keys used in the plural
Eamer
to talk about their keys. Apparently they do so even when there is only one
key. Is this correct, and if so, why?
For instance, one might say, "I lost my house/car keys." Does this _always_
mean they lost more than one key? Or could it be that they are referring to
a single entity using a plural word?
Eamer
Harvey Van Sickle
In the case of the house -- at least for me -- it's keys in the plural.
(I carry 3 house keys - front, back and gate.)
In the case of the car, I suspect it's an anachronism from the not-so-
distant-past when each lock had a separate key (ignition, doors and
boot, petrol cap; ah, I remember it well.....)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 21 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs)
david56
For me it would be the former. I don't believe I would say "keys"
when there was only one key. Everybody seems to have one or two
bunches of keys on their person, not a single key, so "I have lost my
key" is an uncommon utterance. However, my car key is on a ring with
the garage keys - if I lost the car key, I would indeed say "the car
key", not the plural.
--
David
I say what it occurs to me to say.
=====
The address is valid today, but I change it periodically.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
I cannot imagine anyone carrying a single key. Keys grow in clusters.
On just about any key ring there is at least one key of unknown use.
It is the key that opens something one once owned or used, and it
never discarded in fear that this something will suddenly demand
access.
In most houses there is a "key drawer" where old keys, like elephants,
go to die. It is commonly considered very bad luck indeed to discard
any of these keys. Even if common sense says that a key marked
"Volvo" is no longer needed because you haven't owned a Volvo for 16
years, there's a deep and primitive instinct in man* not to throw away
this key. The current owner that Volvo might call the next afternoon
and offer $1,000 for someone to come and open the rotting carcass of
that Volvo. If one moves to a new house, the contents of the key
drawer should make the journey, and the keys to the old house should
be added to the drawer.
Of special note are the tiny keys. These are the keys to luggage
locks and are often fetishes of the old Samsonite religion. They are
to be passed down from generation to generation with due reverence.
There is usually a receptacle in the garage that is similar to the key
drawer, but it contains padlocks without keys. There is a myth -
sometimes called "The Second Coming of the Key" - that one day one of
the keys in the key drawer will fit one of the padlocks in the garage,
but this has never happened yet even though the truly devout believe
it will happen.
*"man", in this case, refers to male humans and not Man. Female
humans are key agnostics. They irreverently call the contents of the
key drawer "key clutter" and worship other things. They will try to
clear out the key drawer and replace it with almost-spent tubes of
lipstick in colors they will never wear again, and dried out
containers of out-of-favor eye shadow.
R H Draney
>
>In most houses there is a "key drawer" where old keys, like elephants,
>go to die. It is commonly considered very bad luck indeed to discard
>any of these keys. Even if common sense says that a key marked
>"Volvo" is no longer needed because you haven't owned a Volvo for 16
>years, there's a deep and primitive instinct in man* not to throw away
>this key. The current owner that Volvo might call the next afternoon
>and offer $1,000 for someone to come and open the rotting carcass of
>that Volvo. If one moves to a new house, the contents of the key
>drawer should make the journey, and the keys to the old house should
>be added to the drawer.
I've got a few in my key drawer that never operated any lock...for a while back
in the early 90s the car dealers here were running a series of promotions
wherein they'd mail a key to everyone they could think of...this was your
invitation to come down to the lot, try it in a car they were giving away, and
if it fit, you'd win the car...(naturally, most of these keys *didn't* start the
car, and you would then be in a position of being on a car sales lot and at the
mercy of the sales staff)....
>Of special note are the tiny keys. These are the keys to luggage
>locks and are often fetishes of the old Samsonite religion. They are
>to be passed down from generation to generation with due reverence.
if you get tired of looking at them, you could always try making wind chimes out
of them...I've even considered that it would be a great place to hide the spare
key to the house; just instruct people who are supposed to know that "the spare
is the one counterbalanced by the long key with the blue head"....r
Stewart Gordon
black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:
> It seems to me that people use frequently the plural forms of the word "key"
> to talk about their keys.
How many plural forms of "key" are there?
> Apparently they do so even when there is only one
> key. Is this correct, and if so, why?
<snip>
I don't think I've come across this. Are there many people who possess
only one key, yet like to make people think they have several?
Though I can imagine someone asking someone else "Have you got your
keys?" without knowing how many (or few) keys are on the bunch.
But I've come across it the other way round. While I was out shopping
with a few of my family, my sister phoned to complain that she couldn't
get into the house because she'd left her "car key" behind, having not
got her car for the time being. NTS I instantly wondered "What on
earth's that to do with anything?" It turned out that she had managed
to confuse herself by using "car key" to mean her whole bunch of keys!
Stewart.
--
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on
on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Adrian Bailey
news:948emv07jm11m3hgn...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:56:47 +0900, "Eamer" <ea...@digitalme.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It seems to me that people use frequently the plural forms of the word
"key"
> >to talk about their keys. Apparently they do so even when there is only
one
> >key. Is this correct, and if so, why?
> >
> >For instance, one might say, "I lost my house/car keys." Does this
_always_
> >mean they lost more than one key? Or could it be that they are referring
to
> >a single entity using a plural word?
> >
> I cannot imagine anyone carrying a single key.
Poor you.
[snip]
> *"man", in this case, refers to male humans and not Man. Female
> humans are key agnostics. They irreverently call the contents of the
> key drawer "key clutter" and worship other things. They will try to
> clear out the key drawer and replace it with almost-spent tubes of
> lipstick in colors they will never wear again, and dried out
> containers of out-of-favor eye shadow.
In my experience, women have a "thing" about keys: they can't find them,
they haven't got them, they must've left them at home.... Someone should
teach them Rule Of Life #323: Women *always* have their keys.
Adrian
Eamer
> > Apparently they do so even when there is only one
> > key. Is this correct, and if so, why?
> <snip>
>
> I don't think I've come across this. Are there many people who possess
> only one key, yet like to make people think they have several?
>
A couple of days ago I was watching an episode of Friends (722), where the
gang wants to drive Monica's Porsche. They first try to get the car key and
their lines go like this:
Ross: Hey uh Mon, I saw the Porsche parked out front, can I get the keys?
Thought I'd take that bad boy out for a little spin.
[snip]
Rachel: Come on Ross give me the keys! Monica does not know what she's
talking about! I am an excellent driver!
[snip]
Ross: There is no way I am letting you drive this car! So why don't you just
hand over the keys?
"the keys" flash across the screen only a couple of times, which makes it
very difficult to make them out clearly, but what they refer to with "the
keys" seems to be just a single key attached to a key ring. And I think I've
come across such situations more than once. Does the whole thing make sense?
Note that they speak the first two lines before they actually get to see the
keys. Perhaps they are assuming that Monica has several keys on a ring as
most people do (as I gather from your posts).
BTW, I carry only one conventional key myself, which is my apartment key.
First, I don't own a car. I have other "keys" of course, but they are all
card keys, which I use in my office.
There are a few sentences in this post that I don't think feel right, so I'd
appreciate it if you could correct my English.
Eamer
DOYLE60
>"key"
>> to talk about their keys. Apparently they do so even when there is only one
>> key. Is this correct, and if so, why?
>>
>> For instance, one might say, "I lost my house/car keys." Does this _always_
>> mean they lost more than one key? Or could it be that they are referring to
>> a single entity using a plural word?
It may have something to do with the fact that cars used to have one key for
the door, one for the truck and one for the ignition. So it just may be a
habit lingually lingering around but slowly changing.
Matt
Bob Cunningham
<harve...@ntlworld.com> said:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 13:56:47 GMT, Eamer wrote
> > It seems to me that people use frequently the plural forms of the
> > word "key" to talk about their keys. Apparently they do so even
> > when there is only one key. Is this correct, and if so, why?
> > For instance, one might say, "I lost my house/car keys." Does this
> > _always_ mean they lost more than one key? Or could it be that
> > they are referring to a single entity using a plural word?
> In the case of the house -- at least for me -- it's keys in the plural.
> (I carry 3 house keys - front, back and gate.)
> In the case of the car, I suspect it's an anachronism from the not-so-
> distant-past when each lock had a separate key (ignition, doors and
> boot, petrol cap; ah, I remember it well.....)
I sincerely hope that it's not true that separate keys are
an anachronism. When I buy my next new car, I will be
disappointed if it's not provided with separate keys.
I like being able to leave my car in the care of valet
parkers or service facilities without granting access to
whatever I may have locked up in the trunk.
I think several years ago I may have owned a Japanese car
that had two keys: One key would fit both the ignition and
the trunk; the other, the ignition only. If that's true, it
was an excellent idea.
As for the subject question, if I still had the Japanese
car, and if my memory of its provision of keys is accurate,
I would speak of "my car keys" when I had both keys on a
ring in my pocket, but when I left the car for service, I
might take the ignition-only key off the ring and leave "the
key" with the car. But if I didn't have anything in the
trunk to bother about, I would probably just leave "the
keys".
Skitt
> In my experience, women have a "thing" about keys: they can't find
> them, they haven't got them, they must've left them at home....
> Someone should teach them Rule Of Life #323: Women *always* have
> their keys.
Funny you should mention that. I was just summoned away from the computer
by my wife's plaintive cry, "Honey, I can't find my keys!" She was digging
through her purse with no success. I asked her if she had possibly left
them in the car in the garage. "No, I never do that!" was the indignant
answer. I went to look. They were there -- in the ignition. Another one
of those "trust but verify" things.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Harvey Van Sickle
>> In the case of the car, I suspect it's an anachronism from the
>> not-so-distant past when each lock had a separate key (ignition,
>> doors and boot, petrol cap; ah, I remember it well.....)
> I sincerely hope that it's not true that separate keys are
> an anachronism. When I buy my next new car, I will be
> disappointed if it's not provided with separate keys.
Maybe it's different in the US -- I can't recall the last car I owned
her with separate keys (probably an early 1980s' model). We currently
have a 6-year-old Citroen and a 2-year-old Renault, and I recently
drove a brand-new Vauxhall (Astra) as a loaner from the body shop; all
of these used a single key.
(It's also the case that all of the central locking on these
automatically open the boot as well as the doors; the central locking
on the new Vauxhall even unlocked the petrol cap flap.)
I don't know if one can specify separate keys as an optional extra.
Skitt
> Adrian Bailey writes:
>> In my experience, women have a "thing" about keys: they can't find
>> them, they haven't got them, they must've left them at home....
>> Someone should teach them Rule Of Life #323: Women *always* have
>> their keys.
