Linas.P

I am sure PHEV would not be as "tax beneficial" as BEV, but the point is that at least I could get it. I simply can't get Lexus hybrids because they were like 141g/km or something along those lines. On to of that BEV tax saving is irrelevant for me, because I literally don't have where to charge it as most of people in London. So all good and dandy that it would be £108/Month cheaper, but it would be at the same time useless.

looking ...and driving. Perhaps not so much difference between ES300h and IS300h, but IS350 is in another league from ES350.

As well it is proven that combined delay of speedbump (and other traffic "calming" features) kills more people that they could ever save. Yet every time I drive I see more and more of them being fitted on main roads! Sure in parking lot or small access roads they make sense, but not on major streets! You providing several good examples of hypocrisy and madness in this country. For example I literally stopped using one hair salon after being their client for over 12 years... because it used to be 2 hours free parking no return, then it turned into 30 minutes no return, then £2/h for max 1h no-return and you could only pay by phone app which never works! After 6 years of 30 minutes free parking it caught me out once and I had to pay £60 for damn council fraud and since then I won't return there. This is example of how it affect local business, but how many business I simple ignored and never even considered, just because I can't park where they are? And this premise that you can reach anywhere on foot, cycle or public transport is just ridiculous. Sure if everything exists 500 years from my home, why not! But even if it is 5 miles I will certainly drive there. 5 miles in a car is what? 8-10 minutes? and I get out of if clean, dry and not sweating my shirt off. In public transport it will be 5minutes walk to the station, 10 minutes wait time if you lucky, 10 minutes journey if you don't need to change and then another 10 minutes walking... add return journey and suddenly it takes 2 hours to do something that could have been done in 25 minutes in your own car! Not to mention utility of the car to haul your luggage and I won't need to scrub chewing gum off my trousers and go through deep cleaning and chemical decontamination process when I am back! For those cycling enthusiast I would like to see how they are doing your weekly groceries shopping on the bicycle, or they are cramming themselves with 8 bags of food into stinky bus? No sure not... they get into their sneaky car, do shopping and they forget about that journey as soon as they turn on PC and get onto forum and to bark at car owners 😄

I think if you boil it down to one sentence, then it is exactly that... and I agree it is bloody obvious. It is almost opposite to what I said in my previous post - if pedestrians don't jump on roads then it will inevitably lead to less injuries. "safe roads" proponents seems to have exactly opposite idea - "if there are no cars on the roads, then there will be no injuries..." equally true, but then I would like them to explain me what utility does the road have in this case and why they are expecting drivers to continue to contribute £38bn into the budget every year if they literally can't drive?! By the way - nice summary for anyone who don't want to waste time on reading the article.

Guardian has always been a bot of hippy of the magazines, cyclist paradise and motorist nightmare. Probably one of the reason I stopped reading it, among other reason like increasingly poor journalism. The data they have quoted is really interesting in a sense that it is so fundamentally flawed. And as expected they do not provide any journalism qualities as they simply take the statements from biased and interested groups and state them as a fact in article, without analysing, challenging or providing alternative perspective. As I said previous, motorist opinion does not matter! Especially, for news papers like guardian. The key issue I can see is that they conflate 20MPH limit, to LTNs (access only streets) and on top of that they doing research during covid time which is unprecedented in terms of reduction in travel and traffic as a whole. Why this makes no sense? That is because imposing 20MPH limit on main street is NOT the same as imposing this limit in cul-de-sac/access only street which is dead end. Other significant term we should take a look at is "discouraging driving" - NO 💩! So basically you want my money for driving, but you don't want me to actually drive... that sounds like usually raw deal motorists are getting. And I kind of appreciate the concept on LTN where the traffic is only local and that promotes walking/cycling locally, but it completely doesn't make sense on major road which is used by many people who are not local at all and who are not travelling locally. The only issue I see with LTNs themselves is that the being offered as solution without looking into causes. The reason why people choose to "rat-run" on local streets instead of using main road is usually because the main road is simply not capable of providing sufficient capacity. In short - if they focus on making main roads viable and providing sufficient capacity there, then drivers would naturally decide to stick to main roads and LTNs would not be even needed. So as usual they are addressing symptoms and not the issue in itself. Will the Beast Norman, the walking and cycling commissioner for London, said: Surely, one obvious disadvantage he forgets to mention - increased congestion, traffic, noise and travel times on main roads. Just a "tiny" detail...

