UK Saabers only

True. The less weight the less energy to absorb so that's about the only thing favouring smaller vehicles for crashworthiness, but they do little to stop the human body's momentum short of holding the torso with a seat belt and popping balloons (oh sorry airbags!) to keep provide some degree of bounce.

That's what airbags are for! 8-)

Craig.

It's an abomination; a historical relic which still rips households off to this day. Basically, you pay £130 a year for the privilege of using a TV to receive *any* broadcast in the UK. The money goes to fund the BBC.

Anyone using a TV to receive anything, even if they don't watch the BBC channels at all, has to have a license.

Nope, airbags are to prevent massive contusion type injuries from hitting solid bits of car like the wheel or dashboard. Although to be fair you have a point in that hitting a deflating airbag is likely to help slow the head down better. I think it's amazing that by the time my head hits an airbag it has already fully inflated and is now deflating under the weight of my body....if only Henry Ford had been alive to see it!

Grunff, accepted, the Smart is definitely the small car to be in at lower speeds, though I wouldn't bet a months wages on walking away from a 50mph crash.

keep provide some degree of

I've done 70mph into a barrier, I spun out and hit the central reservation (probably doing somewhat less by then....) didn't feel a thing. Sadly the Saabs front end was obliterated, but the doors still opened fine and the car still started and drove fine! (until all oil pissed out from the remains of the cooler...)

Of course the best thing is not to crash in the first place.....

in article FLAVf.20086$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe5-win.ntli.net, john at snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote on 26/03/2006 19:07:

The A frames are +very+ strong on the C900, aren't they?

Too right, although if your combined collision is less than around 60 MPH, your C900 will be okay :)

Paul

The principle is not so bad, but IMHO the real issue is that the gov of the day jack it up as much as the political pain can tolerate. We have no direct means to clamp costs and range. Now the gov want to flog off (as if they own it) chunks of UHF to unspecified payers for unspecified uses, fill in the dots etc, they push the Beeb to "go digital" to reduce their spectrum space. Bright spark: let's add to the licence fee load the costs of forced conversion of the refuseniks who stubbornly stick to 4/5 channels and will need gear to receive the current junk after switchover.

Stretching the "licence fee" beyond original use to re-equipping people so the real benefactor can flog spectrum, nice. Kinda same idea as "road tax" going into health and war.

But back on topic: when I bought my 9-5 I did budget for congestion zones, road tax, probable petrol consumption, aircon to keep cool on biz trips etc. Apple cart gets turned over each budget: tax up, if the oil companies can get their act together one year and keep the pump price stable, the gov will inflict a price increase instead of them. Once diesel was trendy and green, now it's baad. LPG good until enough boots have big tanks -> soak them.

Oh, it really, really is.

Why the f#£& should I /have/ to pay to fund the BBC even if I don't wish to watch any of its channels?

Not only that, but the license is almost considered as an compulsory Tax. If you deny that you have a TV, then the licensing authorities will assume that you're cheating; they will sent out threatening letters of legal action and come round to inspect your home.

That sort of fun might be worth not having a telly for. What better entertainment could you ask for? ...and tax-free! ;-)

I see your point but the dregs on commercial channels are what tilt me towards this form of funding. The hole in my pocket makes me veer back. They should go subscription, because I think that's a win-win for the proper professional model the BBC was, and would allow funding worldwide.

The commercial sector tends towards the mediocre unless regulation or proper market forces make it otherwise. See what GM will do with Saab.. (phew! on-topic!)

in article snipped-for-privacy@stop-spam-sizefitter.com, Johannes at snipped-for-privacy@stop-spam-sizefitter.com wrote on 27/03/2006 12:06:

For which you can refuse to allow them in ... Go to court ... Have your day out and when asked "How do you plead?", say, "I don't have a TV". Simple as that. Keep wasting their time ... The worst that can happen if you don't have a TV is that you will be inconvenienced with a trip to court once and then the ability to ignore whatever letters come thereafter.

Paul

They can fib. But you can do more: every time you buy something on their notification list (tv, VCR, DVB PCI card etc) registrar any old address and add to Crapita's (for it is they) data overload. Red letters will wing their way to multiple phantom addresses. For as a noted Usenet author says, "you're obliged to give them an address but not a correct address"!

Fear not, they'll get you sooner or later. You have a computer connected to the internet. You can receive BBC on that. Wait till the next budget - they'll have a licence payable on computers.

Ron