Word Origin: plant / factory?

[l***@gmail.com]

I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George Washington Carver.

[Don Phillipson]

Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory.
By
Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is
well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George
Washington Carver.

Your informants seem rather muddled. The origins of the word "plant"
can be found in etymological dictionaries. Henry Ford published
several books, but none called Factory. He had an interest in
plantations of rubber but not peanuts. Peanuts were farmed in
Central America for thousands of years before the US Dept. of
Agriculture was created. G.W. Carver is remembered for his
research into peanut recipes and industrial products.

[RH Draney]

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory.
By
Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is
well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George
Washington Carver.

Your informants seem rather muddled. The origins of the word "plant"
can be found in etymological dictionaries. Henry Ford published
several books, but none called Factory. He had an interest in
plantations of rubber but not peanuts. Peanuts were farmed in
Central America for thousands of years before the US Dept. of
Agriculture was created. G.W. Carver is remembered for his
research into peanut recipes and industrial products.

That's some heavy plant crossing you've got there....r

[Lesmond]

Post by RH Draney

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory.
By
Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is
well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George
Washington Carver.

Your informants seem rather muddled. The origins of the word "plant"
can be found in etymological dictionaries. Henry Ford published
several books, but none called Factory. He had an interest in
plantations of rubber but not peanuts. Peanuts were farmed in
Central America for thousands of years before the US Dept. of
Agriculture was created. G.W. Carver is remembered for his
research into peanut recipes and industrial products.

That's some heavy plant crossing you've got there....r

Whenever I see the "Plant Entrance" signs I prepare to brake for triffids.

[g***@gmail.com]

In Dick Gregory’s new book, he suggests the usage arose from George Washington Carver’s suggestions to Henry Ford. GWC was a botanist. I would have assumed the usage started in England long ago, but some of you suggest otherwise.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by g***@gmail.com
In Dick Gregory’s new book, he suggests the usage arose from George Washington Carver’s suggestions to Henry Ford. GWC was a botanist. I would have assumed the usage started in England long ago, but some of you suggest otherwise.

The OED's earliest reference is 1789 but as it indicates that nobody seemed
to know even then where the usage comes from I think we're probably doomed
to ignorance!

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

'Nuff said!

[c***@gmail.com]

Carvery was known for his work with peanuts yes but also many other things Henry Ford pick his brains and I would say the word plant was used because of him learn about him.

[Whiskers]

Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word,
Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut
plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist
named George Washington Carver.

I don't think Ford or Carver had anything to do with it (notwithstanding
their achievements in other fields). 'Factory' may be a definition, but
it isn't the etymology.

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

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

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

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

[...]

and:

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

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

Etymology: Partly < French plan drawing, sketch, or diagram made by
projection on a horizontal plane showing the layout of a building,
city, area, etc. (1547 in Middle French; 1545 as plant ), drawing
guiding the establishment of a building, or of a work which is to be
realized (1563; 1538 as plant ), set of measures adopted in order to
accomplish something (1627) ( < planter : see plant v.), and partly <
French plan plane surface (1553 in Middle French), use as noun of plan
, adjective (see plane adj.). Compare Italian pianta (a1529), Spanish
planta (1600). Compare plane n.3

[charles]

Post by Whiskers

Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word,
Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut
plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist
named George Washington Carver.

I don't think Ford or Carver had anything to do with it (notwithstanding
their achievements in other fields). 'Factory' may be a definition, but
it isn't the etymology.
My guess is that 'plant' in this sense began as 'something planned
[for]', but I can't find firm support for that. OED does have a hint
"plant, n.1." OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2017. Web. 1
September 2017.
[...]
In spite of the apparent implications of quot. 1789 at sense 5a does
not appear to have a model in French; however, perhaps compare French
plan plan n.
[...]
5.
a. The premises, fittings, and equipment of a business or (chiefly N.
Amer.) of an institution; a factory, a place where an industrial
process is carried out. In extended use: the workers employed at a
business, institution, or factory. Frequently with modifying word.
1789 H. L. Piozzi Observ. Journey France I. 133 The ground was
destined to the purposes of extensive commerce, but the appellation
of a plant gave me much disturbance, from my inability to fathom the
meaning.
1838 Civil Engineer & Architect's Jrnl. 1 239/2 There was very
little possibility of transferring these implements (technically
called the Plant) from one contract to another.
[...]
"plan, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2017. Web. 1
September 2017.
Origin: A borrowing from French. Etymon: French plan.
Etymology: Partly < French plan drawing, sketch, or diagram made by
projection on a horizontal plane showing the layout of a building,
city, area, etc. (1547 in Middle French; 1545 as plant ), drawing
guiding the establishment of a building, or of a work which is to be
realized (1563; 1538 as plant ), set of measures adopted in order to
accomplish something (1627) ( < planter : see plant v.), and partly <
French plan plane surface (1553 in Middle French), use as noun of plan
, adjective (see plane adj.). Compare Italian pianta (a1529), Spanish
planta (1600). Compare plane n.3

