spoiler prediction after (I think) Friday (2024-7-5)

[J. P. Gilliver]

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.

..
(I _think_ it was Friday that Alice was beginning to remember details of
the crash.)
As her memory returns in dribs and drabs, I wonder if one of them will
be - not that she wasn't driving as such, but that she remembers what
she saw - and it was from the passenger seat. (She might not even
realise that, but perhaps the person she is describing it to will. As
long as that isn't you-know-who.)

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
..
(I _think_ it was Friday that Alice was beginning to remember details of
the crash.)
As her memory returns in dribs and drabs, I wonder if one of them will
be - not that she wasn't driving as such, but that she remembers what
she saw - and it was from the passenger seat. (She might not even
realise that, but perhaps the person she is describing it to will. As
long as that isn't you-know-who.)

Unfortunately Adam shut off her remembering, just as Kate did the
night after the event. I like your idea that she describes the event
from the passnger seat, but will anyone want that kind of detail at
the clinic? They might discuss the event as it left her more likely to
drink and feeling worthless, and I'm hoping discussing it might
trigger more memories.

[john ashby]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by J. P. Gilliver
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
..
(I _think_ it was Friday that Alice was beginning to remember details of
the crash.)
As her memory returns in dribs and drabs, I wonder if one of them will
be - not that she wasn't driving as such, but that she remembers what
she saw - and it was from the passenger seat. (She might not even
realise that, but perhaps the person she is describing it to will. As
long as that isn't you-know-who.)

Unfortunately Adam shut off her remembering, just as Kate did the
night after the event. I like your idea that she describes the event
from the passnger seat, but will anyone want that kind of detail at
the clinic? They might discuss the event as it left her more likely to
drink and feeling worthless, and I'm hoping discussing it might
trigger more memories.

The thing she now knows is that Chris wants to know what happened and is
on her side, so if she does remember useful details he would be an ally.

john

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by john ashby

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by J. P. Gilliver
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
..
(I _think_ it was Friday that Alice was beginning to remember details of
the crash.)
As her memory returns in dribs and drabs, I wonder if one of them will
be - not that she wasn't driving as such, but that she remembers what
she saw - and it was from the passenger seat. (She might not even
realise that, but perhaps the person she is describing it to will. As
long as that isn't you-know-who.)

Unfortunately Adam shut off her remembering, just as Kate did the
night after the event. I like your idea that she describes the event
from the passnger seat, but will anyone want that kind of detail at

Not as such, but if she says something, the person she is talking to
might say "hold on - you could only have seen that if ...", or similar.
I couldn't think quite what - wing mirror would be an obvious one, but
modern cars don't have them; something she could only have seen (bridge
wall perhaps?) from the passenger seat, maybe. (Do we know the actual
mechanics of the crash - which car was where, that sort of thing?) Or
the glove box being in front of her.

Post by john ashby

Post by v***@gmail.com
the clinic? They might discuss the event as it left her more likely to
drink and feeling worthless, and I'm hoping discussing it might
trigger more memories.

The thing she now knows is that Chris wants to know what happened and
is on her side, so if she does remember useful details he would be an
ally.

He's also in my mind the sort of logical/practical thinker who _would_
pick up on the sort of thing I am thinking of above.

Post by john ashby
john

John

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
might say "hold on - you could only have seen that if ...", or similar.
I couldn't think quite what - wing mirror would be an obvious one, but
modern cars don't have them; something she could only have seen (bridge
wall perhaps?) from the passenger seat, maybe. (Do we know the actual

I've never had a car without wing mirrors.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by J. P. Gilliver
might say "hold on - you could only have seen that if ...", or similar.
I couldn't think quite what - wing mirror would be an obvious one, but
modern cars don't have them; something she could only have seen (bridge
wall perhaps?) from the passenger seat, maybe. (Do we know the actual

I've never had a car without wing mirrors.

Yes, but they tend to be on the doors these days, not the actual wings
(I think the trade calls them door mirrors, or just mirrors). I suspect
it may be the regulations about sticky-out bits that could injure
pedestrians in a collision/impact that has moved them back.

Even those were sometimes omitted: I remember my language friend having
a Metro, and being puzzled why the stated width was different between
the economy model and others - until he realised it didn't _have_ the
passenger-side mirror. (Probably couldn't be omitted these days.)

[Chris J Dixon]

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by v***@gmail.com
I've never had a car without wing mirrors.

Yes, but they tend to be on the doors these days, not the actual wings
(I think the trade calls them door mirrors, or just mirrors). I suspect
it may be the regulations about sticky-out bits that could injure
pedestrians in a collision/impact that has moved them back.

More likely the requirement that at least the one on the driver's
side had to be adjustable from the driving seat. Originally this
was just by winding down the window, then mechanisms began to
evolve.

Chris

[BrritSki]

Post by Chris J Dixon
More likely the requirement that at least the one on the driver's
side had to be adjustable from the driving seat.

I always believed it was to do with safety of pedestrians. Same for
removal of bonnet brand symbols...

[Kosmo]

Post by BrritSki

Post by Chris J Dixon
More likely the requirement that at least the one on the driver's
side had to be adjustable from the driving seat.

I always believed it was to do with safety of pedestrians. Same for
removal of bonnet brand symbols...

I believe that the safety of pedestrians was involved. However no-one
gave any thought to the need for driver's eyes to move further and
refocus to look in door mirrors.

[Jim Easterbrook]

Post by Kosmo

Post by BrritSki

More likely the requirement that at least the one on the driver's side
had to be adjustable from the driving seat.

I always believed it was to do with safety of pedestrians. Same for
removal of bonnet brand symbols...

I believe that the safety of pedestrians was involved. However no-one
gave any thought to the need for driver's eyes to move further and
refocus to look in door mirrors.

Refocus? You're looking at the reflection in the mirror, not at the mirror
surface.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Jim Easterbrook

Post by Kosmo

Post by BrritSki

More likely the requirement that at least the one on the driver's side
had to be adjustable from the driving seat.

I always believed it was to do with safety of pedestrians. Same for
removal of bonnet brand symbols...

I think those are still allowed, but must now fold into a recess or
something if hit, which is probably too expensive (since complicated)
for most makes; I'm pretty sure RRs still have the Spirit of Ecstasy,
for example. (There's probably had to be a reduction of sharp corners on
them, too.)

Post by Jim Easterbrook

Post by Kosmo
I believe that the safety of pedestrians was involved. However no-one
gave any thought to the need for driver's eyes to move further and
refocus to look in door mirrors.

Move, certainly ...

Post by Jim Easterbrook
Refocus? You're looking at the reflection in the mirror, not at the mirror
surface.

... but I had that thought too; however, if the door mirror has any sort
of non-flat aspect (as many do), that as well.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by BrritSki

More likely the requirement that at least the one on the driver's side
had to be adjustable from the driving seat.

I always believed it was to do with safety of pedestrians. Same for
removal of bonnet brand symbols...

I think those are still allowed, but must now fold into a recess or
something if hit, which is probably too expensive (since complicated)
for most makes; I'm pretty sure RRs still have the Spirit of Ecstasy,
for example. (There's probably had to be a reduction of sharp corners on
them, too.)

I believe that the safety of pedestrians was involved.  However no-one
gave any thought to the need for driver's eyes to move further and
refocus to look in door mirrors.

