LenT

If I recall it correctly, this was an unofficial allowance applied at the discretion of the Traffic Officer based on the reality that an unregulated car speedometer could not be guaranteed accurate to within 10%. So a motorist would simply claim in Court that their speed as indicated was within the limit. I've also driven cars where the cable-driven speedo oscillated wildly over +- 10mph!

I think these are very good points that you - and others - have made. Namely, compared to the throughput of a conventional pump, a charging point is miserably inefficient. As I suspect that it's a small minority that have access to their own personal charging points, then EV owners are relying on ones that are publicly accessible - a situation which is surely only going to get worse. But what has puzzled me is the potential for 'Charging Point Wars'. While one is, say, pleasantly occupied in supermarket shopping for 30 minutes, what is to stop an opportunist from disconnecting your cable and substituting theirs - albeit with some kind of extension, if necessary? Is it that once disconnected the supply has to be reaffirmed before it is re-established? Even if that was the case, it wouldn't stop another motorist from effectively 'queue-jumping'! It would surely take the gloss off my exhilarating shopping experience, to find some tow rag has ignored the principle of 'first come, first charged'. I see enormous potential for heated debate. Or have I missed something very obvious? PS. Just to add that our shiny, new local Supermarket has a row of very attractive Charging Points to offer EV owners. Unfortunately, when I visited a couple of days ago, they were all fenced off! Bit of a blow if you were hoping to combine a charging event with a shopping experience.

Having now discovered that such an option exists, I shall now ignore it. I find that works equally well with posts with which I disagree. Quite why anyone feels the need to remove actual posters is a puzzle to me. I would have thought that was the antithesis of ‘free speech’. Why not just disagree and move on? My personal philosophy has always been that a good idea doesn’t care who has it. It is often the case that tucked away within a ‘rant’ with which one disagrees is another idea that one would wholly support. Deleting a contributor entirely surely eliminates the possibility not only of benefiting from the odd gem but also of engaging in debate. After all, if one cannot mount a coherent argument against another poster’s claim, then the possibility that they might be right has to be considered! If the debate is too tedious, then don’t do it.

Like many of us, I suspect, I was a cyclist long before I became a motorist. And clearly ALL overtaking should be done ‘as quickly as possible’ but not ‘no matter what’. But having grown up in London and now having lived in the countryside for some decades, there seems to be a distinct difference between the relationships between motorists and cyclists- and horses and pedestrians, come to that. With the odd exception, there is simply more tolerance. Around our country lanes I have seen - and recorded - more examples of bad driving than cycling. There is more willingness for drivers to wave cars out of a side road and allow them to join a line of traffic; not so common in London, for example. And the reason why motorists are more inclined to gives horses a wide berth is quite simple - self interest. I used to do a lot of horse riding, especially along the narrow, winding roads around Epping Forest. It was our practice, with the advantage of our high viewpoint, to hold back overtaking cars if we could see cars approaching uphill round a bend. I recall one saloon driver who decided to overtake anyway only to encounter an oncoming car on a bend. He pulled in sharply, clipping the hooves of over half a ton of ex-race horse, who expressed his displeasure by firmly planting both rear hooves into the side of the car and lifting it across the road. Fortunately, perhaps, this is not a recourse available to the average cyclist. 🙂

Very interesting variety of techniques. All my previous cars have been manual, so I chose the ‘Slow & Steady’ method - using a low gear, possibly even slightly slipping the clutch - to keep the revs up to avoid water backing up the exhaust and so as not to swamp the electrics with an impressive bow wave. But never so far encountered a ford with the auto Lexus. My thought would be to use the paddle shifts to select a low gear to keep the revs up, but keep speed down to avoid swamping electrics. Anyone had any practical experience? Might as well find out now what works instead of discovering later what doesn’t!

Harsh. But fair.

Now THAT would be a claim worth reading! ☺️

I did recently overhear a phone conversation which revealed that LinusP was actually the pseudonym of a 73-year old retired Presbyterian Scottish minister who was once renowned for the leisurely way he pottered around the Highland lanes in his Mini Traveller. He now lives in a quiet island Croft with his wife, Agnes, and McTavish the wee terrier. A local monument commemorates the time that, single handed, he saved a flock of sheep from attack by a small herd of feral haggis. He now runs a select Sporran Combing business. Mind you, it was a bad line and I may have mIsheard some of this.

This line transported me back to one morning when I was standing at a junction in New York. Two opposing solid streams of traffic were turning into the same road, the traffic lights having long ago become redundant. At about walking pace - and with desperate inevitability - two yellow cabs crunchingly merged with each other. In seconds, no-one was now going anywhere. Now that would have been an interesting one for dash cams to sort out!

It certainly sounds like a simple flat battery. Unless there’s some technical reason why your Lexus can’t be trickle charged, then they are a good investment anyway - even with a new battery. Of course that also presumes that the car’s charging system is performing correctly. I fitted a CTEK charger to mine. By which I mean that it comes with leads that are permanently connected to the battery posts and are then connected to the charger by a single plug-in connector. In fact I’ve just changed the lead to another version that includes a section with a traffic style system of leds. So I just open the bonnet and can tell the state of the battery charge by which colour led is blinking. As I say, I don’t know if your Lexus is somehow unsuitable, but it might be worth investigating.

I changed the HiD bulbs that were OEM fittings in my IS250 Premier to the new Osram Night Breaker Laser Xenarc, also bought from ABD, and am very happy with the improved performance. Mine are D4S fittings and I suspect different from yours. I also discovered that I only needed one bulb per lamp! Previously I had a Honda Accord and when I bought the Lexus there were occasions when driving on dipped beam, especially, that I would flick the lights on and off just to check that they were really on, such was the contrast with the Honda’s lamps. Now I would say that the Lexus lighting is actually superior to that which I enjoyed in the Honda. Mind you, I’m a bit puzzled that you say you have ‘already ordered some new Osrams’. What bulbs have you already ordered?

No problem, John. Reading these posts is not a test…as such. And you’ve been at it far longer than I have! I did in fact mention the magic line ‘Dispatched from and sold by Amazon’ and its absence may indeed affect my purchase decision. But as with ‘Kettlegate’ it pays to be aware of your Consumer Rights. Incidentally, for those who may be concerned about it, after one day the new kettle is still performing as new. 😊

Could that be one in a row, Linus? 🙂 The key statement is ‘Distributed and sold by Amazon’. And yet that didn’t stop their system trying to direct me to the Dualit site and promoting the 30 day fallacy. And no doubt some shoppers would have thought they must know what they’re talking about. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 is well worth brushing up on. The Seller is always responsible for the performance of the products they sell. I get a computer magazine which has a few pages devoted to resolving buyers’ problems. One big High Street name features regularly. When exposed they blame staff error! Call me an old cynic, but I sometimes feel the error was in getting caught!

I suspect we will, Phil. If it proves to be a successful ploy in both customer retention and acquisition, then we may well be deluged with such offers. This is not an Industry that doesn't know a bandwagon when it sees one!

Maybe I wasn't clear, Linus. My comparison was not with the products, which are irrelevant, but with the corporate obfuscation techniques that both companies employed in one degree or another. Namely, they made it unnecessarily difficult to cancel auto renewal on the one hand and replace a faulty product on the other. Which brings me to... Even prior to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, this wasn't the case. The dates to which you refer actually apply to the buyer, not the seller. They were originally the Direct Selling Regulations, as I recall, and now form part of the The Consumer Contracts Regulations. Basically, they give the Buyer a cancellation period that starts the moment you place your order and ends 14 days from the day you receive your goods. You then have a further 14 days from the date you notify the retailer that you'd like to cancel your order to return the goods to them. You also have the legal right to a refund if you return your faulty goods within 30 days of receiving them, irrespective of the retailer's policy. But most importantly, your rights under the Consumer Rights Act are against the retailer, NOT the manufacturer. So any claim should be taken to the retailer. To save further posts, I would refer you to the Which website where you'll find an excellent series of pages on this aspect of consumer law. This one is a good place to start. https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act-aKJYx8n5KiSl I suspect that manufacturers have a kind of love/hate relationship with the likes of Amazon. The product I returned to Amazon for a replacement was actually a Dualit Kettle. I contacted Dualit to check if the problem was due to something I could easily correct. Interestingly, the first two paragraphs of their reply were a reiteration of what I already knew. Namely: If an appliance fails to operate properly, while in use under normal household conditions and within the warranty period, normal procedure would be to return the appliance to the store or retailer where purchased. Under UK law, the Contract of Sale is between yourself and the retailer and it is principally the retailer’s legal responsibility to assist in resolving any issue with the product within the full warranty period (and not just in the first 30 days). Failure of the retailer to do so is in breach of your statutory rights. So, far from the suggestion that Amazon was doing you some kind of favour, they were actually complying with Consumer Law! And I'm quite sure they were aware of that!

I took advantage of that for my wife’s Suzuki. A very good premium fixed for three years. What’s not to like?

Many thanks for your detailed reply, Phil. Compared to your approach, mine seems almost embarrassingly casual! The frustrations of which you speak are, of course, merely examples of a common marketing tactic - namely, inertia selling. One of the reasons why Insurers often appear so willing to offer a discount at the first opportunity is that relatively few people make the effort to obtain one. As I think you rightly identify, the introduction of the ‘hassle factor’ is also an element here. But it’s not confined to insurance companies. Over the last couple of days I’ve been engaged in returning a faulty product to Amazon. They like to give the impression that after 30 days it’s the manufacturer’s problem, which is not the case. But I found I had to negotiate several hurdles before finding a real person to call me back. From then on it took about three minutes to organise a replacement - which was delivered the next day! So a good result, but sometimes you have to shout ‘til you’re blue in the teeth to get there! It’s also a truism in marketing that retaining an existing customer is (usually) significantly more cost effective than recruiting a new one. It’s a bold company that makes it easier for customers to leave!

Thanks for the detailed reply, Lee. So essentially we’re doing much the same, but you’re putting more effort into researching the market then I’m prepared to do. And then we satisfy ourselves that we’re right to stay put for another year! Fair enough. 😃 I can’t imagine anyone taking exception to that, Lee. In my experience Honda owners are the epitome of thoughtful, intelligent and considerate motorists. Mind you, I used to own a Prelude and an Accord…..

I didn’t see your post, Phil, until after I’d posted mine. But clearly our experiences are different. For one thing our policies are staggered so they are months apart. As for your problems with reducing the price, I would have thought that many of the processes you cite would be part of any negotiations with potential new Insurers anyway. Plus of course you would have to resubmit information that your current Insurers already hold. And if you have a significant NCD, then you may lose part of that. So I don’t quite see how you would save in that respect anyway. If you’re happy to invest your time successfully seeking a better policy and/or premium, then that’s a result anyway!

That’s an interesting comment. Are you concerned that you might unwittingly be committed to a higher premium, despite the discount? Do you not get adequate prior notice of the renewal? Obviously individuals and Insurers vary, but I don’t see the problem with auto renewal. Or more precisely I’ve never had a problem with it. Currently we have one car insured via Saga, with whom I negotiated a fixed price three year deal. So that auto renews. The Lexus Is through the AA and the opportunity to cancel the auto renewal is part of the renewal process. However our annual dance is rather like this: The AA sends a renewal advice about three weeks ahead. This is usually a few days after Saga has sent a new offer to attract the Lexus. I ring the AA and ask: why is the renewal, say, £180 more than last year? They reduce the premium. I then point out that Saga is still more attractive. They then match the Saga price. This process has worked well for all involved for some years now! I agree that it all rather depends on the auto renewal notification arriving before the date, rather than after. But that has never happened so far. Should I be incapacitated by injury, senility or death, then the car is at least insured, which would not be the case if the insurance was allowed to lapse. I may have missed some obvious point, but I’m intrigued as to why you dislike auto renewal bearing in mind the security it offers as well as the opportunity to negotiate- or even cancel - the premium.

As I see you don’t yet have an answer from an owner of this particular model, forgive me if this advice seems a bit obvious, because I presume you may not have a Manual with the. car. Did you know that if you go to the lexus.co.uk site and register in the My Lexus section, there should be a Manual for your model that you can download.

Linus, I hope that I can observe - without causing offence - that I have no doubt that you would be an entertaining, knowledgeable and enthusiastic chap to encounter in the flesh - so’s to speak! But possibly….not on the open road! 😃

If only....🙂 I think maybe you overlook one of the fundamental reasons for having Insurance. It’s so that other citizens have recourse to compensation if you should be responsible for an incident causing them actual loss. These two sentences are surely contradictory. False information is – by definition – false. That you provide false information to obtain an admitted benefit ‘in the form of reducing premium’ is a fraud in order to obtain a pecuniary advantage. This misrepresentation can have very serious consequences. Under Contract Law, the principle of ‘ab initio’ will apply. This means that the Contract will be void ‘from the beginning’. So you will have been driving uninsured from the date you took it out! As I mentioned before, Insurers will make basic checks on applications – they have Industry records, for example, that will bring up previous claimants – but generally they operate ‘in good faith’. But this only applies up to the point that a claim is made – at which point Investigators may spring into action. Entire TV series have been created on this very basis! Not entirely correct. For example, this may not apply in certain landlord/tenant relationships, or if applying for a ‘Buy-To-Let’ mortgage. If I’ve given the impression that I agree that an ‘Implied Contract’ does not apply here in the absence of an ‘Expressed Contract’ then I must apologise. My position, to repeat it, is that if you obtain a Benefit on the clear understanding that you will operate a dash cam in the insured vehicle, then you have entered into an ‘Implied Contract’ with the Insurer. The term that applies is, I believe, known as the ‘Officious Bystander’ test. (Count me in there!). In other words, that the function, purpose and advantages of operating a dash cam are so obvious to the parties involved that they would be accepted if put to them at the time by the aforesaid Bystander! Finally (I hope) - and as I’ve mentioned before – it’s a pity that someone who actually has obtained a ’dash cam discount’ hasn’t volunteered how this has been expressed in their Insurance. Or, perhaps more revealingly, a comment from a Broker or Insurance Company as to how they might apply it! (PS: I hope I've got all the formatting right!☺️)

I can certainly endorse that comment. Not long after I bought my IS250 the Dealer called to see if I was happy with the car. Almost the only negative I had was that I found the lighting less effective than my previous Accord - and could I upgrade it to HiD bulbs. To my surprise he told me that my model already had them! So after researching the market, I chose the Osram Night Breaker Laser Xenon…no less! The improvement was remarkable. Not just on main beam but on dip - which was much more useful for me. In our narrow country lanes a good view of the near side kerb is essential. Previously I’d even had to turn on the fog lights to light them up. The Osrams provided a brighter, well controlled light up and along the verge - ideal for early pothole warning. My particularly model only needed one bulb per lamp, but yours will probably be different - and I imagine not a D4S fitting!

Firstly Linus I should say that I’m impressed that it apparently only took you eight minutes to respond. I’ve been somewhat tardier! So to address your points: Not really sure what part of "Because implied contract cannot co-exist when there is written contract already in place" was not clear. No part was unclear, Linus. I was actually agreeing! I see insurance companies as criminals trying to steal my money - as such should I don't see any reason to be honest with them. Yes, I see the distinction. How far do you take this attitude? In order to obtain a premium reduction, do you not declare changes that materially affect the vehicle? Do you keep cars parked in an unlit side-street while claiming they are securely garaged? Do you have the same attitude to, say, Household Insurance? I can’t believe that that is seriously the case! 😟 I, however, see them (certainly the ones I choose to deal with) as organisations providing a service which is both a legal requirement and a means of indemnifying, compensating and representing me should I be involved in a claim. As with any business and commercial arrangement, the Law presumes that all parties are acting in ‘good faith’ and therefore penalises those who don’t. It is very clear that you still don't understand that implied contract cannot be formed when there is already a contract in place. Again that’s a point with which I actually agreed, additionally pointing out that as there is no distinction in Law, it would in any case be redundant. "It’s important to remember that if you make a claim and you don’t have dashcam footage to support it, you may have to repay any discounts that you may have had. It could also invalidate your policy." - clearly "industry expert" does not understand how law and contracts work. You choose your ‘expert’ and you makes your choice. Where would the Legal Profession be if it couldn’t call on different Experts? Perhaps an ‘Insurance Expert’ who runs a Lexus might be able to comment? In short - unless you contract specifically says, that by accepting this discount you commit to providing the footage and you insurance will be invalidated if you fail to do so for any reason, including reasons outside of your control. Firstly, I think you’ll find that I was specifically citing ‘reasons beyond your control’ as a legitimate reason for NOT providing the video evidence. Frankly, Linus, while I enjoy a debate I can’t see that I can add anything further to this particular one. The purpose and function of a dash cam is well established. Its ability to provide incontrovertible video evidence in the event of an incident is the main reason given for its installation by the Manufacturers, Motoring organisations and Insurers. That is its Main – if not Sole – function. If you accept a Benefit by agreeing to operate one then you accept the strictures that imposes - either Expressly or by Implication, it makes no difference. I would not be surprised if obtaining a dash cam discount and then deliberately failing to provide video evidence - without a legitimate reason - in the event of a claim either for or against you, could not be described by My Learned Friends as 'obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception'. That is certainly how I see it. No doubt other opinions are available! 🙂