>
> Don't you dare! The only reason my dear wife has put up with me for 43
> years is because I can always be relied on to find her keys. My secret
> is simple. What's the first thing a woman does when she comes in? She
> heads for the lavatory and puts her keys on the cistern. Naturally,
> I've never told her this. I've always made a great show of searching
> for them and producing them in exchange for a.... Well -- never mind,
> but a woman will do anything to have her keys returned. Same goes for
> handbags.
There is a variant to this -- my wife comes in from the garage into the
kitchen, drops her keys and hanbag on any raised flat surface there and then
heads for the bathroom at the rear of the house. After that, she normally
gets engrossed in some activity that precludes her return to the kitchen for
quite some time. Usually, being a nice guy and everything, I bring her the
purse and keys and place them on her dresser, otherwise they would remain in
the kitchen and get food stuff all over them.
Don Phillipson
news:bk74r2$q433a$1...@ID-203354.news.uni-berlin.de...
> It seems to me that people use frequently the plural forms of the word
"key"
> to talk about their keys. Apparently they do so even when there is only
one
> key. Is this correct, and if so, why?
Perhaps insignificantly few people carry only one
key (or none.) Most people carrying keys
attach them together. Thus keys (plural)
seems to be quantitatively commonest and
no breach of any language rule.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
dphillipson[at]trytel.com
Tony Cooper
It's not necessarily a "used to be" thing. I have two keys each of
our cars: a regular key and a "valet" key. The regular key opens the
doors and the trunk, and is an ignition key. The "valet" key opens
the doors and is an ignition key, but does not open the trunk. The
idea is to prevent a car parking attendant from having access to the
trunk of the car.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
What? Do you and your wife have food-fights in the kitchen?
Incidently, my wife came home just as I opened this thread. She's
doing something in the kitchen, but has yet to visit the bathroom. I
heard her washing her hands in the kitchen sink, though.
My wife has a situational bladder. It is of normal size when a
bathroom is accessible. It shrinks remarkably when we get in the car
to go somewhere. It seems to shrink in reverse proportion to the
availability of facilities on the road.
Skitt
No, but there have been times when my wife has started frying something that
spatters grease all over the place, with her purse sitting right there, next
to the range. I have grabbed the purse and taken it to the bedroom.
> Incidently, my wife came home just as I opened this thread. She's
> doing something in the kitchen, but has yet to visit the bathroom. I
> heard her washing her hands in the kitchen sink, though.
>
> My wife has a situational bladder. It is of normal size when a
> bathroom is accessible. It shrinks remarkably when we get in the car
> to go somewhere. It seems to shrink in reverse proportion to the
> availability of facilities on the road.
Ah, our wives are similar in that respect. Mine offers even more of a
challenge, as she generally will not use a public restroom, and her bladder
is mostly affected by the distance from our home or a relative's home.
Simon R. Hughes
> My wife has a situational bladder. It is of normal size when a
> bathroom is accessible. It shrinks remarkably when we get in the car
> to go somewhere. It seems to shrink in reverse proportion to the
> availability of facilities on the road.
Is your wife a goer? Eh? Is she? Eh? Know what I mean? A goer. Eh?
Know what I mean?
Have you really no sense of common decency?
--
Simon R. Hughes <!-- Kill "Kenny" for email. -->
<!-- http://www.mirrorproject.com/mirror?id=17972 -->
david56
> I sincerely hope that it's not true that separate keys are
> an anachronism. When I buy my next new car, I will be
> disappointed if it's not provided with separate keys.
>
> I like being able to leave my car in the care of valet
> parkers or service facilities without granting access to
> whatever I may have locked up in the trunk.
I think you're out of luck. My current car has but one key, which
works the ignition. I am told it also words the driver's door, but
I've never tried this as the car can be locked and unlocked by a
remote control built into the key.
The boot, like the passenger door, has no key hole. It can be opened
by another button on the key, by a button on the dashboard, or in
extremis by a lever inside the boot (I was told that this is there
for the occasions when you are kidnapped and bundled into the boot).
Wife's car, which is older and less "executive", has a single key for
all the locks, plus a lever beside the driver's seat to open the
boot. Come to think of it, every car I've owned since 1985 has used
the same key for doors, ignition and boot.
david56
> It's not necessarily a "used to be" thing. I have two keys each of
> our cars: a regular key and a "valet" key. The regular key opens the
> doors and the trunk, and is an ignition key. The "valet" key opens
> the doors and is an ignition key, but does not open the trunk. The
> idea is to prevent a car parking attendant from having access to the
> trunk of the car.
I have owned cars in the UK for 25 years, and I've never even seen a
valet parking facility. I suspect they might exist in London. I
would be very wary about letting somebody drive my car even a few
yards, as I suspect it would not be insured.
Bob Cunningham
<bass.b...@ntlworld.com> said:
> exw...@earthlink.net spake thus:
> > I sincerely hope that it's not true that separate keys are
> > an anachronism. When I buy my next new car, I will be
> > disappointed if it's not provided with separate keys.
> > I like being able to leave my car in the care of valet
> > parkers or service facilities without granting access to
> > whatever I may have locked up in the trunk.
> I think you're out of luck. My current car has but one key, which
> works the ignition. I am told it also words the driver's door, but
> I've never tried this as the car can be locked and unlocked by a
> remote control built into the key.
[ . . . ]
I'm happy to report that I just called a local Buick dealer,
and they assured me that the latest models of Buick,
Oldsmobile, and Cadillac all have separate keys for ignition
and trunk (= UK 'boot'?).
Ray Heindl
> I sincerely hope that it's not true that separate keys are
> an anachronism. When I buy my next new car, I will be
> disappointed if it's not provided with separate keys.
>
> I like being able to leave my car in the care of valet
> parkers or service facilities without granting access to
> whatever I may have locked up in the trunk.
>
> I think several years ago I may have owned a Japanese car
> that had two keys: One key would fit both the ignition and
> the trunk; the other, the ignition only. If that's true, it
> was an excellent idea.
My Honda has one key that does everything, and second "valet key" that
works the doors and the ignition, but not the trunk or the gas cap
cover. An ideal system, especially for those who rarely (or in my case
never) use valet parking, and so need carry only one key.
--
Ray Heindl
(remove the X to reply)
R H Draney
>
>I think you're out of luck. My current car has but one key, which
>works the ignition. I am told it also words the driver's door, but
>I've never tried this as the car can be locked and unlocked by a
>remote control built into the key.
>
>The boot, like the passenger door, has no key hole. It can be opened
>by another button on the key, by a button on the dashboard, or in
>extremis by a lever inside the boot (I was told that this is there
>for the occasions when you are kidnapped and bundled into the boot).
My boot has a place to put the (single) key, but it's ineffectual...an odd piece
of plastic roughly the size of a Trebor's mint has broken and I haven't been
able to get it replaced...accordingly, I can only open the boot from a lever
next to the driver's seat....
The car originally came with the separate "valet" key as described elsewhere int
his thread, but it went missing with a pair of 99-cent sunglasses when someone
smashed a window and grabbed the only thing they could find, which happened to
be the pouch hanging on the door...they missed a pair of 10x50 binoculars in the
back seat and were unable (though they had obviously tried) to remove the stereo
from the dashboard....
With the disappearance of the valet key (they probably didn't even realize it
was in the pouch), I have only one key for the ignition, doors, boot, and a
couple of seldom-employed slots for (1) unlocking the automatic transmission for
towing purposes, (2) folding down the rear seat to reach the boot *that* way,
and (3) locking the seatside lever so the boot *can't* be opened from there....
I do, however, have "car keys"...the same ring that holds the single key also
holds the one for the steering-wheel club....r
david56
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:41:28 +0100, david56
> <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> said:
>
> > exw...@earthlink.net spake thus:
>
> > > I sincerely hope that it's not true that separate keys are
> > > an anachronism. When I buy my next new car, I will be
> > > disappointed if it's not provided with separate keys.
>
> > > I like being able to leave my car in the care of valet
> > > parkers or service facilities without granting access to
> > > whatever I may have locked up in the trunk.
>
> > I think you're out of luck. My current car has but one key, which
> > works the ignition. I am told it also words the driver's door, but
> > I've never tried this as the car can be locked and unlocked by a
> > remote control built into the key.
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> I'm happy to report that I just called a local Buick dealer,
> and they assured me that the latest models of Buick,
> Oldsmobile, and Cadillac all have separate keys for ignition
> and trunk (= UK 'boot'?).
But do these cars have boot-release buttons or levers on the
dashboard?
Yes, UK boot = US trunk. Somebody here recently complained about the
unthinking pondian translation of simple words; I guessed that
"boot" would be one which everybody knew.
As I have replied elsewhere in this thread, this is not an issue in
the UK, where we only ever hand our car keys to the garage at
servicing time.
david56
> With the disappearance of the valet key (they probably didn't even realize it
> was in the pouch), I have only one key for the ignition, doors, boot, and a
> couple of seldom-employed slots for (1) unlocking the automatic transmission for
> towing purposes, (2) folding down the rear seat to reach the boot *that* way,
> and (3) locking the seatside lever so the boot *can't* be opened from there....
There's another thing. Just about every UK car below £30,000 has
folding back seats, so locking the boot doesn't stop access by
anybody who has access to the car. I've never even heard of a
lockable folding back seat.
Bob Cunningham
<bass.b...@ntlworld.com> said:
> exw...@earthlink.net spake thus:
[ . . . ]
> > I'm happy to report that I just called a local Buick dealer,
> > and they assured me that the latest models of Buick,
> > Oldsmobile, and Cadillac all have separate keys for ignition
> > and trunk (= UK 'boot'?).
> But do these cars have boot-release buttons or levers on the
> dashboard?
> Yes, UK boot = US trunk.
Where is "turtleback" used? Or is it anymore?
> Somebody here recently complained about the
> unthinking pondian translation of simple words; I guessed that
> "boot" would be one which everybody knew.
> As I have replied elsewhere in this thread, this is not an issue in
> the UK, where we only ever hand our car keys to the garage at
> servicing time.
You don't have valet parking in the UK?
R F
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Simon R. Hughes wrote:
> Thus spake Tony Cooper:
>
> > My wife has a situational bladder. It is of normal size when a
> > bathroom is accessible. It shrinks remarkably when we get in the car
> > to go somewhere. It seems to shrink in reverse proportion to the
> > availability of facilities on the road.
...
> Have you really no sense of common decency?