Move, certainly ...

I was driving back from Exmouth today with the caravan in tow. I have
excellent towing mirrors[1] which give a good view of what is back there
- but I did become aware of quite how far I had to turn my head to use them.

[1] UMUK mirrors. Expensive but really good, and easy to fit & remove.

[Kate B]

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by BrritSki

More likely the requirement that at least the one on the driver's side
had to be adjustable from the driving seat.

I always believed it was to do with safety of pedestrians. Same for
removal of bonnet brand symbols...

I think those are still allowed, but must now fold into a recess or
something if hit, which is probably too expensive (since complicated)
for most makes; I'm pretty sure RRs still have the Spirit of Ecstasy,
for example. (There's probably had to be a reduction of sharp corners
on them, too.)

I believe that the safety of pedestrians was involved.  However no-one
gave any thought to the need for driver's eyes to move further and
refocus to look in door mirrors.

Move, certainly ...

I was driving back from Exmouth today with the caravan in tow.  I have
excellent towing mirrors[1] which give a good view of what is back there
- but I did become aware of quite how far I had to turn my head to use them.
[1] UMUK mirrors.  Expensive but really good, and easy to fit & remove.

Driving back from Leith (OK, not a great distance but lots of traffic) I
was thinking about this. I don't know when it might have happened, but
it seems to me that bonnets these days are much more sloping than they
used to be. Also I am short. Certainly I cannot see the bonnet at all
when driving, and the kind of wing mirror there used to be would be
completely invisible to me. Whereas the door mirrors are only a few
degrees off my direct eyeline and I use them all the time for checking
who's behind me, when overtaking, and when backing into a parking space.
The passenger side mirror even has a nifty skewing action when
reversing, so that you can see the pavement edge as you park.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <***@mid.individual.net> at Tue, 9 Jul 2024
13:25:29, Kate B <***@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
[]

I was thinking about this. I don't know when it might have happened,
but it seems to me that bonnets these days are much more sloping than

Definitely - and/or rounded. You are not the only one who regrets no
longer being able to see where the front edge is.

they used to be. Also I am short. Certainly I cannot see the bonnet at
all when driving, and the kind of wing mirror there used to be would be
completely invisible to me. Whereas the door mirrors are only a few
degrees off my direct eyeline

What, even the left one?

and I use them all the time for checking who's behind me, when
overtaking, and when backing into a parking space. The passenger side
mirror even has a nifty skewing action when reversing, so that you can
see the pavement edge as you park.

You mean it tips down a little? Sounds like a good idea.

[Kate B]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

I was thinking about this. I don't know when it might have happened,
but it seems to me that bonnets these days are much more sloping than

Definitely - and/or rounded. You are not the only one who regrets no
longer being able to see where the front edge is.

they used to be. Also I am short. Certainly I cannot see the bonnet at
all when driving, and the kind of wing mirror there used to be would
be completely invisible to me. Whereas the door mirrors are only a few
degrees off my direct eyeline

What, even the left one?

Well, one is always scanning the entire field of the windscreen, no?
Looking for cyclists, pedestrians about to launch themselves into the
road, parked cars about to open their doors, etc, all on the left-hand
side of the car. Not a great deal further to look at the mirror, though
it's true I probably mostly use it for parking. And cyclists.

Post by J. P. Gilliver

and I use them all the time for checking who's behind me, when
overtaking, and when backing into a parking space. The passenger side
mirror even has a nifty skewing action when reversing, so that you can
see the pavement edge as you park.

You mean it tips down a little? Sounds like a good idea.

Yes it is - and it's a Skoda! Octavia III, 2014, though the Octavia II
also had this.

[J. P. Gilliver]

[]

Post by Kate B

Post by J. P. Gilliver

and I use them all the time for checking who's behind me, when
overtaking, and when backing into a parking space. The passenger side
mirror even has a nifty skewing action when reversing, so that you
can see the pavement edge as you park.

You mean it tips down a little? Sounds like a good idea.

Yes it is - and it's a Skoda! Octavia III, 2014, though the Octavia II
also had this.

I too have an Octavia, but it's 56, so 2006 second half - must have been
before they implemented that feature. At least I think so - I'll have to
check! It has got motors in the mirrors, but I _think_ I'd have noticed
a whirring from it when selecting reverse. (It certainly doesn't "fold
its wings" when the ignition is turned off, as I've seen that a lot of
modern cars do.)

[Kate B]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Kate B

Post by J. P. Gilliver

and I use them all the time for checking who's behind me, when
overtaking, and when backing into a parking space. The passenger
side mirror even has a nifty skewing action when reversing, so that
you can  see the pavement edge as you park.

You mean it tips down a little? Sounds like a good idea.

Yes it is - and it's a Skoda! Octavia III, 2014, though the Octavia II
also had this.

I too have an Octavia, but it's 56, so 2006 second half - must have been
before they implemented that feature. At least I think so - I'll have to
check! It has got motors in the mirrors, but I _think_ I'd have noticed
a whirring from it when selecting reverse. (It certainly doesn't "fold
its wings" when the ignition is turned off, as I've seen that a lot of
modern cars do.)

Mine fold in automatically, but next door's don't - they also have an
Octavia. Theirs is an 07 reg, so only a few months younger than yours.
Our street is a Skoda street - there are at least six of various ages,
sorts and sizes.

I remember when I first moved to live with Ralph in Blackheath our road
there was also a Skoda haven (plus a couple of ancient Volvos), but
gradually the doctors and civil servants died off and the bankers moved
in, and so did the Range Rovers and Audis. I am depressed to note that
my street here has recently acquired a Defender, two Audis and a Porsche.

<Snell mode> SNFFFFF!

[Kosmo]

Post by Kate B
I remember when I first moved to live with Ralph in Blackheath our road
there was also a Skoda haven

When I wrote off our last Previa I was unsure what to buy, apart from
the need for the boot to take the dog cage.

I would have like another Audi (simply because I have driven them for
many years and the ones I have had have been reliable and (with one
exception) much loved - and even the exception was a decent performer.

But I could not afford an Audi so as there was a decent model in the VW
range I had a look at one and then realised I could save even more with
a Skoda alternative. Except that the good lady wife refused to be seen
in a Skoda and we had to take the VW (which is not at all loved).

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <v6lnk7$1sd76$***@dont-email.me> at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:26:16,
Kosmo <***@whitnet.uk> writes
[]

Post by Kosmo
But I could not afford an Audi so as there was a decent model in the VW
range I had a look at one and then realised I could save even more with
a Skoda alternative. Except that the good lady wife refused to be seen
in a Skoda and we had to take the VW (which is not at all loved).

That's sad; since about the turn of the century, they _have_ been cheap
VWs - many of the parts have VW logo on them, certainly if you have to
replace them. (The company is actually VAG - Volkswagen Audi Group! - as
I learnt in my brief time in an automotive repair company.) My
_previous_ two - Felicias - were I think before that was the case, and
were definitely more old-fashioned.

[Kate B]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Kosmo
But I could not afford an Audi so as there was a decent model in the
VW range I had a look at one and then realised I could save even more
with a Skoda alternative.  Except that the good lady wife refused to
be seen in a Skoda and we had to take the VW (which is not at all loved).

