Discussion:
Word Origin: plant / factory?
(too old to reply)
l***@gmail.com
2017-09-01 11:35:39 UTC
Permalink
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George Washington Carver.
Don Phillipson
2017-09-01 12:14:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory.
By
Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is
well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George
Washington Carver.
Your informants seem rather muddled. The origins of the word "plant"
can be found in etymological dictionaries. Henry Ford published
several books, but none called Factory. He had an interest in
plantations of rubber but not peanuts. Peanuts were farmed in
Central America for thousands of years before the US Dept. of
Agriculture was created. G.W. Carver is remembered for his
research into peanut recipes and industrial products.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
RH Draney
2017-09-01 13:59:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory.
By
Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is
well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George
Washington Carver.
Your informants seem rather muddled. The origins of the word "plant"
can be found in etymological dictionaries. Henry Ford published
several books, but none called Factory. He had an interest in
plantations of rubber but not peanuts. Peanuts were farmed in
Central America for thousands of years before the US Dept. of
Agriculture was created. G.W. Carver is remembered for his
research into peanut recipes and industrial products.
That's some heavy plant crossing you've got there....r
Lesmond
2017-09-03 06:48:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory.
By
Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is
well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George
Washington Carver.
Your informants seem rather muddled. The origins of the word "plant"
can be found in etymological dictionaries. Henry Ford published
several books, but none called Factory. He had an interest in
plantations of rubber but not peanuts. Peanuts were farmed in
Central America for thousands of years before the US Dept. of
Agriculture was created. G.W. Carver is remembered for his
research into peanut recipes and industrial products.
That's some heavy plant crossing you've got there....r
Whenever I see the "Plant Entrance" signs I prepare to brake for triffids.
--
She may contain the urge to run away
But hold her down with soggy clothes and breeze blocks
g***@gmail.com
2019-01-17 15:28:27 UTC
Permalink
In Dick Gregory’s new book, he suggests the usage arose from George Washington Carver’s suggestions to Henry Ford. GWC was a botanist. I would have assumed the usage started in England long ago, but some of you suggest otherwise.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2019-01-17 16:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
In Dick Gregory’s new book, he suggests the usage arose from George Washington Carver’s suggestions to Henry Ford. GWC was a botanist. I would have assumed the usage started in England long ago, but some of you suggest otherwise.
The OED's earliest reference is 1789 but as it indicates that nobody seemed
to know even then where the usage comes from I think we're probably doomed
to ignorance!

1789 H. L. Piozzi Observ. Journey France I. 133 The ground was destined
to the purposes of extensive commerce, but the appellation of a plant gave
me much disturbance, from my inability to fathom the meaning.

'Nuff said!
Whiskers
2017-09-01 13:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word,
Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut
plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist
named George Washington Carver.
I don't think Ford or Carver had anything to do with it (notwithstanding
their achievements in other fields). 'Factory' may be a definition, but
it isn't the etymology.

My guess is that 'plant' in this sense began as 'something planned
[for]', but I can't find firm support for that. OED does have a hint
though:

"plant, n.1." OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2017. Web. 1
September 2017.

[...]

In spite of the apparent implications of quot. 1789 at sense 5a does
not appear to have a model in French; however, perhaps compare French
plan plan n.

[...]

5.
a. The premises, fittings, and equipment of a business or (chiefly N.
Amer.) of an institution; a factory, a place where an industrial
process is carried out. In extended use: the workers employed at a
business, institution, or factory. Frequently with modifying word.

1789 H. L. Piozzi Observ. Journey France I. 133 The ground was
destined to the purposes of extensive commerce, but the appellation
of a plant gave me much disturbance, from my inability to fathom the
meaning.

1838 Civil Engineer & Architect's Jrnl. 1 239/2 There was very
little possibility of transferring these implements (technically
called the Plant) from one contract to another.

[...]

and:

"plan, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2017. Web. 1
September 2017.

Origin: A borrowing from French. Etymon: French plan.

Etymology: Partly < French plan drawing, sketch, or diagram made by
projection on a horizontal plane showing the layout of a building,
city, area, etc. (1547 in Middle French; 1545 as plant ), drawing
guiding the establishment of a building, or of a work which is to be
realized (1563; 1538 as plant ), set of measures adopted in order to
accomplish something (1627) ( < planter : see plant v.), and partly <
French plan plane surface (1553 in Middle French), use as noun of plan
, adjective (see plane adj.). Compare Italian pianta (a1529), Spanish
planta (1600). Compare plane n.3
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
charles
2017-09-01 15:33:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whiskers
Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word,
Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut
plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist
named George Washington Carver.
I don't think Ford or Carver had anything to do with it (notwithstanding
their achievements in other fields). 'Factory' may be a definition, but
it isn't the etymology.
My guess is that 'plant' in this sense began as 'something planned
[for]', but I can't find firm support for that. OED does have a hint
"plant, n.1." OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2017. Web. 1
September 2017.
[...]
In spite of the apparent implications of quot. 1789 at sense 5a does
not appear to have a model in French; however, perhaps compare French
plan plan n.
[...]
5.
a. The premises, fittings, and equipment of a business or (chiefly N.
Amer.) of an institution; a factory, a place where an industrial
process is carried out. In extended use: the workers employed at a
business, institution, or factory. Frequently with modifying word.
1789 H. L. Piozzi Observ. Journey France I. 133 The ground was
destined to the purposes of extensive commerce, but the appellation
of a plant gave me much disturbance, from my inability to fathom the
meaning.
1838 Civil Engineer & Architect's Jrnl. 1 239/2 There was very
little possibility of transferring these implements (technically
called the Plant) from one contract to another.
[...]
"plan, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2017. Web. 1
September 2017.
Origin: A borrowing from French. Etymon: French plan.
Etymology: Partly < French plan drawing, sketch, or diagram made by
projection on a horizontal plane showing the layout of a building,
city, area, etc. (1547 in Middle French; 1545 as plant ), drawing
guiding the establishment of a building, or of a work which is to be
realized (1563; 1538 as plant ), set of measures adopted in order to
accomplish something (1627) ( < planter : see plant v.), and partly <
French plan plane surface (1553 in Middle French), use as noun of plan
, adjective (see plane adj.). Compare Italian pianta (a1529), Spanish
planta (1600). Compare plane n.3
how about "Planta Genista" (Broom) which gave it's name to the English
ruling House in the 12th/13th Century.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
Whiskers
2017-09-01 18:19:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Whiskers
Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word,
Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut
plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist
named George Washington Carver.
I don't think Ford or Carver had anything to do with it (notwithstanding
their achievements in other fields). 'Factory' may be a definition, but
it isn't the etymology.
My guess is that 'plant' in this sense began as 'something planned
[for]', but I can't find firm support for that. OED does have a hint
"plant, n.1." OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2017. Web. 1
September 2017.
[...]
In spite of the apparent implications of quot. 1789 at sense 5a does
not appear to have a model in French; however, perhaps compare French
plan plan n.
[...]
5.
a. The premises, fittings, and equipment of a business or (chiefly N.
Amer.) of an institution; a factory, a place where an industrial
process is carried out. In extended use: the workers employed at a
business, institution, or factory. Frequently with modifying word.
1789 H. L. Piozzi Observ. Journey France I. 133 The ground was
destined to the purposes of extensive commerce, but the appellation
of a plant gave me much disturbance, from my inability to fathom the
meaning.
1838 Civil Engineer & Architect's Jrnl. 1 239/2 There was very
little possibility of transferring these implements (technically
called the Plant) from one contract to another.
[...]
"plan, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2017. Web. 1
September 2017.
Origin: A borrowing from French. Etymon: French plan.
Etymology: Partly < French plan drawing, sketch, or diagram made by
projection on a horizontal plane showing the layout of a building,
city, area, etc. (1547 in Middle French; 1545 as plant ), drawing
guiding the establishment of a building, or of a work which is to be
realized (1563; 1538 as plant ), set of measures adopted in order to
accomplish something (1627) ( < planter : see plant v.), and partly <
French plan plane surface (1553 in Middle French), use as noun of plan
, adjective (see plane adj.). Compare Italian pianta (a1529), Spanish
planta (1600). Compare plane n.3
how about "Planta Genista" (Broom) which gave it's name to the English
ruling House in the 12th/13th Century.
That is a vegetative organism, not an industrial installation.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
CDB
2017-09-01 13:26:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word,
Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the
peanut plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black
scientist named George Washington Carver.
It's the other way around. The peanut plant is planted in the ground.
So, by extension, is the Ford plant.

In Spanish, you go upstairs from the planta baja.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=plant
Cheryl
2017-09-01 13:38:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George Washington Carver.
The term "plant" might have been derived from "plantation" - no, not in
the Gone With the Wind sense, but in the earlier one in which a
plantation was a group of people "planted" in the New World, and which
later referred to the place that they settled, and still later to large
farms or estates owned by individuals. The use of "plant" to refer to a
specific area where something is carried out would also be a derivation,
whether the activity was manufacturing cars, or, in some areas,
operating schools. In any case, I suspect Henry Ford's use of the word
"plant" was not derived from "factory" and the usage existed long before
Ford did.
--
Cheryl
Peter T. Daniels
2017-09-01 13:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cheryl
Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George Washington Carver.
The term "plant" might have been derived from "plantation" - no, not in
the Gone With the Wind sense, but in the earlier one in which a
plantation was a group of people "planted" in the New World, and which
later referred to the place that they settled, and still later to large
farms or estates owned by individuals. The use of "plant" to refer to a
specific area where something is carried out would also be a derivation,
whether the activity was manufacturing cars, or, in some areas,
operating schools. In any case, I suspect Henry Ford's use of the word
"plant" was not derived from "factory" and the usage existed long before
Ford did.
The full name of the smallest state is "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations."

The responses given this morning are pretty much the same as the ones
given in 1996.

Which, Tony Cooper, suggests that Google Groups isn't so "crippled" after all.
b***@aol.com
2017-09-01 18:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Cheryl
Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George Washington Carver.
The term "plant" might have been derived from "plantation" - no, not in
the Gone With the Wind sense, but in the earlier one in which a
plantation was a group of people "planted" in the New World, and which
later referred to the place that they settled, and still later to large
farms or estates owned by individuals. The use of "plant" to refer to a
specific area where something is carried out would also be a derivation,
whether the activity was manufacturing cars, or, in some areas,
operating schools. In any case, I suspect Henry Ford's use of the word
"plant" was not derived from "factory" and the usage existed long before
Ford did.
The full name of the smallest state is "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations."
The responses given this morning are pretty much the same as the ones
given in 1996.
Which, Tony Cooper, suggests that Google Groups isn't so "crippled" after all.
Speaking of plants, the unexpected vocative above makes for a nice garden path.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-09-01 22:33:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Cheryl
Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George Washington Carver.
The term "plant" might have been derived from "plantation" - no, not in
the Gone With the Wind sense, but in the earlier one in which a
plantation was a group of people "planted" in the New World, and which
later referred to the place that they settled, and still later to large
farms or estates owned by individuals. The use of "plant" to refer to a
specific area where something is carried out would also be a derivation,
whether the activity was manufacturing cars, or, in some areas,
operating schools. In any case, I suspect Henry Ford's use of the word
"plant" was not derived from "factory" and the usage existed long before
Ford did.
The full name of the smallest state is "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations."
The responses given this morning are pretty much the same as the ones
given in 1996.
Which, Tony Cooper, suggests that Google Groups isn't so "crippled" after all.
Speaking of plants, the unexpected vocative above makes for a nice garden path.
arthur-Navi is right! Commas do matter!
David Kleinecke
2017-09-02 00:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Cheryl
Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George Washington Carver.
The term "plant" might have been derived from "plantation" - no, not in
the Gone With the Wind sense, but in the earlier one in which a
plantation was a group of people "planted" in the New World, and which
later referred to the place that they settled, and still later to large
farms or estates owned by individuals. The use of "plant" to refer to a
specific area where something is carried out would also be a derivation,
whether the activity was manufacturing cars, or, in some areas,
operating schools. In any case, I suspect Henry Ford's use of the word
"plant" was not derived from "factory" and the usage existed long before
Ford did.
The full name of the smallest state is "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations."
The responses given this morning are pretty much the same as the ones
given in 1996.
Which, Tony Cooper, suggests that Google Groups isn't so "crippled" after all.
Speaking of plants, the unexpected vocative above makes for a nice garden path.
arthur-Navi is right! Commas do matter!
I don't think anybody ever argued that ALL commas do not matter.
They are extremely useful in marking intonation as in the vocative
in the sentence above or in a list "Tom, Dick and Harry". Problems
arise when people try using them to denote semantics rather than
pauses. For example I make a pause between "Tom" and "Dick" but
not in "Dick and Harry".
Janet
2017-09-02 10:10:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Cheryl
Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George Washington Carver.
The term "plant" might have been derived from "plantation" - no, not in
the Gone With the Wind sense, but in the earlier one in which a
plantation was a group of people "planted" in the New World, and which
later referred to the place that they settled, and still later to large
farms or estates owned by individuals. The use of "plant" to refer to a
specific area where something is carried out would also be a derivation,
whether the activity was manufacturing cars, or, in some areas,
operating schools. In any case, I suspect Henry Ford's use of the word
"plant" was not derived from "factory" and the usage existed long before
Ford did.
The full name of the smallest state is "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations."
The responses given this morning are pretty much the same as the ones
given in 1996.
Which, Tony Cooper, suggests that Google Groups isn't so "crippled" after all.
Speaking of plants, the unexpected vocative above makes for a nice garden path.
arthur-Navi is right! Commas do matter!
I told you so

Janet
Peter T. Daniels
2017-09-02 13:54:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Cheryl
Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George Washington Carver.
The term "plant" might have been derived from "plantation" - no, not in
the Gone With the Wind sense, but in the earlier one in which a
plantation was a group of people "planted" in the New World, and which
later referred to the place that they settled, and still later to large
farms or estates owned by individuals. The use of "plant" to refer to a
specific area where something is carried out would also be a derivation,
whether the activity was manufacturing cars, or, in some areas,
operating schools. In any case, I suspect Henry Ford's use of the word
"plant" was not derived from "factory" and the usage existed long before
Ford did.
The full name of the smallest state is "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations."
The responses given this morning are pretty much the same as the ones
given in 1996.
Which, Tony Cooper, suggests that Google Groups isn't so "crippled" after all.
Speaking of plants, the unexpected vocative above makes for a nice garden path.
arthur-Navi is right! Commas do matter!
I told you so
When they're in the right place. Such as not between subject and predicate.
Robert Bannister
2017-09-03 02:21:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Cheryl
Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George Washington Carver.
The term "plant" might have been derived from "plantation" - no, not in
the Gone With the Wind sense, but in the earlier one in which a
plantation was a group of people "planted" in the New World, and which
later referred to the place that they settled, and still later to large
farms or estates owned by individuals. The use of "plant" to refer to a
specific area where something is carried out would also be a derivation,
whether the activity was manufacturing cars, or, in some areas,
operating schools. In any case, I suspect Henry Ford's use of the word
"plant" was not derived from "factory" and the usage existed long before
Ford did.
The full name of the smallest state is "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations."
The responses given this morning are pretty much the same as the ones
given in 1996.
Which, Tony Cooper, suggests that Google Groups isn't so "crippled" after all.
Speaking of plants, the unexpected vocative above makes for a nice garden path.
arthur-Navi is right! Commas do matter!
I told you so
When they're in the right place. Such as not between subject and predicate.
A lot of respected authors, particularly from the 19th century,
regularly place commas between subject and predicate when the subject is
very long and is followed by a natural speech pause.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Peter T. Daniels
2017-09-03 03:28:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Cheryl
Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George Washington Carver.
The term "plant" might have been derived from "plantation" - no, not in
the Gone With the Wind sense, but in the earlier one in which a
plantation was a group of people "planted" in the New World, and which
later referred to the place that they settled, and still later to large
farms or estates owned by individuals. The use of "plant" to refer to a
specific area where something is carried out would also be a derivation,
whether the activity was manufacturing cars, or, in some areas,
operating schools. In any case, I suspect Henry Ford's use of the word
"plant" was not derived from "factory" and the usage existed long before
Ford did.
The full name of the smallest state is "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations."
The responses given this morning are pretty much the same as the ones
given in 1996.
Which, Tony Cooper, suggests that Google Groups isn't so "crippled" after all.
Speaking of plants, the unexpected vocative above makes for a nice garden path.
arthur-Navi is right! Commas do matter!
I told you so
When they're in the right place. Such as not between subject and predicate.
A lot of respected authors, particularly from the 19th century,
regularly place commas between subject and predicate when the subject is
very long and is followed by a natural speech pause.
That was two centuries ago.

If the subject ends or the predicate begins with a non-restrictive clause, a
comma will appear there but in a different function.
h***@gmail.com
2019-01-17 16:33:04 UTC
Permalink
Richard Belcher wrote...
: Hi,
: Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
: "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found
: a satisfactory answer.
: Thanks,
: Patricia
Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.
Not here it hasn't. I don't know anyone British who says "plant" when
they mean "factory".
Really? "The Ford plant in Dagenham"? You don't know anyone who
would say that?
musika
2019-01-17 16:51:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Richard Belcher wrote...
: Hi,
: Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
: "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found
: a satisfactory answer.
: Thanks,
: Patricia
Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.
Not here it hasn't. I don't know anyone British who says "plant" when
they mean "factory".
Really? "The Ford plant in Dagenham"? You don't know anyone who
would say that?
Mike posted that in 1996. He died in 2016. Don't expect a reply.
--
Ray
UK
h***@gmail.com
2019-01-17 17:56:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by h***@gmail.com
Richard Belcher wrote...
: Hi,
: Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
: "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found
: a satisfactory answer.
: Thanks,
: Patricia
Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.
Not here it hasn't. I don't know anyone British who says "plant" when
they mean "factory".
Really? "The Ford plant in Dagenham"? You don't know anyone who
would say that?
Mike posted that in 1996. He died in 2016. Don't expect a reply.
Good point. I wonder how many of our comments will be contradicted
long after we are there to defend them. PTD will outlive all of us on
that score :)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-01-17 18:07:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by h***@gmail.com
Richard Belcher wrote...
: Hi,
: Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
: "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found
: a satisfactory answer.
: Thanks,
: Patricia
Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.
Not here it hasn't. I don't know anyone British who says "plant" when
they mean "factory".
Really? "The Ford plant in Dagenham"? You don't know anyone who
would say that?
Mike posted that in 1996. He died in 2016. Don't expect a reply.
In BrE "plant" tends to mean machinery used on construction sites, etc.

While most people may not use the word in that sense they are likely to
be familiar with it from seeing road signs with the word on them:
For instance:
Loading Image...

Plant
crossing

Loading Image...

Caution
Heavy plant
crossing

A blog:
https://thoughtsbyanidlemind.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/thoughts-on-heavy-plant-crossing/

<image of a "heavy plant crossing" sign>

I’m assuming it’s a rather serious sign, warning of large machinery
lumbering across the road.

Yet to me, I’ve always imagined not a truck, but an over-sized plant
pot with its fronds trailing.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Ross
2019-01-17 18:53:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by musika
Post by h***@gmail.com
Richard Belcher wrote...
: Hi,
: Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
: "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found
: a satisfactory answer.
: Thanks,
: Patricia
Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.
Not here it hasn't. I don't know anyone British who says "plant" when
they mean "factory".
Really? "The Ford plant in Dagenham"? You don't know anyone who
would say that?
Mike posted that in 1996. He died in 2016. Don't expect a reply.
In BrE "plant" tends to mean machinery used on construction sites, etc.
While most people may not use the word in that sense they are likely to
https://www.safetyshop.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/G/C/GCS15.jpg
Plant
crossing
https://www.gsbhealthandsafetysigns.co.uk/images/thumbnails/280/210/detailed/2/Heaviy_plant_crossing.png
Caution
Heavy plant
crossing
https://thoughtsbyanidlemind.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/thoughts-on-heavy-plant-crossing/
<image of a "heavy plant crossing" sign>
I’m assuming it’s a rather serious sign, warning of large machinery
lumbering across the road.
Yet to me, I’ve always imagined not a truck, but an over-sized plant
pot with its fronds trailing.
A triffid?
Ken Blake
2019-01-17 18:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ross
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by musika
Post by h***@gmail.com
Richard Belcher wrote...
: Hi,
: Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
: "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found
: a satisfactory answer.
: Thanks,
: Patricia
Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.
Not here it hasn't. I don't know anyone British who says "plant" when
they mean "factory".
Really? "The Ford plant in Dagenham"? You don't know anyone who
would say that?
Mike posted that in 1996. He died in 2016. Don't expect a reply.
In BrE "plant" tends to mean machinery used on construction sites, etc.
While most people may not use the word in that sense they are likely to
https://www.safetyshop.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/G/C/GCS15.jpg
Plant
crossing
https://www.gsbhealthandsafetysigns.co.uk/images/thumbnails/280/210/detailed/2/Heaviy_plant_crossing.png
Caution
Heavy plant
crossing
https://thoughtsbyanidlemind.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/thoughts-on-heavy-plant-crossing/
<image of a "heavy plant crossing" sign>
I’m assuming it’s a rather serious sign, warning of large machinery
lumbering across the road.
Yet to me, I’ve always imagined not a truck, but an over-sized plant
pot with its fronds trailing.
A triffid?
A mandrake root?
Horace LaBadie
2019-01-17 20:25:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ross
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by musika
Post by h***@gmail.com
Richard Belcher wrote...
: Hi,
: Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
: "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not
: found
: a satisfactory answer.
: Thanks,
: Patricia
Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.
Not here it hasn't. I don't know anyone British who says "plant" when
they mean "factory".
Really? "The Ford plant in Dagenham"? You don't know anyone who
would say that?
Mike posted that in 1996. He died in 2016. Don't expect a reply.
In BrE "plant" tends to mean machinery used on construction sites, etc.
While most people may not use the word in that sense they are likely to
https://www.safetyshop.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525
d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/G/C/GCS15.jpg
Plant
crossing
https://www.gsbhealthandsafetysigns.co.uk/images/thumbnails/280/210/detailed
/2/Heaviy plant crossing.png
Caution
Heavy plant
crossing
https://thoughtsbyanidlemind.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/thoughts-on-heavy-plan
t-crossing/
<image of a "heavy plant crossing" sign>
I’m assuming it’s a rather serious sign, warning of large machinery
lumbering across the road.
Yet to me, I’ve always imagined not a truck, but an over-sized plant
pot with its fronds trailing.
A triffid?
Audrey II.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-01-17 22:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ross
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by musika
Post by h***@gmail.com
Richard Belcher wrote...
: Hi,
: Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
: "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found
: a satisfactory answer.
: Thanks,
: Patricia
Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.
Not here it hasn't. I don't know anyone British who says "plant" when
they mean "factory".
Really? "The Ford plant in Dagenham"? You don't know anyone who
would say that?
Mike posted that in 1996. He died in 2016. Don't expect a reply.
In BrE "plant" tends to mean machinery used on construction sites, etc.
While most people may not use the word in that sense they are likely to
https://www.safetyshop.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/G/C/GCS15.jpg
Plant
crossing
https://www.gsbhealthandsafetysigns.co.uk/images/thumbnails/280/210/detailed/2/Heaviy_plant_crossing.png
Caution
Heavy plant
crossing
https://thoughtsbyanidlemind.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/thoughts-on-heavy-plant-crossing/
<image of a "heavy plant crossing" sign>
I’m assuming it’s a rather serious sign, warning of large machinery
lumbering across the road.
Yet to me, I’ve always imagined not a truck, but an over-sized plant
pot with its fronds trailing.
A triffid?
Yes. That's what it suggests to me. However, I don't know how well
triffids are known to younger people.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
David Kleinecke
2019-01-17 22:47:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Ross
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by musika
Post by h***@gmail.com
Richard Belcher wrote...
: Hi,
: Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
: "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found
: a satisfactory answer.
: Thanks,
: Patricia
Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.
Not here it hasn't. I don't know anyone British who says "plant" when
they mean "factory".
Really? "The Ford plant in Dagenham"? You don't know anyone who
would say that?
Mike posted that in 1996. He died in 2016. Don't expect a reply.
In BrE "plant" tends to mean machinery used on construction sites, etc.
While most people may not use the word in that sense they are likely to
https://www.safetyshop.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/G/C/GCS15.jpg
Plant
crossing
https://www.gsbhealthandsafetysigns.co.uk/images/thumbnails/280/210/detailed/2/Heaviy_plant_crossing.png
Caution
Heavy plant
crossing
https://thoughtsbyanidlemind.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/thoughts-on-heavy-plant-crossing/
<image of a "heavy plant crossing" sign>
I’m assuming it’s a rather serious sign, warning of large machinery
lumbering across the road.
Yet to me, I’ve always imagined not a truck, but an over-sized plant
pot with its fronds trailing.
A triffid?
Yes. That's what it suggests to me. However, I don't know how well
triffids are known to younger people.
Or even to some older ones.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-01-17 22:56:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Ross
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
<image of a "heavy plant crossing" sign>
I’m assuming it’s a rather serious sign, warning of large machinery
lumbering across the road.
Yet to me, I’ve always imagined not a truck, but an over-sized plant
pot with its fronds trailing.
A triffid?
(That's what I thought immediately.)
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Yes. That's what it suggests to me. However, I don't know how well
triffids are known to younger people.
The novel was recommended to me by my first employer at Chicago (he was
Director of the Oriental Institute, I was Research Assistant, which meant
I typed the ms. pages he'd written the day before). It was frightening.
A while later I saw the movie. It wasn't.
Dr. HotSalt
2019-01-18 03:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by musika
Post by h***@gmail.com
Richard Belcher wrote...
: Hi,
: Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
: "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found
: a satisfactory answer.
: Thanks,
: Patricia
Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.
Not here it hasn't. I don't know anyone British who says "plant" when
they mean "factory".
Really? "The Ford plant in Dagenham"? You don't know anyone who
would say that?
Mike posted that in 1996. He died in 2016. Don't expect a reply.
In BrE "plant" tends to mean machinery used on construction sites, etc.
While most people may not use the word in that sense they are likely to
https://www.safetyshop.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/G/C/GCS15.jpg
Plant
crossing
https://www.gsbhealthandsafetysigns.co.uk/images/thumbnails/280/210/detailed/2/Heaviy_plant_crossing.png
Caution
Heavy plant
crossing
https://thoughtsbyanidlemind.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/thoughts-on-heavy-plant-crossing/
<image of a "heavy plant crossing" sign>
I’m assuming it’s a rather serious sign, warning of large machinery
lumbering across the road.
Yet to me, I’ve always imagined not a truck, but an over-sized plant
pot with its fronds trailing.
That was my first thought too (Triffid, Audrey II), but this does not
occur in the US. If it does in Canada it might drift over the border like
roundabouts did. I sincerely hope not.

In AmE "plant" means "physical plant"- where a manufacturing business
does its actual manufacturing, which may be in a different location
(block, city, state, country) than its administrative office(s).

(I have no more idea than anyone else if it refers to the manufacturing
machinery being "planted" as opposed to being free-range per the BrE
signage. I am tempted to compare with "fixed" as in "fixture" but I can't
remember whether or not I've started any arguments this year.)

When self-propelled heavy machinery is going to cross an American road,
signs are put out saying "HEAVY EQUIPMENT CROSSING" or similar.


Dr. HotSalt
Tony Cooper
2019-01-18 04:24:23 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 19:40:08 -0800 (PST), "Dr. HotSalt"
Post by Dr. HotSalt
When self-propelled heavy machinery is going to cross an American road,
signs are put out saying "HEAVY EQUIPMENT CROSSING" or similar.
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point, but the signs are posted where
large trucks enter from places like construction zones and phosphate
pits.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Lewis
2019-01-18 13:53:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 19:40:08 -0800 (PST), "Dr. HotSalt"
Post by Dr. HotSalt
When self-propelled heavy machinery is going to cross an American road,
signs are put out saying "HEAVY EQUIPMENT CROSSING" or similar.
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point, but the signs are posted where
large trucks enter from places like construction zones and phosphate
pits.
I have seen temporary signs for when very large equipment, too large to
normally be on roads, is going to be on a road or crossing a road,
though I cannot recall the exact wording. Not merely large trucks but
massive moving projects along the lines of multi-story buildings or
gigantic mining equipment.

But along the lines of "heavy equipment crossing" and not merely the
"Wide load" pilot and chase cars one sees.
--
When men talk to their friends, they insult each other. They don't
really mean it.
When women talk to their friends, they compliment each other. They don't
really mean it.
Mark Brader
2019-01-19 03:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...
Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.
--
Mark Brader | "Any philosophy that can be put 'in a nutshell'
Toronto | belongs there."
***@vex.net | --Sydney J. Harris
s***@gmail.com
2019-01-19 03:30:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...
Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.
They don't make it sound like that to me,
but then I'm used to seeing those signs
on limited access highways (aka "freeways").

On California SR39, one is more likely to see "Road Work",
but then Hiway 30 is just a surface street these days,
with more driveways per foot than it has "super".

/dps
charles
2019-01-19 10:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...
Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.
what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Peter T. Daniels
2019-01-19 15:05:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...
Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.
what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .
What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-01-19 17:47:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...
Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.
what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .
What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)
He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.

For the curious:
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Sam Plusnet
2019-01-19 19:49:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...
Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.
what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .
What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)
He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving
Alternatively, there is a BBC article
"Older drivers: Is age a factor behind the wheel?"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46916429

There are roughly 300 licenced drivers over the age of 100 in the UK.

Hence Philip is a stripling.

p.s. He's back behind the wheel again today.
--
Sam Plusnet
Tony Cooper
2019-01-19 19:59:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...
Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.
what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .
What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)
He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving
Alternatively, there is a BBC article
"Older drivers: Is age a factor behind the wheel?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46916429
There are roughly 300 licenced drivers over the age of 100 in the UK.
Hence Philip is a stripling.
p.s. He's back behind the wheel again today.
He must have very good automobile insurance. I saw a photograph of
his replacement Land Rover being delivered either the same day of the
accident or the next day.

In the US, he'd still be fighting the insurance company for
compensation.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2019-01-19 20:13:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...
Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.
what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .
What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)
He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving
Alternatively, there is a BBC article
"Older drivers: Is age a factor behind the wheel?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46916429
There are roughly 300 licenced drivers over the age of 100 in the UK.
Hence Philip is a stripling.
p.s. He's back behind the wheel again today.
He must have very good automobile insurance. I saw a photograph of
his replacement Land Rover being delivered either the same day of the
accident or the next day.
In the US, he'd still be fighting the insurance company for
compensation.
--
I suspect that, were the President or First Person involved, equally
rapid service would be expected.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-01-19 21:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
I suspect that, were the President or First Person involved, equally
rapid service would be expected.
The President is not permitted to drive. Obama sometimes persuaded them
to let him drive around the little roads inside the White House compound.
Sam Plusnet
2019-01-19 22:14:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
I suspect that, were the President or First Person involved, equally
rapid service would be expected.
The President is not permitted to drive. Obama sometimes persuaded them
to let him drive around the little roads inside the White House compound.
When the Obamas visited the UK in 2016 Philip drove them around, but he
was only 94 at the time.
(I don't think he was free-lancing as an Uber driver)
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-01-19 21:16:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 14:59:23 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...
Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.
what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .
What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)
He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving
Alternatively, there is a BBC article
"Older drivers: Is age a factor behind the wheel?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46916429
There are roughly 300 licenced drivers over the age of 100 in the UK.
Hence Philip is a stripling.
p.s. He's back behind the wheel again today.
He must have very good automobile insurance. I saw a photograph of
his replacement Land Rover being delivered either the same day of the
accident or the next day.
It was being delivered from elsewhere on the royal estates. It is not a
replacement paid for by the insurance company.

A report says "It is believed to be the same car he has been seen
driving near to Balmoral in September 2018".

I imagine he has cars in various parts of the country: Sandringham,
Balmoral, Windsor, etc.
Post by Tony Cooper
In the US, he'd still be fighting the insurance company for
compensation.
I suspect that has hardly started.

It is not clear whether the crash was the fault of either driver, both
or neither. There is an ongoing police investigation.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Janet
2019-01-19 21:27:04 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, tonycooper214
@invalid.com says...
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...
Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.
what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .
What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)
He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving
Alternatively, there is a BBC article
"Older drivers: Is age a factor behind the wheel?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46916429
There are roughly 300 licenced drivers over the age of 100 in the UK.
Hence Philip is a stripling.
p.s. He's back behind the wheel again today.
He must have very good automobile insurance.
He has a very rich wife, so a higher insurance premium won't deter
him.

Janet
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-01-19 23:59:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
@invalid.com says...
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...
Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.
what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .
What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)
He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving
Alternatively, there is a BBC article
"Older drivers: Is age a factor behind the wheel?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46916429
There are roughly 300 licenced drivers over the age of 100 in the UK.
Hence Philip is a stripling.
p.s. He's back behind the wheel again today.
He must have very good automobile insurance.
He has a very rich wife, so a higher insurance premium won't deter
him.
Janet
<smile>

It seems that the speed limit on the strech of road he was turning on to
was 60mph. By "coincidence" it was reduced to 50 mph soon after then
crash.
There was a proposal to install speed cameras there about three years
ago. It is still being discussed.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Tony Cooper
2019-01-20 00:28:28 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 23:59:51 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Janet
@invalid.com says...
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...
Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.
what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .
What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)
He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving
Alternatively, there is a BBC article
"Older drivers: Is age a factor behind the wheel?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46916429
There are roughly 300 licenced drivers over the age of 100 in the UK.
Hence Philip is a stripling.
p.s. He's back behind the wheel again today.
He must have very good automobile insurance.
He has a very rich wife, so a higher insurance premium won't deter
him.
Janet
<smile>
It seems that the speed limit on the strech of road he was turning on to
was 60mph. By "coincidence" it was reduced to 50 mph soon after then
crash.
There was a proposal to install speed cameras there about three years
ago. It is still being discussed.
Is insurance mandatory for all drivers in the UK? Could the Royals be
self-insured?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-01-20 10:48:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 19:28:28 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 23:59:51 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Janet
@invalid.com says...
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...
Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.
what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .
What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)
He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving
Alternatively, there is a BBC article
"Older drivers: Is age a factor behind the wheel?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46916429
There are roughly 300 licenced drivers over the age of 100 in the UK.
Hence Philip is a stripling.
p.s. He's back behind the wheel again today.
He must have very good automobile insurance.
He has a very rich wife, so a higher insurance premium won't deter
him.
Janet
<smile>
It seems that the speed limit on the strech of road he was turning on to
was 60mph. By "coincidence" it was reduced to 50 mph soon after then
crash.
There was a proposal to install speed cameras there about three years
ago. It is still being discussed.
Is insurance mandatory for all drivers in the UK? Could the Royals be
self-insured?
As far as I know insurance is mandatory for all drivers in the UK. I've
not heard of any exceptions.
Government website:
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance

You must have motor insurance to drive your vehicle on UK roads.

Third party insurance is the legal minimum. This means you’re
covered if you have an accident causing damage or injury to any
other person, vehicle, animal or property. It doesn’t cover any
other costs like repair to your own vehicle.

If you have "third party insurance" you are self-insured for damage to
your own vehicle.

Most people have "comprehensive insurance" which covers damage to their
own vehicle.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
RHDraney
2019-01-20 11:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 19:28:28 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
Is insurance mandatory for all drivers in the UK? Could the Royals be
self-insured?
As far as I know insurance is mandatory for all drivers in the UK. I've
not heard of any exceptions.
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance
You must have motor insurance to drive your vehicle on UK roads.
Third party insurance is the legal minimum. This means you’re
covered if you have an accident causing damage or injury to any
other person, vehicle, animal or property. It doesn’t cover any
other costs like repair to your own vehicle.
If you have "third party insurance" you are self-insured for damage to
your own vehicle.
Most people have "comprehensive insurance" which covers damage to their
own vehicle.
It's not strictly required here in the US either, or at least not in
Arizona...in lieu of proof of insurance, you can post a bond to cover
the corresponding claims...I haven't looked at the statute recently, but
the last time I did the amount of the bond had to be at least $40,000,
which may be why few people choose that option....r
Janet
2019-01-20 12:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by RHDraney
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 19:28:28 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
Is insurance mandatory for all drivers in the UK? Could the Royals be
self-insured?
As far as I know insurance is mandatory for all drivers in the UK. I've
not heard of any exceptions.
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance
You must have motor insurance to drive your vehicle on UK roads.
Third party insurance is the legal minimum. This means you?re
covered if you have an accident causing damage or injury to any
other person, vehicle, animal or property. It doesn?t cover any
other costs like repair to your own vehicle.
If you have "third party insurance" you are self-insured for damage to
your own vehicle.
Most people have "comprehensive insurance" which covers damage to their
own vehicle.
It's not strictly required here in the US either, or at least not in
Arizona...in lieu of proof of insurance, you can post a bond to cover
the corresponding claims...I haven't looked at the statute recently, but
the last time I did the amount of the bond had to be at least $40,000,
which may be why few people choose that option....r
Third party insurance is mandatory for drivers in UK.

Janet.
Peter Moylan
2019-01-21 01:16:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
As far as I know insurance is mandatory for all drivers in the UK.
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance
You must have motor insurance to drive your vehicle on UK roads.
Third party insurance is the legal minimum. This means you’re covered
if you have an accident causing damage or injury to any other person,
vehicle, animal or property. It doesn’t cover any other costs like
repair to your own vehicle.
If you have "third party insurance" you are self-insured for damage
to your own vehicle.
Most people have "comprehensive insurance" which covers damage to
their own vehicle.
The situation in NSW, and I suspect in other Australian states, is that
third party insurance, also known as "green slip insurance", is
separated out as a special kind of insurance. To re-register a vehicle
each year, you must submit both a roadworthiness certificate (except for
relatively new vehicles) and the green slip. (Which are both done over
the internet these days.) There are no exceptions.

If you also want comprehensive insurance, that's optional, and is a
separate insurance policy. A "comprehensive" insurance policy does not
include third party cover, because it's understood you're already
covered for that.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2019-01-21 13:19:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
As far as I know insurance is mandatory for all drivers in the UK.
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance
You must have motor insurance to drive your vehicle on UK roads.
Third party insurance is the legal minimum. This means you’re covered
if you have an accident causing damage or injury to any other person,
vehicle, animal or property. It doesn’t cover any other costs like
repair to your own vehicle.
If you have "third party insurance" you are self-insured for damage
to your own vehicle.
Most people have "comprehensive insurance" which covers damage to
their own vehicle.
The situation in NSW, and I suspect in other Australian states, is that
third party insurance, also known as "green slip insurance", is
separated out as a special kind of insurance. To re-register a vehicle
each year, you must submit both a roadworthiness certificate (except for
relatively new vehicles) and the green slip. (Which are both done over
the internet these days.) There are no exceptions.
If you also want comprehensive insurance, that's optional, and is a
separate insurance policy. A "comprehensive" insurance policy does not
include third party cover, because it's understood you're already
covered for that.
Bafflingly unnecessary! Do other liability insurances come separately
too?
Peter T. Daniels
2019-01-21 16:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
As far as I know insurance is mandatory for all drivers in the UK.
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance
You must have motor insurance to drive your vehicle on UK roads.
Third party insurance is the legal minimum. This means you’re covered
if you have an accident causing damage or injury to any other person,
vehicle, animal or property. It doesn’t cover any other costs like
repair to your own vehicle.
If you have "third party insurance" you are self-insured for damage
to your own vehicle.
Most people have "comprehensive insurance" which covers damage to
their own vehicle.
The situation in NSW, and I suspect in other Australian states, is that
third party insurance, also known as "green slip insurance", is
separated out as a special kind of insurance. To re-register a vehicle
each year, you must submit both a roadworthiness certificate (except for
relatively new vehicles) and the green slip. (Which are both done over
the internet these days.) There are no exceptions.
If you also want comprehensive insurance, that's optional, and is a
separate insurance policy. A "comprehensive" insurance policy does not
include third party cover, because it's understood you're already
covered for that.
Bafflingly unnecessary! Do other liability insurances come separately
too?
They'll be happy to sell you insurance on whatever you want insured.

My 2019 auto insurance policy came in the mail a few weeks ago. It has
maybe half a dozen categories, most of them required by law, one or two
optional but one would be foolish to delete them.

Some time in the early 1980s -- a year or two after I became a driver and
a car-owner -- Illinois became the last state to make car insurance
mandatory.
Peter Moylan
2019-01-22 03:31:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
The situation in NSW, and I suspect in other Australian states, is
that third party insurance, also known as "green slip insurance",
is separated out as a special kind of insurance. To re-register a
vehicle each year, you must submit both a roadworthiness
certificate (except for relatively new vehicles) and the green
slip. (Which are both done over the internet these days.) There are
no exceptions.
If you also want comprehensive insurance, that's optional, and is
a separate insurance policy. A "comprehensive" insurance policy
does not include third party cover, because it's understood you're
already covered for that.
Bafflingly unnecessary! Do other liability insurances come
separately too?
The sole point of the legislation is to distinguish between compulsory
and non-compulsory insurance, and to have a mechanism to ensure that all
cars are covered by the compulsory one. (Note that a car cannot be
registered until _after_ the compulsory insurance is in place.) I don't
see why anyone would find that baffling.

A detail that I forgot to mention is that these third-party policies are
tightly regulated, to ensure that all such policies are up to the same
standard. Back in the days when third party insurance was just a
component of an overall insurance policy, there was no consistency
between companies as to how well the relevant third parties were covered.

The details of any non-compulsory insurance are a matter between the
insurance companies and their customers.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-01-22 11:06:15 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:31:57 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
The situation in NSW, and I suspect in other Australian states, is
that third party insurance, also known as "green slip insurance",
is separated out as a special kind of insurance. To re-register a
vehicle each year, you must submit both a roadworthiness
certificate (except for relatively new vehicles) and the green
slip. (Which are both done over the internet these days.) There are
no exceptions.
If you also want comprehensive insurance, that's optional, and is
a separate insurance policy. A "comprehensive" insurance policy
does not include third party cover, because it's understood you're
already covered for that.
Bafflingly unnecessary! Do other liability insurances come
separately too?
The sole point of the legislation is to distinguish between compulsory
and non-compulsory insurance, and to have a mechanism to ensure that all
cars are covered by the compulsory one. (Note that a car cannot be
registered until _after_ the compulsory insurance is in place.) I don't
see why anyone would find that baffling.
What is baffling is why it is necessary to have two separate policies,
one for compulsory insurance and the other for non-compulsory. In the UK
all car insurance policies meet the compulsory requirements. They differ
in their non-compulsory provisions.
Post by Peter Moylan
A detail that I forgot to mention is that these third-party policies are
tightly regulated, to ensure that all such policies are up to the same
standard. Back in the days when third party insurance was just a
component of an overall insurance policy, there was no consistency
between companies as to how well the relevant third parties were covered.
The details of any non-compulsory insurance are a matter between the
insurance companies and their customers.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Tony Cooper
2019-01-22 14:18:27 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:06:15 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:31:57 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
The situation in NSW, and I suspect in other Australian states, is
that third party insurance, also known as "green slip insurance",
is separated out as a special kind of insurance. To re-register a
vehicle each year, you must submit both a roadworthiness
certificate (except for relatively new vehicles) and the green
slip. (Which are both done over the internet these days.) There are
no exceptions.
If you also want comprehensive insurance, that's optional, and is
a separate insurance policy. A "comprehensive" insurance policy
does not include third party cover, because it's understood you're
already covered for that.
Bafflingly unnecessary! Do other liability insurances come
separately too?
The sole point of the legislation is to distinguish between compulsory
and non-compulsory insurance, and to have a mechanism to ensure that all
cars are covered by the compulsory one. (Note that a car cannot be
registered until _after_ the compulsory insurance is in place.) I don't
see why anyone would find that baffling.
What is baffling is why it is necessary to have two separate policies,
one for compulsory insurance and the other for non-compulsory. In the UK
all car insurance policies meet the compulsory requirements. They differ
in their non-compulsory provisions.
Post by Peter Moylan
A detail that I forgot to mention is that these third-party policies are
tightly regulated, to ensure that all such policies are up to the same
standard. Back in the days when third party insurance was just a
component of an overall insurance policy, there was no consistency
between companies as to how well the relevant third parties were covered.
The details of any non-compulsory insurance are a matter between the
insurance companies and their customers.
I'm a bit confused by this conversation. It seems to be saying that a
UK driver is insured by more than one company.

In the US, automobile insurance coverage is from one vendor. The
customer chooses the extent and limits of the coverage, and the rate
is based this.

For example, I can choose to have a $500 deductible or a $1,000
deductible meaning I will pay either $500 or $1,000 towards the damage
amount and the insurance will pay the rest. My premium will be lower
if I choose the $1,000 option.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2019-01-22 14:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:06:15 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:31:57 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
The situation in NSW, and I suspect in other Australian states, is
that third party insurance, also known as "green slip insurance",
is separated out as a special kind of insurance. To re-register a
vehicle each year, you must submit both a roadworthiness
certificate (except for relatively new vehicles) and the green
slip. (Which are both done over the internet these days.) There are
no exceptions.
If you also want comprehensive insurance, that's optional, and is
a separate insurance policy. A "comprehensive" insurance policy
does not include third party cover, because it's understood you're
already covered for that.
Bafflingly unnecessary! Do other liability insurances come
separately too?
The sole point of the legislation is to distinguish between compulsory
and non-compulsory insurance, and to have a mechanism to ensure that all
cars are covered by the compulsory one. (Note that a car cannot be
registered until _after_ the compulsory insurance is in place.) I don't
see why anyone would find that baffling.
What is baffling is why it is necessary to have two separate policies,
one for compulsory insurance and the other for non-compulsory. In the UK
all car insurance policies meet the compulsory requirements. They differ
in their non-compulsory provisions.
Post by Peter Moylan
A detail that I forgot to mention is that these third-party policies are
tightly regulated, to ensure that all such policies are up to the same
standard. Back in the days when third party insurance was just a
component of an overall insurance policy, there was no consistency
between companies as to how well the relevant third parties were covered.
The details of any non-compulsory insurance are a matter between the
insurance companies and their customers.
I'm a bit confused by this conversation. It seems to be saying that a
UK driver is insured by more than one company.
Not UK!
Post by Tony Cooper
In the US, automobile insurance coverage is from one vendor. The
customer chooses the extent and limits of the coverage, and the rate
is based this.
For example, I can choose to have a $500 deductible or a $1,000
deductible meaning I will pay either $500 or $1,000 towards the damage
amount and the insurance will pay the rest. My premium will be lower
if I choose the $1,000 option.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-01-22 17:01:16 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 09:18:27 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:06:15 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:31:57 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
The situation in NSW, and I suspect in other Australian states, is
that third party insurance, also known as "green slip insurance",
is separated out as a special kind of insurance. To re-register a
vehicle each year, you must submit both a roadworthiness
certificate (except for relatively new vehicles) and the green
slip. (Which are both done over the internet these days.) There are
no exceptions.
If you also want comprehensive insurance, that's optional, and is
a separate insurance policy. A "comprehensive" insurance policy
does not include third party cover, because it's understood you're
already covered for that.
Bafflingly unnecessary! Do other liability insurances come
separately too?
The sole point of the legislation is to distinguish between compulsory
and non-compulsory insurance, and to have a mechanism to ensure that all
cars are covered by the compulsory one. (Note that a car cannot be
registered until _after_ the compulsory insurance is in place.) I don't
see why anyone would find that baffling.
What is baffling is why it is necessary to have two separate policies,
one for compulsory insurance and the other for non-compulsory. In the UK
all car insurance policies meet the compulsory requirements. They differ
in their non-compulsory provisions.
Post by Peter Moylan
A detail that I forgot to mention is that these third-party policies are
tightly regulated, to ensure that all such policies are up to the same
standard. Back in the days when third party insurance was just a
component of an overall insurance policy, there was no consistency
between companies as to how well the relevant third parties were covered.
The details of any non-compulsory insurance are a matter between the
insurance companies and their customers.
I'm a bit confused by this conversation. It seems to be saying that a
UK driver is insured by more than one company.
That was Pter Moylan referring to Australia.
Post by Tony Cooper
In the US, automobile insurance coverage is from one vendor. The
customer chooses the extent and limits of the coverage, and the rate
is based this.
For example, I can choose to have a $500 deductible or a $1,000
deductible meaning I will pay either $500 or $1,000 towards the damage
amount and the insurance will pay the rest. My premium will be lower
if I choose the $1,000 option.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Quinn C
2019-01-22 22:41:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:06:15 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:31:57 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
The situation in NSW, and I suspect in other Australian states, is
that third party insurance, also known as "green slip insurance",
is separated out as a special kind of insurance. To re-register a
vehicle each year, you must submit both a roadworthiness
certificate (except for relatively new vehicles) and the green
slip. (Which are both done over the internet these days.) There are
no exceptions.
If you also want comprehensive insurance, that's optional, and is
a separate insurance policy. A "comprehensive" insurance policy
does not include third party cover, because it's understood you're
already covered for that.
Bafflingly unnecessary! Do other liability insurances come
separately too?
The sole point of the legislation is to distinguish between compulsory
and non-compulsory insurance, and to have a mechanism to ensure that all
cars are covered by the compulsory one. (Note that a car cannot be
registered until _after_ the compulsory insurance is in place.) I don't
see why anyone would find that baffling.
What is baffling is why it is necessary to have two separate policies,
one for compulsory insurance and the other for non-compulsory. In the UK
all car insurance policies meet the compulsory requirements. They differ
in their non-compulsory provisions.
Post by Peter Moylan
A detail that I forgot to mention is that these third-party policies are
tightly regulated, to ensure that all such policies are up to the same
standard. Back in the days when third party insurance was just a
component of an overall insurance policy, there was no consistency
between companies as to how well the relevant third parties were covered.
The details of any non-compulsory insurance are a matter between the
insurance companies and their customers.
I'm a bit confused by this conversation. It seems to be saying that a
UK driver is insured by more than one company.
In the US, automobile insurance coverage is from one vendor. The
customer chooses the extent and limits of the coverage, and the rate
is based this.
In Quebec, you will actually deal with two entities. The province
provides insurance coverage for injury or death, which you need to pay
even just to have your driver's license - more if you have a car
registered. Apart from that, you need civil liability insurance from a
private company, some minimum of which is also compulsory if you have a
car.

Since the province is the only insurer for injury and death, in those
cases there is no fight over who should pay what (as long as you're
dealing with accidents on public highways.)
--
Doris did not usually leave men to port and cigars except
at large,formal dinners because Frank was a man who often
found other men's company gross and tedious.
-- Jane Rule, This Is Not For You, p.93
Tony Cooper
2019-01-22 23:21:03 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:41:25 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:06:15 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:31:57 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
The situation in NSW, and I suspect in other Australian states, is
that third party insurance, also known as "green slip insurance",
is separated out as a special kind of insurance. To re-register a
vehicle each year, you must submit both a roadworthiness
certificate (except for relatively new vehicles) and the green
slip. (Which are both done over the internet these days.) There are
no exceptions.
If you also want comprehensive insurance, that's optional, and is
a separate insurance policy. A "comprehensive" insurance policy
does not include third party cover, because it's understood you're
already covered for that.
Bafflingly unnecessary! Do other liability insurances come
separately too?
The sole point of the legislation is to distinguish between compulsory
and non-compulsory insurance, and to have a mechanism to ensure that all
cars are covered by the compulsory one. (Note that a car cannot be
registered until _after_ the compulsory insurance is in place.) I don't
see why anyone would find that baffling.
What is baffling is why it is necessary to have two separate policies,
one for compulsory insurance and the other for non-compulsory. In the UK
all car insurance policies meet the compulsory requirements. They differ
in their non-compulsory provisions.
Post by Peter Moylan
A detail that I forgot to mention is that these third-party policies are
tightly regulated, to ensure that all such policies are up to the same
standard. Back in the days when third party insurance was just a
component of an overall insurance policy, there was no consistency
between companies as to how well the relevant third parties were covered.
The details of any non-compulsory insurance are a matter between the
insurance companies and their customers.
I'm a bit confused by this conversation. It seems to be saying that a
UK driver is insured by more than one company.
In the US, automobile insurance coverage is from one vendor. The
customer chooses the extent and limits of the coverage, and the rate
is based this.
In Quebec, you will actually deal with two entities. The province
provides insurance coverage for injury or death, which you need to pay
even just to have your driver's license - more if you have a car
registered. Apart from that, you need civil liability insurance from a
private company, some minimum of which is also compulsory if you have a
car.
Since the province is the only insurer for injury and death, in those
cases there is no fight over who should pay what (as long as you're
dealing with accidents on public highways.)
Florida is a "no fault" state. If I am in an automobile accident my
insurance covers me no matter if I am at fault or the other party is
at fault. My insurance provider may try to recover costs from the
other party's provider, but they will pay the charges (less the
deductible). They will even go after the other provider for the
deductible amount if the other party is at fault.

"No fault" doesn't mean that neither party is found to be at fault. It
means that each party's insurance initially pays for their insured's
damages.

That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight. It's also
to my advantage if the other party is uninsured or under-insured.

This is a bit off the subject but I once damaged my hand attaching my
utility trailer to the trailer hitch. It required several stitches in
the ER. My medical insurance did not cover it. That's considered
covered by my automobile insurance. I had to provide proof of
automobile insurance at the hospital when I told them what happened.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2019-01-23 15:29:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight. It's also
to my advantage if the other party is uninsured or under-insured.
If they determine that you were at fault, they're free to raise your
premium (maybe as much as they want, maybe it's regulated) or to drop
you entirely. There are insurance companies -- not the ones that advertise
on TV -- that specialize in insuring the "uninsurable," and their rates
are astronomical. If you fall under their purview, you must either pay
what they ask or give up driving.
Tony Cooper
2019-01-23 16:07:15 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:29:10 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight. It's also
to my advantage if the other party is uninsured or under-insured.
If they determine that you were at fault, they're free to raise your
premium (maybe as much as they want, maybe it's regulated) or to drop
you entirely.
Of course, but that has nothing to do with "no fault". That is true
under any system. The rate increase would go into effect at the next
renewal.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Quinn C
2019-01-23 17:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:29:10 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight. It's also
to my advantage if the other party is uninsured or under-insured.
If they determine that you were at fault, they're free to raise your
premium (maybe as much as they want, maybe it's regulated) or to drop
you entirely.
Of course, but that has nothing to do with "no fault". That is true
under any system. The rate increase would go into effect at the next
renewal.
But it won't happen in the Quebec system. Well, not in the same way.
Your premium goes up if you have demerit points, but that also means
it'll go down again when the points get canceled, usually after 2
years.

To my understanding - no direct experience.
--
Java is kind of like kindergarten. There are lots of rules you
have to remember. If you don't follow them, the compiler makes
you sit in the corner until you do.
Don Raab
Tony Cooper
2019-01-23 20:25:35 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 12:49:51 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:29:10 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight. It's also
to my advantage if the other party is uninsured or under-insured.
If they determine that you were at fault, they're free to raise your
premium (maybe as much as they want, maybe it's regulated) or to drop
you entirely.
Of course, but that has nothing to do with "no fault". That is true
under any system. The rate increase would go into effect at the next
renewal.
But it won't happen in the Quebec system. Well, not in the same way.
Your premium goes up if you have demerit points, but that also means
it'll go down again when the points get canceled, usually after 2
years.
To my understanding - no direct experience.
The "points" also come off after a period of x years here, too. I'm
not sure what the time period is having not experienced it. A driver
can get "points" assessed even if there's no accident. A traffic
infraction may result in "points".

While a person can be "at fault" and not receive a traffic citation, a
traffic citation often is the result of being at fault for an
accident. If no police are called to the scene, no citation is
issued. In my specific area, if the police are called to the scene of
a traffic accident, one (or both) of the parties will receive a
citation even if the accident itself does not clearly indicate that
one party is at fault.

PTD did - uncharacteristically - allow that the rate hike is
conditional: "...they're free to raise your premium". It is not
necessarily an automatic rate hike.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2019-01-23 20:39:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:29:10 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight. It's also
to my advantage if the other party is uninsured or under-insured.
If they determine that you were at fault, they're free to raise your
premium (maybe as much as they want, maybe it's regulated) or to drop
you entirely.
Of course, but that has nothing to do with "no fault". That is true
under any system. The rate increase would go into effect at the next
renewal.
You made it sound as if there's miraculously no down-side to no-fault as
compared with the old-fashioned way of doing it.
Tak To
2019-01-25 17:17:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight. It's also
to my advantage if the other party is uninsured or under-insured.
If they determine that you were at fault, they're free to raise your
premium (maybe as much as they want, maybe it's regulated) or to drop
you entirely.
In some state there is an appeal process. I have successfully
appealed a case against me when I lived in Massachusetts.

There are insurance companies -- not the ones that advertise
Post by Peter T. Daniels
on TV -- that specialize in insuring the "uninsurable," and their rates
are astronomical. If you fall under their purview, you must either pay
what they ask or give up driving.
It seems only fair.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Quinn C
2019-01-23 23:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:41:25 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
I'm a bit confused by this conversation. It seems to be saying that a
UK driver is insured by more than one company.
In the US, automobile insurance coverage is from one vendor. The
customer chooses the extent and limits of the coverage, and the rate
is based this.
In Quebec, you will actually deal with two entities. The province
provides insurance coverage for injury or death, which you need to pay
even just to have your driver's license - more if you have a car
registered. Apart from that, you need civil liability insurance from a
private company, some minimum of which is also compulsory if you have a
car.
Since the province is the only insurer for injury and death, in those
cases there is no fight over who should pay what (as long as you're
dealing with accidents on public highways.)
Florida is a "no fault" state. If I am in an automobile accident my
insurance covers me no matter if I am at fault or the other party is
at fault. My insurance provider may try to recover costs from the
other party's provider, but they will pay the charges (less the
deductible). They will even go after the other provider for the
deductible amount if the other party is at fault.
"No fault" doesn't mean that neither party is found to be at fault. It
means that each party's insurance initially pays for their insured's
damages.
So there are ways to do "no fault" with multiple private insurers. The
details have to be worked out, of course. For example, who pays for a
pedestrian who has no insurance, or what happens with out of state
drivers. The short overview for Quebec notes that the coverage extends
to tourists.
Post by Tony Cooper
That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight.
Which you have to pay for, though, ultimately.
Post by Tony Cooper
This is a bit off the subject but I once damaged my hand attaching my
utility trailer to the trailer hitch. It required several stitches in
the ER. My medical insurance did not cover it. That's considered
covered by my automobile insurance. I had to provide proof of
automobile insurance at the hospital when I told them what happened.
I believe that was in the short list of things not covered by Quebec
public insurance (I only skimmed through it.)

Then again, Quebec has a public health system, so medical bills are an
issue on a very different scale from the US.
--
- It's the title search for the Rachel property.
Guess who owns it?
- Tell me it's not that bastard Donald Trump.
-- Gilmore Girls, S02E08 (2001)
Tony Cooper
2019-01-24 00:54:54 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 18:04:58 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:41:25 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
I'm a bit confused by this conversation. It seems to be saying that a
UK driver is insured by more than one company.
In the US, automobile insurance coverage is from one vendor. The
customer chooses the extent and limits of the coverage, and the rate
is based this.
In Quebec, you will actually deal with two entities. The province
provides insurance coverage for injury or death, which you need to pay
even just to have your driver's license - more if you have a car
registered. Apart from that, you need civil liability insurance from a
private company, some minimum of which is also compulsory if you have a
car.
Since the province is the only insurer for injury and death, in those
cases there is no fight over who should pay what (as long as you're
dealing with accidents on public highways.)
Florida is a "no fault" state. If I am in an automobile accident my
insurance covers me no matter if I am at fault or the other party is
at fault. My insurance provider may try to recover costs from the
other party's provider, but they will pay the charges (less the
deductible). They will even go after the other provider for the
deductible amount if the other party is at fault.
"No fault" doesn't mean that neither party is found to be at fault. It
means that each party's insurance initially pays for their insured's
damages.
So there are ways to do "no fault" with multiple private insurers.
Well, an accident involving multiple automobiles could involve
multiple insurers.

The
Post by Quinn C
details have to be worked out, of course. For example, who pays for a
pedestrian who has no insurance,
The driver's insurance is responsible for the cost of the injuries to
the pedestrian.
Post by Quinn C
or what happens with out of state drivers.
If I am in an accident involving an out-of-state driver my insurer
pays for the damages to my vehicle. That driver's insurance provider
will have to hash it out with my insurance provider for coverage of
that vehicle if I'm at fault.

The short overview for Quebec notes that the coverage extends
Post by Quinn C
to tourists.
Post by Tony Cooper
That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight.
Which you have to pay for, though, ultimately.
Of course. But under what type of coverage is that *not* the case?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Quinn C
2019-01-24 03:56:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 18:04:58 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight.
Which you have to pay for, though, ultimately.
Of course. But under what type of coverage is that *not* the case?
In the model that I was talking about, of course. Since there's only
one insurer, there won't be any quibbling between it.
--
Microsoft designed a user-friendly car:
instead of the oil, alternator, gas and engine
warning lights it has just one: "General Car Fault"

Disclaimer: I, Quinn, don't believe Microsoft actually
created such a car design
Tony Cooper
2019-01-24 04:21:18 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 22:56:46 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 18:04:58 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight.
Which you have to pay for, though, ultimately.
Of course. But under what type of coverage is that *not* the case?
In the model that I was talking about, of course. Since there's only
one insurer, there won't be any quibbling between it.
You don't think, in that case, that the insured is not paying for it?
I don't mean the premium, but the insurer's cost of processing a claim
because it's not a no-fault state.

To make that case, you'd have show that the insurance rates are less
in states that do not have no-fault, and that those lower rates are
based on the insurance provider's lesser cost of doing business.

The last part is added because in some states the rates have to be
approved by the state. In Florida, for example, the insurance
companies have to apply to the state if they want a rate increase and
show why.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Quinn C
2019-01-24 19:51:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 22:56:46 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 18:04:58 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight.
Which you have to pay for, though, ultimately.
Of course. But under what type of coverage is that *not* the case?
In the model that I was talking about, of course. Since there's only
one insurer, there won't be any quibbling between it.
You don't think, in that case, that the insured is not paying for it?
I don't mean the premium, but the insurer's cost of processing a claim
Of course. I was talking about the quibbling. Wasn't that clear?

A company tries to reduce their payouts by quibbling with other
insurance companies. If they win more often than not, that may be true,
but in the bigger picture, all the insured have to shoulder all the
payouts plus the costs of all quibbling.
Post by Tony Cooper
because it's not a no-fault state.
To make that case, you'd have show that the insurance rates are less
in states that do not have no-fault, and that those lower rates are
based on the insurance provider's lesser cost of doing business.
I'm not sure what you're arguing about here.

Quebec has a no-fault rule, and when it comes to bodily injury, only
one insurer. It made sense to me that no-fault works in this case,
because it's really irrelevant who's at fault when the payout always
comes from the same source anyway. I found it harder to imagine how
no-fault would work if the parties involved in an accident may have
different insurers, but I get the approximate idea now.
--
For spirits when they please
Can either sex assume, or both; so soft
And uncompounded is their essence pure,
-- Milton, Paradise Lost
Sam Plusnet
2019-01-22 19:31:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:31:57 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
The situation in NSW, and I suspect in other Australian states, is
that third party insurance, also known as "green slip insurance",
is separated out as a special kind of insurance. To re-register a
vehicle each year, you must submit both a roadworthiness
certificate (except for relatively new vehicles) and the green
slip. (Which are both done over the internet these days.) There are
no exceptions.
If you also want comprehensive insurance, that's optional, and is
a separate insurance policy. A "comprehensive" insurance policy
does not include third party cover, because it's understood you're
already covered for that.
Bafflingly unnecessary! Do other liability insurances come
separately too?
The sole point of the legislation is to distinguish between compulsory
and non-compulsory insurance, and to have a mechanism to ensure that all
cars are covered by the compulsory one. (Note that a car cannot be
registered until _after_ the compulsory insurance is in place.) I don't
see why anyone would find that baffling.
What is baffling is why it is necessary to have two separate policies,
one for compulsory insurance and the other for non-compulsory. In the UK
all car insurance policies meet the compulsory requirements. They differ
in their non-compulsory provisions.
The Australian system means that there are twice as many insurance
policies, and thus twice the administrative overheads - which come out
of the car owner's pocket. Claims for an accident between two cars
would involve four insurance companies.
--
Sam Plusnet
s***@gowanhill.com
2019-01-20 12:28:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Is insurance mandatory for all drivers in the UK? Could the Royals be
self-insured?
Third-party insurance has been mandatory in the UK since 1930 (the first country to introduce mandatory motor insurance) but there are a couple of very limited alternatives.

According to the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks Deposits) Regulations 1992, a business can place a £500,000 bond with the Government which is subsequently used to pay third-party claims in the event of an at-fault collision. (The vehicle owner remains liable for claims in excess of the £500,000.)

As a further alternative to third party liability motor insurance, a vehicle user may take out a security with a security giver. Under RTA s. 146 a security can only be given by an insurance company or some body of persons which carries on in the UK the business of giving securities. This requires permission from the Secretary of State.

A consultation on whether to remove these alternatives has closed.

Owain
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2019-01-20 12:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
@invalid.com says...
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...
Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.
what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .
What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)
He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving
Alternatively, there is a BBC article
"Older drivers: Is age a factor behind the wheel?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46916429
There are roughly 300 licenced drivers over the age of 100 in the UK.
Hence Philip is a stripling.
p.s. He's back behind the wheel again today.
He must have very good automobile insurance.
He has a very rich wife, so a higher insurance premium won't deter
him.
Does he? Isn't bigamy a crime?
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2019-01-19 20:12:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...
Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.
what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .
What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)
He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving
Alternatively, there is a BBC article
"Older drivers: Is age a factor behind the wheel?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46916429
There are roughly 300 licenced drivers over the age of 100 in the UK.
Hence Philip is a stripling.
p.s. He's back behind the wheel again today.
No, he's in posession of a new car. There is no confirmation yet
that he is driving it.
Sam Plusnet
2019-01-19 20:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
No, he's in posession of a new car. There is no confirmation yet
that he is driving it.
What!
You doubt the BBC? - who were quoting the Daily Mail and the Sun?
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-01-19 21:26:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
No, he's in posession of a new car. There is no confirmation yet
that he is driving it.
What!
You doubt the BBC? - who were quoting the Daily Mail and the Sun?
In any case he is reported to have been seen driving on private land,
not on a public road.

Being a horsey man with an even more horsey wife, and a horsey daughter
who has ridden in the Olympics, Philip is no doubt familiar with the
saying "When you fall off a horse, get right back on".

OK, Philip's "horse" had four wheels rather than four legs, but the
principle still applies.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
LFS
2019-01-20 06:31:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Sam Plusnet
There are roughly 300 licenced drivers over the age of 100 in the UK.
Hence Philip is a stripling.
p.s. He's back behind the wheel again today.
No, he's in posession of a new car. There is no confirmation yet
that he is driving it.
Not only has he been driving it, he's been spotted driving it without
wearing a seatbelt and the police have confirmed that they have spoken
to him about this.

I think he deserves public thanks for pushing the other stuff out of the
headlines for a couple of days.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
bill van
2019-01-20 06:46:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by LFS
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Sam Plusnet
There are roughly 300 licenced drivers over the age of 100 in the UK.
Hence Philip is a stripling.
p.s. He's back behind the wheel again today.
No, he's in posession of a new car. There is no confirmation yet
that he is driving it.
Not only has he been driving it, he's been spotted driving it without
wearing a seatbelt and the police have confirmed that they have spoken
to him about this.
I think he deserves public thanks for pushing the other stuff out of
the headlines for a couple of days.
I think he'd be hilarious if he chose to sit for truthful interviews
about his life, times and observations.

bill
Sam Plusnet
2019-01-20 19:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by LFS
Not only has he been driving it, he's been spotted driving it without
wearing a seatbelt and the police have confirmed that they have spoken
to him about this.
I think he deserves public thanks for pushing the other stuff out of the
headlines for a couple of days.
Well it would be difficult to arrange another royal wedding at short
notice, but...

No, that's a conspiracy theory too far.
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter T. Daniels
2019-01-19 21:46:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...
Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.
what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .
What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)
He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.
A good thing he wasn't taking the Missus out for a spin!
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving
charles
2019-01-19 23:28:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite
a bit is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can
expect some trucks to enter a highway at any point...
Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They
make it sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to
need to watch the road in front of them.
what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are
going. As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .
What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a
capsized SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age
limits on "driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)
He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency
of any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen
to be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.
A good thing he wasn't taking the Missus out for a spin!
But I've seen him doing that near Balmoral. I stopped in a passing place to
let an oncoming vehicle pass and he was the driver.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Quinn C
2019-01-21 19:13:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)
He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving
I suspect it's also seen as unwise to pester royal highnesses about it.
--
Be afraid of the lame - They'll inherit your legs
Be afraid of the old - They'll inherit your souls
-- Regina Spektor, Après moi
Janet
2019-01-19 21:22:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV?
They didn't say whether he was driving.
He was.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)
Only for youths.

Janet.
Sam Plusnet
2019-01-18 18:51:06 UTC
Permalink
On 18-Jan-19 3:40, Dr. HotSalt wrote:

<out of context snip>
Post by Dr. HotSalt
That was my first thought too (Triffid, Audrey II), but this does not
occur in the US. If it does in Canada it might drift over the border like
roundabouts did.
Are plate tectonics so active along (or across) the Canadian border?
--
Sam Plusnet
Loading...