I think this is a fairly good example of what I mean when I say that Coop
shows some deficits in his capacity to determine appropriateness of AUE
posting content. My main problem with Coop's posting here is that he's
communicated some very personal and private detail about his wife without,
as far as we know, her having granted him permission to do so. I don't
think in this day and age we can say that Coop is presumed, as a husband
or even a spouse, to have the right to post anything about his wife in a
Usenet newsgroup he wants to, no matter how personal, private, intimate,
or embarrassing the information is. Marital privilege and prerogative
ought not extend so far. I was much more shocked by a posting quite some
time ago by Coop about his wife, but I won't bother to go into details
about it now since Coop has provided us with this more recent and nearly
as useful instance.
All we ask, Coop, is that you provide evidence of your wife's consent to
your posting information of this sort.
Given the possibility (slim as it may be) that putatively young Master
Christopher Johnson is, indeed, only 14 years old, *and* that Master
Johnson may be tempted to use Coop as a "role model", the situation has
become a serious one. As I have suggested elsewhere, Master Johnson shows
some dangers of following in Coop's footsteps in failing to recognize and
respect the commonly-understood zone of personal privacy of one's self and
of others.
Matti Lamprhey
My Audi, whose boot has a key lock, came with three keys. Two are
identical, capable of operating all the locks and with remote buttons.
The third has no remote buttons and operates the driver's door &
ignition only. This seems to match Tony's "valet key" description.
Like David, none of my cars in the last 20 years have required the
driver to carry multiple keys.
Matti
John Varela
wrote:
> I think several years ago I may have owned a Japanese car
> that had two keys: One key would fit both the ignition and
> the trunk; the other, the ignition only. If that's true, it
> was an excellent idea.
I think that arrangement is pretty much standard nowadays. My new car also
comes with one that only works the door. I'm not sure what the point of that
is, unless you're the sort of person who locks his keys in the car, something
I have never done. My wife, however, once locked the keys in her car with the
motor running...
--
John Varela
Tony Cooper
<bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>tony_co...@yahoo.com spake thus:
>
>> It's not necessarily a "used to be" thing. I have two keys each of
>> our cars: a regular key and a "valet" key. The regular key opens the
>> doors and the trunk, and is an ignition key. The "valet" key opens
>> the doors and is an ignition key, but does not open the trunk. The
>> idea is to prevent a car parking attendant from having access to the
>> trunk of the car.
>
>I have owned cars in the UK for 25 years, and I've never even seen a
>valet parking facility. I suspect they might exist in London. I
>would be very wary about letting somebody drive my car even a few
>yards, as I suspect it would not be insured.
Dunno about your policy, but my automobile insurance insures the
vehicle and not the driver. Doesn't make a difference who's driving
the car as long as they are not prohibited by the insurance company
from driving the car.
I am also insured when I drive any other car.
Tony Cooper
>exw...@earthlink.net spake thus:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:41:28 +0100, david56
>> <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> said:
>>
>> > exw...@earthlink.net spake thus:
>>
>> > > I sincerely hope that it's not true that separate keys are
>> > > an anachronism. When I buy my next new car, I will be
>> > > disappointed if it's not provided with separate keys.
>>
>> > > I like being able to leave my car in the care of valet
>> > > parkers or service facilities without granting access to
>> > > whatever I may have locked up in the trunk.
>>
>> > I think you're out of luck. My current car has but one key, which
>> > works the ignition. I am told it also words the driver's door, but
>> > I've never tried this as the car can be locked and unlocked by a
>> > remote control built into the key.
>>
>> [ . . . ]
>>
>> I'm happy to report that I just called a local Buick dealer,
>> and they assured me that the latest models of Buick,
>> Oldsmobile, and Cadillac all have separate keys for ignition
>> and trunk (= UK 'boot'?).
>
>But do these cars have boot-release buttons or levers on the
>dashboard?
Yes, but the remote lever can be disabled by turning the trunk key in
the remote switch.
>Yes, UK boot = US trunk. Somebody here recently complained about the
>unthinking pondian translation of simple words; I guessed that
>"boot" would be one which everybody knew.
I wasn't complaining. My post merely said it was largely unnecessary
and an affectation.
>
>As I have replied elsewhere in this thread, this is not an issue in
>the UK, where we only ever hand our car keys to the garage at
>servicing time.
Fine restaurants, or top hotels, don't have valet park or attended
parking lots?
Valet park is wonderful. Especially on rainy days.
Tony Cooper
<bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>dado...@earthlink.net spake thus:
>
>> With the disappearance of the valet key (they probably didn't even realize it
>> was in the pouch), I have only one key for the ignition, doors, boot, and a
>> couple of seldom-employed slots for (1) unlocking the automatic transmission for
>> towing purposes, (2) folding down the rear seat to reach the boot *that* way,
>> and (3) locking the seatside lever so the boot *can't* be opened from there....
>
>There's another thing. Just about every UK car below £30,000 has
>folding back seats, so locking the boot doesn't stop access by
>anybody who has access to the car. I've never even heard of a
>lockable folding back seat.
My wife's Honda has such. The foldable back seats *and* a key lock to
keep unauthorized people from folding them.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>
>On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Simon R. Hughes wrote:
>
>> Thus spake Tony Cooper:
>>
>> > My wife has a situational bladder. It is of normal size when a
>> > bathroom is accessible. It shrinks remarkably when we get in the car
>> > to go somewhere. It seems to shrink in reverse proportion to the
>> > availability of facilities on the road.
>...
>
>> Have you really no sense of common decency?
>
>I think this is a fairly good example of what I mean when I say that Coop
>shows some deficits in his capacity to determine appropriateness of AUE
>posting content. My main problem with Coop's posting here is that he's
>communicated some very personal and private detail about his wife without,
>as far as we know, her having granted him permission to do so. I don't
>think in this day and age we can say that Coop is presumed, as a husband
>or even a spouse, to have the right to post anything about his wife in a
>Usenet newsgroup he wants to, no matter how personal, private, intimate,
>or embarrassing the information is. Marital privilege and prerogative
>ought not extend so far. I was much more shocked by a posting quite some
>time ago by Coop about his wife, but I won't bother to go into details
>about it now since Coop has provided us with this more recent and nearly
>as useful instance.
>
>All we ask, Coop, is that you provide evidence of your wife's consent to
>your posting information of this sort.
>
I just asked my wife about this. She informed me quite specifically
that she is totally unconcerned about your opinion. Actually, she
called you "Who?".
Tony Cooper
<a5799...@yahoo.no> wrote:
>Thus spake Tony Cooper:
>
>
>> My wife has a situational bladder. It is of normal size when a
>> bathroom is accessible. It shrinks remarkably when we get in the car
>> to go somewhere. It seems to shrink in reverse proportion to the
>> availability of facilities on the road.
>
>Is your wife a goer? Eh? Is she? Eh? Know what I mean? A goer. Eh?
>Know what I mean?
>
>Have you really no sense of common decency?
Yes, but I will continue to read your posts anyway.
david56
UK law relating to cars requires that you be insured against damaging
yourself, other people and their property, but not that you be
insured against damaging your own car. UK car insurance covers the
car, not the driver, but there is a range of options which affect the
premium.
The cheapest is Third Party Only, which provides the minimum cover
required by law, but does not cover damage to your own vehicle caused
by you. The next layer is Third Party, Fire and Theft, which adds
two components, and finally Comprehensive, which adds cover for
damage to your own car caused by you (or another insured driver) as
well as stuff such as replacement of glass without affecting No
Claims Discounts, and sometimes free cover in Europe.
At each of these levels you can nominate the persons to be covered by
this policy. "Any Driver" policies cost more than "Named Driver"
policies, and considerably more than "Single Driver" policies. For
the last 20 years both our cars were insured only for the two of us -
the cost for adding a spouse (of a similar age) as a second driver
tends to be low or zero - but now Daughter is driving we have added
her as a named driver to Wife's car; this doubled the insurance
premium. I have not asked for a quote to add Daughter to my own,
rather more powerful, car insurance as it would certainly cost
thousands, if any company would take the policy at all.
> I am also insured when I drive any other car.
That is generally true of the holders of Comprehensive policies, but
only to the extent of the minimum required by the law. So I could
let my neighbour drive my car legally on his own insurance, but there
would be no cover for any damage he might cause while driving it.
People who have a company car (as most around here probably do), do
not have any car insurance written in their own name, and so do not
have this extra cover. I backed out of our company scheme nearly 10
years ago as the allowance in lieu is generous, and I have been able
to buy myself a far better "nearly new" car than I would have got on
the scheme.
There is an exception that the car is covered for any driver while in
the hands of a professional Garage or Servicing company, but I'm sure
this doesn't extend to parking attendants.
david56
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 00:26:33 +0100, david56
> <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> said:
>
> > exw...@earthlink.net spake thus:
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> > > I'm happy to report that I just called a local Buick dealer,
> > > and they assured me that the latest models of Buick,
> > > Oldsmobile, and Cadillac all have separate keys for ignition
> > > and trunk (= UK 'boot'?).
>
> > But do these cars have boot-release buttons or levers on the
> > dashboard?
>
> > Yes, UK boot = US trunk.
>
> Where is "turtleback" used? Or is it anymore?
I don't recognise that in relation to cars at all.
> > Somebody here recently complained about the
> > unthinking pondian translation of simple words; I guessed that
> > "boot" would be one which everybody knew.
>
> > As I have replied elsewhere in this thread, this is not an issue in
> > the UK, where we only ever hand our car keys to the garage at
> > servicing time.
>
> You don't have valet parking in the UK?
I'm sure it must exist somewhere, but I've never seen it. Who would
trust a spotty teenager to park their car? Certainly not me.
Come on, has any reader seen or used valet parking in the UK, or
anywhere in Europe?
david56
And I took your suggestion to heart, but fell at the first jump. I
really did think that everybody would know trunk/boot.
> >
> >As I have replied elsewhere in this thread, this is not an issue in
> >the UK, where we only ever hand our car keys to the garage at
> >servicing time.
>
> Fine restaurants, or top hotels, don't have valet park or attended
> parking lots?
Not sure what you mean by "attended". Lots of car parks have
attendants but they don't usually emerge from their little huts. I
don't use top hotels in the UK - they may have valet parking, but
I've never seen it. Fine restaurants in Europe tend to be in the
centre of cities and don't have any sort of parking; you either
arrive by taxi or you park your car half a mile away and walk.
I know I'm repeating myself, but I would be very wary about trusting
the parking of my car to an unknown kid.
> Valet park is wonderful. Especially on rainy days.
--
david56
> My Audi, whose boot has a key lock, came with three keys. Two are
> identical, capable of operating all the locks and with remote buttons.
> The third has no remote buttons and operates the driver's door &
> ignition only. This seems to match Tony's "valet key" description.
But once you're inside the car, is there a way into the boot? A
release lever or a folding back seat?
Matti Lamprhey
> david56 <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> >[...] I would be very wary about letting somebody drive my car
> > even a few yards, as I suspect it would not be insured.
>
> Dunno about your policy, but my automobile insurance insures the
> vehicle and not the driver. Doesn't make a difference who's driving
> the car as long as they are not prohibited by the insurance company
> from driving the car.
>
> I am also insured when I drive any other car.
Hmm -- that kind of thinking has caught out a lot of people in Britain,
although perhaps you do it differently over in the US. I have a
comprehensive policy which would pay out for damage to my own car as
well as any damage to others or their property. It also "covers" me to
drive someone else's car (with their permission) and for others (with my
permission) to drive my car. In these cases, however, the cover is not
"comprehensive" but "third party only", ie the minimum required by law.
Do such situations still provide full cover in the US?
Matti
-- who read yesterday that one in three cars driven in Liverpool is
completely uninsured.
Stewart Gordon
little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:
> In message <bk74r2$q433a$1...@ID-203354.news.uni-berlin.de>, Eamer
> <ea...@digitalme.com> writes
<snip>
>> For instance, one might say, "I lost my house/car keys." Does this
>> _always_
>> mean they lost more than one key?
>
> Yes. The "s" on the end of the noun is a dead give away.
Have you ever seen a single key for both the house and the car?
Stewart.
--
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on
on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Matti Lamprhey
> matti-...@totally-official.com spake thus:
>
> > My Audi, whose boot has a key lock, came with three keys. Two are
> > identical, capable of operating all the locks and with remote
> > buttons. The third has no remote buttons and operates the driver's
> > door & ignition only. This seems to match Tony's "valet key"
> > description.
>
> But once you're inside the car, is there a way into the boot? A
> release lever or a folding back seat?
It's an estate, so "boot" was technically incorrect anyway. Like you,
I've never experienced a vehicle which has put up much of an obstacle to
boot access from within the saloon.
Matti
david56
> "Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote...
> > david56 <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >[...] I would be very wary about letting somebody drive my car
> > > even a few yards, as I suspect it would not be insured.
> >
> > Dunno about your policy, but my automobile insurance insures the
> > vehicle and not the driver. Doesn't make a difference who's driving
> > the car as long as they are not prohibited by the insurance company
> > from driving the car.
> >
> > I am also insured when I drive any other car.
>
> Hmm -- that kind of thinking has caught out a lot of people in Britain,
> although perhaps you do it differently over in the US. I have a
> comprehensive policy which would pay out for damage to my own car as
> well as any damage to others or their property. It also "covers" me to
> drive someone else's car (with their permission) and for others (with my
> permission) to drive my car.
The former I understand, but if you have an any-driver policy, the
full extent of the cover extends to whoever you authorise. As I
understand it, not having such a policy. The named drivers on our
policies certainly benefit from the full cover.
Matti Lamprhey
I'm sure you're right, but I've never come across a private individual
who had an any-driver policy. You'd need to be a millionaire to afford
it!
Matti
Frances Kemmish
> tony_co...@yahoo.com spake thus:
>
>
>>On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:43:49 +0100, david56
>><bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have owned cars in the UK for 25 years, and I've never even seen a
>>>valet parking facility. I suspect they might exist in London. I
>>>would be very wary about letting somebody drive my car even a few
>>>yards, as I suspect it would not be insured.
>>
>>Dunno about your policy, but my automobile insurance insures the
>>vehicle and not the driver. Doesn't make a difference who's driving
>>the car as long as they are not prohibited by the insurance company
>>from driving the car.
>
>
> UK law relating to cars requires that you be insured against damaging
> yourself, other people and their property, but not that you be
> insured against damaging your own car. UK car insurance covers the
> car, not the driver, but there is a range of options which affect the
> premium.
>
> The cheapest is Third Party Only, which provides the minimum cover
> required by law, but does not cover damage to your own vehicle caused
> by you. The next layer is Third Party, Fire and Theft, which adds
> two components, and finally Comprehensive, which adds cover for
> damage to your own car caused by you (or another insured driver) as
> well as stuff such as replacement of glass without affecting No
> Claims Discounts, and sometimes free cover in Europe.
>
I may be misunderstanding something, but I thought that "Comprehensive"
insurance covered damage to your car caused by another driver, not
necessarily caused by you (or other insured driver of your car): for
instance, my mother-in-law's car was hit by a driver who had no
insurance, and the damage was paid for by her policy.
> At each of these levels you can nominate the persons to be covered by
> this policy. "Any Driver" policies cost more than "Named Driver"
> policies, and considerably more than "Single Driver" policies. For
> the last 20 years both our cars were insured only for the two of us -
> the cost for adding a spouse (of a similar age) as a second driver
> tends to be low or zero - but now Daughter is driving we have added
> her as a named driver to Wife's car; this doubled the insurance
> premium. I have not asked for a quote to add Daughter to my own,
> rather more powerful, car insurance as it would certainly cost
> thousands, if any company would take the policy at all.
>
When my husband was living at home, his father had an "any driver"
policy. When Geoff passed his driving test, his father wrote to the
insurers to inform them; they said that they would not cover him driving
the car. The renewal policy came back, with the notation that the car
could be driven by "any driver, except Geoffrey Kemmish".
>
>>I am also insured when I drive any other car.
>
>
> That is generally true of the holders of Comprehensive policies, but
> only to the extent of the minimum required by the law. So I could
> let my neighbour drive my car legally on his own insurance, but there
> would be no cover for any damage he might cause while driving it.
>
I was very surprised to find that my US insurance covers any driver that
I permit to drive the car, and any car that I drive with the permission
of its owner (including rental cars), to the same extent as I am
covered. Since my car has the equivalent of comprehensive cover, I have
never had to pay those exorbitant "collision damage waiver" fees that
car rental companies charge.
My husband's car has only minimum cover (it is a very old car, that is
mostly used to drive to the train station and back), we use American
Express to pay for car rentals, and they provide additional cover for
car rentals.
> People who have a company car (as most around here probably do), do
> not have any car insurance written in their own name, and so do not
> have this extra cover. I backed out of our company scheme nearly 10
> years ago as the allowance in lieu is generous, and I have been able
> to buy myself a far better "nearly new" car than I would have got on
> the scheme.
>
I did both, at various times, when I was working for the CEGB; I much
preferred driving my own Honda Accord to the Morris Marina provided as a
company car. The Marina was badly damaged while parked outside my house.
The ensuing insurance claims were handled by the Board's lawyers, who
helped me with my own damage claims.
I learned some additional terminology about car insurance: for instance,
the CEGB policy included a "franchise", instead of an "excess". With an
"excess" (US "deductible"), you pay the first $x of any claim; with a
"franchise", you pay the whole amount, if it is less than the franchise,
but nothing, if it is above the franchise. So, if your car sustains
minor damage, you would be well-advised to go out and hit it a couple of
times with a hammer to take it over the limit.
> There is an exception that the car is covered for any driver while in
> the hands of a professional Garage or Servicing company, but I'm sure
> this doesn't extend to parking attendants.
>
I have never enquired about how my car is covered by valet parking. It
is so commonplace over here that I assume that either my insurance, or
the parking garage owners' liability insurance (and everyone here has
lots of that!) would cover it.
In New York city, it is almost impossible to park a car in a parking lot
without allowing someone else to park it; and risking a parking fine by
leaving a car on the street is so expensive now that I just don't do it.
I have even had my car valet-parked at a pizza place in Stamford CT -
but that was because, if I hadn't, I don't think I would have found much
of my car left, when I came out.
Fran
R F
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Frances Kemmish wrote:
> In New York city, it is almost impossible to park a car in a parking lot
> without allowing someone else to park it; and risking a parking fine by
> leaving a car on the street is so expensive now that I just don't do it.
Oy! You mean 'Manhattan', not 'New York city'. Not that parking in the
Boroughs is what the policymakers call a 'cakewalk', but from experience I
can say that it's a freck of a lot easier to park one's car in the
Boroughs than it is in the wards of Chicago. On-street parking in
Chicago's neighborhoods is essentially nonexistent, in contrast to
the Boroughs or even (with sufficient time and effort) Manhattan, where
it's at least possible. However, even the dense inner parts of Chicago
differ from Manhattan in that many commercial parking garages and parking
lots are "self-park" facilities. In Jan Sand's Manhattan non-valet
commercial parking facilities are quite rare.
Part of the problem with Chicago, I suspect, is that comparatively fewer
people are willing to live without giving up their cars, despite the fact
that a car is probably even less of a necessity and more of a burden in
Chicago than it is in Jan's Manhattan. I gather that back when Coop lived
in Lincoln Park things were different, but the level of car ownership has
changed dramatically over the years.
> I have even had my car valet-parked at a pizza place in Stamford CT -
> but that was because, if I hadn't, I don't think I would have found much
> of my car left, when I came out.
Is this a pizza place you would recommend, and if so, which is it?
Frances Kemmish
I don't think it worth the trip from Chicago; in fact, I wouldn't have
thought it worth the trip from Norwalk, except for the fact that I was
invited to a party there.
It was Pellicci's on Stillwater Avenue.
Fran
david56
> I may be misunderstanding something, but I thought that "Comprehensive"
> insurance covered damage to your car caused by another driver, not
> necessarily caused by you (or other insured driver of your car): for
> instance, my mother-in-law's car was hit by a driver who had no
> insurance, and the damage was paid for by her policy.
You would hope to claim from the third party's insurance for damage
caused by another road user, but you are correct that Comprehensive
insurance covers damage to your own car caused by yourself or by
anybody else, or by nobody.
Of course, you don't want to claim on your own insurance, as a) your
premiums might rise, and b) you will lose your no-claims discount,
depending on whether you have protected it, and how many claims you
make. It is a fine judgement whether to claim for a small amount of
damage, as the extra costs in premiums may be more than the cost of
the repairs, depending on future claims within the x years stipulated
in your policy.
Frances Kemmish
Here is something that I just remembered - a US case; I don't know what
the situation in UK would be. A friend of mine in Tennessee reversed his
car into his wife's car on his own driveway (he forgot that he had come
home first the previous evening). His insurance company refused to pay
for any of the damage because he owned both cars, so no "third party"
was involved.
I don't know how that would play out in England.
Fran
Tony Cooper
<bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>There is an exception that the car is covered for any driver while in
>the hands of a professional Garage or Servicing company, but I'm sure
>this doesn't extend to parking attendants.
I was hoping Bob would chime in on this. In Business Law courses in
college one of the first topics covered is "bailment". ("to deliver
personal property in trust to another for a special purpose and for a
limited period") and the example was leaving your automobile at an
attended parking lot. If I remember correctly, as long as the parking
attendant doesn't do anything reckless, he's responsible.
Since insurance cannot be used to circumvent the law, insurance would
cover the car.
Our laws are mostly based on your laws, so I assume your parking
garages - if there are any - offer similar protection.
david56
> Here is something that I just remembered - a US case; I don't know what
> the situation in UK would be. A friend of mine in Tennessee reversed his
> car into his wife's car on his own driveway (he forgot that he had come
> home first the previous evening). His insurance company refused to pay
> for any of the damage because he owned both cars, so no "third party"
> was involved.
>
> I don't know how that would play out in England.
It sounds like there must have been one insurance policy covering
both cars - that's rare here. I've only ever heard of two cars on
one policy where they were both insured for the same "single driver"
and so could not be driven at the same time.
But with a Comprehensive policy, you'd be covered for damaging your
own car in any case.
Tony Cooper
<bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> >> I'm happy to report that I just called a local Buick dealer,
>> >> and they assured me that the latest models of Buick,
>> >> Oldsmobile, and Cadillac all have separate keys for ignition
>> >> and trunk (= UK 'boot'?).
>> >
>> >But do these cars have boot-release buttons or levers on the
>> >dashboard?
>>
>> Yes, but the remote lever can be disabled by turning the trunk key in
>> the remote switch.
>>
>> >Yes, UK boot = US trunk. Somebody here recently complained about the
>> >unthinking pondian translation of simple words; I guessed that
>> >"boot" would be one which everybody knew.
>>
>> I wasn't complaining. My post merely said it was largely unnecessary
>> and an affectation.
>
>And I took your suggestion to heart, but fell at the first jump. I
>really did think that everybody would know trunk/boot.
I don't see where you fell. Cunningham was able to work it out from
context. It is mostly Areff that is annoyingly abusive in this area.
>> >
>> >As I have replied elsewhere in this thread, this is not an issue in
>> >the UK, where we only ever hand our car keys to the garage at
>> >servicing time.
>>
>> Fine restaurants, or top hotels, don't have valet park or attended
>> parking lots?
>
>Not sure what you mean by "attended". Lots of car parks have
>attendants but they don't usually emerge from their little huts. I
>don't use top hotels in the UK - they may have valet parking, but
>I've never seen it. Fine restaurants in Europe tend to be in the
>centre of cities and don't have any sort of parking; you either
>arrive by taxi or you park your car half a mile away and walk.
In an attended lot (as I was using it), you may park your own car, but
you leave your keys with the lot. They can move your car around to
provide access to other cars.
>I know I'm repeating myself, but I would be very wary about trusting
>the parking of my car to an unknown kid.
The "kids" (which may be up to 40 years old or so) may quite possibly
be better drivers than the car's owner. Parking a car is not exactly
a complex maneuver.
Valet parkers often earn a substantial income. Most of their income
is from tips, and therefore they report and pay income taxes on what
they remember they earned.
A person that I know (not really a friend) is the son of an owner of a
rather popular restaurant here in town. When the son was in college
in the 80s, he ran the valet concession* at the restaurant. He earned
over $75,000 a year in cash as a college student. When he graduated
from college, his father made him come into the restaurant as a
manager at a salary of $23,000 a year. He sold the concession for
over $100,000, but still lost out.
*Usually, the business (restaurant or hotel or special events center)
will give the concession to one person. That person is responsible
for hiring the staff. The concession owner gets his tips, plus a
percentage of each employee's tips.
Most valet park schemes in this area are "free". No charge for
parking or the service, but tips are expected.
Florida Hospital even has a valet park scheme. If you visit the
hospital, the parking lots are usually jammed and blocks away. You
can pull up to the main entrance and give your car to the valet
parking attendant. They have parking lots reserved for them. I used
to go to Florida Hospital once a week for physical therapy, and
*always* used the valet park.
Bob Cunningham
<bass.b...@ntlworld.com> said:
> exw...@earthlink.net spake thus:
[ . . . ]
> > Where is "turtleback" used? Or is it anymore?
> I don't recognise that in relation to cars at all.
I now find in _The New Shorter Oxford_
turtle-back [...] (c) N. Amer. (the lid of) a
rounded projecting boot on a motor vehicle;
I think I've heard only one person in my life use
"turtleback". I worked with him, and I used to kid him
about the strange term, calling the hood of a car the
turtle-front; the doors the turtle-doors; and so on.
By the way "hood" equals UK "bonnet", and no, I don't think
everyone should know that, just as I don't believe most
Americans would know that "trunk" equals UK "boot".
david56
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:06:37 +0100, david56
> <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> said:
>
> > exw...@earthlink.net spake thus:
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> > > Where is "turtleback" used? Or is it anymore?
>
> > I don't recognise that in relation to cars at all.
>
> I now find in _The New Shorter Oxford_
>
> turtle-back [...] (c) N. Amer. (the lid of) a
> rounded projecting boot on a motor vehicle;
>
> I think I've heard only one person in my life use
> "turtleback". I worked with him, and I used to kid him
> about the strange term, calling the hood of a car the
> turtle-front; the doors the turtle-doors; and so on.
Nope, I never heard that.
> By the way "hood" equals UK "bonnet", and no, I don't think
> everyone should know that, just as I don't believe most
> Americans would know that "trunk" equals UK "boot".
I trust I didn't say "should know", but only that I thought they
would. Furthermore, my hope was directed at AUE posters who seemed
more likely to know these things than the man on the Bronx Omnibus.
Tony Cooper
We, of course, have options in insurance. I am required by law to
carry insurance to cover the other person. It is optional to cover
damage to my own car. There is a "deductible" amount that I pay for
damage to my own car, and the insurance pays the rest if I opt for the
comprehensive options.
In my case, my wife has an almost-new car. It's fully insured. I
drive an eleven year old car. I've dropped the comprehensive on this
car. If my wife smashes her car into the garage door, we pay $200 and
the insurance company pays the rest. If I smash my car into the
garage door, I pay for all damages.
I hope Areff is not offended that I have alluded to my wife's driving
ability. So, I will quickly point out that she has never had a claim.
Even hurrying home with a full bladder, she drives carefully.
If someone else smashes into either car, their insurance or my
insurance (we are a "no fault" state) pays for the damage repair.
Even if the other party is not insured, I am covered since I carry an
"uninsured driver" rider on my insurance.
david56
I've just remembered that I have seen adverts for a sort of valet
parking - at airports. I've never used it, but I understand they
meet you at the drop off point and take your car away, returning to
meet you at the pick up point. But this is a high-cost service, most
likely only used by people with big, expensive cars, so the companies
can presumably afford the insurance to cover themselves properly.
david56
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:11:07 +0100, david56
> <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >Not sure what you mean by "attended". Lots of car parks have
> >attendants but they don't usually emerge from their little huts. I
> >don't use top hotels in the UK - they may have valet parking, but
> >I've never seen it. Fine restaurants in Europe tend to be in the
> >centre of cities and don't have any sort of parking; you either
> >arrive by taxi or you park your car half a mile away and walk.
>
> In an attended lot (as I was using it), you may park your own car, but
> you leave your keys with the lot. They can move your car around to
> provide access to other cars.
I have seen those in London where land is scarce, but I will not use
them as I don't usually like the look of the attendants, nor do I
have high expectations of their driving abilities. I'm not aware
that there are any such car parks in Manchester, for example.
> >I know I'm repeating myself, but I would be very wary about trusting
> >the parking of my car to an unknown kid.
>
> The "kids" (which may be up to 40 years old or so) may quite possibly
> be better drivers than the car's owner.
They wouldn't be here. It would be a low-status job for a young
person, or a retired person.
> Parking a car is not exactly a complex maneuver.
>
> Valet parkers often earn a substantial income. Most of their income
> is from tips, and therefore they report and pay income taxes on what
> they remember they earned.
If you work in an industry dominated by tips, the Inland Revenue
tells you how much you have earned in tips each year and it's up to
you to offer evidence to the contrary if you wish to challenge their
assessment.
> A person that I know (not really a friend) is the son of an owner of a
> rather popular restaurant here in town. When the son was in college
> in the 80s, he ran the valet concession* at the restaurant. He earned
> over $75,000 a year in cash as a college student. When he graduated
> from college, his father made him come into the restaurant as a
> manager at a salary of $23,000 a year. He sold the concession for
> over $100,000, but still lost out.
>
> *Usually, the business (restaurant or hotel or special events center)
> will give the concession to one person. That person is responsible
> for hiring the staff. The concession owner gets his tips, plus a
> percentage of each employee's tips.
I cannot conceive that this would be a profitable business here. But
nobody else is commenting on this from the UK/European perspective.
> Most valet park schemes in this area are "free". No charge for
> parking or the service, but tips are expected.
>
> Florida Hospital even has a valet park scheme. If you visit the
> hospital, the parking lots are usually jammed and blocks away. You
> can pull up to the main entrance and give your car to the valet
> parking attendant. They have parking lots reserved for them. I used
> to go to Florida Hospital once a week for physical therapy, and
> *always* used the valet park.
We could do with that at Warrington Hospital. The car park is right
outside the front door, but it's always full.
richard.chambers7
"david56" <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote
>
> The cheapest is Third Party Only, which provides the minimum cover
> required by law, but does not cover damage to your own vehicle caused
> by you. The next layer is Third Party, Fire and Theft, which adds
> two components, and finally Comprehensive, which adds cover for
> damage to your own car caused by you (or another insured driver) as
> well as stuff such as replacement of glass without affecting No
> Claims Discounts, and sometimes free cover in Europe.
>
A few years ago, I needed to hire a car. As a (naturalised) Yorkshireman, I
used the Yellow Pages to phone a sample of three car hire firms, to obtain
the cheapest quote for the type of car I required. To make the quotes easily
comparable, I asked the three firms to include in their quote the cost of
fully comprehensive insurance. Having compared these prices, I chose Firm X,
and asked them to deliver the car to my home. *After* I had written the
cheque, signed all the paperwork, and accepted the keys, the representative
then asked "Do you want to pay the extra premium for collision/theft damage
waiver insurance?", which was at a cost of (I think I remember correctly) £3
per day. Astonished, I pointed out that the price I had paid was supposed to
include fully comprehensive insurance. He told me that I was indeed covered
by fully comprehensive insurance, but that if the car was scratched, damaged
or stolen, even if not by my fault, I would be liable for the first £500 of
the repair bill. This was in spite of the fact that I had fully
comprehensive insurance.
This is clearly just a scam to extract more money from the customer than
fair competition in the market place would normally permit. It is predatory
upon first-time hirers, who would never suspect such unscrupulous dealings.
I complained to the local Office of Fair Trading, but they told me that
their previous attempts to control the scam had been unsuccessful, since the
car hire firm had not actually broken the law. The dishonest practice is
widespread in Britain. If you hire a car, you need to ask about the cost of
fully comprehensive insurance, then ask whether the insurance premium
includes total cover for collision/theft damage waiver. Compare the prices
only of those firms that give you a straight answer to these questions.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Tony Cooper
<exw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>By the way "hood" equals UK "bonnet", and no, I don't think
>everyone should know that, just as I don't believe most
>Americans would know that "trunk" equals UK "boot".
The comment that translations of such terms is unnecessary and
annoying pertained to posts placed in aue. "Most Americans" do not
hang out here. The Americans that do hang out here are usually
observant people that are quick grasp unfamiliar terms - from context,
search, or specific explanation - and not the sort that needs to have
the terms explained in every post.
"Most Americans" would not have the slightest idea what a "Perl
script" is. Yet, you would write this here without feeling the need
to explain it each time.
Tony Cooper
<bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> >I know I'm repeating myself, but I would be very wary about trusting
>> >the parking of my car to an unknown kid.
>>
>> The "kids" (which may be up to 40 years old or so) may quite possibly
>> be better drivers than the car's owner.
>
>They wouldn't be here. It would be a low-status job for a young
>person, or a retired person.
>
It may be a low status job, but it is a rather well-paying job. If a
person can earn, say, $50,000 a year working outdoors, flexible hours,
and driving cars short distances and parking them....would the concern
be to status or income?
It's a rather common evening job for people in "status" professions
like teaching. Many of the valet park attendants at the Orlando Magic
basketball arena and the downtown exhibition center are teachers from
Edgewater High School. (They let each other know when openings are
available) They can almost double their income by adding this
non-status job. You think they worry about the status?
Linz
"Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:948emv07jm11m3hgn...@4ax.com...
> *"man", in this case, refers to male humans and not Man. Female
> humans are key agnostics. They irreverently call the contents of
> the key drawer "key clutter" and worship other things. They will
> try to clear out the key drawer and replace it with almost-spent
> tubes of lipstick in colors they will never wear again, and dried
> out containers of out-of-favor eye shadow.
I have turned into a man when I least expected it. I have a box of keys at
home that I won't throw away. Just in case. I have a box of keys in my desk
at work, I have no idea what they belong to but I'm not going to throw them
away. Just in case.
I have no almost-spent tubes of lipstick or dried out containers of
out-of-favour eye shadow. I threw them away a couple of years ago, along
with almost-completely-unused lipsticks and almost new eye shadows because I
know I'll never wear them again.
There is no make-up in my house. But I have Keys.
--
I will go down with this ship
I won't poke my eyes out and surrender
david56
Gosh. A pondian misunderstanding. My use of "low-status" implied
that the remuneration would be low. Here, at least, a job which pays
loads of money will rapidly become high status; the educated and
articulate will move in and take over the work. It sounds like
Floridian teachers get these positions because the the pay is high
enough to attract them - the employers can pick and choose who to
employ. That's not a low-status job.
david56
>
> "Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:948emv07jm11m3hgn...@4ax.com...
>
> > *"man", in this case, refers to male humans and not Man. Female
> > humans are key agnostics. They irreverently call the contents of
> > the key drawer "key clutter" and worship other things. They will
> > try to clear out the key drawer and replace it with almost-spent
> > tubes of lipstick in colors they will never wear again, and dried
> > out containers of out-of-favor eye shadow.
>
> I have turned into a man when I least expected it. I have a box of keys at
> home that I won't throw away. Just in case. I have a box of keys in my desk
> at work, I have no idea what they belong to but I'm not going to throw them
> away. Just in case.
You've done your female duty and reproduced - you can now revert to
your native mode.
> I have no almost-spent tubes of lipstick or dried out containers of
> out-of-favour eye shadow. I threw them away a couple of years ago, along
> with almost-completely-unused lipsticks and almost new eye shadows because I
> know I'll never wear them again.
>
> There is no make-up in my house. But I have Keys.
I've discussed this here before - Wife has similar proclivities;
there is no makeup in our house either. Actually Daughter might
possess a little but she's off to university in 2 weeks.
M. J. Powell
richard.chambers7 <richard....@ntlworld.com> writes
snip
And if you read the travel sections of the Sunday papers you will find
the same thing in the US.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
david56
I have discovered that the car rental brokers seem to be clearer
about this sort of thing and make it very obvious before you pay.
They are also _far_ cheaper than booking direct with the very same
car rental company from whom you actually collect your car. We had
to rent a car for Wife for a few days - the rate for the same car
from the same company was about 50% less by booking via Nova
http://www.nova.co.uk/
Their quotation page, before you <buy> clearly says:
This quotation includes: unlimited mileage, all taxes (VAT @ 17.5%),
airport surcharges (where applicable), Third Party Liability, Theft
Insurance and CDW (covers the value of the rented vehicle), however,
you are responsible for the first £500 - £700 of any damage or loss
to the vehicle, - this liability can be waived, see Excess Waiver
below.
When comparing prices: you should be aware that some rental companies
advertise rates which do NOT include some or all of the following;
airport surcharges, taxes, insurance. Nova Guarantees that there are
NO HIDDEN CHARGES.
and linked to Excess Waiver, it says:
Excess Liability / Excess Waiver
You are liable for the first £500 of any damage to the vehicle for
groups ECMN, CCMN & ICAN and £750 for groups IDMR, FCAR, IWMN, PCAR &
PVMR. This liability can be reduced to £100.00 for groups ECMN, CCMN
and ICAN and £250.00 for groups IDMR, FCAR, IWMN, PCAR & PVMR by
paying an Excess Waiver fee of £6.99 per day Note: does not cover
damage to tyres.
They also sell a separate annual insurance to cover Excess Liablity
on all car hires (£49) (but you can't use it near your home).
http://www.insurance4carhire.com/index2.asp?ref=122
R F
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, david56 wrote:
> Furthermore, my hope was directed at AUE posters who seemed
> more likely to know these things than the man on the Bronx Omnibus.
The *what*?
david56
There is a legal fiction of the UK "common man", who has the
knowledge, understanding and intelligence of the "average person".
You can refer to his opinion if you are trying to decide whether
something is "reasonable". Obviously, the test of reasonableness
differs between (say) judges and drug addicts.
This mythical average person is referred to as "the man on the
Clapham Omnibus". Clapham is a residential area within the London
conurbation. I was trying to indicate a US equivalent.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu spake thus:
>
> >
> > On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, david56 wrote:
> >
> > > Furthermore, my hope was directed at AUE posters who seemed more
> > > likely to know these things than the man on the Bronx Omnibus.
> >
> > The *what*?
>
> There is a legal fiction of the UK "common man", who has the
> knowledge, understanding and intelligence of the "average person".
> You can refer to his opinion if you are trying to decide whether
> something is "reasonable". Obviously, the test of reasonableness
> differs between (say) judges and drug addicts.
>
> This mythical average person is referred to as "the man on the
> Clapham Omnibus". Clapham is a residential area within the London
> conurbation. I was trying to indicate a US equivalent.
"The man on the street". (Which is different from "The man on the
Street".) His name is "John Q. Public", but he's "just an average
Joe".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The Society for the Preservation of
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Tithesis commends your ebriated and
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |scrutable use of delible and
|defatigable, which are gainly, sipid
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |and couth. We are gruntled and
(650)857-7572 |consolate that you have the ertia and
|eptitude to choose such putably
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |pensible tithesis, which we parage.
Skitt
> Gosh. A pondian misunderstanding. My use of "low-status" implied
> that the remuneration would be low. Here, at least, a job which pays
> loads of money will rapidly become high status; the educated and
> articulate will move in and take over the work. It sounds like
> Floridian teachers get these positions because the the pay is high
> enough to attract them - the employers can pick and choose who to
> employ. That's not a low-status job.
I understand that the waste (read "garbage") pick-up people around here make
a lot of money. I still have trouble thinking of them as having a
high-status job.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
R F
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> david56 <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
> > rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu spake thus:
> >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, david56 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Furthermore, my hope was directed at AUE posters who seemed more
> > > > likely to know these things than the man on the Bronx Omnibus.
> > >
> > > The *what*?
> >
> > There is a legal fiction of the UK "common man", who has the
> > knowledge, understanding and intelligence of the "average person".
> > You can refer to his opinion if you are trying to decide whether
> > something is "reasonable". Obviously, the test of reasonableness
> > differs between (say) judges and drug addicts.
> >
> > This mythical average person is referred to as "the man on the
> > Clapham Omnibus". Clapham is a residential area within the London
> > conurbation. I was trying to indicate a US equivalent.
>
> "The man on the street". (Which is different from "The man on the
> Street".) His name is "John Q. Public", but he's "just an average
> Joe".
I'm inclined to say that it should be "the man *in* the street", though
I'm not entirely sure. Raw Google hits are about evenly split it seems,
and you have to assume that Rightpondians only use "in".
John Varela
> There's another thing. Just about every UK car below £30,000 has
> folding back seats, so locking the boot doesn't stop access by
> anybody who has access to the car. I've never even heard of a
> lockable folding back seat.
The back seat of my Volvo had a way to lock the back seats from inside the
trunk/boot. As Consumer Reports helpfully pointed out, the mechanism could be
unlocked by reaching into the trunk/boot through the small hole in the middle
of the back seat, which is there to accept skis. To be even more helpful,
Consumer Reports included a photo.
The back seats of the Infiniti that replaces the Volvo can only be lowered
from inside the trunk/boot.
--
John Varela
John Varela
> But do these cars have boot-release buttons or levers on the
> dashboard?
Infiniti has a switch on the dashboard that unlocks the trunk. But then there
is a second switch inside the locking glove compartment that disables the
first switch.
--
John Varela
John Varela
> Come on, has any reader seen or used valet parking in the UK, or
> anywhere in Europe?
I have, last March at the Pousada in Evora, Portugal. Although the parking
lot was right behind the Pousada, the route from the front of the Pousada to
the parking lot was so circuitous through Mediaeval streets that guests would
never find the parking lot on their own.
--
John Varela
Aaron J. Dinkin
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 00:26:33 +0100, david56
><bass.b...@ntlworld.com> said:
>
>> Yes, UK boot = US trunk.
>
> Where is "turtleback" used? Or is it anymore?
I know "turtleback" only as a non-car-related term. When I worked in a
public library, we occasionally said "turtleback" to refer to a paperback
book that had had its paper covers replaced, for the sake of durability,
with hard thick laminated cardboard with the designs from the original
covers printed on them. I think the process might have been done by a
company called "Turtle" or "Turtle Board" or something.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
R F
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, david56 wrote:
> rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu spake thus:
>
> >
> > On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, david56 wrote:
> >
> > > Furthermore, my hope was directed at AUE posters who seemed
> > > more likely to know these things than the man on the Bronx Omnibus.
> >
> > The *what*?
>
> There is a legal fiction of the UK "common man", who has the
> knowledge, understanding and intelligence of the "average person".
> You can refer to his opinion if you are trying to decide whether
> something is "reasonable". Obviously, the test of reasonableness
> differs between (say) judges and drug addicts.
Ah, the "reasonable man" of American law, now known as the "reasonable
person".
> This mythical average person is referred to as "the man on the
> Clapham Omnibus". Clapham is a residential area within the London
> conurbation. I was trying to indicate a US equivalent.
Somehow I imagine that the Bronx isn't the sort of place that an American
describing the "reasonable man" would reach for first. Not that Bronxites
aren't reasonable, but the Bronx isn't exactly a typical American sort of
place (NTTAWWT), even if it is on the Mainland. I suppose it really
depends on what sort of objectively reasonable perspective you're looking
for. If someone in a Bronx walkup casually drops an anvil out the window
and it lands on the head of a passer-by, whether that anvil-dropper is
negligent should probably depend on whether a reasonable Bronxite would
casually drop an anvil out a window. You'd hope that a reasonable person
elsewhere in the US would have the same view, though.
I assume that "the Clapham Omnibus" refers to the bus (or horse-drawn
predecessor) that goes from central London to Clapham. There's no such
single bus equivalent in New York, not today, though there are several
buses that go from Manhattan to the Bronx. Moreover, the Bronx is a
rather big area, containing several neighborhoods, and Clapham probably
corresponds more closely to a Bronx neighborhood (though it probably
doesn't) than to the Bronx the borough.
Incidentally, the Bronx was once known as the "North Side" of New York, a
name which, sadly, did not survive the invention of Greater New York.
Those b_______s!
Oh, also: the whole idea of calling the North Side "the Bronx" was a
conceit of the planners who dreamt up the five-borough plan for Greater
New York. Until then, no one called it the Bronx, not even informally;
"the Bronx" was merely the name of the Bronx River. In fact, North Side
residents objected to the name "the Bronx" for the new borough. I mention
this because the question of the origin of the name 'the Bronx' comes up
every year or so on this NG, and the myth that the Bronx was used as a
name for the place prior to its fanciful invention by the bureaucrats has
been repeated many times here.
John Varela
> As I have replied elsewhere in this thread, this is not an issue in
> the UK, where we only ever hand our car keys to the garage at
> servicing time.
The only time my car was damaged after leaving the keys with an attendant was
when I left it at a dealer for servicing. At least in that instance I didn't
have to mess with insurance, the dealer just went ahead and fixed it.
--
John Varela
John Varela
> My Honda has one key that does everything, and second "valet key" that
> works the doors and the ignition, but not the trunk or the gas cap
> cover.
It probably doesn't unlock the glove compartment either.
--
John Varela
Harvey Van Sickle
>
-snip-
> I assume that "the Clapham Omnibus" refers to the bus (or
> horse-drawn predecessor) that goes from central London to Clapham.
I suspect that the main reason this one was selected as an example of
what the "common man" would ride -- the No. 88 bus, which still runs on
that route -- was that the route took it past the Houses of Parliament.
It was probably one of the very few omnibus routes that impinged upon
the consciousness of Members of Parliament, judges and such-like.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 21 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs)
John Varela
> It sounds like there must have been one insurance policy covering
> both cars - that's rare here. I've only ever heard of two cars on
> one policy where they were both insured for the same "single driver"
> and so could not be driven at the same time.
When we had teenagers at home we had three cars on the same insurance policy,
each with a designated "principal operator".
--
John Varela
Ray Heindl
True, but that's because the glove compartment doesn't have a lock.
For some reason I'm reminded of the scene in _Police Squad!_ where
someone opens a car's glove compartment and it's full of gloves. Does
anyone actually keep gloves in a glove compartment?
--
Ray Heindl
(remove the X to reply)
R H Draney
>
>For some reason I'm reminded of the scene in _Police Squad!_ where
>someone opens a car's glove compartment and it's full of gloves. Does
>anyone actually keep gloves in a glove compartment?
I used to, when I lived in colder country and might need to change a tire in
freezing weather...now there's an oven mitt in there....r
Maria Conlon
> James Follett wrote
>> In message Eamer writes
> <snip>
>>> For instance, one might say, "I lost my house/car keys." Does this
>>> _always_
>>> mean they lost more than one key?
>>
>> Yes. The "s" on the end of the noun is a dead give away.
>
> Have you ever seen a single key for both the house and the car?
I'm waiting for that very thing. I have a car key with one of those
little automatic openers on the key chain. Press a button, the car
unlocks. I often catch myself pressing that button after I get out of my
vehicle and approach the front door.
That would be a good invention, if it isn't already invented. It would
be very much like a garage door opener, except it would release the lock
on the front door, cause the door to open so you could walk in, and hand
you a cup of coffee while it's at it.
Maria Conlon
Peter Moylan
>A few years ago, I needed to hire a car. As a (naturalised) Yorkshireman, I
>used the Yellow Pages to phone a sample of three car hire firms, to obtain
>the cheapest quote for the type of car I required. To make the quotes easily
>comparable, I asked the three firms to include in their quote the cost of
>fully comprehensive insurance. Having compared these prices, I chose Firm X,
>and asked them to deliver the car to my home. *After* I had written the
>cheque, signed all the paperwork, and accepted the keys, the representative
>then asked "Do you want to pay the extra premium for collision/theft damage
>waiver insurance?", which was at a cost of (I think I remember correctly) £3
>per day. Astonished, I pointed out that the price I had paid was supposed to
>include fully comprehensive insurance. He told me that I was indeed covered
>by fully comprehensive insurance, but that if the car was scratched, damaged
>or stolen, even if not by my fault, I would be liable for the first £500 of
>the repair bill. This was in spite of the fact that I had fully
>comprehensive insurance.
I was almost caught by another car rental scam which, I have since
been told, is widespread. I rented a car for a couple of days,
and paid by credit card. A couple of months later my credit card
bill was $500 higher than expected. It took quite a few phone
calls even to get an explanation for this. Eventually I was told
it was the insurance excess, following repairs to the car after
I had returned it. What repairs? Well, the bodywork after the
collision damage. What collision? It was two months after the
fact, and only because I disputed the credit card charge, that I
was even told about the alleged collision.
The ensuing fight went on for about six months. For that entire
time they had my money, because the credit card rules say that
the disputed amount must first be paid before the dispute is
handled. When I insisted that I be shown the documentation for
the repairs, I was told that the records for that car had
somehow become lost. The thing that finally caused them to back
down was my suggestion that the insurance company would have
duplicate records.
In the long run I won this case because I'm the sort of person who
keeps all the credit card records and reconciles the accounts,
and because I do have at least some idea of my legal rights. There
must be plenty of people who just pay up without realising that
they've been ripped off.
--
Peter Moylan Peter....@newcastle.edu.au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)
Tony Cooper
<bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Gosh. A pondian misunderstanding. My use of "low-status" implied
>that the remuneration would be low. Here, at least, a job which pays
>loads of money will rapidly become high status; the educated and
>articulate will move in and take over the work. It sounds like
>Floridian teachers get these positions because the the pay is high
>enough to attract them - the employers can pick and choose who to
>employ. That's not a low-status job.
If this is how you view the usage of "status", then it is indeed a
pondian difference. At least to this resident of this side of the
pond.
Status, to me, always relates to how people conceive of the subject
being described. A low-status job is a job that other people think is
menial or lowly. The dustman may make a decent salary, but he's in a
low status job. The academic may earn a paltry salary but he's in a
high status job.
If you live in a high status neighborhood, you live in a neighborhood
that is considered respectable and upper class. You may live in
garret rooms there, but you are in a status neighborhood.
Bob Cunningham
<bass.b...@ntlworld.com> said:
> exw...@earthlink.net spake thus:
[ . . . ]
> > By the way "hood" equals UK "bonnet", and no, I don't
> > think everyone should know that, just as I don't
> > believe most Americans would know that "trunk" equals
> > UK "boot".
> I trust I didn't say "should know", but only that I
> thought they would.
"Should" is a somewhat tricky word. It can have at least
two quite different meanings. When I said "I don't think
everyone should know that", I meant it in the sense "I don't
think it's likely that everyone would know that". David
took me to be saying "I don't think it's necessary for
everyone to know that".
> Furthermore, my hope was directed at AUE posters who
> seemed more likely to know these things than the man on
> the Bronx Omnibus.
No one can know the full makeup of the AUE readership. In
the absence of such knowledge, it seems to me it's safest to
assume that most readers will have no more knowledge of
specialized terms than does the man on the Bronx bus (UK
omnibus).
The only AUE people we can know anything about are the ones
who post, and the only ones whose areas of awareness we can
guess at are the ones who have posted many times. For all
we know, the number of people who read but never post may
greatly exceed the number who post.
It is of course possible to go overboard in either
direction, but I think some AUE regulars are inclined to
adopt an attitude of inness that would be more appropriate
for a restricted mailing list than for a newsgroup with a
general readership.
Stewart Gordon
little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:
<snip>
> For some reason I'm reminded of the scene in _Police Squad!_ where
> someone opens a car's glove compartment and it's full of gloves. Does
> anyone actually keep gloves in a glove compartment?
In the old days, drivers would tend to wear gloves. Presumably steering
wheels weren't as clean as they'd be in a modern car. The glove
compartment was, of course, where they'd store the gloves when they're
not in use.
Don't ask me if anyone still does though.
Does anyone have any idea what kind of size early glove compartments
were? Could they've feasibly been used to store more than just your
driving gloves, back in those days?
Stewart.
--
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on
on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
david56
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:30:30 UTC, david56 <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > There's another thing. Just about every UK car below £30,000 has
> > folding back seats, so locking the boot doesn't stop access by
> > anybody who has access to the car. I've never even heard of a
> > lockable folding back seat.
>
> The back seat of my Volvo had a way to lock the back seats from inside the
> trunk/boot. As Consumer Reports helpfully pointed out, the mechanism could be
> unlocked by reaching into the trunk/boot through the small hole in the middle
> of the back seat, which is there to accept skis.
Is that what it's for? We don't do a lot of skiing in Warrington -
I've only ever used it a) for the children to poke stuff into the
boot while we are travelling and b) the top of a cello case which is
too big for the boot.
david56
> david56 <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
> > rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu spake thus:
> >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, david56 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Furthermore, my hope was directed at AUE posters who seemed more
> > > > likely to know these things than the man on the Bronx Omnibus.
> > >
> > > The *what*?
> >
> > There is a legal fiction of the UK "common man", who has the
> > knowledge, understanding and intelligence of the "average person".
> > You can refer to his opinion if you are trying to decide whether
> > something is "reasonable". Obviously, the test of reasonableness
> > differs between (say) judges and drug addicts.
> >
> > This mythical average person is referred to as "the man on the
> > Clapham Omnibus". Clapham is a residential area within the London
> > conurbation. I was trying to indicate a US equivalent.
>
> "The man on the street". (Which is different from "The man on the
> Street".) His name is "John Q. Public", but he's "just an average
> Joe".
Yes, but I wanted to indicate the "US citizen man on the street".
david56
> I assume that "the Clapham Omnibus" refers to the bus (or horse-drawn
> predecessor) that goes from central London to Clapham. There's no such
> single bus equivalent in New York, not today, though there are several
> buses that go from Manhattan to the Bronx. Moreover, the Bronx is a
> rather big area, containing several neighborhoods, and Clapham probably
> corresponds more closely to a Bronx neighborhood (though it probably
> doesn't) than to the Bronx the borough.
I guess that you're right - it sounds like a Victorian phrase,
probably used by a Judge in a summing-up to indicate to a jury how
they should approach the concept of reasonableness. The word
"omnibus" is perhaps now 100 years past its sell-by date, so this
could indeed refer to a horse-drawn bus taking this poor bloke to his
mind-numbing work in the City.
david56
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:27:11 +0100, david56
> <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> said:
>
> > exw...@earthlink.net spake thus:
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> > > By the way "hood" equals UK "bonnet", and no, I don't
> > > think everyone should know that, just as I don't
> > > believe most Americans would know that "trunk" equals
> > > UK "boot".
>
> > I trust I didn't say "should know", but only that I
> > thought they would.
>
> "Should" is a somewhat tricky word. It can have at least
> two quite different meanings. When I said "I don't think
> everyone should know that", I meant it in the sense "I don't
> think it's likely that everyone would know that". David
> took me to be saying "I don't think it's necessary for
> everyone to know that".
That is true. Divided by a common language, and all that, what?
> > Furthermore, my hope was directed at AUE posters who
> > seemed more likely to know these things than the man on
> > the Bronx Omnibus.
>
> No one can know the full makeup of the AUE readership. In
> the absence of such knowledge, it seems to me it's safest to
> assume that most readers will have no more knowledge of
> specialized terms than does the man on the Bronx bus (UK
> omnibus).
As you'll have seen above, this is a specialised, invariant phrase.
Even we old Brits don't use "omnibus" in normal speech any more.
> The only AUE people we can know anything about are the ones
> who post, and the only ones whose areas of awareness we can
> guess at are the ones who have posted many times. For all
> we know, the number of people who read but never post may
> greatly exceed the number who post.
That's possible, but I sticky by my unfounded and unprovable feeling
that the _readership_ of AUE is more clued-up on UK/US language
differences than is the average, wherever they live.
> It is of course possible to go overboard in either
> direction, but I think some AUE regulars are inclined to
> adopt an attitude of inness that would be more appropriate
> for a restricted mailing list than for a newsgroup with a
> general readership.
I hear you.
david56
Fair enough. Anybody got an example closer to Warrington than
Portugal?
david56
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 15:58:55 +0100, david56
> <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >Gosh. A pondian misunderstanding. My use of "low-status" implied
> >that the remuneration would be low. Here, at least, a job which pays
> >loads of money will rapidly become high status; the educated and
> >articulate will move in and take over the work. It sounds like
> >Floridian teachers get these positions because the the pay is high
> >enough to attract them - the employers can pick and choose who to
> >employ. That's not a low-status job.
>
> If this is how you view the usage of "status", then it is indeed a
> pondian difference. At least to this resident of this side of the
> pond.
>
> Status, to me, always relates to how people conceive of the subject
> being described. A low-status job is a job that other people think is
> menial or lowly. The dustman may make a decent salary, but he's in a
> low status job. The academic may earn a paltry salary but he's in a
> high status job.
To an extent, I agree. But in general, low status jobs are badly
paid, and high status jobs are well paid. There are other barriers
which make entry to some high status jobs more difficult (not
everybody can be an academic).
I don't think dustman make decent salaries around here, at least not
at basic pay level - they may make considerably more with overtime.
Plumbers earn loads, so I've heard. But I wouldn't' classify that as
a low-status job - they are skilled tradesmen. But car par
attendant, that's a low status, and low pay, job.
> If you live in a high status neighborhood, you live in a neighborhood
> that is considered respectable and upper class. You may live in
> garret rooms there, but you are in a status neighborhood.
High-status neighbourhoods in the UK tend not to have any low-cost
housing nestling within.
david56
I might just be able to squeeze my gloves into my glove compartment,
but there wouldn't be any room for the manual and other documents
which are in there now.
Graeme Thomas
<bass.b...@ntlworld.com> writes
>I'm sure it must exist somewhere, but I've never seen it. Who would
>trust a spotty teenager to park their car? Certainly not me.
>
>Come on, has any reader seen or used valet parking in the UK, or
>anywhere in Europe?
Apparently Harrods provide valet parking for their customers. (The
Harrods car park is some way from the store, and difficult to find.)
Some years ago (20?) an odd case at an Industrial Tribunal hit the news.
A youth was hired, by Harrods, to park cars for their customers. This
youth damaged several cars in his first week by driving them into walls,
pillars, etc. The customers were not pleased, and so the youth was
fired. He complained to the Industrial Tribunal, claiming that he had
been unfairly treated. The basis of his complaint was, I gather, that
no one has told him that his duties included not crashing the cars.
(As with most such stories, the ultimate outcome of this case was not
reported.)
--
Graeme Thomas
Graeme Thomas
<bass.b...@ntlworld.com> writes
>There is a legal fiction of the UK "common man", who has the
>knowledge, understanding and intelligence of the "average person".
>You can refer to his opinion if you are trying to decide whether
>something is "reasonable". Obviously, the test of reasonableness
>differs between (say) judges and drug addicts.
One of A P Herbert's _Misleading Cases_ points out that the "Reasonable
Man" makes his appearance in many laws, statutes, and regulations. It
is by his standards that defendants in other cases are judged. But
nowhere, in this morass of legal gobbledegook, is there a single
reference to the Reasonable Woman. This omission was held, by the
defence lawyer, to demonstrate that there was no such thing as a
Reasonable Woman, and so the plaintiff erred in assuming that the
defendant would behave reasonably.
The judge concurred with this argument.
--
Graeme Thomas
david56
> In article <MPG.19d2347cf...@news.cis.dfn.de>, david56
> <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
> >I'm sure it must exist somewhere, but I've never seen it. Who would
> >trust a spotty teenager to park their car? Certainly not me.
> >
> >Come on, has any reader seen or used valet parking in the UK, or
> >anywhere in Europe?
>
> Apparently Harrods provide valet parking for their customers. (The
> Harrods car park is some way from the store, and difficult to find.)
True, according to Harrods' web site. I, however, a poor provincial
creature, would not dream of attempting to drive to Harrods:
"The car park is located in Brompton Place, just two minutes' walk
from the Store, and all parking is valet only"
Interestingly, it makes no comment on the cost.
Laura F Spira
> jav...@earthlink.net spake thus:
>
>
>>On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 09:06:37 UTC, david56 <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Come on, has any reader seen or used valet parking in the UK, or
>>>anywhere in Europe?
>>
>>
>>I have, last March at the Pousada in Evora, Portugal. Although the parking
>>lot was right behind the Pousada, the route from the front of the Pousada to
>>the parking lot was so circuitous through Mediaeval streets that guests would
>>never find the parking lot on their own.
>
>
> Fair enough. Anybody got an example closer to Warrington than
> Portugal?
>
The Waterside Inn, Bray, Berks. 7 September 2003.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Linz
"Ray Heindl" <rhe...@nccwx.net> wrote in message
news:Xns93F9A30D...@216.168.3.44...
> For some reason I'm reminded of the scene in _Police Squad!_ where
> someone opens a car's glove compartment and it's full of gloves.
> Does anyone actually keep gloves in a glove compartment?
I do. In winter I sit in the car shivering until it warms up, then I take
off my gloves and put them in the glove compartment, then I take off my
coat.
Simon R. Hughes
Yeahyeah... keep going...
--
Simon R. Hughes <!-- Kill "Kenny" for email. -->
<!-- http://www.mirrorproject.com/mirror?id=17972 -->
david56
In the south, see?
Was this a special event? My googling has revealed that you can hire
a valet parking service to attend your wedding reception, etc. Or
does the Inn offer valet parking as a matter of course?
Linz
"Simon R. Hughes" <a5799...@yahoo.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.19d3cc30c...@news.online.no...
> Thus spake Linz:
> >
> > "Ray Heindl" <rhe...@nccwx.net> wrote in message
> > news:Xns93F9A30D...@216.168.3.44...
> >
> > > For some reason I'm reminded of the scene in _Police Squad!_
> > > where someone opens a car's glove compartment and it's full of
> > > gloves.
> > > Does anyone actually keep gloves in a glove compartment?
> >
> > I do. In winter I sit in the car shivering until it warms up, then
> > I take off my gloves and put them in the glove compartment, then I
> > take off my coat.
>
> Yeahyeah... keep going...
It needs to be warmer for me take off my jumper. And it needs to be August
for me to remove my t-shirt.
--
I will go down with this ship
I won't poke my eyes out and surrender