That's sad; since about the turn of the century, they _have_ been cheap
VWs - many of the parts have VW logo on them, certainly if you have to
replace them. (The company is actually VAG - Volkswagen Audi Group! - as
I learnt in my brief time in an automotive repair company.) My
_previous_ two - Felicias - were I think before that was the case, and
were definitely more old-fashioned.

The Octavia III (and I think the II) has a Golf chassis and an Audi
gearbox. I am very fond of my Skoda and intend to run it as long as it
or the government or my eyesight will let me.

[Kosmo]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Kosmo
But I could not afford an Audi so as there was a decent model in the
VW range I had a look at one and then realised I could save even more
with a Skoda alternative.  Except that the good lady wife refused to
be seen in a Skoda and we had to take the VW (which is not at all loved).

That's sad; since about the turn of the century, they _have_ been cheap
VWs - many of the parts have VW logo on them, certainly if you have to
replace them. (The company is actually VAG - Volkswagen Audi Group! - as
I learnt in my brief time in an automotive repair company.) My
_previous_ two - Felicias - were I think before that was the case, and
were definitely more old-fashioned.

I know. The VW appears to have a design fault which is very annoying
and was discovered just after the car was three years old. I am far
from impressed (hence the lack of love) I would love to know if the
Skoda version has the same design fault.

An online search for the problem does imply that the Skoda does not
suffer the problem so I assume built in a different factory.

[Kate B]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Kosmo
But I could not afford an Audi so as there was a decent model in the
VW range I had a look at one and then realised I could save even more
with a Skoda alternative.  Except that the good lady wife refused to
be seen in a Skoda and we had to take the VW (which is not at all loved).

That's sad; since about the turn of the century, they _have_ been
cheap VWs - many of the parts have VW logo on them, certainly if you
have to replace them. (The company is actually VAG - Volkswagen Audi
Group! - as I learnt in my brief time in an automotive repair
company.) My _previous_ two - Felicias - were I think before that was
the case, and were definitely more old-fashioned.

I know.  The VW appears to have a design fault which is very annoying
and was discovered just after the car was three years old.  I am far
from impressed (hence the lack of love)  I would love to know if the
Skoda version has the same design fault.
An online search for the problem does imply that the Skoda does not
suffer the problem so I assume built in a different factory.

what's the problem?

[Kosmo]

Post by Kate B

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Kosmo
But I could not afford an Audi so as there was a decent model in the
VW range I had a look at one and then realised I could save even
more with a Skoda alternative.  Except that the good lady wife
refused to be seen in a Skoda and we had to take the VW (which is
not at all loved).

That's sad; since about the turn of the century, they _have_ been
cheap VWs - many of the parts have VW logo on them, certainly if you
have to replace them. (The company is actually VAG - Volkswagen Audi
Group! - as I learnt in my brief time in an automotive repair
company.) My _previous_ two - Felicias - were I think before that was
the case, and were definitely more old-fashioned.

I know.  The VW appears to have a design fault which is very annoying
and was discovered just after the car was three years old.  I am far
from impressed (hence the lack of love)  I would love to know if the
Skoda version has the same design fault.
An online search for the problem does imply that the Skoda does not
suffer the problem so I assume built in a different factory.

what's the problem?

There are water drains from the sunroof which run down to outlets under
a panel which is under the bonnet - they come down the corner pillars
and run into this location. Somewhere at the end of the run there are
spider traps which stops spiders going up the drains. Due to the design
the spider traps apparently collect a lot of dirt so the water cannot
drain out.

The first the driver knows is when it starts raining inside the car, the
carpets in the front footwells are soaking wet through (and are
difficult to dry out) and obviously huge quantities of water are everywhere.

VW know it is a design fault but charge significant sums of money
firstly to test where the water is getting in and then to go through the
drying out process. In the US someone was (judging by the online posts)
going to sue but the trail ends abruptly - a new car no doubt.

And much to my annoyance they know what the problem is and the obvious
solution is to clean the spider traps at the annual service - but no
they want another couple of hundred pounds each year for this
"additional" activity.

We will never buy another VW. If it gets stolen we would be entirely happy.

[Kate B]

Post by Kosmo

Post by Kate B

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Kosmo
But I could not afford an Audi so as there was a decent model in
the VW range I had a look at one and then realised I could save
even more with a Skoda alternative.  Except that the good lady wife
refused to be seen in a Skoda and we had to take the VW (which is
not at all loved).

That's sad; since about the turn of the century, they _have_ been
cheap VWs - many of the parts have VW logo on them, certainly if you
have to replace them. (The company is actually VAG - Volkswagen Audi
Group! - as I learnt in my brief time in an automotive repair
company.) My _previous_ two - Felicias - were I think before that
was the case, and were definitely more old-fashioned.

I know.  The VW appears to have a design fault which is very annoying
and was discovered just after the car was three years old.  I am far
from impressed (hence the lack of love)  I would love to know if the
Skoda version has the same design fault.
An online search for the problem does imply that the Skoda does not
suffer the problem so I assume built in a different factory.

what's the problem?

There are water drains from the sunroof which run down to outlets under
a panel which is under the bonnet - they come down the corner pillars
and run into this location.  Somewhere at the end of the run there are
spider traps which stops spiders going up the drains.  Due to the design
the spider traps apparently collect a lot of dirt so the water cannot
drain out.
The first the driver knows is when it starts raining inside the car, the
carpets in the front footwells are soaking wet through (and are
difficult to dry out) and obviously huge quantities of water are everywhere.
VW know it is a design fault but charge significant sums of money
firstly to test where the water is getting in and then to go through the
drying out process.  In the US someone was (judging by the online posts)
going to sue but the trail ends abruptly - a new car no doubt.
And much to my annoyance they know what the problem is and the obvious
solution is to clean the spider traps at the annual service - but no
they want another couple of hundred pounds each year for this
"additional" activity.
We will never buy another VW.  If it gets stolen we would be entirely
happy.

Heavens. What a peculiar fault. I have no sun-roof so presumably not the
same model. The seals in the doors are sometimes overwhelmed by
seriously heavy rain and there'll be a sloshy noise as you turn a
corner, but releasing the seals at the bottom of the door usually makes
it all go away. Spiders do get cosy in the wing-mirrors (I've just read
an amusing account in Private Eye referring to the travails of the Times
Radio Election bus which not only damaged it's own w-m but ripped off
someone else's. No door-mirrors in sight) but this doesn't seem to worry
the moving bits.

[Nick Odell]

Post by Kate B

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Kate B

Post by J. P. Gilliver

and I use them all the time for checking who's behind me, when
overtaking, and when backing into a parking space. The passenger
side mirror even has a nifty skewing action when reversing, so that
you can  see the pavement edge as you park.

You mean it tips down a little? Sounds like a good idea.

Yes it is - and it's a Skoda! Octavia III, 2014, though the Octavia II
also had this.

I too have an Octavia, but it's 56, so 2006 second half - must have been
before they implemented that feature. At least I think so - I'll have to
check! It has got motors in the mirrors, but I _think_ I'd have noticed
a whirring from it when selecting reverse. (It certainly doesn't "fold
its wings" when the ignition is turned off, as I've seen that a lot of
modern cars do.)

