One single thing that makes you think "knob" Vol 3
Discussion
Liquid Knight said:
All windows.
Having one covered in mud is just as bad as covered in ice.
The van argument is flawed because people who drive vans are used to it and adjust people with cars and other vehicles who use their side windows aren't.
Maybe I am your exception as I am used to it as per a van. I ran a Defender 90 van for a while with a huge spare on the back so couldnt see out of that window either. I fail to see why you need to see out of the rear windows so often. Having one covered in mud is just as bad as covered in ice.
The van argument is flawed because people who drive vans are used to it and adjust people with cars and other vehicles who use their side windows aren't.
Also anyone can just hire/buy a van and crack on with it, same as you can tint your rear windows into complete darkness legally. Dont see the big deal here.
Slow said:
Maybe I am your exception as I am used to it as per a van. I ran a Defender 90 van for a while with a huge spare on the back so couldnt see out of that window either. I fail to see why you need to see out of the rear windows so often.
Also anyone can just hire/buy a van and crack on with it, same as you can tint your rear windows into complete darkness legally. Dont see the big deal here.
Windows must be clearAlso anyone can just hire/buy a van and crack on with it, same as you can tint your rear windows into complete darkness legally. Dont see the big deal here.
In all fairness this is "One thing that makes you think "knob" Vol 3" and keeping a Land Rover clean especially if it's used properly is a task.
We can agree to disagree but if your vehicle is involved in a collision and the view or lack there of out of the window was a contributing factor you will be liable.
A few years ago I pulled up behind a car at a "T" junction and the owner had forgotten the windows were iced up and took the usual forty five degree angle to the give way line. Only to nearly reverse into me because he couldn't see out of the rear windows or iced up mirrors and he wanted to straighten up.
They are out there people.
We can agree to disagree but if your vehicle is involved in a collision and the view or lack there of out of the window was a contributing factor you will be liable.
A few years ago I pulled up behind a car at a "T" junction and the owner had forgotten the windows were iced up and took the usual forty five degree angle to the give way line. Only to nearly reverse into me because he couldn't see out of the rear windows or iced up mirrors and he wanted to straighten up.
They are out there people.
The owner / driver of the black Range Rover Sport outside my house this morning makes me think knob for a number of reasons.
Firstly for the s
tty number plate reading DR R 4-12 B.
Secondly for nearly ttting my 205 GTI, which was parked in the space outside my house, 3 times 
- The first time because he appeared to be too busy fiddling with a tablet in his lap, I assume in an attempt to figure out whether or not he was in the correct road. As he did so his barge kept crawling forward towards the side of my car because he hadn't kept his foot on the brakes, put the handbrake on, or put it in Park
- The second time because after turning round further down the road he then decided to drive back and park right alongside my car, narrowly avoiding ttting off my wing mirror, because he was so close
- The third time for attempting to open his driver side door to get out of his barge before the realisation hit him that he couldn't do so because he was so close. Thankfully he managed to avoid dinging his door into my car
Finally for aggressively nailing out of a residential road at least 40mph, once he noticed me stood beside my car and after I shouted at him for nearly ttting my car, because he obviously wanted to avoid me
Firstly for the s
tty number plate reading DR R 4-12 B.Secondly for nearly t
tting my 205 GTI, which was parked in the space outside my house, 3 times - The first time because he appeared to be too busy fiddling with a tablet in his lap, I assume in an attempt to figure out whether or not he was in the correct road. As he did so his barge kept crawling forward towards the side of my car because he hadn't kept his foot on the brakes, put the handbrake on, or put it in Park
- The second time because after turning round further down the road he then decided to drive back and park right alongside my car, narrowly avoiding t
tting off my wing mirror, because he was so close - The third time for attempting to open his driver side door to get out of his barge before the realisation hit him that he couldn't do so because he was so close. Thankfully he managed to avoid dinging his door into my car
Finally for aggressively nailing out of a residential road at least 40mph, once he noticed me stood beside my car and after I shouted at him for nearly t
tting my car, because he obviously wanted to avoid me The total spacktard in the Chrysler PT Cruiser (yes, the car is indicative of your stupidity) who came panting past me and the car in front on the very short stretch of dual carriageway from the M11 junction on the A10 heading towards Harston this morning...then proceeded to slow down and dribble along at 10mph below the limit - regardless of whether the limit was 40, 30, 50 or 60. You, madam, are a selfish idiot. Kindly stay at home and lick windows (or whatever you do to keep your inadequate mind occupied when you're not overtaxing your limited intellect with the act of driving) during rush hour when people need to make progress.
