| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 41:11:35 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 174,724 |
https://www.motorradonline.de/ratgeber/13000-euro-bussgeld-fuer-motorradfahrer-ueberholverbot-im-gotthardtunnel-missachtet/
"overtakes for 13,000 euros in the tunnel"
On Tue, 2 Sep 2025 16:04:37 +0200, H <donotremovespam@outlook.com>
wrote:
https://www.motorradonline.de/ratgeber/13000-euro-bussgeld-fuer-motorradfahrer-ueberholverbot-im-gotthardtunnel-missachtet/
"overtakes for 13,000 euros in the tunnel"
He was filtering through the St Gotthard tunnel, overtook 45 cars and
two lorries. For reference, traffic through there is 80kph speed
restricted and it's strictly no overtaking, although filtering is >specifically verboten here under any circumstances. He's also been
charged with driving while 'incapacitated' which may just mean
overtired, rather than under the influence (although one report in
German has a byline of 'drunk driver', so who knows?)
The Swiss reports don't mention a fine, just that he's been banned
from driving in Switzerland. The German reports is simply
extrapolating from the normal fine for a single filtering offence and >multiplying it by 47.
The driving ban would be effective immediately for any serious
offence, even speeding at more than 30kph over the limit - the cops
will literally take your licence away from you if you're physically
stopped by them - but it will take some time to go through the courts.
I can only assume that he thought he'd be immune from the front-facing >cameras, but he would show up on the live feed and it seems that he
was puled and arrested some time later.
On Tue, 2 Sep 2025 16:04:37 +0200, H <donotremovespam@outlook.com>
wrote:
https://www.motorradonline.de/ratgeber/13000-euro-bussgeld-fuer-motorradfahrer-ueberholverbot-im-gotthardtunnel-missachtet/
"overtakes for 13,000 euros in the tunnel"
He was filtering through the St Gotthard tunnel, overtook 45 cars and
two lorries. For reference, traffic through there is 80kph speed
restricted and it's strictly no overtaking
On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 19:15:58 +0200, Ace <Ace@ch.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2025 16:04:37 +0200, H <donotremovespam@outlook.com>
wrote:
https://www.motorradonline.de/ratgeber/13000-euro-bussgeld-fuer-motorradfahrer-ueberholverbot-im-gotthardtunnel-missachtet/
"overtakes for 13,000 euros in the tunnel"
He was filtering through the St Gotthard tunnel, overtook 45 cars and
two lorries. For reference, traffic through there is 80kph speed
restricted and it's strictly no overtaking
Even I'm not that stupid nowadays
Although I do recall my first ride through the Mont Blanc tunnel,
probably in the 80s, which treated like a video game - red lights mean vehicle to overtake, white lights mean vehicle coming towards you.
I'm (a bit) more sensible now
On 04/09/2025 09:54, Champ wrote:
I'm (a bit) more sensible now
Hmmmm, and by what degree do you measure "bit"? :-)
On 04/09/2025 09:54, Champ wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 19:15:58 +0200, Ace <Ace@ch.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2025 16:04:37 +0200, H <donotremovespam@outlook.com>
wrote:
https://www.motorradonline.de/ratgeber/13000-euro-bussgeld-fuer-
motorradfahrer-ueberholverbot-im-gotthardtunnel-missachtet/
"overtakes for 13,000 euros in the tunnel"
He was filtering through the St Gotthard tunnel, overtook 45 cars and
two lorries. For reference, traffic through there is 80kph speed
restricted and it's strictly no overtaking
Even I'm not that stupid nowadays
Although I do recall my first ride through the Mont Blanc tunnel,
probably in the 80s, which treated like a video game - red lights mean
vehicle to overtake, white lights mean vehicle coming towards you.
I'm (a bit) more sensible now
Hmmmm, and by what degree do you measure "bit"? :-)
On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 14:58:28 +0100, YTC1 <ytc1@ytc1.co.uk> wrote:
On 04/09/2025 09:54, Champ wrote:
I'm (a bit) more sensible now
Hmmmm, and by what degree do you measure "bit"? :-)
The smallest measurable unit?
I'm (a bit) more sensible now
Hmmmm, and by what degree do you measure "bit"? :-)
Survival?
:-)
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:21:01 +0100, "chrisnd @ukrm"
<chrisnd@privacy.net> wrote:
I'm (a bit) more sensible now
Hmmmm, and by what degree do you measure "bit"? :-)
Survival?
:-)
As in "I didn't die so it must have been safe"?
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:21:01 +0100, "chrisnd @ukrm"
<chrisnd@privacy.net> wrote:
I'm (a bit) more sensible now
Hmmmm, and by what degree do you measure "bit"? :-)
Survival?
:-)
As in "I didn't die so it must have been safe"?
I'm (a bit) more sensible now
Hmmmm, and by what degree do you measure "bit"? :-)
Survival?
As in "I didn't die so it must have been safe"?
"I only died for a little bit", perhaps?
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:04:31 +0100, Eddie <eddie@deguello.org> wrote:
I'm (a bit) more sensible now
Hmmmm, and by what degree do you measure "bit"? :-)
Survival?
As in "I didn't die so it must have been safe"?
"I only died for a little bit", perhaps?
Well....
When I had my *big* accident [1], there was a short period, in the
ambulance, but before it left for the hospital, when I scored 3 on the Glasgow Coma Scale[2]. This suggested that I had severe brain trauma,
and could have been 'brain dead'
<insert cheap gag here>
But then I sat bolt upright and tried to spit out the tube they'd put
down my windpipe to keep my airway clear (you can't tolerate this when conscious).
So... it was safe after all :-)
[1] racing a ZX10R at Jurby South road circuit in May 2008
[2] https://worksupport.com/documents/glasgow_coma_scale1.gif
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:04:31 +0100, Eddie <eddie@deguello.org> wrote:< snip >
I'm (a bit) more sensible now
Hmmmm, and by what degree do you measure "bit"? :-)
Survival?
As in "I didn't die so it must have been safe"?
"I only died for a little bit", perhaps?
Well....
When I had my *big* accident [1]
[2] https://worksupport.com/documents/glasgow_coma_scale1.gif
When I had my *big* accident [1], there was a short period, in the
ambulance, but before it left for the hospital, when I scored 3 on the Glasgow Coma Scale[2]. This suggested that I had severe brain trauma,
and could have been 'brain dead'
But then I sat bolt upright and tried to spit out the tube they'd put
down my windpipe to keep my airway clear (you can't tolerate this when conscious).
So... it was safe after all :-)
[1] racing a ZX10R at Jurby South road circuit in May 2008--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
[2] https://worksupport.com/documents/glasgow_coma_scale1.gif
Thanks to reading about the GCS, now I know what my physician friend
meant when he told me about being first on the scene to a RTA and
described the driver as 'posturing' (the driver did not survive).
[2] https://worksupport.com/documents/glasgow_coma_scale1.gif
You know, I've heard this scale referenced probably at every first aid
course I've ever done (ten or more, at a guess) in the context of
describing a casualty as 'conscious' where it's always been stressed
that anything other than fully conscious is classed as not conscious.
But in all of those mentions I've never realised that the scale is
that way up, i.e. that 1 is the worst score in each category.
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 16:14:58 +0200, Ace <Ace@ch.com> wrote:
[2] https://worksupport.com/documents/glasgow_coma_scale1.gif
You know, I've heard this scale referenced probably at every first aid
course I've ever done (ten or more, at a guess) in the context of
describing a casualty as 'conscious' where it's always been stressed
that anything other than fully conscious is classed as not conscious.
But in all of those mentions I've never realised that the scale is
that way up, i.e. that 1 is the worst score in each category.
The orientation of the scale never seemed odd to me, as a higher score
being better seems natural
What does seem odd (to me) is that it's base 1, not zero, so a minimal
score is still a positive number.
Was Auvache still around when that happened? Did he ask how the bike was?
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 11:35:28 -0000 (UTC), Ben Blaney <benblaney@gmail.invalid> wrote:
Was Auvache still around when that happened? Did he ask how the bike was?
I just had to look that up. I have a fairly clear memory of going to
his funeral, but I couldn't remember when it was to within 10~20
years! So I went looking on Google Groups, which I was actaully
suprised to find still exists!
Anyway, he didn't sign off until Feb 2013, so he was definitely
around.
My recollection was that he would have been more likely to ask if the (near)widow needed comforting. But maybe I am confusing him with me.
Google Groups suggest he did make a reference to the condition of the
bike, tho
What does seem odd (to me) is that it's base 1, not zero, so a minimal
score is still a positive number.
On Sep 10, 2025 at 6:23:38 AM EDT, "Champ" <neal@champ.org.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:04:31 +0100, Eddie <eddie@deguello.org> wrote:
I'm (a bit) more sensible now
Hmmmm, and by what degree do you measure "bit"? :-)
Survival?
As in "I didn't die so it must have been safe"?
"I only died for a little bit", perhaps?
Well....
When I had my *big* accident [1], there was a short period, in the
ambulance, but before it left for the hospital, when I scored 3 on the
Glasgow Coma Scale[2]. This suggested that I had severe brain trauma,
and could have been 'brain dead'
<insert cheap gag here>
But then I sat bolt upright and tried to spit out the tube they'd put
down my windpipe to keep my airway clear (you can't tolerate this when
conscious).
So... it was safe after all :-)
[1] racing a ZX10R at Jurby South road circuit in May 2008
[2] https://worksupport.com/documents/glasgow_coma_scale1.gif
Well, it's rather against the historically robust culture of UKRM, but I'll just say that I'm very glad you're not dead.
Was Auvache still around when that happened? Did he ask how the bike was?
On 10/09/2025 11:23, Champ wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:04:31 +0100, Eddie <eddie@deguello.org> wrote:< snip >
I'm (a bit) more sensible now
Hmmmm, and by what degree do you measure "bit"? :-)
Survival?As in "I didn't die so it must have been safe"?
"I only died for a little bit", perhaps?
Well....
When I had my *big* accident [1]
Yes, that's what I meant.
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 11:23:38 +0100, Champ <neal@champ.org.uk> wrote:
[2] https://worksupport.com/documents/glasgow_coma_scale1.gif
You know, I've heard this scale referenced probably at every first aid
course I've ever done (ten or more, at a guess) in the context of
describing a casualty as 'conscious' where it's always been stressed
that anything other than fully conscious is classed as not conscious.
On 10/09/2025 14:52, Eddie wrote:
On 10/09/2025 11:23, Champ wrote:
< snip >
When I had my *big* accident [1]
Yes, that's what I meant.
Give him time, I'm sure he will manage another In his dotage.
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 11:23:38 +0100, Champ <neal@champ.org.uk> wrote:
[2] https://worksupport.com/documents/glasgow_coma_scale1.gif
You know, I've heard this scale referenced probably at every first aid
course I've ever done (ten or more, at a guess) in the context of
describing a casualty as 'conscious' where it's always been stressed
that anything other than fully conscious is classed as not conscious.
I would have thought that was Champ's 1st question
Your later comment about having to explain zero-based vs. one-based
scoring was quite interesting, I'd probably never have thought it
would make a difference, but I can definitely see how starting at 1,
and having the possibility of a zero score for non-assessed criteria,
conveys more information than starting at zero.
On Thu, 11 Sep 2025 15:12:38 +0100, YTC1 <ytc1@ytc1.co.uk> wrote:I'm still struggling with the random capitalisation of I
I would have thought that was Champ's 1st question
Learn to snip, newbie
I'm still struggling with the random capitalisation of IAnd here are some spare .....................
[1] And I note that our joint publication is still referenced in new
ones published as recently as 2023[3]
[2] Prof. John E Ware. Basically invented a new science known as
Quality of Life.
[3] e.g. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10225622/ reference
27 "Map-R for windows."
On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 00:16:23 +0200, Ace <Ace@ch.com> wrote:
[1] And I note that our joint publication is still referenced in new
ones published as recently as 2023[3]
[2] Prof. John E Ware. Basically invented a new science known as
Quality of Life.
[3] e.g. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10225622/ reference
27 "Map-R for windows."
<looks>
Wow. Genuinely impressed. You can really claim to have contributed
something worthwhile to humanity. Unlike most of us
[1] And I note that our joint publication is still referenced in new
ones published as recently as 2023[3]
[2] Prof. John E Ware. Basically invented a new science known as
Quality of Life.
[3] e.g. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10225622/ reference
27 "Map-R for windows."
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 16:14:58 +0200, Ace <Ace@ch.com> wrote:
[2] https://worksupport.com/documents/glasgow_coma_scale1.gif
You know, I've heard this scale referenced probably at every first aid >>course I've ever done (ten or more, at a guess) in the context of >>describing a casualty as 'conscious' where it's always been stressed
that anything other than fully conscious is classed as not conscious.
But in all of those mentions I've never realised that the scale is
that way up, i.e. that 1 is the worst score in each category.
The orientation of the scale never seemed odd to me, as a higher score
being better seems natural
What does seem odd (to me) is that it's base 1, not zero, so a minimal
score is still a positive number.
Champ <neal@champ.org.uk> wrote in news:qi25ck5l1agci2k224dltrgrslgbin62qb@ 4ax.com:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 16:14:58 +0200, Ace <Ace@ch.com> wrote:
[2] https://worksupport.com/documents/glasgow_coma_scale1.gif
You know, I've heard this scale referenced probably at every first aid
course I've ever done (ten or more, at a guess) in the context of
describing a casualty as 'conscious' where it's always been stressed
that anything other than fully conscious is classed as not conscious.
But in all of those mentions I've never realised that the scale is
that way up, i.e. that 1 is the worst score in each category.
The orientation of the scale never seemed odd to me, as a higher score
being better seems natural
What does seem odd (to me) is that it's base 1, not zero, so a minimal
score is still a positive number.
OTOH, a score of 1 might mean a chance of improvement, whereas the next
step down is not zero but dead.
Champ <neal@champ.org.uk> wrote in news:qi25ck5l1agci2k224dltrgrslgbin62qb@ >4ax.com:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 16:14:58 +0200, Ace <Ace@ch.com> wrote:
[2] https://worksupport.com/documents/glasgow_coma_scale1.gif
You know, I've heard this scale referenced probably at every first aid >>>course I've ever done (ten or more, at a guess) in the context of >>>describing a casualty as 'conscious' where it's always been stressed
that anything other than fully conscious is classed as not conscious.
But in all of those mentions I've never realised that the scale is
that way up, i.e. that 1 is the worst score in each category.
The orientation of the scale never seemed odd to me, as a higher score
being better seems natural
What does seem odd (to me) is that it's base 1, not zero, so a minimal
score is still a positive number.
OTOH, a score of 1 might mean a chance of improvement, whereas the next
step down is not zero but dead.
... scored 3 when first assessed at the sceneConsidering the forum, I thought "Inappropriate responses".
On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 21:25:13 -0000 (UTC), wessie
<willnotwork@tesco.net> wrote:
Champ <neal@champ.org.uk> wrote in news:qi25ck5l1agci2k224dltrgrslgbin62qb@ >> 4ax.com:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 16:14:58 +0200, Ace <Ace@ch.com> wrote:
[2] https://worksupport.com/documents/glasgow_coma_scale1.gif
You know, I've heard this scale referenced probably at every first aid >>>> course I've ever done (ten or more, at a guess) in the context of
describing a casualty as 'conscious' where it's always been stressed
that anything other than fully conscious is classed as not conscious.
But in all of those mentions I've never realised that the scale is
that way up, i.e. that 1 is the worst score in each category.
The orientation of the scale never seemed odd to me, as a higher score
being better seems natural
What does seem odd (to me) is that it's base 1, not zero, so a minimal
score is still a positive number.
OTOH, a score of 1 might mean a chance of improvement, whereas the next
step down is not zero but dead.
You misunderstand. If you look at the table, a dead person would
score 1 for each of the three criteria (and, as the criteria scores
are usually added together), would have a score of 3
The half-joke I made at the start of all this was that I also scored 3
when first assessed at the scene