Mine fold in automatically, but next door's don't - they also have an
Octavia. Theirs is an 07 reg, so only a few months younger than yours.
Our street is a Skoda street - there are at least six of various ages,
sorts and sizes.
I remember when I first moved to live with Ralph in Blackheath our road
there was also a Skoda haven (plus a couple of ancient Volvos), but
gradually the doctors and civil servants died off and the bankers moved
in, and so did the Range Rovers and Audis. I am depressed to note that
my street here has recently acquired a Defender, two Audis and a Porsche.
<Snell mode> SNFFFFF!

I wouldn't worry too much: with the reported rise in thefts of those
motors they probably won't be on your street for too long.

Because of that, insurance premiums have rocketed so nobody can afford
to pay the premiums any more. Unless you have a banker's salary, that
is. Oh... erme... as you were then.

Nick

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Kate B

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Kate B

Post by J. P. Gilliver

and I use them all the time for checking who's behind me, when
overtaking, and when backing into a parking space. The passenger
side mirror even has a nifty skewing action when reversing, so that
you can  see the pavement edge as you park.

You mean it tips down a little? Sounds like a good idea.

Yes it is - and it's a Skoda! Octavia III, 2014, though the Octavia
II also had this.

I too have an Octavia, but it's 56, so 2006 second half - must have
been before they implemented that feature. At least I think so - I'll
have to check! It has got motors in the mirrors, but I _think_ I'd
have noticed a whirring from it when selecting reverse. (It certainly
doesn't "fold its wings" when the ignition is turned off, as I've seen
that a lot of modern cars do.)

Mine fold in automatically, but next door's don't - they also have an
Octavia. Theirs is an 07 reg, so only a few months younger than yours.

<snip>

Sometimes I wonder if some feature has been disabled in one of those
nested menus and never rediscovered.

We have had our car for seven years now, and I still come across
features I either have forgotten or never knew about.

[Jim Easterbrook]

Post by Clive Arthur

Post by Kate B

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I too have an Octavia, but it's 56, so 2006 second half - must have
been before they implemented that feature. At least I think so - I'll
have to check! It has got motors in the mirrors, but I _think_ I'd
have noticed a whirring from it when selecting reverse. (It certainly
doesn't "fold its wings" when the ignition is turned off, as I've seen
that a lot of modern cars do.)

Mine fold in automatically, but next door's don't - they also have an
Octavia. Theirs is an 07 reg, so only a few months younger than yours.

<snip>

Sometimes these features are only on the higher "trim level" or whatever
you call it. My new (to me) Hyundai is the basic trim level and doesn't
have self folding mirrors, but poncier models do.

Post by Clive Arthur
Sometimes I wonder if some feature has been disabled in one of those
nested menus and never rediscovered.

There's that as well. The manual for my car covers all trim levels (in all
English speaking countries) so has a lot of sections labelled "if
equipped". I can understand the printed manual doing that, but it would be
nice if I could download a PDF containing only the bits that are pertinent
to my car.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <D1yjO.5$***@fx13.ams1> at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 16:46:43, Sam
Plusnet <***@home.com> writes
[]

Post by Sam Plusnet
We have had our car for seven years now, and I still come across
features I either have forgotten or never knew about.

I've discovered two in the last few days (and I've had the car some
years): I was mentioning somewhere that I occasionally find the windows
open, and someone told me that if you _hold down_ the open or close
button on the keyfob, it opens or closes respectively the windows. (I
can see the usefulness of the close feature; not sure about the open - I
suppose on a really hot day you could open them as you approach the car
across the car park, but against the security implications, I'm not
sure.) I don't know if these features are exclusive to Škodas or even
Octavias, or common to all vehicles that have remote locking (and
electric windows, obviously). The other discovery - I was lending the
fob to a neighbour who is looking after the car as I might be away (from
tomorrow!), and saying I didn't know what the middle button did. He told
me opens the boot (or in my case tailgate) - I'd guessed that was the
function as it has a picture of a boot lid opening on it, but had never
done anything. But it does - again, you just have to hold it down a bit
longer than I'd tried.

[Jenny M Benson]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I've discovered two in the last few days (and I've had the car some
years): I was mentioning somewhere that I occasionally find the windows
open, and someone told me that if you _hold down_ the open or close
button on the keyfob, it opens or closes respectively the windows. (I
can see the usefulness of the close feature; not sure about the open - I
suppose on a really hot day you could open them as you approach the car
across the car park, but against the security implications, I'm not sure.)

Perhaps useful to save a child's life. I'm sure I heard on the rayjo
just recently that in the US more children than dogs die in hot cars
every year.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I've discovered two in the last few days (and I've had the car some
years): I was mentioning somewhere that I occasionally find the
windows open, and someone told me that if you _hold down_ the open or
close button on the keyfob, it opens or closes respectively the
windows. (I can see the usefulness of the close feature; not sure
about the open - I suppose on a really hot day you could open them as
you approach the car across the car park, but against the security
implications, I'm not sure.)

Perhaps useful to save a child's life. I'm sure I heard on the rayjo
just recently that in the US more children than dogs die in hot cars
every year.

That would make sense if police or other similar figures have a
universal one that works with all cars. The owner would presumably not
need such a feature as he can access the car anyway (and then open the
windows).

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Sam Plusnet
We have had our car for seven years now, and I still come across
features I either have forgotten or never knew about.

I've discovered two in the last few days (and I've had the car some
years): I was mentioning somewhere that I occasionally find the windows
open, and someone told me that if you _hold down_ the open or close
button on the keyfob, it opens or closes respectively the windows. (I
can see the usefulness of the close feature; not sure about the open - I
suppose on a really hot day you could open them as you approach the car
across the car park, but against the security implications, I'm not
sure.) I don't know if these features are exclusive to Škodas or even
Octavias, or common to all vehicles that have remote locking (and
electric windows, obviously).

I imagine all the manufacturers watch each other closely. If a useful
feature appears on one range of cars, it might well crop up on a
competitor's models shortly after.

The other discovery - I was lending the

Post by J. P. Gilliver
fob to a neighbour who is looking after the car as I might be away (from
tomorrow!), and saying I didn't know what the middle button did. He told
me opens the boot (or in my case tailgate) - I'd guessed that was the
function as it has a picture of a boot lid opening on it, but had never
done anything. But it does - again, you just have to hold it down a bit
longer than I'd tried.

I think most of the remote tailgate opening systems require a prolonged
press of the button to prevent accidental operation[1].
The only way to open ours without a delay is to press the hidden switch
on the tailgate itself.

[1] I would guess there is an interlock which prevents it opening whilst
the car is moving - but I do not intend to try that out.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <TCFjO.14032$***@fx12.iad> at Thu, 11 Jul 2024
01:24:19, Sam Plusnet <***@home.com> writes
[]

Post by Sam Plusnet
I think most of the remote tailgate opening systems require a prolonged
press of the button to prevent accidental operation[1].

IRTA "a prolonged press of the bottom" at first!

Post by Sam Plusnet
The only way to open ours without a delay is to press the hidden switch
on the tailgate itself.
[1] I would guess there is an interlock which prevents it opening
whilst the car is moving - but I do not intend to try that out.