And the other one this morning - the unobservant throbber in the white BMW in Stevenage. How do I know you were unobservant? Because you were tooling along with your mirrors folded in, even though the embedded indicator repeaters would have made it blatantly obvious your wing mirrors were folded in. Cretin.
And the other one this morning - the unobservant throbber in the white BMW in Stevenage. How do I know you were unobservant? Because you were tooling along with your mirrors folded in, even though the embedded indicator repeaters would have made it blatantly obvious your wing mirrors were folded in. Cretin.
SKY!
Elderly relative has been with them for circa 15 years. Currently has a Sky+ HD box which is pathetically slow and painful to use following their latest software update (the new redesigned menus etc...)
Relative has been on the phone several times to Sky, done all sorts to try and fix it but eventually it's been said she needs a new box.
Problem? Apparently Sky+ HD boxes are now discontinued. The only option? Sky Q (or whatever it's called) - BUT she has to pay an additional £12 per month plus £40 upfront for "multi room", despite the fact she only has 1 TV! (so that would be 12 quid down the drain every month) or if she just want's the box (without multi-room) they're asking for a £199 "installer fee".
Robbing set of t*ats
Customer of 15 years on the highest tier package and that's how they treat her! Either pay £199 or an additional £12 per month for something that's not her fault. Order has gone in today for BT Tv instead, Sky can shove their Sky Q box up their ar*e, sideways.
Elderly relative has been with them for circa 15 years. Currently has a Sky+ HD box which is pathetically slow and painful to use following their latest software update (the new redesigned menus etc...)
Relative has been on the phone several times to Sky, done all sorts to try and fix it but eventually it's been said she needs a new box.
Problem? Apparently Sky+ HD boxes are now discontinued. The only option? Sky Q (or whatever it's called) - BUT she has to pay an additional £12 per month plus £40 upfront for "multi room", despite the fact she only has 1 TV! (so that would be 12 quid down the drain every month) or if she just want's the box (without multi-room) they're asking for a £199 "installer fee".
Robbing set of t*ats
Customer of 15 years on the highest tier package and that's how they treat her! Either pay £199 or an additional £12 per month for something that's not her fault. Order has gone in today for BT Tv instead, Sky can shove their Sky Q box up their ar*e, sideways.
Edited by AJXX1 on Thursday 1st December 22:13
AJXX1 said:
SKY!
Elderly relative has been with them for circa 15 years. Currently has a Sky+ HD box which is pathetically slow and painful to use following their latest software update (the new redesigned menus etc...)
Relative has been on the phone several times to Sky, done all sorts to try and fix it but eventually it's been said she needs a new box.
Problem? Apparently Sky+ HD boxes are now discontinued. The only option? Sky Q (or whatever it's called) - BUT she has to pay an additional £12 per month plus £40 upfront for "multi room", despite the fact she only has 1 TV! If she just want's the box (without multi-room) they're asking for a £199 "installer fee".
Robbing set of t*ats
Customer of 15 years on the highest tier package and that's how they treat her! Either pay £199 or an additional £12 per month for something that's not her fault. Order has gone in today for BT Tv instead, Sky can shove their Sky Q box up their ar*e, sideways.
Sadly that's the only answer. Loyalty is not rewarded any more. If anything it's seen as a sign of weakness to be exploited.Elderly relative has been with them for circa 15 years. Currently has a Sky+ HD box which is pathetically slow and painful to use following their latest software update (the new redesigned menus etc...)
Relative has been on the phone several times to Sky, done all sorts to try and fix it but eventually it's been said she needs a new box.
Problem? Apparently Sky+ HD boxes are now discontinued. The only option? Sky Q (or whatever it's called) - BUT she has to pay an additional £12 per month plus £40 upfront for "multi room", despite the fact she only has 1 TV! If she just want's the box (without multi-room) they're asking for a £199 "installer fee".
Robbing set of t*ats
Customer of 15 years on the highest tier package and that's how they treat her! Either pay £199 or an additional £12 per month for something that's not her fault. Order has gone in today for BT Tv instead, Sky can shove their Sky Q box up their ar*e, sideways.
AJXX1 said:
SKY!
Elderly relative has been with them for circa 15 years. Currently has a Sky+ HD box which is pathetically slow and painful to use following their latest software update (the new redesigned menus etc...)
Relative has been on the phone several times to Sky, done all sorts to try and fix it but eventually it's been said she needs a new box.
Problem? Apparently Sky+ HD boxes are now discontinued. The only option? Sky Q (or whatever it's called) - BUT she has to pay an additional £12 per month plus £40 upfront for "multi room", despite the fact she only has 1 TV! (so that would be 12 quid down the drain every month) or if she just want's the box (without multi-room) they're asking for a £199 "installer fee".
Robbing set of t*ats
Customer of 15 years on the highest tier package and that's how they treat her! Either pay £199 or an additional £12 per month for something that's not her fault. Order has gone in today for BT Tv instead, Sky can shove their Sky Q box up their ar*e, sideways.
And that's why I'm now on Freesat and Freeview.Elderly relative has been with them for circa 15 years. Currently has a Sky+ HD box which is pathetically slow and painful to use following their latest software update (the new redesigned menus etc...)
Relative has been on the phone several times to Sky, done all sorts to try and fix it but eventually it's been said she needs a new box.
Problem? Apparently Sky+ HD boxes are now discontinued. The only option? Sky Q (or whatever it's called) - BUT she has to pay an additional £12 per month plus £40 upfront for "multi room", despite the fact she only has 1 TV! (so that would be 12 quid down the drain every month) or if she just want's the box (without multi-room) they're asking for a £199 "installer fee".
Robbing set of t*ats
Customer of 15 years on the highest tier package and that's how they treat her! Either pay £199 or an additional £12 per month for something that's not her fault. Order has gone in today for BT Tv instead, Sky can shove their Sky Q box up their ar*e, sideways.
Edited by AJXX1 on Thursday 1st December 22:13
Fed up of Sky breaking my box with software updates in order to push me towards paying for a new box.
AJXX1 said:
SKY!
Elderly relative has been with them for circa 15 years. Currently has a Sky+ HD box which is pathetically slow and painful to use following their latest software update (the new redesigned menus etc...)
Relative has been on the phone several times to Sky, done all sorts to try and fix it but eventually it's been said she needs a new box.
Problem? Apparently Sky+ HD boxes are now discontinued. The only option? Sky Q (or whatever it's called) - BUT she has to pay an additional £12 per month plus £40 upfront for "multi room", despite the fact she only has 1 TV! (so that would be 12 quid down the drain every month) or if she just want's the box (without multi-room) they're asking for a £199 "installer fee".
Robbing set of t*ats
Customer of 15 years on the highest tier package and that's how they treat her! Either pay £199 or an additional £12 per month for something that's not her fault. Order has gone in today for BT Tv instead, Sky can shove their Sky Q box up their ar*e, sideways.
Now you have started the leaving process prepare for lots of cheap offers to tempt you back. The best will come once contract has ended. Elderly relative has been with them for circa 15 years. Currently has a Sky+ HD box which is pathetically slow and painful to use following their latest software update (the new redesigned menus etc...)
Relative has been on the phone several times to Sky, done all sorts to try and fix it but eventually it's been said she needs a new box.
Problem? Apparently Sky+ HD boxes are now discontinued. The only option? Sky Q (or whatever it's called) - BUT she has to pay an additional £12 per month plus £40 upfront for "multi room", despite the fact she only has 1 TV! (so that would be 12 quid down the drain every month) or if she just want's the box (without multi-room) they're asking for a £199 "installer fee".
Robbing set of t*ats
Customer of 15 years on the highest tier package and that's how they treat her! Either pay £199 or an additional £12 per month for something that's not her fault. Order has gone in today for BT Tv instead, Sky can shove their Sky Q box up their ar*e, sideways.
Edited by AJXX1 on Thursday 1st December 22:13
This thread has lots on it http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Someone recently got 75% off I think.
My mothers next doors neighbours son yesterday morning.
Yesterday morning was really frosty his car was totally white with all the windows totally covered. He came out yesterday morning and jumped in his car and drove with no attempt at all to clear any of his windows.
I have no idea how he could see anything.
Yesterday morning was really frosty his car was totally white with all the windows totally covered. He came out yesterday morning and jumped in his car and drove with no attempt at all to clear any of his windows.
I have no idea how he could see anything.
AlexRS2782 said:
The owner / driver of the black Range Rover Sport outside my house this morning makes me think knob for a number of reasons.
Secondly for nearly ttting my 205 GTI
narrowly avoiding ttting off my wing mirror
Thankfully he managed to avoid dinging his door into my car
I shouted at him for nearly ttting my car
So you're angry about something that didn't happen?Secondly for nearly t
tting my 205 GTInarrowly avoiding t
tting off my wing mirrorThankfully he managed to avoid dinging his door into my car
I shouted at him for nearly t
tting my car
Robert W said:
Please explain what facial expression would work when driving THIS along the road for the driver to look credible - suggestions welcome. Central London yesterday. I assume Sultan is nothing to do with Brunei?
XR2 based kit car from around 1995 to 2000Very rare but whatever you do don't put it on the Supercars and Rarities thread.
Edited by Liquid Knight on Friday 2nd December 14:30
fk nuggets who insist on cycling along the dual carriageway between Newbridge and Gogarburn roundabout in Edinburgh (past the airport) despite the fact the right hand side path (if your headed east) is also a cycle lane - backs the friggin traffic up no end. Only mildly less annoying are when they do this along the road between Broxburn and newbridge - again despite there being a cycle lane.
k nuggets who insist on cycling along the dual carriageway between Newbridge and Gogarburn roundabout in Edinburgh (past the airport) despite the fact the right hand side path (if your headed east) is also a cycle lane - backs the friggin traffic up no end. Only mildly less annoying are when they do this along the road between Broxburn and newbridge - again despite there being a cycle lane.STILLJOE said:
fk nuggets who insist on cycling along the dual carriageway between Newbridge and Gogarburn roundabout in Edinburgh (past the airport) despite the fact the right hand side path (if your headed east) is also a cycle lane - backs the friggin traffic up no end. Only mildly less annoying are when they do this along the road between Broxburn and newbridge - again despite there being a cycle lane.
A dual carriageway gets ruined by cyclists riding on it? Are the riding 10 abreast? k nuggets who insist on cycling along the dual carriageway between Newbridge and Gogarburn roundabout in Edinburgh (past the airport) despite the fact the right hand side path (if your headed east) is also a cycle lane - backs the friggin traffic up no end. Only mildly less annoying are when they do this along the road between Broxburn and newbridge - again despite there being a cycle lane.
Just how s
t are the drivers round there. Or is it really that the traffic backs up cause there's s
t loads of it and that's what happens in every town all over the country. But you rather blame maybe 30-40 people on bikes? When I drive the19 mile some from work every day. I ain't sitting stationary in a queue of bikesGassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff