Linas.P

I need to correct you here - hopefully it will be useful information. First of all, cows/cattle of any sort - do NOT produce Co2 (well they do produce some by breathing, but this is not what we talking about here), they instead produce Methane and methane is 25 times more potent greenhouse gas than Co2. Secondly, farming in it's entirety produces ~16% of global emissions, so maybe that is what you mean by "cows" in very simplified form? In either case, when we look at emissions from the industry, then all the emissions are converted into "equivalent to Co2", meaning that methane emitted by cows is already within that 16% farming emissions number, cattle in particular will be like 1-2%, which ironically is about the same as the cars. Now interestingly, unlike Co2 (inert gas) Methane is flammable and could be captured and used, and has been captured and used (just not from the cows, but from landfills) to generate heat and electricity. As well by burning Methane it is converted into Co2, which reduces the emissions by 25 times. Either way - transportation and agriculture are far from the biggest issues. I would reiterate that production of energy is ~25% and industry (manufacturing/building) is 40%, so that is where we want to start if we want to make most impact. And in the industry 90% of pollution is energy use and maybe 10% are the raw materials themselves. So if we get our energy clean and carbon neutral, then we can cut emissions right there by 25% + 36%, + another ~6% from home heating/cooling, and I am not even counting electric cars, or trains or street lighting etc. Now - 2/3rds of the issue or 67% is sizeable change and I would argue is worth the effort to tackle, hence I keep banking on about fusion energy. Renewables are not it, simply because for this saving to be achievable we need abundant energy, renewables themselves are first of all "low carbon", not "carbon neutral" and secondly they are scarce energy sources which requires as to reduce energy use and therefore cannot be used on large scale. Now obviously if we get fusion energy then emissions becomes moot point, we can simply capture carbon is we have abundant cheap energy, we can make those fancy synthetic fuels from biomass effectively in carbon neutral way, everything we make becomes carbon neutral so consumption cases being an issue etc. etc. And if this is where the money is going to go, then I would be fine with that, fine without NHS, fine without education, fine without roads being maintained until we get clean every, because that at least is going to be worth the sacrifice.

I didn't mean to say e-fuel is bad idea. What I am saying is that this in principle defeats the ban, because there is no way to check if you have e-fuel or not e-fuel. I guess in theory they could use similar system like "green" or "red" diesel, where diesel destined for farmers had a dye and was taxed differently and when people buy "e-fuel" only car they would have to only fill-it up with e-fuel or else get fine... but the whole point of the ban was to phase out what they believe was "dirty combustion engines", yet they now are saying - as long as it runs e-fuel it is fine (which is fine by me), but it is just kind of funny. So in principle this is now turning from engine technology ban, to fuel source ban... which probably was right way of doing it in the first place, except there are no current plans to to ban natural fuels. Anyhow - from my point of view this is a WIN... how it turns out to be in the end I don't know, but the ICE ban is old news - not gonna happen.

That was kind of my point... manufacturers adjust the speedometer over-read on the largest wheel/tyre they planning to sell the car with and the all the smaller wheels then end-up over-reading by more, but generally the difference between the sizes are too small to take them out of the compliance. At least that would be consistent to my experience, where the model with largest wheels available from manufacturer usually has least difference between stated and real speed.

I honestly doubt it sends shivers trough anyone's spines - I believe auto industry is step ahead of that, otherwise they wouldn't have been lobbying for reversal of the so useful ban which would have compelled everyone to switch to BEV. In the end of the day they realised it was exactly that "high brow hobby of leftish intellectuals, the press and politicians" and they were happy to play along whilst it granted them subsidies, tax breaks and sales. However as the date is looming closer and closer (and in the business strategy 2030-40 isn't that far), they realised that if plans were to go ahead they would go bust. The reality was always that climate neutrality was fringe idea, there were never majority in support of it... or at least not willing to sacrifice their freedoms and life-quality to achieve it. I must admit - that is where I stand, I am in principle supportive of environmental protection, if there is something obvious that can help I will do it, you know I am not burning tyres or dumping them to the bushes, and after picnic I pick-up my rubbish and take them away with me (and I am surprised how rare this is and how many people are happy to leave mess after themselves), BUT I am not planning to sacrifice anything important, especially for some far fetched goals of reducing 0.2C temperature increase which might happen 200 years after my children are dead. And all in all, all the steps I have taken to reduce the amount of waste I generate as a human I think is well above average, but even I cannot accept the sacrifice which would be required for carbon neutrality. And I think on the scale I would already be in that liberal/lefties sector. So I would imagine in the society as a whole support is even lower. This whole Greta and friends farce have very little support worldwide, they are a typical "screaming minority", they generate loads of noise but silent majority doesn't really care much about it. I think all this is just finally becoming clearer, but make no mistake - after gender politics and climate crisis, there will be some other fad which will take our attention away from real issues for 10 years.

Fine, but how do you propose that will work in practice? In the end of the day e-fuels are in principle same long carbohydrates chains as natural fuels. Sure - in the lab it is possible to tell which one is natural and which one is synthetic as later tend to be purer and more uniform in molecular structure. Although natural oil can be refined further as well if needed (it is same material in principle), the difference is only that with synthetic fuel that is what you get by default, but natural fuel would require extra step of refinement. As well e-fuels burns the same as natural fuels, so there would be no noticeable difference in emissions (in theory again synthetic fuel could burn better as it burns more uniformly), the difference is just that energy used to make e-fuels comes from renewable sources, but the end product is basically 99.99% same. So unless they propose to fit microscope and send the details to the lab after every refuel and you locked out of it whilst they are trying to figure out what fuel you put into it... there is no way to tell. And by the way if that fuel gets contaminated for any reason then you will be locked out of your car forever as nobody will be able to say if it is synthetic or natural. In most simple terms they crated the biggest, widest and tallest backdoor in the ban that was possible. And what this means is that there are no ban on the engines anymore practically speaking, so it will all comedown to phasing out of the oil based fuels (something similar as to what happened with leaded fuel phaseout). I am fine with that in principle, except the point that it is basically a greenwash, but between that and dystopian communist rule I will take greenwash any day.

To help to get on track - there is actually update to this story: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-reaches-deal-with-eu-future-use-combustion-engines-2023-03-25/ Basically, EU has agreed to allow combustion engine cars to be made "if they run on e-fuels". Which let me just be very clear about it - means there will be NO BAN. I mean I can tell political shaite from the miles on and this is purest and slinkiest type of it. To be clear - I completely welcome this outcome as it is indeed in my interest and what I wanted to happen, however the agreement they have reached is clearly designed to mislead the public and set unrealistic expectations... on the good side - grass eating and cycling vegetables are very gullible so they will accept this as success and move on (not they already started demonstrating, so I think this has help to reach decisions quickly). But I want to be clear this may come back to bite us in the back side soon. So let's unpack it - ICEVs will be allowed to be made if they run on e-fuels... That basically means no ban, because all and every ICEV can run on e-fuels, it is not a matter of engine technology, it is a matter of fuel technology. Even the Ford Model-T can run on e-fuel and even older cars... as well illustrated by this video (linked below). Now I have heard different quote form the agreement - and it is "the cars that ONLY can run on e-fuel will be allowed for sales". But the point remains the same - all ICE cars can run on e-fuel, so it will be mere marketing trick which going to say "this car should only run on e-fuel", no different to current statement "this care is designed to use premium fuel". Furthermore, there are no current plants to ban either diesel or petrol, because clearly even by 2035 there will still be millions of old cars needing to refuel, so combination of new cars which can run on both e-fuel and natural fuel, availability of both fuels for sale again just means that ban cannot be enforced in any way. And that is pretty much the EU proposal. The second video I wanted to post is kind of meme and to be fair I don't like Mr. Kennedy... nor his world views, but here he nails the nail on the head. It will cost $50 Trillion to make US carbon neutral and the impact on global warming is likely to be from negligible to none. Imagine what other things $50 trillion can do. Just think about. Build permanent base and move human race to permanent habitation of the Moon and probably Mars and there probably would still be change left for fusion rectors (estimated $1 Trillion for Moon mission and Mars is very Roughly estimated to be 10-20 times more challenging, not clear how much more costly), I am not even talking about mere things like eliminating ending hunger in the world. As well if divided equally it can end the poverty in the world, all world can have free education and free healthcare, and free public transportation for over 100 years. That is just FEW things we can do with $50 Trillion... and what vegetables want to do with it is just to turn US in dystopian carbon neutral grass eating country. Look - it is just money, but the opportunity cost of $50 Trillion is huge and I just can't see how spending it on "carbon neutral" is justifiable. And remember - that is just US alone, presumably EU would have to spend just as much if not more (double the population, higher costs - so I would assume 150 Trillion Euro to achieve the same)!

Would still start even without the belt, especially considering the battery is new. But definitely good thing to check before it needs another battery. Other suggestion just came to mind - do you hear fuel pump priming. Try pressing the start button without pressing the brake, so press one - steering wheel comes out (acc on), press two dash lights-up and you should hear the buzzing sound from rear seat area (ig on). Fuel pumps do fail on these cars so that could be plausible explanation (well... on all cars with age really, but in Lexus is just cost more money to fix).