Hadn't occurred to me that the delay might be a safety feature.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Sam Plusnet
I think most of the remote tailgate opening systems require a
prolonged press of the button to prevent accidental operation[1].

IRTA "a prolonged press of the bottom" at first!

Post by Sam Plusnet
The only way to open ours without a delay is to press the hidden
switch on the tailgate itself.
[1] I would guess there is an interlock which prevents it opening
whilst the car is moving - but I do not intend to try that out.

Hadn't occurred to me that the delay might be a safety feature.

Maybe there's a 555 timer in there somewhere.
(Elderly electronics joke)

[Kosmo]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Sam Plusnet
I think most of the remote tailgate opening systems require a
prolonged press of the button to prevent accidental operation[1].

IRTA "a prolonged press of the bottom" at first!

Post by Sam Plusnet
The only way to open ours without a delay is to press the hidden
switch on the tailgate itself.
[1] I would guess there is an interlock which prevents it opening
whilst the car is moving - but I do not intend to try that out.

Hadn't occurred to me that the delay might be a safety feature.

Maybe there's a 555 timer in there somewhere.
(Elderly electronics joke)

I thought 555 was a non-existent US telephone number used in all TV
shows and films?

[Clive Arthur]

Post by Kosmo

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Sam Plusnet
I think most of the remote tailgate opening systems require a
prolonged press of the button to prevent accidental operation[1].

IRTA "a prolonged press of the bottom" at first!

Post by Sam Plusnet
The only way to open ours without a delay is to press the hidden
switch on the tailgate itself.
[1] I would guess there is an interlock which prevents it opening
whilst the car is moving - but I do not intend to try that out.

Hadn't occurred to me that the delay might be a safety feature.

Maybe there's a 555 timer in there somewhere.
(Elderly electronics joke)

I thought 555 was a non-existent US telephone number used in all TV
shows and films?

No, 555 is an Italian tongue-twister.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Kate B
Driving back from Leith (OK, not a great distance but lots of traffic) I
was thinking about this. I don't know when it might have happened, but
it seems to me that bonnets these days are much more sloping than they
used to be. Also I am short. Certainly I cannot see the bonnet at all
when driving <snip>

I have that problem and it means I have little to guide me (other than
the parking sensors) in gauging where the corners of the car might be.
I have a difficult time when heading into a marked parking space because
I cannot tell where the white lines are.

[Chris J Dixon]

Post by Sam Plusnet
I have that problem and it means I have little to guide me (other than
the parking sensors) in gauging where the corners of the car might be.
I have a difficult time when heading into a marked parking space because
I cannot tell where the white lines are.

I have to say that 360 cameras are magic for this situation.

Chris

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Sam Plusnet
I have that problem and it means I have little to guide me (other than
the parking sensors) in gauging where the corners of the car might be.
I have a difficult time when heading into a marked parking space because
I cannot tell where the white lines are.

I have to say that 360 cameras are magic for this situation.

True. I had a lift in a friend's car which have those.
Our car/model had them included a year after we bought ours.
Adaptive Cruise Control was the same, ours just maintains a set speed
until you brake or accelerate.

[Chris J Dixon]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Sam Plusnet
I have that problem and it means I have little to guide me (other than
the parking sensors) in gauging where the corners of the car might be.
I have a difficult time when heading into a marked parking space because
I cannot tell where the white lines are.

I have to say that 360 cameras are magic for this situation.

True. I had a lift in a friend's car which have those.
Our car/model had them included a year after we bought ours.
Adaptive Cruise Control was the same, ours just maintains a set speed
until you brake or accelerate.

My Mondeo has plain Cruise Control, but BOFE's Nissan Leaf has
Adaptive. I was surprised how good it was on a motorway trip,
even braking to a stand as traffic bunched.

I was taking care to be ready to intervene if it was not entirely
in charge, but the only time it was caught out was traffic
entering from a slip road.

If I was able to tweak anything, it would be to limit the
acceleration rate when an obstruction clears.

Chris

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Sam Plusnet
I have that problem and it means I have little to guide me (other than
the parking sensors) in gauging where the corners of the car might be.
I have a difficult time when heading into a marked parking space because
I cannot tell where the white lines are.

I have to say that 360 cameras are magic for this situation.

True. I had a lift in a friend's car which have those.
Our car/model had them included a year after we bought ours.
Adaptive Cruise Control was the same, ours just maintains a set speed
until you brake or accelerate.

My Mondeo has plain Cruise Control, but BOFE's Nissan Leaf has
Adaptive. I was surprised how good it was on a motorway trip,
even braking to a stand as traffic bunched.
I was taking care to be ready to intervene if it was not entirely
in charge, but the only time it was caught out was traffic
entering from a slip road.
If I was able to tweak anything, it would be to limit the
acceleration rate when an obstruction clears.

I thought cars usually moved away gradually in such cases - but maybe
all the cars in front of you have the same cruise control system?

[Chris J Dixon]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Chris J Dixon
My Mondeo has plain Cruise Control, but BOFE's Nissan Leaf has
Adaptive. I was surprised how good it was on a motorway trip,
even braking to a stand as traffic bunched.
I was taking care to be ready to intervene if it was not entirely
in charge, but the only time it was caught out was traffic
entering from a slip road.
If I was able to tweak anything, it would be to limit the
acceleration rate when an obstruction clears.

I thought cars usually moved away gradually in such cases - but maybe
all the cars in front of you have the same cruise control system?

It tends to happen when a car in front takes a slip road, so one
moment the radar sees it as being in front of you, and the next
it has cleared and you have an open road... for a while, then you
slow for the next vehicle ahead.

Chris

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Chris J Dixon
My Mondeo has plain Cruise Control, but BOFE's Nissan Leaf has
Adaptive. I was surprised how good it was on a motorway trip,
even braking to a stand as traffic bunched.
I was taking care to be ready to intervene if it was not entirely
in charge, but the only time it was caught out was traffic
entering from a slip road.
If I was able to tweak anything, it would be to limit the
acceleration rate when an obstruction clears.

I thought cars usually moved away gradually in such cases - but maybe
all the cars in front of you have the same cruise control system?

It tends to happen when a car in front takes a slip road, so one
moment the radar sees it as being in front of you, and the next
it has cleared and you have an open road... for a while, then you
slow for the next vehicle ahead.

Ah.
I don't get that, but I use the speed limiter on 20mph roads (it's far
too easy to exceed over that limit without noticing) and then cancel it
when the speed limit increases.
I often get an unwelcome surge of acceleration when I cancel the limiter.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by v***@gmail.com
I've never had a car without wing mirrors.

Yes, but they tend to be on the doors these days, not the actual wings
(I think the trade calls them door mirrors, or just mirrors). I suspect
it may be the regulations about sticky-out bits that could injure
pedestrians in a collision/impact that has moved them back.

More likely the requirement that at least the one on the driver's
side had to be adjustable from the driving seat. Originally this
was just by winding down the window, then mechanisms began to
evolve.

Mechanisms began to evolve!?! Is this a Skynet reference?

[Ben Blaney]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by J. P. Gilliver
might say "hold on - you could only have seen that if ...", or similar.
I couldn't think quite what - wing mirror would be an obvious one, but
modern cars don't have them; something she could only have seen (bridge
wall perhaps?) from the passenger seat, maybe. (Do we know the actual

I've never had a car without wing mirrors.

