It worked TBF!Or the British did it, trying to distract attention from Brexit.
Could have been a halogen work lamp, that's what caused the Windsor castle fire.
bugger me is that right, now that is truly bonkers!!!!I thinks it’s somewhere like Japan they are fitting strip lights in the road at crossings so that people don’t have to look up to see the crossing lights - completely bonkers !
that's simply ridiculous, I note it's on a trial period, lets hope it's scrapped. The younger generation is gonna have so many problems as they get older with hunched backs, neck/eyesight problems and repetitive strain injuries not to mention getting run over by bikes and ev'sRedirect Notice
www.google.co.uk
We've got a lovely vintage 6 way Wylex consumer unit in perfect condition, just like the day it was fitted in 1985!.. even has Its original HRC fuses.would of thought something like that would have a modern spec distribution/consumer board with rcbo's/rcd protection, unless it was an ancient consumer board
Another "near-miss" disaster narrowly avoided.People "waking" in the street glued to they phone screens drives me mad ...
whilst i'm not a fan of cyclists I do feel for this guy, wtf was the judge thinking with the ruling, fooking outrageous to get blamed when the silly cow was in a world of her own when crossing the road, cyclist should have prosecuted her. If I were a cyclist I think I would defo have insurance in place now, cant cost that much surely?
How did a law-abiding cyclist end up with a huge legal bill after a pedestrian walked out in front of him?
Robert Hazeldean collided with pedestrian Gemma Brushett as she stepped out into road while using her phone – but now he is facing a huge compensation and legal billwww.independent.co.uk
No no, this is a good idea... so long as the ground lights show the opposite colour to the proper ones.that's simply ridiculous, I note it's on a trial period, lets hope it's scrapped. The younger generation is gonna have so many problems as they get older with hunched backs, neck/eyesight problems and repetitive strain injuries not to mention getting run over by bikes and ev's
This is a consequence of the ruling last year that the chap who killed someone that walked out in front of his bike was to blame. The circumstances were quite different in that case as we was riding a bike with no brakes that shouldn't really have been on the road. This seems to have been taken as a precedent though and now cyclists will need to be insured or travel at walking speed.
Another "near-miss" disaster narrowly avoided.
I would assume the missing letter is an L