As for the looks I agree, the "current" mk3 facelift ("mk3.5-ish") IS is the best look IS in my opinion. But what makes you think there will be "next gen IS"? I mean I agree there will be "next gen something", but if I would make a bet, I would say it will be ES. I have a feeling that IS "mk3.5" will be the last IS. What makes me think that way ... IS was a FR configuration car using almost dedicated platform, the key in it getting discontinued is that Toyota discontinued Toyota N platform. So realistically new IS won't be a built on TNGA-K, because it is FF platform and it certainly won't be built on TNGA-L platform to keep it FR, because that is platform on which LS and LC are built, and it is technically more "luxurious" platform (if that could be said) than TNGA-K on which is the model above in the range (ES) is made. In short - I just could not see Lexus making FF IS on TNGA-K, nor I can see Lexus making FR IS on TNGA-L. It seems that globally ES replaced both GS and IS, and it makes most sense to simply work with that platform. TNGA-K has been designed to support FF hybrids and PHEVs and if they going to make full EV then they will use e-TNGA. There is "medium sedan" rumoured to be on e-TNGA, but "medium" in this sense I believe would be again ES and not IS.

It seems that we agree on more things that we disagree, so that is good to see. TLDR means - too long; didn't read. If we go to beginning of argument, then you said: vs. As you can see your argument has shifted from the initial statement. And now I agree with you, by itself it is not effective - that is what I have argued. As supporting evidence it could be very very effective, depending of what is captured and what other evidence exists. So I agree with with your last statement now. As well it is important to define what "effective" means - in my mind effective is like "80/20 rule" - meaning that it is effective in majority of the cases. From stats you kindly provided it seems that effectiveness of dashcam footage are from as low as ~1%... and as high as ~48%... so let's say on average 25% across the board and ineffective in 75% of cases. In my mind that is not effective at all. Comparing that with what I consider actually "effective"... as defence it is like 80-90%+ effective, because if you were innocent in almost all cases you will be able to prove it using dashcam. That is effective and that is why I recommend fitting it. We as well agree that date, time and location from dashcam isn't reliable evidence. And that is partially why dashcam footage on it's own isn't very reliable or strong. We agree that video could be effectively used to scare and threaten the suspects into admission. However, I personally find such admission itself questionable, immoral and not much different from criminal behaviour in itself. Frankly, I don't see the difference of old police methods of smashing people in pulp to gain admission by physical violence and the modern method psychological terror or using video to force the admission. I just don't support that and I do not care if the suspect is actually guilty, especially when it comes to driving offences, many of which are rather arbitrary. You can call me idealist, but my opinion is that there are only two possibilities - either police have 100% clear evidence and can prove guild without admission, or they don't have evidence and they can't. Having 20% of evidence and then forcing admission before it reaches the court is just not practice I support. In the end I think we clearly have difference between practice and theory. In theory, based on existing law and standard dashcam footage would rarely help in prosecution, simply because almost any suspect could argue they were not the driver at the time and the time in video is not correct. However, in practice there may be high number of suspects simply being scared by police and admitting it anyway, so real persecution rate (or "benefit") is higher than it should be. Now, sadly, in my experience on both occasions I got into situations where suspects had titanium-balls and were completely unaffected by watching the footage, it certainly didn't result in the admitting and settling out of the court and ultimately both cases were lost in the court. Basically showing that if suspect stick to their story and pleads not guilty, there is high chance court won't convict them in absence of any other strong evidence. So in my experience dashcam footage resulted in 0% win rate and maybe that is why I am more pessimistic about it's effectiveness. Finally, one important note to make - evidence collected by police is always far more important than evidence collected by public. In both of my cases police refused to attend the incident and in both cases that was what ultimately failed the prosecution. If police would have merely attended and recorded incident themselves, that most likely would have been enough for successful prosecution. That is why I am rather spiteful when it comes to police.

Just one thing to consider - in UK we waste like 48% of electricity we produce. The below chart is for all energy, but from memory for electric is slightly lower than total. This happens because we always have to have some spare capacity, otherwise we will have black-outs, but we can't increase/reduce production fast enough to make sure we produce just enough energy e.g. that is absolutely impossible with solar/wind energy, it is difficult and unpractical to do on hydro power, it is not possible on nuclear, so realistically only fossil fuel stations could be regulated. Now... indeed hydrogen production is not very green, because it electrolysis uses loads of electricity, but if we would use this spare capacity to produce hydrogen, then we can pretty much tap into free energy which would be otherwise wasted. If we can use this wasted energy to produce hydrogen, then not only the electricity will become cheaper, but hydrogen is as well easier and cheaper to store and transport than electricity in batteries of hydro-accumulative plants (basically they pump the water upstream during times of low demand and release it to generate energy during times of high demand). In summary - we can make hydrogen quite clean and it is relatively easy to store, transport and refuel.

I would not be fancy BEV IS either... I am simply not believer in BEV technology and practicality overall e.g. I don't see a way how everyone, myself included, could have sufficient charging capacity etc. What I think would be interesting is properly fast plug-in hybrid IS... somewhere along the lines of BMW 330e (5.5-6.5, 0-60) but ideally with little bit longer battery range 30-40 miles maybe (BMW has certified 21-22Miles if I am not mistaken) and it would be perfect if hybrid drive would be based on V6 rather than L4. That would take all the advantages of low tax, would be eligible as company car (under 75g Co2) and free access to congestion charge areas, but would have no BEV disadvantages like being stuck in charging station for hours, planning the route around existing charging network and it could be charged reasonably well from 220V socket, which is far easier than finding 2-5kV+ in most places. That is obviously just what I would like to see, not what will happen. My prediction of what will happen is that Lexus is rumoured to release either BEV or PHEV (or both) saloon almost certainly based on TNGA-K (basically or exactly Lexus ES)... so basically that overly bloaty ugly looking amurican car. If it is going to be PHEV then it will be transversally mounted trashy 4-Pot engine driving front wheels (FF arrangement) and Electric motors driving real wheels making it fake AWD, similar arrangement as NX300h AWD or Volvo S90 T8. Lexus calls this technology DIRECT4 and I am fairly positive their "test mule" is Lexus ES. So the future of executive saloons in Lexus does not sound great at all, it won't be IS, it will most likely going to be AWD PHEV ES and/or RWD? BEV ES. As well, because Lexus/Toyota are behind in BEV tech, I would suspect specifications will be somewhere around the level of 2nd gen Tesla (basically early days of Model-S), so expect range of around 150-200 miles, but acceleration could be decent 5s. That is unless Toyota strikes deal with Samsung or something like that for solid state batteries and literally jumps over the decade of battery development... in that case it is anyone's guess what stats will be. Finally on hydrogen... I am actually surprised that Toyota keeps releasing unsuccessful Mirai models which clearly doesn't generate much interest except of complete nerds. But they don't try to use Lexus brand as a vehicle for Hydrogen marketing. For example Hydrogen would be ideal for "luxury barge" like LS... sure finding refuelling station is a bit difficult, but that is a problem for chauffeur to figure out and then you get 1000 miles range! No fuel stops for days and performance isn't really that important in limousine. So for me it just doesn't make sense that they have wasted TNGA-L for Mirai, but have not thought of having hydrogen version of Lexus LS (which is built on the same platform)?! Remember GS450h - that was first luxury hybrid car, sure it looked weird at the time, but it inevitably shaped Lexus brand and entire industry for last 2 decades. At the time it made sense to put expensive hybrid technology into luxury car where margins are higher. It seems same could be done with hydrogen technology. Surely it is easier to market £100k hydrogen LS, than £100k Toyota!

Going back to the topic of speed limits, the main issue I have with following them is lack of transparency. I consider that there should be public record of every decision related to speed limits e.g. "as result of x number of accidents caused by Y decision was made to introduce temporary speed limit of 50MPH for 3 years". And it should not be FOIA request to get it, it should literally be in public domain. Understanding the limit, would be first step in appreciating it and appreciating would lead into compliance. I simply can't follow arbitrary limit which I can't appreciate and based on road conditions I can see it is safe to drive faster. That said limits on motorway would clearly cease existing because justification in there would be "this is temporary limit introduced in 1960s which we simply forgotten to remove". Could there be 70MPH limits on motorway - yes absolutely, but they have to be individually justified and temporary. Apart of these temporary limitations all the roads should allow the maximum speed based on the road itself i.e. urban roads 30, A-Roads 60, motorways unlimited. The other big part - limits should not be used to raise revenue (how often we see perfectly straight roads which goes to 50, then back to 60 or 70 for no apparent reason, except of camera at the start of it), nor they should be used to mask the roads which are substandard. Goverment raises plenty of money from motorists to make every single road in country perfect, so speed limit reduction could not be justified by road getting simply worn out and unsafe. Finally, public and drivers education, we need to filter poor drivers out of the population so that everyone can be safer and drive faster, likewise public should know the dangers of the road and don't be babies - take care of them selves instead of relying on drivers always driving at totally retarded speed and always being prepared to stop on the dime when some idiot jumps into the road.

It is kind of sad, because both IS300h and GS300h have been discontinued, but if you looking after used car then I guess it is only better. I don't like NX just because I basically don't like any SUVs, not sure of the reason why you didn't like it, but maybe it is why as well? From driving perspective I found ES300h same as any other Lexus 300h and I could not even complain much about it being FWD, because realistically 300h is just powerful enough to really take advantage of RWD. Still both GS/IS would be more more "dynamic" when driving and would have better balance. IS is smaller car, more sporty, GS is bigger car and more luxurious, but in my opinion both are better built - more "Lexus like".

That is obvious 💩 - new rules clearly states that car will fail MOT if any of emission control systems are removed, regardless if it passes the emissions test or not. So it is removal of DPF and EGR itself that are illegal already. Secondly, what you saying could not be further from a "fact" and I am sure you have no evidence to prove, so basically you are just troll talking 💩. When it comes to moral side of thing - knowingly polluting the air and blowing your 💩 into other people is clearly immoral, even if you can purchase MOT certificate from equally 💩 garage. Finally, passing MOT does not mean your car is road worthy, it literally says that on your MOT certificate. And not having DPF/EGR automatically makes your car not road worthy and thus illegal to drive. So stop spreading lies.

TLDR... Loads of information, which is clearly far too much to digest and certainly to respond. Most of the information you have provided is meaningless as it proves nothing, doesn't even address the argument I made. Have you actually read the article itself of just copy-pasted it? As I have already said - if suspect gets scared by the footage and admits their fault then validity of this footage in front of the court isn't even tested, nor relevant. My argument was - if it would go to the court would it be difficult to prosecute only based on the dashcam footage. I can't see clear statistics for that in your post. Further there are many catch phrases which are very easy to pick-up and which are meaningless or misinterpreted. Just examples of few - "went on to result in prosecutions" - this is generic term that it went to Magistrates court, it does not mean however that prosecution was successful. As per my experience - I had 2 cases which "went on to prosecutions", one was lost because once of CPS messed it up and on second occasion judge just didn't have common sense (defence argument was - "yes I hit the car, but I didn't dent it" and Judge went with judgement that damage could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt). The cyclist who has submitted 213 report is known maniac who deliberately provokes the situation, then films it and submits them to police. So he is professional provocateur and he knows what he needs to film... as I said if you captured actual driver in the video (which is quite difficult to do in dashcam), this is far better evidence than just having video of the car. He almost always captures the drivers and usually provokes them to get out of the car etc... but even then his success rate is just about 50%. Now your statement that date on footage does not actually matter is true... it does not matter at all and even if it is 100% correct it does not matter. That is because dashcam is not certified to provide accurate date and time. As result this makes dashcam footage a "supporting" evidence at best and what is needed for successful prosecution is proving that suspect what at that place in that time. Whatever is the time on video, it is never treated as reliable. Overall, there are areas where I agree with you - dashcam is useful to have in the car as a defence tool and when it comes to insurance it really simplifies the process of getting compensation. However, public should never pretend to be police in the first place and even if they decide to do it, it isn't great in terms of securing prosecutions. So certainly I disagree with both the idea itself and with the statement that you can prosecute simply based on dashcam footage. That said, I do believe that it could be used as a tool to intimidate by police and quite a few people may fall for it - so despite it being inadmissible and poor evidence, it may still result in 60% of suspects simply admitting in front of evidence without even going to court. Simply said - it is not because it is great evidence, but because suspects didn't know better.

It was indeed to of the range... I agree with that. The CH-R I was talking about from my experience was Blue-Edition, basically Dynamic with black roof. I know it just been replaced with new 2021 CH-R GR edition, despite my advise to at least go with Lexus UX, or better with 2-3 years old Lexus NX. In either case we may need to agree to disagree, but there are far more in common between these two cars in areas where it matters than differences. I probably don't even need to say it is just my opinion.

Yes you recommending people doing illegal and immoral thing, I am sure the next thing you will recommend will be not to bother with disposing used tyres and oil, just throw them into the bushes and to the hell with all this environment thing. The only thing I am glad about, that at leas in UK such people like you can't go far as goverment finally started checking this in MOT. What is sad is that goverment still has not came-up with effective process of prosecuting people who actually performs such changes. And apart of failing MOT there are no other consequence... fail MOT, reinstall DPF and off you go. Would be far more interesting to have such cars confiscated and crushed.

I think you comparing apples and oranges... Your Lexus US is Takumi (top of the range model) and what was the trim level your CH-R? Secondly, it may seem like 2 years difference is not that much, but I know for a fact that CH-R had small facelift together with introduction of GR trim. So before you say that I am talking loads of rubbish please check if your are at least comparing similar spec cars. I can know only as much information as you have provided. your signature says it was SE trim, which is de-facto lowest trim available. Obviously, I cannot know it is some limited "launch edition" model which basically is SE-L... That said you still comparing 2006 car with 2021 car and that isn't right. The standards and expectations of quality have generally increased in 15 years, so comparison can be difficult. That is why I am careful with what I say. To to remind you I said that if you compare ES300h with comparable IS/GS then it is step below in quality. Quite specifically that comparable car would be 2020/2021 IS300h Fsport/Takumi is we are comparing against 2020/2021 ES300h F-sport/Takumi.... you can't take 10 years older car of lower trim and compare it with brand new ES with higher trim and then say ES is just as good! ...but this is what I can see people do continuously. They get into the brand starting from used lower spec. car, overtime they build appreciation for the brand and buy newer higher spec car and say... "ohhh my car is so much better than my old one". Yes, because it is 10 years newer and 2-trim levels higher spec. + placebo and confirmation bias effects associated with spending large amount of money on the object you like. As I said - if somebody are really into ES and they really like it, that is great... your money, your car... more power to you. But if you compare it like for like with IS/GS it replaces and the time scales for new model year, then it is not only isn't improvement, but arguably worse quality than car it replaces. So my only advise, test drive these cars back to back before you make decision and don't go by advise from people who moved into ES from 15 years older car as their experience arguably isn't very objective.

I have looked in F-Sport Takumi when it was launched, so I assume 2019 model and I have looked into Takumi which is on dealership floor now so I assume 2021 model and both of them have exactly same quality which was very disappointing in my opinion. As well I note that you owned GS mk3 in low trim (SE) and my comparison was with mk4 in high trim. I have never tested low trims on any Lexus so I really don't know how bad they get, for IS300h I only ever tried F-Sport (probably 5 different ones) and GS only Premier and F-sport. I appreciate that owning car for extended period of time can help you with - 1) finding less apparent issues with it and 2) just learning to live with it as it is, but if the car has unsatisfactory martials and build quality whilst sitting on the dealership floor I just can't see how that could improve after X years of owning it. The previous gen Lexus (GS mk4 2012 and IS mk3 2013) were already step down in quality of the cars they have replaced and ES is step below them, to the level where I don't even see the point of having Lexus badge on it. I am sure there always been some hard plastics in Lexus if you go looking for them, but at least around the driver and in obvious places it was all soft-touch material and padded corners everywhere. ES has hard and rattily plastics right in your face and it took no more than 1 second for me to pick-up on them. I mean sure - people can selectively ignore it and pretend they are not there, so that is certainly your choice...

It is... for example all the windows switches are surrounded by hard textured plastic which is extra cheap, as well the area around gear shifter. Neither IS, nor GS has this. I think overall, it is better in areas where one would expect 8 years newer, new generation car to be better. Tech is better etc. but quality is not, the sound proofing is not as good and the materials themselves are not as solid. It does not feel Lexus at all, same like UX... again driven both Lexus UX and Toyota CH-R and they are carbon copies just with different badges. The Camry is step below ES, because ES is based on Avalon and Avalon is carbon copy of ES. I guess what makes ES less offensive is that we don't have Toyota Avalon in UK, so now way to compare like for like and see that it is just badge engineering. In either case that is my experience and opinion, whoever wants to buy it I suggest to test drive GS/IS and ES back to back and decide themselves. Obviously, don't compare 2013 poverty-line IS300h Exec/Luxury with 150k miles against brand new ES300h Takumi, take 2019 IS300h F-Sport or Premier at least.

I think you missing the point. Yes if offender voluntary admits to the charges it is all great. They may as well go to police themselves and surrender, you actually don't even need video in that case. So the Dorset show video just shows occasion of somebody admitting it without challenging it. Regarding your second point - again, it is has part of truth in it, if offender admits the offence it may not need to go to court. But at the same time you are wrong - it says in only 1-2% cases the witness attendance was needed, not that witnesses only attended in 1-2% of times. Now I take your point, majority of public have no legal knowledge and police will pretend in the interview that they have valid evidence against them, which is not at all the case. Don't forget police is legally allowed to lie to obtain the evidence and that is what they do to scare people with video which is meaningless. If they get admission this way then all is great, but if culprit wisely say "bugger off with this crap" then it takes police nowhere, because that video in itself proves nothing, it is not valid evidence, because the dates and times on it can't be validated. Final point, and the quote from nextbase FAQ is total BS. You can say anything you like on your witness statement, but what you say there is literally your word against word of the suspect. If you say that time stamp on your video is incorrect, then congratulations - you have just made your video invalid! Any half-sane lawyer will use that to dismiss the evidence, the defence in this case is extremely simple "the witness alleges that I was in location X on the time Y, but I was not in that location and the date/time on the video is incorrect, or does not match with the date on witness statement" - end of story, you case cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, because it can't prove that defender was there at the time/date you allege. Maybe it actually happened, week, month, year before or after and the car was owned by different person at the time?! They have committed the offence in the car in your video, but without valid date/time it can't be enforced. If you have actual person who can be easily identified in the video then it is much easier, but if you have just a car then it is next to impossible. Don't forget that RTA does not apply here, so there is no such thing as car keeper having to give you the information of who was driving the car. They can simply say - it wasn't me and it is CPS job to prove otherwise (presumption of innocence)... it is hard enough to prove it using evidence provided by public, but it is completely impossible to prove it evidence itself contain such inaccuracies as time/date being invalid or not present. In short using dashcam footage to police the streets is very optimistic, it may work if you get onto fool and they just admit to everything, but as soon as it is challenged it is very difficult to prove in court. The standard for proving criminal offence is very high and dashcam footage is simply not enough.

The andoid clones are not only far easier to retrofit, because they specifically designed to fit old vehicle with old wiring, but as well they are far far superior than newer Lexus system i.e. they support Apple Car Play and android Auto, they have native google maps which are more accurate and native traffic alert feature which is just on another level from Lexus Navigation. In short, what I am saying - trying to buy newer model (facelift) sat-nav is little bit pointless, because it not only going to cost far more, it is incompatible and inferior in function to relatively cheap Chinese android clones. Now since you have bought it already I don't know what to suggest, you either need to find the correct wiring, or you need to find diagrams for wiring and somebody who can make it (if you can't do it yourself). I have looked into my archive of Lexus workshop manuals and wiring diagrams, but I don't have one for facelift Lexus NX. Other option - you can try selling it and buying android copy which not only going to work, but it will be cheaper and better.

I have been on couple of those and it is frankly a joke. So last time I got invitation I filled in the form and receive the call from Lexus GB, lady on the phone took my details and asked what cars I am interested in etc. I said RC-F and LC, she then set the time for me for Saturday 2PM and said she will make sure both cars will be available for test drive... so far so good. What I was expecting - glass of Champagne, maybe some snacks and dozen or so cars (not LC obviously, but in total) which they want to get rid of and which they willing to agreed good deals for. Came Saturday, I got to my Lexus dealer and there is nothing special about the day... sat in 7 people queue until receptionist came to me and I explained here why I am there. It took literally an hour before salesperson came to me saying "what car you are interested in?" He had no clue FFS! So I had to explain him again why I am there. He looked like he is literally hearing this for the first time in his life and then explained that they do not have either of the cars available. Thanks for wasting my time I guess. In the end we gone through few option they have available in franchise and all of them were exceptionally bad deals. Eventually, dealership MD came around and he had LC500, so I was offered a test drive, so I guess that was the only positive, by complete accident. In the end they sort of took note of what I want - in nutshell higher miles car where mileage is represented in price (I am just cheapskate like that) and it has to be black/white with red interior...They said they will call me when they have something in stock... this was January 2020 and I haven't had the call since. I assume no care came to match mi criteria 😄 In short - what are "Lexus VIP events"... just fancy name for semi-warm calling people they have on record as Lexus owners and trying them into dealership. There are no special deals or anything like that, they just want you in the dealership, because higher "footfall" means statistically more purchases. Now I am sure that if I wanted IS300h, or CT200h, or NX/UX they would have had something more to offer. Secondly, it was start of Covid conditions, not yet full lockdown but maybe that is what made it unusual. As for ES... I am very critical about that car as frankly it isn't even Lexus and it is very obvious. Cheap hard plastics inside, overall build quality not bad (it is Toyota after all), but it does not feel luxurious at all. Ride as well is are one would expect 300h to drive, but both IS300h and GS300h are far better cars form driving perspective and more luxurious. If you really interested I have recently seen ES300h Takumi (I guess that is what you mean by Premier) in Lexus Reading. Not sure regarding the price as it is new car on their dealership floor, 200 miles on the clock.