As well it is often important to consider the largest wheels size that was available for the car. For example if Lexus IS250 came with 16", 17" and 18" wheels, then speedometer will be adjusted for 18" wheels (as manufacturer cannot legally sell car which indicates less speed than it is actually doing, thus they have to use largest wheel as reference) at which point it will probably overread by 5%, but if you get lower spec car with 16" wheels then the difference is likely to be 10%.

I was told it is impossible to "flood" DI cars. If it had some petrol in the pistons preventing it from firing straight away, then simply continuing to crank would clear it out. So basically you just need to continue cranking until it starts. Pressing accelerator trick would work, because that presumably opens Throttle to let more air in and it shouldn't "flood" the engine any further because accelerator pedal does not actually controls how much fuel get's injected, just advises ECU that you want it to increase RPM. Stupid suggestions comes into mind - does it actually have fuel? Could it be misfiled (very unlikely for petrol).

Fob battery? Try putting the key fob to the start button. Do you have a spare key fob?

It is required by law, so no standard car is ever spot on. They overstate by as little as 3% to as much as 10%, up-to I believe 250KMH/155MPH, after that they ca overstate by more. If you had for example car with bigger then standard wheels then it is possible the speedometer was about right or even understate the speed, would be quite unusual for normal car but is quite common for off-roading community where fitting significantly larger off-road wheels is common. Most of Lexus cars in my experience always been on the upper end ~7-10%.

Won't cry about it - I am 90% confident they will fit... but that 10% is your own risk! Not really, because wheel design is so personal choice. As well the wheels that would definitely fit would all be from other Lexus models (namely RC or GS), but stock Lexus wheels are very heavy, they are durable but very heavy. Aftermarket wheels are either very expensive, or outright dangerous, or are not available in right offsets etc. Frankly Lexus aftermarket is nearly non-existent, so finding something that you both like, can afford and fits the car is not simple.

Those are good tyres, maybe even overkill (depends on whenever they are Asymmetric 3, 4, 5 or even 6?), but depends on perspective I guess - at one time I had Michelin PS4 and that was overkill, nowadays I would fit something like Goodyer Efficient Grip 2, something more touring and less UHP. IS easily takes 19 inch wheels and the only thing to consider is tyre width in front (235 seems to be a limit, with +10 offset wheels maybe 245, but not more than that), remember that RC which shares a lot of components with IS (even if RC front suspension is from GS) came standard with 19 inch and RC wheels would be direct fit on mk3 IS. So as far as suspension is concerned 19 inch wheels would be fine. Now the reason I am saying downside rather than upsize is all to do with weight - the larger is the wheel, the heavier it is and the further the weight is from the hub... you know all the sprung and unstrung mass contributes to car dynamics a lot. So basically if the goal is to get the cars as responsive as possible, then ideally you should consider as small and as light wheels as possible and I think 17 inch is about perfect for that, many not expensive options, yet they still big enough to clear the callipers etc. As well smaller wheel circumference makes it easier to accelerate (so lower top speed, but quicker acceleration in theory). In practice the difference would be tiny.. 0.2s maybe if lucky... Now I get it - the looks would be ruined by 17 inch, but the questions is where you want to make compromises. For 19 inch you would definitely need to lower it as otherwise it would look like on the stilts. Wheels spacers definitely good idea on the rear as otherwise they look anaemic, just make sure to get hubcentric spacers, or else your wheel may overtake you. As far as GSF bushings I honestly don't know, but if they fit IS mk2 (which they do), then they should fit mk3, very little has changed in drivetrain and suspension in mk3. F-Sport had optional dynamic dampers, but that is about all that changed, so I pretty confident the bushing should fit, but don't quote me on that.

Happy to hear it helped. Your car being Premier, consider getting maybe used F-Sport airbox and look around for the guides, F-Sport airbox has a hole and a tube to cabin to give more intake sound. Secondly, you could consider cutting out of replacing resonator which goes over rear axle (the exhaust goes into single pipe over axle and into resonator, at least on mk2 it did), as far as I am concerned that resonator doesn't do anything apart of making car quieter, so not much is lost be removing it and if the rest of exhaust is kept as it is then it shouldn't drone either. Alternatively - keep the resonator and replace back-boxes for smaller straight or turbo design, the potential for drone is there, but they would sound more aggressive than just removing resonator. Obviously, the loudest option is to do both of those things, but then you guaranteed to have a drone - cool at first, painful after 2 weeks (guess how I know), so not recommended. Just to be very clear - these 2 mods doesn't add ANY HP, maybe 2HP, maybe even loses 2HP... but they would make the car sound better and therefore "feel" faster. And secondly - this has no impact on emissions, 4 cats are in the front of exhaust and it is better not to touch them for many reason. I would not advise K&N filter, all it did to me was to ruin my MAF... Now I am not saying it is fault of K&N, maybe I oiled it wrong, or didn't oil it in time, but the fact is that K&N filters as far as filtration goes are worse, and that oiling them is faff. As far as the airflow goes... frankly it is irrelevant for IS250 (definitely adds no power) and as far as sound goes... I thought it sounded better, but maybe it was placebo. Anyhow I would do F-Sport airbox mod before I do K&N filter. Sparkplugs on IS250 are already Iridium anyway, so there isn't really any upgrade you can get for them. So what is left are as you mentioned - intake/exhaust/cosmetic mods/sound. Other thing to consider - suspension, lighter wheels and good tyres... If anything good tyres probably is the thing that could improve IS250 the most... if you as well pair it with some light weight and maybe slightly smaller wheels, that may actually help the car to accelerate quicker. But anyway we are talking miniscule improvements here. it is not VAG or BMW diesel where you slap the ECU tune and suddenly there is 100 more horses out of nowhere, but on other hand it is not VAG or BMW where after 40k miles you need to do full engine rebuild because Germans in their infinite wisdom makes parts like cam cover and water-pumps from plastic.

I guess first thing is to find out what the issues is... If that is AMP dying (which would be similar to the way ML AMPs starts to die i.e. work at first after ignition, and then stop working after some time) then not much you can do short of replacing it. I don't believe AMP/AV is under warranty (if you have Relax), but if you play it smart then they may at least diagnose it for free and tell you what is wrong and how much it will cost to replace. The actual way it stops working may indicate cooling issue i.e. starts cold, when you play music it heats-up and shuts down, so I would check that ventilation is not covered and that fan is working (not actually sure if RC AMP has fan, but most of ML AMPs did). The other question is why it is dying - in older SC/LS (the first cars to receive ML) it used to be just substandard components failing on the AMP or AMP overheating or both, IS had a drain flap which would get stuck and AMP would be water damaged, overheating as well was an issue (I believe I have seen reports of fan failing, or being blocked), RX/NX had drain issues with sunroof again flooding AMP (I am not saying any of these issues common, but they are the "common" between uncommon), but for RC I have not heard any particular reason why the AMP would be failing. So I guess first of all you need to find out what is failing, secondly why it is failing. It could be something as loose connection somewhere, or corrosion on connectors, but my guess is as good as anyone else's.

On 4GR-FSE (that is the engine in your car) not possible - don't waste the time thinking about it and don't waste money trying to do it. I simply cannot be done. And I don't only mean ECU cannot be mapped, which is true - it is locked and cannot be mapped and people who say it can are just lying, but as well that even if you get fully unlocked ECU, or replace it with aftermarket ECU (£1000+£500) there is simply no power to be found in the engine. There is no earnings to speak about on NA engines in general, you can "tune" anything you like out of them, but there is nothing to be gained. On NA engine the only way to make more power is to change the hardware... meaning - pistons, rings, rods, valves, boring out to higher displacement, then upgrading injectors, intake, exhaust... and only then you can do ECU tuning to "unlock" the power you gained from hardware. On Turbo engines that is different story - more boost = more air + more fuel = more power, big gains are possible with simple ECU tune until your rods hits the oil pan. On naturally aspirated car you just can't do it. I was at one point toying with idea of simply raising the RPM, sure at 8500 engine may grenade itself, but it would work in theory... the problem is that you will only make extra power in the new RPM range - so ~7250 to say 8250... It works well for race cars on the track, but it is simply not usable range on the road. Likewise gearbox can't be tuned, it is simple 6-Speed Automatic Torque converted box, it shifts as fast as it can already, there is nothing to be gained. If you want less comfortable and less predictable gearshifts just press "sport" button and that is more or less what the "gearbox tune" can achieve. Now I believe A760E (gearbox in IS350) can be "manualised" meaning new chip/module is installed and it works like sequential manual gearbox, it does not override and it stays in gear you selected. That makes no difference on how quickly it shifts, but it could give a "feeling" that you are more in control, basically if you selected 2nd it will stay in second no matter what. However, I don't believe anyone officially does it on A960E (that is the gearbox in your car), because in Aisin boxes the lower number denotes the higher power rating, so A760E is in that sense superior to A960E and can hold more power. Now they are same design and very similar electronically, so I assume that whatever mods are done to "manualise" A760E would work on A960E, the reason it is not done is that A960E is simply not strong enough box to handle it. So no engine remap, no gearbox remap. I do believe ETC can be made more responsive, but it is kind of pointless because it doesn't give you more power and as it is electronic it does not move any faster anyway, so all the same can be achieved by simply pressing accelerator further. Note as well that with ETC what your foot does on the pedal is literally just suggestion, ECU may accept it or it may not, you cannot override it either. If you want faster car, then you need different car. Sorry to say it but I had 4 IS250s myself (mk2, but that does not matter, they are identical as far as engine, gearbox and ECU are concerned, mk2 is even a little bit faster because it is lighter) and if there was one thing I could change about IS250 then it would be slightly more power. Not crazy amount but say 270hp and something like 6.5s 0-60 would make it perfect, sadly it is not achievable. I know somebody will come around and say "SUPERCHARGER"... Yeah sure - for £6000-£9000 you can get many lights on the dash indicating that your car will explode soon. It won't explode, but you will never get the lights off the dash (apart of tape trick) and secondly - do you really want to spend as much as the car itself to get ~280-300hp? At least on IS350 I understand it - with supercharger they get to 450hp and because they are lighter it makes them as fast as IS-F, but on IS250 it is all downsides and no benefits in my opinion. Certainly the power you get from supercharger is not worth the investment.

Yeah, definitely a good option and massive upgrade from Brigestones. I personally never had Contis on my car either, as it happens they never work out the best value for money when I am in the market for new set (usually is either front or the rear just happens to be much more expensive then would be reasonable to expect), but likewise based on feedback sound like they are making many good tyres. It will be interesting to hear how they do.

Very sad news indeed, took me a couple of days to process. Although I have never known John personally, it feels like the passing of a great friend just based on a few discussions we had on the forum, cannot even begin to imagine how sad it is for people who actually were close to him. John has always been the person who brought the sense of calmness and common sense into any discussion, was sincerely respected and will be greatly missed in the forum. First of all condolences to the family and strength in this difficult time and secondly I wish him to rest in peace.

Cannot agree more - intent is key. That is why it is very surprising to me as non-British that in UK you put drivers in prisons. In most of the world accidents happen and accidents are considered accidents, drivers almost NEVER go to prison even where death is involved. Sure I think punishments were tightening in many places and now it is not unusual for drunk drivers to go to prison, especially where accident result in death. But I still believe intent is key, normally drivers when they are driving they are no out there to hurt anyone, even if they are tired, or if the looked at the phone or even if they had one too many drinks, intent is simply not there to begin with and by the way just to be very clear - I am not saying they should not be punished. All I am saying is that they should be punished with clear distinction between accident and planned, premediated murder. In UK this line seems to be blurred, this is one of the reasons why I often say UK society just hates drivers more than any other society I know - somehow in UK driving the car is in itself considered an intent to hurt people (which again is not the case in other countries). Now totally different case is when thief is running from police - here intent is clear, it is not an accident and it should not be viewed as such. Yet somehow perspectives are completely mixed-up... the argument goes almost like "he wasn't violent and didn't intend to hurt anyone, he was 'just' steeling the car and if not for police chasing him, he wouldn't have run"... so it ends-up like just a "victimless" crime and just material damage, all insured, nothing to worry about. Therefore only materiality is taken into account and not intent. And I have seen crimes often playing out this way in courts. Which is just bizarre to watch. As well, as I mentioned I have a theory why in UK the situation is getting worse. You made some very valid points about generally deteriorating socioeconomic situation, family bonds, lack of role models... I probably haven't considered them all, but indeed they must be playing significant part. My theory was more along the line of lacking discipline in childhood (like parents not being allowed to punish their kids), lack of responsibility early on - under 14 kids are pretty much untouchable in the law and finally lack of enforcement for small crimes (I would call it "small crime small punishment" approach). Basically when I was growing-up there was always lingering risk of getting whipped with the belt, not that I was whipped many time (I can probably think about 2 times), not that I necessary been punished fairly, but the knowledge that this is an option really helped with mental development. Secondly, I lived in society where no crime was too small to investigate and punish and no crime went unpunished. For example if 10-years old would have stolen a pack of sweets from the shop they would not get away with it, the security would catch them, detain them, call police, police would take them to the station, lock them-up, call the parents and parents would have massive embarrassment, pay the fine and this would be on one hand "big deal", on other hand it would not go to any record and apart of being embarrassing and scary (and probably would result in some whipping with belt) would not have any lasting consequences for life. And that is the key - we don't want to ruin young people lives with criminal records, we just want to tech the the lesson... and this whole thing is completely missing in UK, teens under 14 can freely steal from shot, they are untouchable by security, they are mostly untouchable by police, they are untouchable by parents and they simply never learn. Small crimes grows to large crimes... one day they steal chocolate, the next day pack of cigarettes, the year later they already mugging people, two years latter they are burglars or car thieves or drug dealers. If the their crimes crimes would have been stopped when they were small and punishment would have been inconsequential, they would have had an opportunity to learn from their mistakes, now they don't have a chance to learn before it is way too late, before the crimes becomes so serious that it results in criminal record and prison sentences. And yes - this is "slippery slope theory", but it is scary to admit how often it leads to very sad outcomes and works exactly as I described. And here by the way I think it is very important what you mentioned - family, role models etc. Kids from complete families, with role models and caring parents have an opportunity to avoid this, perhaps shop security didn't do anything, police didn't do anything, but in tight family truth eventually comes out and there are consequences, parents takes things in their hands, they probably can't beat kids in UK, but they can still embarrass them in major way, like taking them to the shop where they stolen something and forcing them to apologise, to pay for things they stolen, then to limit their budget, freedoms, gaming times, meeting friends, outright deny them meeting friends who are likely leading them to bad decisions. Role models as well helps them survive peer pressure - because when your father is educated and honest person and drives new car and your mates father is criminal and has nothing, then it is not hard to reach conclusion that crime is probably not a good life choice (sad reality in UK is that this is usually opposite - honest working father is probably using public transport and criminal drug dealer is the one driving new merc). Anyhow - they point is that family bonds and role models and parenting can help kids to make right choices, even where society and police fails. However, kids from poor families, incomplete families or with mental issues have no chance - they get on this slippery slope, start small, end-up big and when the consequences are lifechanging. And by the way putting someone in prison has no effect of re-educating them, if anything prisons acts almost like "criminal universities", people go into prison after relatively small crimes, in prison they meet gangs, they learn criminal craft and they come out even more dangerous and even more willing to do crime. And all that is before we even start discussing how criminals are absolutely taking advantage of the legal system working just below the threshold of prosecution or serious sentence...

I think it has a lot to do with the points made by Dave above. I would add a little bit more to that... so when it comes to prosecuting crimes there in my view are 3 layers - police (investigation and evidence), courts (judging the case) and laws (what are the actual penalties, sentences, burden of evidence). In my view all 3 are completely defective in UK or simply does not serve the purpose, or lacks flexibility. I would say one of the key failings of UK system is that it does not consider and does not have mechanisms to deal with the sc** of the earth types i.e. if you are normal, working and decent person, then existing legal system will crush you to death for minor mistake (like going 10 miles above speed limit), you get the fine, you get the points, you won't be able to insure with the points and you will end-up taking your own life away with sleeping pills (hyperbole). In short it will ruin your day, your week and your life for actually being decent person making minor mistake. However, if you are already a sc** who has no job, no insurance, has been in jail multiple times and you simply don't give a shaite about the law, because you have no work, no home, no family to lose - then they can't do anything to you. People like this goes to court and say - "f... you, I was driving drunk without insurance and I will continue doing it... what you going to put me in jail for that... go ahead"... and they get 6 month suspended sentence and £1000 fine which they not going to ever pay. The point is - law is not flexible enough to take care of them and I guess society at large has failed by allowing them to become what they are (and I have theories why it happens), the police knows that there aren't any real way to enforce the rules within the law, so they actually do not care to collect evidence and properly investigate, because honestly that would be waste of time anyway as the courts won't judge the case in the way that achieves anything, the end result when the case gets to the court the evidence is not great and 50% of the times crimes not even "proven beyond reasonable doubt" or when they are the sentencing does not reflect the crime. Two real examples here: 1. Truck driver fell asleep delivering good early in the morning, crashed into cars queuing before the slip road, wiped out like 6 cars, but fortunately there were no deaths, few people had minor injuries- sentence 5 years in prison for dangerous driving, causing damage when driving without due care and attention, causing injury when driving without due care and attention, 12 Month mandatory ban, I believe £8000 fine. Not suspended, he actually went to prison. And for what? For being tired, overworked, providing for the family and making a honest mistake of "being tired"?! His life is fc**** and when he comes out of prison after say 3 years (I am sure he can get paroled etc.) what are his perspectives, he can't drive truck anymore because sentenced criminal with previous driving ban will never get insurance... 2. a well known car thief who had multiple suspended sentences, who been in prison multiple times was spotted driving stolen car, try to run away, after high speed chase he finally lost control of the car in the city centre, luckily there was some fencing, so he mounted the pavement and got stuck in that fence, then run on foot for some time and was finally apprehended somewhere in the forest when helicopter with thermal camera spotted him. Result - new BMW totally destroyed, 3 police cars damaged, dozen of police officers chasing him not doing other important work, helicopter crew is like £50k/hour... goes to court, gets 2.5 years sentence, suspended, but goes to jail for 1 year because of pervious unspent sentence. Like what the f! How does truck driver deserves 5 years for mistake, whereas this guy was clearly deliberate and violent and only gets... well basically nothing, because the 1 year he spent in prison was from some previous crime?! And sure he got some fine... but that is irrelevant because he is not paying anyway, or if he is then it will be from criminal proceeds. And I mean it would be silly to even ask - obviously he has no license and no insurance (on stolen car)... So that is just to illustrate, how criminals are getting away, because as I said - once they have nothing to lose, the law is not flexible enough to deal with them, because the key assumption in law is that it is dealing with decent people and I would argue it is already too harsh and unnecessary to achieve the goals, yet when dealing with criminals it is not harsh enough and achieves nothing. In summary - I think the issue is outdated and rigid laws, which lax flexibility and it does not allow for human factor to mediate the appropriate sentencing.

As long as they are the same e.g. with ML or without ML, and generally should be similar year (there are specific ranges like 2005-2009)... So whenever it is diesel or petrol doesn't really matter, but there are still quite a few different versions of the unit and you need to make sure you get the same one as yours. Easiest way I guess would be to remove yours, check the part numbers and search for those particular ones. Even better - get android unit, it will cost less money and it is 100 times better. If mine would fail that is what I would do.

Ok... what I mean is that continuing incompetence is not strictly an "austerity policy". As I said I generally agree that roads and to be honest everything else is not becoming better, but it is more of issue of corruption, laziness, incompetence etc. than it is a well thought out policy. At least austerity had a clear and measurable goal (that was reducing budget deficit), nowadays we are increasing deficit, yet we still don't spend anything on any core areas of economy. Saying it is anti-democratic thinking kind of implies that we live in democracy, which I am sorry to say but we are not. And I do agree that the "western way of governing" is still the best way that human race ever had, but it is kind of far from being actually democratic, or even representative-democracy. I personally would describe UK system as parliamentary-dictatorship (also known as elective or executive dictatorship) and it is very evident, simply said our supposed "representatives" do not represent shaite - they get elected and then they dictate what they want to do, not what they were elected to represent. Let's now look at the tactical voting... okey... what is out goal? to bring down Tories? Sure that may work and what is next? Get Labour in? What is going to change? We going to have another 15 years of the same shaite and then we do some tactical voting and bring Liberals in... and what that achieves? Tories and Labour already woke enough. My point is - it is not about ruling party, they issue is more fundamental, our system is rotten from it's core, there are no checks and balances, the elected "representatives" faces no consequences for lying, no consequences for corruption, even outright crimes. They are literally above the law... okey maybe they not going to get away with murder or rape, but apart of most extreme crimes they can get away with pretty much anything else. Most importantly for democratic system - they can promise things and never deliver and with first past the post they still getting back into power, despite not delivering anything and usually only based on maybe two topical issues of the day... which they still don't resolve. Simply said - there are no consequences for anything, so why do we expect them to do right thing?! Basically I am saying it is naive to believe they are there to represent anyone but themselves and their own interests... it is called "politics" for a reason - nothing good ever comes out of it.

This baffled me as well... everyone worked from home, everything was done, project even delivered early. During first lock down when people actually still gave a shaite the pollution dropped by like 40%... but then suddenly "eat out to help out", let's go back to the offices and help economy... wait a second... didn't we wanted to save environment? Isn't the commuting just to sit in front of different (or in my case.. literally the same) screen is really worth 2 wasted hours and a lot of pollution? I literally said that to my previous manager - so you removed company cars, company parking, you keep promoting cycling etc. and greenwashing BS "delete old emails, because 100 e-mails = 2g of Co2" then you want to protect environment, but when you suddenly have reduction of 40% when people work from home... you suddenly don't like that?! As for temperature... I am not denying it is increasing, but this planet had all sorts of temperatures, colder and hotter and planet honestly doesn't give a shaite. Changing temperature indeed will impact some crops and some areas and some people, but the change is gradual enough for us to adapt. It will have various impacts, some good and some not so good, but it is far from end of the world some are predicting, not even close to be fair. I do agree that all what is being done now is mostly greenwashing, including ICEV bans and likely we won't achieve anything anyway... how could we when we not addressing like 90%+ of the problem? And that is why I am not planning to surrender even last little joy I have revving my engine, because frankly it does not matter when our entire economic model is unsustainable. Why it is unsustainable? Because it is based on exponential increase in GDP as if resources are infinite, but they are finite and therefore the whole model of perpetual growth is fundamentally unsustainable. As I said before there are some solution for our issue, like nuclear fusion, but short of that I see all other measures kind of pointless. Why should I sacrifice finite number of years I have left in my life and suffer if it is in vane? Yet the elites continues to fly private, buy yachts, fly VAT except helicopters and eat tax exempt caviar. And by the way - they create these fake virtues like "caring what will happen to future generations"... in fact it is not natural for people to care what happens after their death, maybe some immediate aftermath, like having a will and dividing your estate to your kids and family you care about and love... but beyond that... I honestly doubt anyone truly cares what happens. I know people claim they do - "future generations and the planet etc. etc."... but generally speaking I would say I only trust the actions and never just words... and actions do not indicate any realistic care about anything. Again - if I needed to make minor adjustments of what I do and it is not a matter of being worse off, just a matter of doing things differently and that something truly helps future generations... then why not, I will do it, I don't want to deliberately ruin the planet for them (despite our predecessors really not doing it for us)... but if we talking about major inconvenience (and BEVs and veganism sounds exactly like one) and no certainty it will help (or rather it being outright obvious it won't)... then sorry I unsubscribe from this plan. When government going to find actually realistic plan which minimises inconvenience then I will be sure to follow it, but for now it is just bunch of shaite. Generally agree, but I just wanted to point out that it has NOTHING to do with austerity. It is simply matter of prioritisation... Austerity policy has ended with Cameron leaving... that was 2016... 5 years later has anything changed? No... they not only not fixing the roads, they continue to destroy them. Like honestly - when was the last time you looked at some roadworks and thought to yourself "ohh nice, they finally improving this bit"? I can answer for myself - NEVER... if they ever do anything to the roads it is for worse, there were 3 lanes, now there is 2, there were 2 lanes, now it is 1.... there was tunnel going both ways, not one side of the tunnel is converted into cycling super highway BS... there was normal motorway now you have Shaitesmart one with gazillion cameras, so that at night when you are the only one on the road for miles they can fine you for doing 60MPH on 70MPH motorway because of some ghost roadworks which aren't even happening. So the issue is not austerity, not lack of money, but deliberate policy of making roads unusable and cars unattractive mode of transportation. And honestly it does not matter who you vote for... Tories were doing it for many years and if you get Labour in they only going to be even worse. If there is any policy both ruling parties agrees on is that roads should be ruined...

Legal requirement in UK, so definitely has fog lights, I assume they are just integrated into the main cluster. Is that the case of not keeping the distance? Surely you not driving 2 car lengths behind the car in a fog at 70MPH? Although some people are way to sensitive and have them on even when there is barely any fog or as others said... just in damn rain, which makes visibility worse and not better.

I generally hate when drivers don't follow basics like having right lights on or off at the right times. So I would not say specifically fog lights that bothers me, but any wrong lights - running without lights in dark, not indicating, bulbs that are blown and doesn't work etc. I guess I am just passionate about driving and if somebody can't make sure they have basics right, then I do not trust them to know more complex things like signs, or who have what priority where and having wrong lights on is just exposes people who probably shouldn't have license and be on the road. Sorry if I misunderstood, but are you saying you driving with DLR at 1AM? So it is 40MPH... and despite seeing some logic in this I still not convinced this is good solution or at least right cut-off speed e.g. I can see myself driving at speeds above 40MPH in fog on motorway. So basically I do not see direct link between the speed I am traveling at and fog lights being on. The fog lights being on or off depends on the visibility and speed depends on what I consider to be safe speed to drive... which could easily be 60MPH (I don't consider that as very high speed). Let's say circumstances are - I am driving at 70MPH in light fog, I enter heavier fog and turn on fog-lights, maybe slow down to 60MPH... the car behind me does the same thing and follows me at 60MPH... then suddenly I catch-up car doing 45MPH and slow down, but because my car decided that I don't need fog lights at above 40MPH the car behind me cannot see me in the fog and rear-ends me... I am not very sure I am very happy that car decides to turn off fog lights despite I decided that circumstances requires for them to be on. Seems like usual case that manufacturer by trying to help stupid hurts the rest... instead of trusting the driver to know what lights they need when we are now babysitting people from themselves and then everyone loses. I guess if cut-off would be 60MPH, then it would be hard to argue with it... I cannot see myself (or any reasonable driver) driving at 60MPH+ with visibility of less than 50m. Although I guess, those speeds are debatable... as I am somebody could argue that 40MPH is too much as well in that sort of visibility as they simply not comfortable with themselves driving. 2s rule would suggest one should not exceed 56MPH, so 40MPH switch off feels a bit low.