Martin

On 2006-10-17, Austin Shackles <austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote:

> well, on mine, you have to stand *twice* on the anchors. Have to
> track down the excess play sometime...

Probably best not to actually, when I fixed the drums on my pinz I
ended up wiping my nose on the windscreen a few times as I'd gotten so
used to pumping the brakes!

> odd thing is that all the shoes (2 on each wheel, 11" brakes) adjust
> up 'til they touch the drums - one in fact just touches at the end
> of the travel. There doesn't seem to be air in the system; it's not
> spongy, just lots of pedal travel. I've an idea that I replaced the
> master cylinder, too, so that shouldn't be faulty. might be worth a
> check of the master cylinder pushrod play...

... also that the master cylinder and slave cylinder have the right
capacities, it's possible that the master was replaced with one too
small or the slave with one too large, I've seen that before.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On 2006-10-17, Austin Shackles <austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote:

> I keep me eyes open and spot the cameras in time to slow down to a speed
> they won't trigger at.

30MPH in a built up area is the safe limit, 31MPH will kill children
apparently. So that'll be why the stopping capability of the vehicle
isn't relevant then, e.g. a light sports car on fat grippy tyres has
the same speed limit as an 80-tonne articulated truck.

The problem however is that given the simplistic argument of some who
rant on about "dangerous" driving, it's quite plain that some
extremely simple means of controlling speed is required to take into
account some people's extremely simplistic nature. While I don't like
the speed limits and speed cameras, it's hard to think of anything
else that'll work other than electronically limited cars as so many of
the drivers can barely summon up enough brainpower to start the car in
the first place. Driver education only works if the driver can be
educated.

My biggest disappointment I ever experienced in growing up is finding
that adults are at least as dumb as kids.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:27:29 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote:

>My biggest disappointment I ever experienced in growing up is finding
>that adults are at least as dumb as kids.

I reckon the problem is that as we get older we have the dumbness
reaffirmed at every stage. Being taught what to think, rather than
how to think.

On 2006-10-17, Mother <"@ {mother} @"@101fc.net> wrote:

> I reckon the problem is that as we get older we have the dumbness
> reaffirmed at every stage. Being taught what to think, rather than
> how to think.

I reckon that's a symptom rather than a cause, or is that what you are
saying? That we were never taught to think for ourselves in the first
place?

I *hope* that things are improving on that front, I know that the most
obedient, non-thinking, do-as-we're-told people that I meet are
generally older than me with those my age being more likely to
question than those older, and a fair few younger people think they
know everything and won't listen to a thing I say ;-)

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On or around Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:27:29 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<news06@tarcus.org.uk> enlightened us thusly:

> Driver education only works if the driver can be
>educated.

however, the current system (although marginally better than when I did my
test) doesn't really make any pretence of training drivers.

what's needed is something more like the bike test process now is: basic
machine-handling followed by on-road supervised training, then a competence
test and then a restricted licence for 2 years, unless you do advanced
training and an advanced test.

When I did mine, it was really a farce. I could learn to satisfy the
examiner in the driving school metro, then go out the next day in a 7.5ton
truck or a Porsche. They've addressed the former part now, but there's
still nothing to stop you going from a 50 bhp learner-box to a 500 bhp
supercar and writing yourself off. Now, if you could guarantee that they
only wrote themselves off, that would be good Darwinian selection, but what
would actually happen is they'd kill some other poor sod and get away with
it themselves.

I'd like to see more training, graded licences, probably repeat tests at
intervals - something between 5 and 10 years. You could have a licences as
follows:

Grade 1 which allows you to drive a car up to say 70 BHP which is plenty for
everyday use (maybe instead a power-to-weight ratio) and small trailers,

Grade 2 which goes up to 140 BHP and trailers up to 3.5T.

Grade 3 up to 210 BHP

Grade 4 unlimited.

Probably have a minimum time gap twixt each, say at least 6 months.


Each grade is subject to a test, in a suitable vehicle and to a suitable
standard.

All licences are subject to a 7-year re-test and renewal - if you fail the
test at your current grade, then you drop a grade until you re-take the
higher grade successfully.

7.5T goods remains separate as now. You don't have to do it at all if you
don't want to drive 'em. In the same way, if you happy to stick with a
low-power car, then you can stay at grade 1 forever, but you still have to
pass the grade 1 test every 7 years, and if you fail, you're off the road
until you pass again.

Anyone busted for dangerous driving, or DD, or other such, would lose their
licence completely and have to work up through the grades again. You could
keep the points system something like the one we have now and have degrees
of licence-loss: for 6 points in any 3 years, say, you go down a grade; for
12 points you go down 2, and so on. If you run out of grades to go down
you're off the road entirely until you pass the grade 1 again.



This scheme will of course provide much employment: you'll need more
instructors, more examiners, more staff to administer it, plus it'll do
wonders for the trade in secure long-term parking for the Ferraris that
eejits can't drive for 2 years 'cos they lost their licence.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Blue: The sky is blue for a reason. Blue light is a source of strength
and harmony in the cosmos. Create a blue light in your life by
telephoning the police
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

On or around Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:11:32 +0100, "Oily"
<martinhill100@nospambtconnect.com> enlightened us thusly:

>
>I wouldn't mess with the master cylinder adjustment if it has a small amount
>of free play, that's how it should be,

I was going to check it. I'm well aware that it should have some play,
otherwise it doesn't work.

>but the two most common faults are
>getting the shoes mixed up on the back, i.e. leading shoes on the back, as
>the adjusters are at slightly different positions so they cannot be adjusted
>properly

now that could be a possibility - I need to look at one of 'em, anyway; it's
either worn down or wrongly assembled as you say. Although the offending
shoe can be made to touch the drum, just it won't lock without boinging over
the end of the cam. So it shouldn't really be generating half-a-pedal's
worth of movement. All the others are adjusted up nicely though, so that's
the next thing to look at.


--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"
Alphonse Karr (1808 - 1890) Les Guêpes, Jan 1849

On or around Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:30:01 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<news06@tarcus.org.uk> enlightened us thusly:

>On 2006-10-17, Austin Shackles <austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote:
>
>> well, on mine, you have to stand *twice* on the anchors. Have to
>> track down the excess play sometime...
>
>Probably best not to actually, when I fixed the drums on my pinz I
>ended up wiping my nose on the windscreen a few times as I'd gotten so
>used to pumping the brakes!
>
>> odd thing is that all the shoes (2 on each wheel, 11" brakes) adjust
>> up 'til they touch the drums - one in fact just touches at the end
>> of the travel. There doesn't seem to be air in the system; it's not
>> spongy, just lots of pedal travel. I've an idea that I replaced the
>> master cylinder, too, so that shouldn't be faulty. might be worth a
>> check of the master cylinder pushrod play...
>
>.. also that the master cylinder and slave cylinder have the right
>capacities, it's possible that the master was replaced with one too
>small or the slave with one too large, I've seen that before.

I don't think you can do that on a 109". Unless maybe it's got
6-cylinder/V8 slaves on, if that's possible.

The master cylinder is correct, but single-circuit. could be that a
conversion to dual-circuit would be an idea, but it should nonetheless work
with a single circuit.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"
Alphonse Karr (1808 - 1890) Les Guêpes, Jan 1849

Austin Shackles wrote:

|| This scheme will of course provide much employment: you'll need more
|| instructors, more examiners, more staff to administer it, plus it'll
|| do wonders for the trade in secure long-term parking for the
|| Ferraris that eejits can't drive for 2 years 'cos they lost their
|| licence. --

Plus a lot of buying and selling cars as people ricochet up and down the
gradings. Ebay should do well.

--
Rich
==============================

Take out the obvious to email me.

On 2006-10-17, Austin Shackles <austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote:

> I'd like to see more training, graded licences, probably repeat tests at
> intervals - something between 5 and 10 years. You could have a licences as
> follows:

[ stuff deleted ]

The problem with all of that of course is that a lot of people
wouldn't be able to drive much, so we'd have to have a decent public
transport system, which for some reason we're determined not to have!

> This scheme will of course provide much employment: you'll need more
> instructors, more examiners, more staff to administer it, plus it'll
> do wonders for the trade in secure long-term parking for the
> Ferraris that eejits can't drive for 2 years 'cos they lost their
> licence.

Not to mention the hundreds of other vehicles that people can't drive
because of the multitude of other traffic offences that people don't
have a hope of avoiding, e.g. the congestion charge farce in which you
have to pay before or on the day of travel, which is of course only
known to those who live in the zones in which it is in effect. Such
tosh is projected to appear in at least one more city within the next
5 years or so. Then there's unrealistic speeding offences, people
parking in places without proper limiting signage and not being up to
challenging it properly, or having double-yellows painted around their
cars etc etc etc..