Non-sense. Best option is not to drive DERV vehicle which is fundamentally dirty. And removing the emissions equipment is not only illegal, but as well immoral. Sure your engine will be better off and you get better MPG, but that is at cost of simply allowing pollution to leave your car untreated. @Aaron G - it is great video, although I don't think people made right conclusion out of it. Yes all emissions control systems hurts the performance and efficiency of the diesel engine, but it is not because they are bad, it is because diesel engine is fundamentally bad. As clearly explained in the video, it is normal for "well running" diesel engine to emit high amounts of NOx and some DPM/Soot, neither are good for health so it just makes sense that something has to be done with this pollution... hence EGR was introduced. Is EGR good solution? No absolutely because we talking about the engine which is fundamentally bad and we trying to fix the symptoms and not the issue. The solution is not to remove the overcomplicated mess of emissions equipment, but not to buy DERV car in the first place.

The information provided above just goes to prove what I am saying. 1-2% results in Court Appearance, meaning 98-99% can't be prosecuted. Why? That is because just having dashcam record most often (98-99% of the time) is not sufficient evidence. Yes in my case it was accident which caused damage to me personally, so obviously I was willing to attend the court, but I feel CPS made multiple procedural errors in the way they handled the case. As I said, video captured by public is not great evidence, if there is solid case against suspect then video is just a cherry on the top, but if there is no cake to begin with, then there is no point in having the cherry 🙂 Where dashcam works however, is in opposite way - proving that you were not at fault (as per LenT example, and I had 2 incidents like that myself). So if in the case I mentioned above, the other driver would have stopped and accused me of being at fault, I would have won the case with ease. But the other driver didn't bother stopping and made it very difficult to prove it the other way around. The lesson I have learned in this case - don't bother with police, because they are useless unless there are injuries. What I should have done, I should have gone straight to claims management company, because it was clearly non-fault case... and they would have simply taken all the damages from Third Party insurer. Police just wasted my time and then buried the case in their incompetence.

Not effective at all, because they are not considered as an evidence in majority of cases. If somebody crashes into you before driving through the red light, or if you capture car hitting the pedestrian and leaving - yes that may count. But if you take video of people speeding (in particular) or even driving through the red light, or committing other types of traffic offences it does not count. I know far a fact prosecution in such cases will fail. Police may take it as evidence and may try to prosecute, but that is because police have no clue about the law. As well it depends on the suspect - if they simply admit, then it may work, but if they challenge the evidence it will fail. So what is the difference between the first example and second? Well in first example you have recorded incident and the time it is recorded is evidence if police actually attends the the incident (in case of hit and run it is unlikely, in case of injured pedestrian it is likely), the video itself just comes together with the report as additional information. However, if you just submit the video to police, the timestamp on the video invalidates it right away - simply because there is no way to prove the time stamp is correct and if time is not correct, then evidence is not valid. Here is example from my personal experience - guy hit my car driving through red light and run away,I had it on camera, police refused to attend, then they dropped the case as "not in public interest to investigate" 3 times, eventually they agreed to investigate it when I threatened to sue the police itself for neglecting their duties and then CPS lost the case in Magistrates court as it could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt despite dashcam video. I don't know the details as they didn't call me as a witness, but I am quite confident it failed because police failed to attend and record the details. In short - video recorded by public rarely counts as evidence in criminal cases, most serious driving offences are criminal and thus dashcam footage is not good enough evidence.

Should not forget - the government which is quite openly committing genocide... yes it is very good point, being owned by Geely, which is basically subsidiary of PLA is certainly one more reason to avoid the brand. To make it more visual - this guy (de-facto Volvo owner) certainly does not look like supporter of democratic values: