EnterName

Hello!

The costs are out of date, but the servicing stands.

I can't believe I forgot this example of "optional" participation. I suppose I was just so surprised that anyone would make such a claim. https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/environment/dutch-announce-forced-buyout-of-farms-to-cut-emissions

I'm sure this makes sense in your head, but can you state your point clearly? Oh! So ULEZ payments are optional now? The green levvy's will be optional? https://www.independent.co.uk/business/green-levies-to-return-to-household-energy-bills-in-july-b2363680.html Yes, I do think the "climate change crisis" is due to politics, with a fair bit of business interest thrown in too. I've given you a perfectly good example of "The Science" being used to push a political narrative. You have ignored this example and persist in claiming that science is untainted by political expediency. So that's that.

Greetings yourself!

I have no evidence to back it up, so your theory is as good as mine. Additionally, I am so used to roadworks on the M42 and other motorways that driving slowly on the motorway seems pretty normal now.

I too have noticed that there are more cars driving under 70 on the motorway. I put it down to the improved fuel economy at lower speeds.

Hello and welcome!

It's difficult to offer advice when buying a car is so personal, depending on the motivation for buying a car. Sometimes we buy a new car because we need one. Sometimes we buy a new car because we're bored or unhappy with our existing car. Or perhaps we anticipate some bills in the near future and don't wish to spend a lot of money on our existing car. Sometimes we buy a new car because we want to treat ourselves, which is where you seem to be, @harry999. I have bought just one new car in my life, and I bought it because when I ordered it, there wasn't a car like it available to buy second hand. I had all sorts of ideas about choosing my dream spec, but when I added the various costs up, I realised that ordering a highly specced car brand new was a mug's game, so I just ordered it in a colour I liked. This turned out to be a good call for me. Which brings me back to my original point: If you want to treat yourself, I suggest buying a high-spec used car is more of a treat for yourself than spending similar money on a brand new car. Because the novelty of newness wears off pretty quickly, IMO.

"WTF is that!?" said I, when I saw @Jockster52's pic. Doesn't look like an OEM installation to me, but then I can't say I'm an expert.

That's where one of those shady switches would come in handy. 😉

This one. If you think politics have no impact on scientific consensus, I don't think I can help you. 🤷‍♂️ Throughout COVID we had examples of "scientific consensus" that simply parroted political decisions. We went from "Masks don't help." all the way to "Masks are mandatory". All backed by science. The attached video is a UK government minister giving the "masks don't help" narrative. But participation isn't going to be optional, is it? So this doesn't apply. If it was optional, then I wouldn't be grumbling. You can have all the solar panels and wind farms you like. On your property. At your expense. Somewhat more detail is required for this to even start to be a valid example of a "crisis" that was averted/solved, and didn't simply follow Sowell's 4 stages of "We want to do this so we'll call it a crisis so we can force it through". There is no evidence that general wearing of face masks by the public who are well stops the spread of COVID-19.mp4

Quick Guide to inhibiting this feature. Thanks @Cakemonster

Yes, I noticed this also. It's not much out, but it is out. Somewhat spoils the function.

Can confirm my weekly wash leaves my disks with a covering of rust.

I may be awkward, but when presented with convincing evidence I am happy to be corrected. (See my earlier response to your correction about the EV.) Consensus is politics, not science. This is pretty much a re-wording of Stage 4. Perhaps. Can you point to an example of a "crisis" that was averted/solved, and didn't simply follow Sowell's 4 stages of "We want to do this so we'll call it a crisis so we can force it through"?

Because it's expensive to make the transition, and as I showed in another thread, the gains from a reduction of greenhouse gases are marginal. Nobody can show a clear correlation between the amount of greenhouse gases and the "climate". But I'll agree it's certainly an opportunity for those exploiting the "crisis" for their own benefit, especially while there are subsidies to be had. A lot of it is my instinctive reluctance to be told what to do by busybodies who always think they know better than everyone else, and are determined to force the world to agree with them. Thomas Sowell published a book in the mid 90's called "The Vision of the Anointed", and he really hit the nail on the head with some of his observations in that book. Here's a relevant excerpt. PATTERNS OF FAILURE A very distinct pattern has emerged repeatedly when policies favoured by the anointed turn out to fail. This pattern typically has four stages: STAGE 1. THE “CRISIS”: Some situation exists, whose negative aspects the anointed propose to eliminate. Such a situation is routinely characterized as a “crisis,” even though all human situations have negative aspects, and even though evidence is seldom asked or given to show how the situation at hand is either uniquely bad or threatening to get worse. Sometimes the situation described as a “crisis” has in fact already been getting better for years. STAGE 2. THE “SOLUTION”: Policies to end the “crisis” are advocated by the anointed, who say that these policies will lead to beneficial result A. Critics say that these policies will lead to detrimental result Z. The anointed dismiss these latter claims as absurd and “simplistic,” if not dishonest. <<<WE ARE HERE >>> STAGE 3. THE RESULTS: The policies are instituted and lead to detrimental result Z. STAGE 4. THE RESPONSE: Those who attribute detrimental result Z to the policies instituted are dismissed as “simplistic” for ignoring the “complexities” involved, as “many factors” went into determining the outcome. The burden of proof is put on the critics to demonstrate to a certainty that these policies alone were the only possible cause of the worsening that occurred. No burden of proof whatever is put on those who had so confidently predicted improvement. Indeed, it is often asserted that things would have been even worse, were it not for the wonderful programs that mitigated the inevitable damage from other factors.

Thank you for putting me right. Goodness me! It is confusing.

Just a thought, but in addition to the different draining characteristics of printed concrete (i.e. none or very close to none), there may also be some splatter from falling rain as it bounces more off the printed concrete. It might be getting the brakes damper than on some other surfaces, which may cause the brakes to move less freely. As I said, just a thought.

Ask what was going on with your car on Brisky. It could be handy if you need it, but default "off" would be better than default "on", IMO. But of course, default "off" would mean nobody would ever know about it.

Well I only discovered it because I needed to adjust both mirrors. If I'd known I could do it with one control, I'd have used it.

Yes. Apparently poor countries greenhouse gases are less damaging to the environment than affluent countries greenhouse gases. This is why the solution to the Climate Crisis(TM) is to make affluent countries poor, and thereby make their greenhouse gasses less harmful. Trust the science! 🤪

Is this a fuel filler cap? Goodness me! what a dishonest narrative they're trying to form. Edit: Not to mention the K10C badge on the back referring to a 1.0L K-series engine. Weird!

Dealer stamps aren't a thing with Skodas these days. The service history is held electronically by Skoda. Contact a Skoda dealer for details of your car's service history or a decent specialist independent can also get access to the Skoda service history.

Hello and welcome, Nikola! 😊