On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:39:02 +0100, Rope wrote:
>Champ spoke:
>> >Concrete example: Victoria bought her first car, a 1.4 Escort, for Ł350
>> >It recently developed an oil leak. If I hadnt noticed the pool of oil
>> >where she parks and told her to keep an eye on the oil level this sort of
>> >thing could quite possibly have occurred.
>>
>> What sort of thing. If it had run out of oil, the oil light would
>> have come on. If shed kept driving it, it would probably have done a
>> big-end, made a loud knocking noise, and lost power. If shed kept
>> driving it may have thrown a rod, and gone even slower. Apart from a
>> bit of oil on the road, I dont really see how it would cause any risk
>> to anyone else.
>
>So sitting in a broken down car on the hard shoulder of a busy motorway is
>perfectly safe, is it?
>
>So breaking down in the middle of a blind bend on an unlit road at night is
>safe, is it?
>
>So a new driver, experiencing an engine failure in the outside lane of a busy
>motorway in his/her SOC is perfectly acceptable?
These situations I would describe as less than ideal. However, I
think youd be unlikely to lessen their occurence by more than a
couple of percent with the introduction of a basic maintenance
component to the driving test.
I repeat - this is *not* a current problem. So why do you feel the
need to legislate for it?
--
Champ
I dont know, but Ive been told, never slow down, you never grow old
GSX-R 1000, GPz 750 turbo, ZX7RR Endurance Racer x 2
GYASB#0 BotToS#2 BOTAFO(T|F)#35 WG*#1 DFV#8
Team UKRM Racing :
www.team-ukrm.com