One of my Triumph Heralds doesn't have any, the other one has one (on the
driver's side, on the door). Looking at google images, if Heralds have
mirrors, they tend to be on the wings, and mostly in pairs. So it's possible
that both my Heralds are historically incorrect!

[BrritSki]

Post by Ben Blaney

Post by v***@gmail.com
I've never had a car without wing mirrors.

One of my Triumph Heralds doesn't have any, the other one has one (on the
driver's side, on the door). Looking at google images, if Heralds have
mirrors, they tend to be on the wings, and mostly in pairs. So it's possible
that both my Heralds are historically incorrect!

My 2nd MGB had door mirrors and is till on the road 47 years after
I bought it. (POV 126R still taxed, MOT not needed).

My first MGB had wing mirrors which imo were much safer as you saw
things in
your eye line and changing lanes was much safer. I understand the point
about
the danger to pedestrians, but that could have been reduced by building
them
in to the wings. It would be interesting to know how many more accidents
happened manouevring post change compared to accidents reduced elsewhere.

[Kosmo]

Post by BrritSki
(POV 126R still taxed, MOT not needed).

Which led me to look up my MGB GT TVR 973K.

Tax due for November 1982 but logbook last issued in 1990.

I sold it (well part exchanged it) in about 1980 (for a Maxi); the
oddity is the re-issue of the logbook.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Kosmo

Post by BrritSki
(POV 126R still taxed, MOT not needed).

Which led me to look up my MGB GT TVR 973K.
Tax due for November 1982 but logbook last issued in 1990.
I sold it (well part exchanged it) in about 1980 (for a Maxi); the
oddity is the re-issue of the logbook.

Well, I think it serves other purposes than just logbook (did anyone
ever write anything in it when it was a book? I suppose garage stamps) -
we (the authorities, mainly, I think) kept that term for it.

I presume it kept being reissued, even after tax ceased to be due, as
revalidation of its legality; suggests it demised around 1990, sadly.

[Nick Odell]

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 20:08:46 +0100, BrritSki

Post by BrritSki

Post by Ben Blaney

Post by v***@gmail.com
I've never had a car without wing mirrors.

One of my Triumph Heralds doesn't have any, the other one has one (on the
driver's side, on the door). Looking at google images, if Heralds have
mirrors, they tend to be on the wings, and mostly in pairs. So it's possible
that both my Heralds are historically incorrect!

My 2nd MGB had door mirrors and is till on the road 47 years after
I bought it. (POV 126R still taxed, MOT not needed).

Berloimy! I only stepped away from driving for a mere 24 years and
then find that while I've been gone, they've gone and changed the
rules. In my day (he says in old git mode) you had to keep renewing
the MOT on old vehicles but they'd recently made some old cars
road-tax exempt.

Post by BrritSki
My first MGB had wing mirrors which imo were much safer as you saw
things in
your eye line and changing lanes was much safer. I understand the point
about
the danger to pedestrians, but that could have been reduced by building
them
in to the wings. It would be interesting to know how many more accidents
happened manouevring post change compared to accidents reduced elsewhere.

Wing mirrors? Door mirrors? Surely by 2024 all cars need is an array
of built in cameras - and since the driver isn't important any more,
they can be connected straight through to the central control unit.

Nick

[Kosmo]

Post by Nick Odell
and since the driver isn't important any more,
they can be connected straight through to the central control unit.

I think they are finding that not having a driver driving the car can be
dangerous and several of those who were keen on it have decided it is
too difficult.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Kosmo

Post by Nick Odell
and since the driver isn't important any more,
they can be connected straight through to the central control unit.

I think they are finding that not having a driver driving the car can
be dangerous and several of those who were keen on it have decided it
is too difficult.

That's partly because they've set a higher threshold: yes, there have
been accidents (and deaths) involving autonomous vehicles - and there
always will be; if taken _in proportion_, though (i. e. compared to the
number of passenger miles), I don't know if they are actually _more_
dangerous than human-controlled vehicles. Of course the _nature_ of the
accident types will mostly be different, or in different proportions.

I do agree that for any new technology like this, we _should_ set higher
thresholds - but I'm not sure for how long; if those are used to
completely strangle the development, I don't think that's a good thing
either, especially if it's done for non-scientific reasons (especially
political).

Bring back the man with the flag, I say. (Not really!)

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Kosmo

Post by Nick Odell
and since the driver isn't important any more,
they can be connected straight through to the central control unit.

I think they are finding that not having a driver driving the car can
be dangerous and several of those who were keen on it have decided it
is too difficult.

That's partly because they've set a higher threshold: yes, there have
been accidents (and deaths) involving autonomous vehicles - and there
always will be; if taken _in proportion_, though (i. e. compared to the
number of passenger miles), I don't know if they are actually _more_
dangerous than human-controlled vehicles. Of course the _nature_ of the
accident types will mostly be different, or in different proportions.
I do agree that for any new technology like this, we _should_ set higher
thresholds - but I'm not sure for how long; if those are used to
completely strangle the development, I don't think that's a good thing
either, especially if it's done for non-scientific reasons (especially
political).
Bring back the man with the flag, I say. (Not really!)

The solution is pretty simple.
We just need to ban all human controlled vehicles from the roads, and
ensure that all AI controlled vehicles talk to each other to avoid
collisions.

We may have to ban pedestrians as well, but you can't have progress
without upsetting a few people.

I had thought of a mass cull of animals, since they can cause accidents
- but that might set a precedent which...

[john ashby]

Post by Nick Odell
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 20:08:46 +0100, BrritSki

Post by BrritSki

Post by Ben Blaney

Post by v***@gmail.com
I've never had a car without wing mirrors.

One of my Triumph Heralds doesn't have any, the other one has one (on the
driver's side, on the door). Looking at google images, if Heralds have
mirrors, they tend to be on the wings, and mostly in pairs. So it's possible
that both my Heralds are historically incorrect!

My 2nd MGB had door mirrors and is till on the road 47 years after
I bought it. (POV 126R still taxed, MOT not needed).

Berloimy! I only stepped away from driving for a mere 24 years and
then find that while I've been gone, they've gone and changed the
rules. In my day (he says in old git mode) you had to keep renewing
the MOT on old vehicles but they'd recently made some old cars
road-tax exempt.

Post by BrritSki
My first MGB had wing mirrors which imo were much safer as you saw
things in
your eye line and changing lanes was much safer. I understand the point
about
the danger to pedestrians, but that could have been reduced by building
them
in to the wings. It would be interesting to know how many more accidents
happened manouevring post change compared to accidents reduced elsewhere.

Wing mirrors? Door mirrors? Surely by 2024 all cars need is an array
of built in cameras - and since the driver isn't important any more,
they can be connected straight through to the central control unit.
Nick

I've certainly seen busses (well, a bus) fitted with what look like
cameras where a mirror ought to be.

john

[J. P. Gilliver]

[]

Post by john ashby

Post by Nick Odell
Wing mirrors? Door mirrors? Surely by 2024 all cars need is an array
of built in cameras - and since the driver isn't important any more,
they can be connected straight through to the central control unit.
Nick

I've certainly seen busses (well, a bus) fitted with what look like
cameras where a mirror ought to be.
john

Certainly, for some long vehicles, and some wide ones, a camera/screen
combination can give the driver a far _better_ view than a mirror can.

I've been in other people's cars where the reversing screen includes
lines showing the track - and those lines curve to match the amount of
steering lock; I can only think that's extra information. (Yes, don't
_rely_ on it.)

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Nick Odell
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 20:08:46 +0100, BrritSki

[]

Post by Nick Odell

Post by BrritSki
My 2nd MGB had door mirrors and is till on the road 47 years after
I bought it. (POV 126R still taxed, MOT not needed).

Berloimy! I only stepped away from driving for a mere 24 years and
then find that while I've been gone, they've gone and changed the
rules. In my day (he says in old git mode) you had to keep renewing
the MOT on old vehicles but they'd recently made some old cars
road-tax exempt.

Yes, I wasn't aware of the MOT exemption - or has it always been the
case for _very_ old vehicles? I am reminded of a rather nice line from
the film Genevieve - a very nice film altogether, IMO, with two aspects
relevant to car-talk: the ability to do a U turn in the middle of the
A23, and the sight of car transporters of _new_ Morris Minors. Oh, the
line: it was something like "officer, the headlights are fine: I put new
wicks in them this morning!".
[]

[Kosmo]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by J. P. Gilliver
might say "hold on - you could only have seen that if ...", or similar.
I couldn't think quite what - wing mirror would be an obvious one, but
modern cars don't have them; something she could only have seen (bridge
wall perhaps?) from the passenger seat, maybe. (Do we know the actual

I've never had a car without wing mirrors.

All my recent cars have them mounted on the door - but are they still
called wing mirrors?

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Kosmo

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by J. P. Gilliver
might say "hold on - you could only have seen that if ...", or similar.
I couldn't think quite what - wing mirror would be an obvious one, but
modern cars don't have them; something she could only have seen (bridge
wall perhaps?) from the passenger seat, maybe. (Do we know the actual

I've never had a car without wing mirrors.

All my recent cars have them mounted on the door - but are they still
called wing mirrors?

The industry needs some way of distinguishing the various types of
mirror so everyone knows which one we're referring to; the one in the
middle - though I think is the one thought of in "mirror, signal,
manoeuvre", where it's just "mirror", is I think "rear-view mirror"
(which is an odd name as they're all [but one] for that!). I think I've
heard "door mirror" for them (they're now a very complicated thing, not
just a mirror - movement motors [including fold on ignition off!],
indicators, heaters), though I think I've heard people still call them
wing mirror too.

[Clive Arthur]

On 07/07/2024 17:39, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

<snip>

Post by J. P. Gilliver
He's also in my mind the sort of logical/practical thinker who _would_
pick up on the sort of thing I am thinking of above.
John

Must be tons of forensic evidence, fingerprints and DNA everywhere if
it's not too late, and if the rozzers can be persuaded to look.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Clive Arthur
<snip>

Post by J. P. Gilliver
He's also in my mind the sort of logical/practical thinker who
_would_ pick up on the sort of thing I am thinking of above.
John

Must be tons of forensic evidence, fingerprints and DNA everywhere if
it's not too late, and if the rozzers can be persuaded to look.

I watch a lot of the alphabet soaps, and I can't think of anything
immediately; it was Alice's car, so I'd expect her fingerprints and DNA
to be on the steering wheel anyway, even if she wasn't driving on the
Fateful Night. Umbrella's being there too only proves that he drove it
at _some_ point, unless they can prove time (which I doubt they can this
late, unless they did at the time and we haven't been told).

[john ashby]

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Clive Arthur
<snip>

Post by J. P. Gilliver
He's also in my mind the sort of logical/practical thinker who
_would_  pick up on the sort of thing I am thinking of above.
John

Must be tons of forensic evidence, fingerprints and DNA everywhere if
it's not too late, and if the rozzers can be persuaded to look.

I watch a lot of the alphabet soaps, and I can't think of anything
immediately; it was Alice's car, so I'd expect her fingerprints and DNA
to be on the steering wheel anyway, even if she wasn't driving on the
Fateful Night. Umbrella's being there too only proves that he drove it
at _some_ point, unless they can prove time (which I doubt they can this
late, unless they did at the time and we haven't been told).

My guess, and IANAL, is that that level of forensic examination would
only be justified for a Death by Dangerous Driving charge, and as we
know Fallon's little bundle of cells doesn't qualify.

john

[Kosmo]

Post by john ashby

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Clive Arthur
<snip>

Post by J. P. Gilliver
He's also in my mind the sort of logical/practical thinker who
_would_  pick up on the sort of thing I am thinking of above.
John

Must be tons of forensic evidence, fingerprints and DNA everywhere if
it's not too late, and if the rozzers can be persuaded to look.

I watch a lot of the alphabet soaps, and I can't think of anything
immediately; it was Alice's car, so I'd expect her fingerprints and
DNA to be on the steering wheel anyway, even if she wasn't driving on
the Fateful Night. Umbrella's being there too only proves that he
drove it at _some_ point, unless they can prove time (which I doubt
they can this late, unless they did at the time and we haven't been
told).

My guess, and IANAL, is that that level of forensic examination would
only be justified for a Death by Dangerous Driving charge, and as we
know Fallon's little bundle of cells doesn't qualify.
john

On another soap they told a woman, her sister, the sister's husband/baby
daddy that she was pregnant. Only to do a reverse ferret the next day
when the scan was blank to find an ovarian growth.

Again they ignored the need for confidentiality by announcing it to the
entire audience.

[Serena Blanchflower]

Post by john ashby

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Clive Arthur
<snip>

Post by J. P. Gilliver
He's also in my mind the sort of logical/practical thinker who
_would_  pick up on the sort of thing I am thinking of above.
John

Must be tons of forensic evidence, fingerprints and DNA everywhere if
it's not too late, and if the rozzers can be persuaded to look.

I watch a lot of the alphabet soaps, and I can't think of anything
immediately; it was Alice's car, so I'd expect her fingerprints and
DNA to be on the steering wheel anyway, even if she wasn't driving on
the Fateful Night. Umbrella's being there too only proves that he
drove it at _some_ point, unless they can prove time (which I doubt
they can this late, unless they did at the time and we haven't been
told).

My guess, and IANAL, is that that level of forensic examination would
only be justified for a Death by Dangerous Driving charge, and as we
know Fallon's little bundle of cells doesn't qualify.

They might have done at least some fairly cursory forensics on Alice's
car, if she'd been adamant, at the time, that she hadn't been driving.
Not just that she *wouldn't* drive when drunk[1] but that she
definitely hadn't been driving that night. As it was, she accepted the
general view that she had been driving.


[1] There are plenty of things that we know Alice, in her right mind,
wouldn't dream of doing, that we also know she did do, when drunk.
Making a pass at her bestie's husband for one, and throwing a brick
through the shop window, at her mother-in-law, for another.

[john ashby]

Post by Serena Blanchflower

Post by john ashby

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Clive Arthur
<snip>

Post by J. P. Gilliver
He's also in my mind the sort of logical/practical thinker who
_would_  pick up on the sort of thing I am thinking of above.
John

Must be tons of forensic evidence, fingerprints and DNA everywhere
if it's not too late, and if the rozzers can be persuaded to look.

I watch a lot of the alphabet soaps, and I can't think of anything
immediately; it was Alice's car, so I'd expect her fingerprints and
DNA to be on the steering wheel anyway, even if she wasn't driving on
the Fateful Night. Umbrella's being there too only proves that he
drove it at _some_ point, unless they can prove time (which I doubt
they can this late, unless they did at the time and we haven't been
told).

My guess, and IANAL, is that that level of forensic examination would
only be justified for a Death by Dangerous Driving charge, and as we
know Fallon's little bundle of cells doesn't qualify.

They might have done at least some fairly cursory forensics on Alice's
car, if she'd been adamant, at the time, that she hadn't been driving.

Unfortunately the evidence of her (not Alice, see below) mother
gathering fruit at her allotment this morning suggests to me that my
local forensic scientist who might be able to provide a definitive
ruling on this is away on holiday at the moment.

john

[Serena Blanchflower]

Post by john ashby

Post by Serena Blanchflower

Post by john ashby

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Clive Arthur
<snip>

Post by J. P. Gilliver
He's also in my mind the sort of logical/practical thinker who
_would_  pick up on the sort of thing I am thinking of above.
John

Must be tons of forensic evidence, fingerprints and DNA everywhere
if it's not too late, and if the rozzers can be persuaded to look.

I watch a lot of the alphabet soaps, and I can't think of anything
immediately; it was Alice's car, so I'd expect her fingerprints and
DNA to be on the steering wheel anyway, even if she wasn't driving
on the Fateful Night. Umbrella's being there too only proves that he
drove it at _some_ point, unless they can prove time (which I doubt
they can this late, unless they did at the time and we haven't been
told).

My guess, and IANAL, is that that level of forensic examination would
only be justified for a Death by Dangerous Driving charge, and as we
know Fallon's little bundle of cells doesn't qualify.

They might have done at least some fairly cursory forensics on Alice's
car, if she'd been adamant, at the time, that she hadn't been driving.

Unfortunately the evidence of her (not Alice, see below) mother
gathering fruit at her allotment this morning suggests to me that my
local forensic scientist who might be able to provide a definitive
ruling on this is away on holiday at the moment.

The kind of evidence that I think they might have gathered, which
doesn't include expensive tests, which need to be sent off to anyone,
just a degree of observation, would be things like the fact that there
was, in all probability, vomit on the passenger side of the car and/or
just outside it. The drivers seat may well have been pushed back to
accommodate a driver much taller than Alice (I'm assuming that George
matches that description, he does in my head but the SWs may have a
different George in their minds).

[Kosmo]

Post by Serena Blanchflower

Post by john ashby

Post by Serena Blanchflower

Post by john ashby

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Clive Arthur
<snip>

Post by J. P. Gilliver
He's also in my mind the sort of logical/practical thinker who
_would_  pick up on the sort of thing I am thinking of above.
John

Must be tons of forensic evidence, fingerprints and DNA everywhere
if it's not too late, and if the rozzers can be persuaded to look.

I watch a lot of the alphabet soaps, and I can't think of anything
immediately; it was Alice's car, so I'd expect her fingerprints and
DNA to be on the steering wheel anyway, even if she wasn't driving
on the Fateful Night. Umbrella's being there too only proves that
he drove it at _some_ point, unless they can prove time (which I
doubt they can this late, unless they did at the time and we
haven't been told).

My guess, and IANAL, is that that level of forensic examination
would only be justified for a Death by Dangerous Driving charge, and
as we know Fallon's little bundle of cells doesn't qualify.

They might have done at least some fairly cursory forensics on
Alice's car, if she'd been adamant, at the time, that she hadn't been
driving.

Unfortunately the evidence of her (not Alice, see below) mother
gathering fruit at her allotment this morning suggests to me that my
local forensic scientist who might be able to provide a definitive
ruling on this is away on holiday at the moment.

The kind of evidence that I think they might have gathered, which
doesn't include expensive tests, which need to be sent off to anyone,
just a degree of observation, would be things like the fact that there
was, in all probability, vomit on the passenger side of the car and/or
just outside it.  The drivers seat may well have been pushed back to
accommodate a driver much taller than Alice (I'm assuming that George
matches that description, he does in my head but the SWs may have a
different George in their minds).

And of course Alice has now remembered that there was someone else in
the car when she was driven past the bridge by Adam. So there is hope
at the bottom of the barrel.

[Jim Easterbrook]

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Clive Arthur
<snip>

Post by J. P. Gilliver
He's also in my mind the sort of logical/practical thinker who
_would_ pick up on the sort of thing I am thinking of above.

Must be tons of forensic evidence, fingerprints and DNA everywhere if
it's not too late, and if the rozzers can be persuaded to look.

I watch a lot of the alphabet soaps, and I can't think of anything
immediately; it was Alice's car, so I'd expect her fingerprints and DNA
to be on the steering wheel anyway, even if she wasn't driving on the
Fateful Night. Umbrella's being there too only proves that he drove it
at _some_ point, unless they can prove time (which I doubt they can this
late, unless they did at the time and we haven't been told).

I noticed in reports of a recent court case where a drunk driver killed a
family by driving into their car at 140 mph that they found his DNA on the
driver's side airbag, proving he was driving at the time of the collision.
(He initially claimed he'd let a hitch-hiker drive the car.)

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <***@mid.individual.net> at Wed, 10 Jul 2024
10:49:20, Jim Easterbrook <***@jim-easterbrook.me.uk> writes
[]

Post by Jim Easterbrook
I noticed in reports of a recent court case where a drunk driver killed a
family by driving into their car at 140 mph that they found his DNA on the
driver's side airbag, proving he was driving at the time of the collision.
(He initially claimed he'd let a hitch-hiker drive the car.)

Ah, did the airbag(s) go off? Those would definitely prove Umbrella was
driving - even if some of Alice's rubbed off on the bag after he moved
her, there would be some of his, and from the positions, one would hope
a good forensic scientist would know. And that _wouldn't_ have decayed.
Do we know where the car is? Ideally in a police impound lot or similar.

[Clive Arthur]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Jim Easterbrook
I noticed in reports of a recent court case where a drunk driver killed a
family by driving into their car at 140 mph that they found his DNA on the
driver's side airbag, proving he was driving at the time of the collision.
(He initially claimed he'd let a hitch-hiker drive the car.)

Ah, did the airbag(s) go off? Those would definitely prove Umbrella was
driving - even if some of Alice's rubbed off on the bag after he moved
her, there would be some of his, and from the positions, one would hope
a good forensic scientist would know. And that _wouldn't_ have decayed.
Do we know where the car is? Ideally in a police impound lot or similar.

Did Alice's car actually hit anything?

[J. P. Gilliver]

[]

Post by Clive Arthur

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Ah, did the airbag(s) go off? Those would definitely prove Umbrella
was driving - even if some of Alice's rubbed off on the bag after he
moved her, there would be some of his, and from the positions, one
would hope a good forensic scientist would know. And that _wouldn't_
have decayed. Do we know where the car is? Ideally in a police
impound lot or similar.

Did Alice's car actually hit anything?

Good question. It is possible the other car swerved to avoid Alice's,
and there was no actual collision. (Is someone keen enough - I'm not! -
to go back and listen to the episode in question again?)