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

"Austin Shackles" <austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote in message
news:c0daj2d7or2erpuvmp0i34vas31mhl2ha3@4ax.com...
> On or around Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:11:32 +0100, "Oily"
> <martinhill100@nospambtconnect.com> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >
> >I wouldn't mess with the master cylinder adjustment if it has a small
amount
> >of free play, that's how it should be,
>
> I was going to check it. I'm well aware that it should have some play,
> otherwise it doesn't work.
>
> >but the two most common faults are
> >getting the shoes mixed up on the back, i.e. leading shoes on the back,
as
> >the adjusters are at slightly different positions so they cannot be
adjusted
> >properly
>
> now that could be a possibility - I need to look at one of 'em, anyway;
it's
> either worn down or wrongly assembled as you say. Although the offending
> shoe can be made to touch the drum, just it won't lock without boinging
over
> the end of the cam. So it shouldn't really be generating half-a-pedal's
> worth of movement. All the others are adjusted up nicely though, so
that's
> the next thing to look at.
>
I've seen them with both trailing shoes fitted on one side and both
leading shoes fitted on the other!, believe me, that is the most common
fault if you don't know. I think IIRC that the adjuster for the leading shoe
is lower on the brake plate than the adjuster for the rear (trailing) shoe
and this corresponds with the pins on the shoes themselves. And another
thing, make sure that the bottom spring (on the rears) is fitted in the
upper holes, if not it will pull the shoes up and wear the top bit of the
linings out first.

On or around Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:10:47 +0100, "Richard Brookman"
<THErichard.brookmanOBVIOUS@btinternet.com> enlightened us thusly:

>Austin Shackles wrote:
>
>|| This scheme will of course provide much employment: you'll need more
>|| instructors, more examiners, more staff to administer it, plus it'll
>|| do wonders for the trade in secure long-term parking for the
>|| Ferraris that eejits can't drive for 2 years 'cos they lost their
>|| licence. --
>
>Plus a lot of buying and selling cars as people ricochet up and down the
>gradings. Ebay should do well.

well, yeah. But you wouldn't have to sell your car - you could store it...

It's all about making life difficult for those who drive stupidly.

Going with it is an abolition of pretty nearly all fixed speed limits,
adequate signage of hazards, and possibly relocate the gatsos to useful
places, like outside schools, with a 20mph limit in force ONLY when
relevant, for schools, for about half an hour morning and afternoon. If
this was a universal policy then there'd be no gripes about "I didn't know
there was a limit/camera".

Variable limits are a different issue. The ones on the M25 seem to work
fairly well for traffic management, at least some of the time - there should
be scope for such things to be applied to major congestion points.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Beyond the horizon of the place we lived when we were young / In a world
of magnets and miracles / Our thoughts strayed constantly and without
boundary / The ringing of the Division bell had begun. Pink Floyd (1994)

As a young driver (19) the thing that really gets me is that attitude of a
lot of other younger drivers.

I woud like to think I am a safe driver (okay - I will often do 35ish in a
30 where there is no possibility of kids running out into the road and
whatnot). However, I never overtake when I'm not 100% sure I can make it, I
never get involved in races and dont drink drive.

It really bugs me to see some spotty 17 year old who clearly passed his test
yesterday driving his suped up Fiesta at 80mph in a 30, probably stoned and
****ed out of his face.

It would really cut down accidents if everyone under 25's car was
electronically speed limited if they had alloy wheels over 16" and exhausts
over 2"!!!

I'm fed up of paying £££££ for insurance to pay for ****s like that who
couldn't care less about driving safely

<rant over!>


"Austin Shackles" <austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote in message
news:me6aj2d4q5e0suimqiujk6rfth6fofcf2j@4ax.com...
> On or around Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:27:29 +0100, Ian Rawlings
> <news06@tarcus.org.uk> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> Driver education only works if the driver can be
>>educated.
>
> however, the current system (although marginally better than when I did my
> test) doesn't really make any pretence of training drivers.
>
> what's needed is something more like the bike test process now is: basic
> machine-handling followed by on-road supervised training, then a
> competence
> test and then a restricted licence for 2 years, unless you do advanced
> training and an advanced test.
>
> When I did mine, it was really a farce. I could learn to satisfy the
> examiner in the driving school metro, then go out the next day in a 7.5ton
> truck or a Porsche. They've addressed the former part now, but there's
> still nothing to stop you going from a 50 bhp learner-box to a 500 bhp
> supercar and writing yourself off. Now, if you could guarantee that they
> only wrote themselves off, that would be good Darwinian selection, but
> what
> would actually happen is they'd kill some other poor sod and get away with
> it themselves.
>
> I'd like to see more training, graded licences, probably repeat tests at
> intervals - something between 5 and 10 years. You could have a licences
> as
> follows:
>
> Grade 1 which allows you to drive a car up to say 70 BHP which is plenty
> for
> everyday use (maybe instead a power-to-weight ratio) and small trailers,
>
> Grade 2 which goes up to 140 BHP and trailers up to 3.5T.
>
> Grade 3 up to 210 BHP
>
> Grade 4 unlimited.
>
> Probably have a minimum time gap twixt each, say at least 6 months.
>
>
> Each grade is subject to a test, in a suitable vehicle and to a suitable
> standard.
>
> All licences are subject to a 7-year re-test and renewal - if you fail the
> test at your current grade, then you drop a grade until you re-take the
> higher grade successfully.
>
> 7.5T goods remains separate as now. You don't have to do it at all if you
> don't want to drive 'em. In the same way, if you happy to stick with a
> low-power car, then you can stay at grade 1 forever, but you still have to
> pass the grade 1 test every 7 years, and if you fail, you're off the road
> until you pass again.
>
> Anyone busted for dangerous driving, or DD, or other such, would lose
> their
> licence completely and have to work up through the grades again. You
> could
> keep the points system something like the one we have now and have degrees
> of licence-loss: for 6 points in any 3 years, say, you go down a grade;
> for
> 12 points you go down 2, and so on. If you run out of grades to go down
> you're off the road entirely until you pass the grade 1 again.
>
>
>
> This scheme will of course provide much employment: you'll need more
> instructors, more examiners, more staff to administer it, plus it'll do
> wonders for the trade in secure long-term parking for the Ferraris that
> eejits can't drive for 2 years 'cos they lost their licence.
> --
> Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
> Blue: The sky is blue for a reason. Blue light is a source of strength
> and harmony in the cosmos. Create a blue light in your life by
> telephoning the police
> from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:13:09 +0100, "Oily"
<martinhill100@nospambtconnect.com> wrote:

>>
> I've seen them with both trailing shoes fitted on one side and both
>leading shoes fitted on the other!, believe me, that is the most common
>fault if you don't know. I think IIRC that the adjuster for the leading shoe
>is lower on the brake plate than the adjuster for the rear (trailing) shoe
>and this corresponds with the pins on the shoes themselves. And another
>thing, make sure that the bottom spring (on the rears) is fitted in the
>upper holes, if not it will pull the shoes up and wear the top bit of the
>linings out first.
=
im sure that the shoes i just fitted from richard came with only one
with a pin for the adjuster - so you cant get em wrong.

Now that you mention it though im not totally sure so will probably
check them!

I'm still chasing some play in my braking system. I've got it even now
so that it doesnt pull either way but i think i still need to adjust
them all up a bit. It was really 'headbutt the windscreen' good when i
first did the servo and stuff so hopefully i can get it back like
that!

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:02:20 +0100, Mother wrote:

>> My biggest disappointment I ever experienced in growing up is finding
>> that adults are at least as dumb as kids.
>
> I reckon the problem is that as we get older we have the dumbness
> reaffirmed at every stage. Being taught what to think, rather than
> how to think.

Agreed, the vast majority of children are extremely bright and
intellegent. But kids have the abilty for free thought and their inate
abilty to learn beaten out of them through the school process such that
by the time they become adults they *think* they can only do the, very
limited, things they have been taught.

--
Cheers new5pam@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:37:15 +0100, Austin Shackles wrote:

> [1] Actually, I dislike the term "accident" as applied universally to
> road collisions. It implies a lack of fault which is in the vast
> majority of cases absent. I prefer the term "collision". It's only a
> genuine accident if a reasonable person could not have foreseen or
> avoided it, and that's not at all common.

Agreed. Vehicles don't crash themselves, there is a driver involved
somewhere, a driver that has made an error.

Someone has already mention that there ought to be a regular
update/retest, I support that. It's crazy that someone can pass their
test at 17 and not have any further formal examination as to their abilty
to drive (physically and mentally) for the next 40+ years. If nothing
else the legislation will have changed in that time. Retest, theory and
practical every 5 years and charge £50.

--
Cheers new5pam@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

"Tom Woods" <news@NOPSAMtomwoods.co.uk> wrote in message
news:r1idj2tui6pdlfn789faesq33f8cvovfma@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:13:09 +0100, "Oily"
> <martinhill100@nospambtconnect.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> > I've seen them with both trailing shoes fitted on one side and both
> >leading shoes fitted on the other!, believe me, that is the most common
> >fault if you don't know. I think IIRC that the adjuster for the leading
shoe
> >is lower on the brake plate than the adjuster for the rear (trailing)
shoe
> >and this corresponds with the pins on the shoes themselves. And another
> >thing, make sure that the bottom spring (on the rears) is fitted in the
> >upper holes, if not it will pull the shoes up and wear the top bit of the
> >linings out first.
> =
> im sure that the shoes i just fitted from richard came with only one
> with a pin for the adjuster - so you cant get em wrong.

We were talking 109" rear brakes, yours must be 88", different animal. If
yours *is* 88" then it *does* only have one adjuster pin, on each leading
shoe and no spring connected to the top of the trailing shoes.

Martin

>
> Now that you mention it though im not totally sure so will probably
> check them!
>
> I'm still chasing some play in my braking system. I've got it even now
> so that it doesnt pull either way but i think i still need to adjust
> them all up a bit. It was really 'headbutt the windscreen' good when i
> first did the servo and stuff so hopefully i can get it back like
> that!
>