how about "Planta Genista" (Broom) which gave it's name to the English
ruling House in the 12th/13th Century.

[Whiskers]

Post by charles

Post by Whiskers

Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word,
Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut
plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist
named George Washington Carver.

I don't think Ford or Carver had anything to do with it (notwithstanding
their achievements in other fields). 'Factory' may be a definition, but
it isn't the etymology.
My guess is that 'plant' in this sense began as 'something planned
[for]', but I can't find firm support for that. OED does have a hint
"plant, n.1." OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2017. Web. 1
September 2017.
[...]
In spite of the apparent implications of quot. 1789 at sense 5a does
not appear to have a model in French; however, perhaps compare French
plan plan n.
[...]
5.
a. The premises, fittings, and equipment of a business or (chiefly N.
Amer.) of an institution; a factory, a place where an industrial
process is carried out. In extended use: the workers employed at a
business, institution, or factory. Frequently with modifying word.
1789 H. L. Piozzi Observ. Journey France I. 133 The ground was
destined to the purposes of extensive commerce, but the appellation
of a plant gave me much disturbance, from my inability to fathom the
meaning.
1838 Civil Engineer & Architect's Jrnl. 1 239/2 There was very
little possibility of transferring these implements (technically
called the Plant) from one contract to another.
[...]
"plan, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2017. Web. 1
September 2017.
Origin: A borrowing from French. Etymon: French plan.
Etymology: Partly < French plan drawing, sketch, or diagram made by
projection on a horizontal plane showing the layout of a building,
city, area, etc. (1547 in Middle French; 1545 as plant ), drawing
guiding the establishment of a building, or of a work which is to be
realized (1563; 1538 as plant ), set of measures adopted in order to
accomplish something (1627) ( < planter : see plant v.), and partly <
French plan plane surface (1553 in Middle French), use as noun of plan
, adjective (see plane adj.). Compare Italian pianta (a1529), Spanish
planta (1600). Compare plane n.3

how about "Planta Genista" (Broom) which gave it's name to the English
ruling House in the 12th/13th Century.

That is a vegetative organism, not an industrial installation.

[CDB]

Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word,
Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the
peanut plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black
scientist named George Washington Carver.

It's the other way around. The peanut plant is planted in the ground.
So, by extension, is the Ford plant.

In Spanish, you go upstairs from the planta baja.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=plant

[Cheryl]

Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George Washington Carver.

The term "plant" might have been derived from "plantation" - no, not in
the Gone With the Wind sense, but in the earlier one in which a
plantation was a group of people "planted" in the New World, and which
later referred to the place that they settled, and still later to large
farms or estates owned by individuals. The use of "plant" to refer to a
specific area where something is carried out would also be a derivation,
whether the activity was manufacturing cars, or, in some areas,
operating schools. In any case, I suspect Henry Ford's use of the word
"plant" was not derived from "factory" and the usage existed long before
Ford did.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Cheryl

Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George Washington Carver.

The term "plant" might have been derived from "plantation" - no, not in
the Gone With the Wind sense, but in the earlier one in which a
plantation was a group of people "planted" in the New World, and which
later referred to the place that they settled, and still later to large
farms or estates owned by individuals. The use of "plant" to refer to a
specific area where something is carried out would also be a derivation,
whether the activity was manufacturing cars, or, in some areas,
operating schools. In any case, I suspect Henry Ford's use of the word
"plant" was not derived from "factory" and the usage existed long before
Ford did.

The full name of the smallest state is "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations."

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

Which, Tony Cooper, suggests that Google Groups isn't so "crippled" after all.

[b***@aol.com]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Cheryl

Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George Washington Carver.

The term "plant" might have been derived from "plantation" - no, not in
the Gone With the Wind sense, but in the earlier one in which a
plantation was a group of people "planted" in the New World, and which
later referred to the place that they settled, and still later to large
farms or estates owned by individuals. The use of "plant" to refer to a
specific area where something is carried out would also be a derivation,
whether the activity was manufacturing cars, or, in some areas,
operating schools. In any case, I suspect Henry Ford's use of the word
"plant" was not derived from "factory" and the usage existed long before
Ford did.

The full name of the smallest state is "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations."
The responses given this morning are pretty much the same as the ones
given in 1996.
Which, Tony Cooper, suggests that Google Groups isn't so "crippled" after all.

Speaking of plants, the unexpected vocative above makes for a nice garden path.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Cheryl

Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George Washington Carver.

The term "plant" might have been derived from "plantation" - no, not in
the Gone With the Wind sense, but in the earlier one in which a
plantation was a group of people "planted" in the New World, and which
later referred to the place that they settled, and still later to large
farms or estates owned by individuals. The use of "plant" to refer to a
specific area where something is carried out would also be a derivation,
whether the activity was manufacturing cars, or, in some areas,
operating schools. In any case, I suspect Henry Ford's use of the word
"plant" was not derived from "factory" and the usage existed long before
Ford did.

The full name of the smallest state is "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations."
The responses given this morning are pretty much the same as the ones
given in 1996.
Which, Tony Cooper, suggests that Google Groups isn't so "crippled" after all.

Speaking of plants, the unexpected vocative above makes for a nice garden path.

arthur-Navi is right! Commas do matter!

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Cheryl

Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George Washington Carver.

The term "plant" might have been derived from "plantation" - no, not in
the Gone With the Wind sense, but in the earlier one in which a
plantation was a group of people "planted" in the New World, and which
later referred to the place that they settled, and still later to large
farms or estates owned by individuals. The use of "plant" to refer to a
specific area where something is carried out would also be a derivation,
whether the activity was manufacturing cars, or, in some areas,
operating schools. In any case, I suspect Henry Ford's use of the word
"plant" was not derived from "factory" and the usage existed long before
Ford did.

The full name of the smallest state is "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations."
The responses given this morning are pretty much the same as the ones
given in 1996.
Which, Tony Cooper, suggests that Google Groups isn't so "crippled" after all.

Speaking of plants, the unexpected vocative above makes for a nice garden path.

arthur-Navi is right! Commas do matter!

I don't think anybody ever argued that ALL commas do not matter.
They are extremely useful in marking intonation as in the vocative
in the sentence above or in a list "Tom, Dick and Harry". Problems
arise when people try using them to denote semantics rather than
pauses. For example I make a pause between "Tom" and "Dick" but
not in "Dick and Harry".

[Janet]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Cheryl

Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George Washington Carver.

The term "plant" might have been derived from "plantation" - no, not in
the Gone With the Wind sense, but in the earlier one in which a
plantation was a group of people "planted" in the New World, and which
later referred to the place that they settled, and still later to large
farms or estates owned by individuals. The use of "plant" to refer to a
specific area where something is carried out would also be a derivation,
whether the activity was manufacturing cars, or, in some areas,
operating schools. In any case, I suspect Henry Ford's use of the word
"plant" was not derived from "factory" and the usage existed long before
Ford did.

The full name of the smallest state is "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations."
The responses given this morning are pretty much the same as the ones
given in 1996.
Which, Tony Cooper, suggests that Google Groups isn't so "crippled" after all.

Speaking of plants, the unexpected vocative above makes for a nice garden path.

arthur-Navi is right! Commas do matter!

I told you so

Janet

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Janet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Cheryl

Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George Washington Carver.

The term "plant" might have been derived from "plantation" - no, not in
the Gone With the Wind sense, but in the earlier one in which a
plantation was a group of people "planted" in the New World, and which
later referred to the place that they settled, and still later to large
farms or estates owned by individuals. The use of "plant" to refer to a
specific area where something is carried out would also be a derivation,
whether the activity was manufacturing cars, or, in some areas,
operating schools. In any case, I suspect Henry Ford's use of the word
"plant" was not derived from "factory" and the usage existed long before
Ford did.

The full name of the smallest state is "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations."
The responses given this morning are pretty much the same as the ones
given in 1996.
Which, Tony Cooper, suggests that Google Groups isn't so "crippled" after all.

Speaking of plants, the unexpected vocative above makes for a nice garden path.

arthur-Navi is right! Commas do matter!

I told you so

When they're in the right place. Such as not between subject and predicate.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Janet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Cheryl

Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George Washington Carver.

The term "plant" might have been derived from "plantation" - no, not in
the Gone With the Wind sense, but in the earlier one in which a
plantation was a group of people "planted" in the New World, and which
later referred to the place that they settled, and still later to large
farms or estates owned by individuals. The use of "plant" to refer to a
specific area where something is carried out would also be a derivation,
whether the activity was manufacturing cars, or, in some areas,
operating schools. In any case, I suspect Henry Ford's use of the word
"plant" was not derived from "factory" and the usage existed long before
Ford did.

The full name of the smallest state is "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations."
The responses given this morning are pretty much the same as the ones
given in 1996.
Which, Tony Cooper, suggests that Google Groups isn't so "crippled" after all.

Speaking of plants, the unexpected vocative above makes for a nice garden path.

arthur-Navi is right! Commas do matter!

I told you so

When they're in the right place. Such as not between subject and predicate.

A lot of respected authors, particularly from the 19th century,
regularly place commas between subject and predicate when the subject is
very long and is followed by a natural speech pause.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Janet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Cheryl

Post by l***@gmail.com
I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George Washington Carver.

The term "plant" might have been derived from "plantation" - no, not in
the Gone With the Wind sense, but in the earlier one in which a
plantation was a group of people "planted" in the New World, and which
later referred to the place that they settled, and still later to large
farms or estates owned by individuals. The use of "plant" to refer to a
specific area where something is carried out would also be a derivation,
whether the activity was manufacturing cars, or, in some areas,
operating schools. In any case, I suspect Henry Ford's use of the word
"plant" was not derived from "factory" and the usage existed long before
Ford did.

The full name of the smallest state is "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations."
The responses given this morning are pretty much the same as the ones
given in 1996.
Which, Tony Cooper, suggests that Google Groups isn't so "crippled" after all.

Speaking of plants, the unexpected vocative above makes for a nice garden path.

arthur-Navi is right! Commas do matter!

I told you so

When they're in the right place. Such as not between subject and predicate.

A lot of respected authors, particularly from the 19th century,
regularly place commas between subject and predicate when the subject is
very long and is followed by a natural speech pause.

That was two centuries ago.

If the subject ends or the predicate begins with a non-restrictive clause, a
comma will appear there but in a different function.

[c***@gmail.com]

He used it because he was a good friend of George Washington carvery the plant man horticulturis.herny Ford would always pick his brains.

[h***@gmail.com]

Richard Belcher wrote...

: Hi,
: Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
: "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found
: a satisfactory answer.
: Thanks,
: Patricia
Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.

Not here it hasn't. I don't know anyone British who says "plant" when
they mean "factory".

Really? "The Ford plant in Dagenham"? You don't know anyone who
would say that?

[musika]

Post by h***@gmail.com

Richard Belcher wrote...

: Hi,
: Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
: "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found
: a satisfactory answer.
: Thanks,
: Patricia
Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.

Not here it hasn't. I don't know anyone British who says "plant" when
they mean "factory".

Really? "The Ford plant in Dagenham"? You don't know anyone who
would say that?

Mike posted that in 1996. He died in 2016. Don't expect a reply.

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by musika

Post by h***@gmail.com

Richard Belcher wrote...

: Hi,
: Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
: "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found
: a satisfactory answer.
: Thanks,
: Patricia
Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.

Not here it hasn't. I don't know anyone British who says "plant" when
they mean "factory".

Really? "The Ford plant in Dagenham"? You don't know anyone who
would say that?

Mike posted that in 1996. He died in 2016. Don't expect a reply.

Good point. I wonder how many of our comments will be contradicted
long after we are there to defend them. PTD will outlive all of us on
that score :)

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by musika

Post by h***@gmail.com

Richard Belcher wrote...

: Hi,
: Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
: "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found
: a satisfactory answer.
: Thanks,
: Patricia
Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.

Not here it hasn't. I don't know anyone British who says "plant" when
they mean "factory".

Really? "The Ford plant in Dagenham"? You don't know anyone who
would say that?

Mike posted that in 1996. He died in 2016. Don't expect a reply.

In BrE "plant" tends to mean machinery used on construction sites, etc.

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

Plant
crossing

Loading Image...

Caution
Heavy plant
crossing

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

<image of a "heavy plant crossing" sign>

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

Yet to me, I’ve always imagined not a truck, but an over-sized plant
pot with its fronds trailing.

[Ross]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by musika

Post by h***@gmail.com

Richard Belcher wrote...

: Hi,
: Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
: "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found
: a satisfactory answer.
: Thanks,
: Patricia
Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.

Not here it hasn't. I don't know anyone British who says "plant" when
they mean "factory".

Really? "The Ford plant in Dagenham"? You don't know anyone who
would say that?

Mike posted that in 1996. He died in 2016. Don't expect a reply.

In BrE "plant" tends to mean machinery used on construction sites, etc.
While most people may not use the word in that sense they are likely to
https://www.safetyshop.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/G/C/GCS15.jpg
Plant
crossing
https://www.gsbhealthandsafetysigns.co.uk/images/thumbnails/280/210/detailed/2/Heaviy_plant_crossing.png
Caution
Heavy plant
crossing
https://thoughtsbyanidlemind.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/thoughts-on-heavy-plant-crossing/
<image of a "heavy plant crossing" sign>
I’m assuming it’s a rather serious sign, warning of large machinery
lumbering across the road.
Yet to me, I’ve always imagined not a truck, but an over-sized plant
pot with its fronds trailing.

A triffid?

[Ken Blake]

Post by Ross

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by musika

Post by h***@gmail.com

Richard Belcher wrote...

: Hi,
: Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
: "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found
: a satisfactory answer.
: Thanks,
: Patricia
Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.

Not here it hasn't. I don't know anyone British who says "plant" when
they mean "factory".

Really? "The Ford plant in Dagenham"? You don't know anyone who
would say that?

Mike posted that in 1996. He died in 2016. Don't expect a reply.

In BrE "plant" tends to mean machinery used on construction sites, etc.
While most people may not use the word in that sense they are likely to
https://www.safetyshop.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/G/C/GCS15.jpg
Plant
crossing
https://www.gsbhealthandsafetysigns.co.uk/images/thumbnails/280/210/detailed/2/Heaviy_plant_crossing.png
Caution
Heavy plant
crossing
https://thoughtsbyanidlemind.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/thoughts-on-heavy-plant-crossing/
<image of a "heavy plant crossing" sign>
I’m assuming it’s a rather serious sign, warning of large machinery
lumbering across the road.
Yet to me, I’ve always imagined not a truck, but an over-sized plant
pot with its fronds trailing.

A triffid?

A mandrake root?

[Horace LaBadie]

Post by Ross

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by musika

Post by h***@gmail.com

Richard Belcher wrote...

: Hi,
: Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
: "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not
: found
: a satisfactory answer.
: Thanks,
: Patricia
Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.

Not here it hasn't. I don't know anyone British who says "plant" when
they mean "factory".

Really? "The Ford plant in Dagenham"? You don't know anyone who
would say that?

Mike posted that in 1996. He died in 2016. Don't expect a reply.

In BrE "plant" tends to mean machinery used on construction sites, etc.
While most people may not use the word in that sense they are likely to
https://www.safetyshop.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525
d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/G/C/GCS15.jpg
Plant
crossing
https://www.gsbhealthandsafetysigns.co.uk/images/thumbnails/280/210/detailed
/2/Heaviy plant crossing.png
Caution
Heavy plant
crossing
https://thoughtsbyanidlemind.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/thoughts-on-heavy-plan
t-crossing/
<image of a "heavy plant crossing" sign>
I’m assuming it’s a rather serious sign, warning of large machinery
lumbering across the road.
Yet to me, I’ve always imagined not a truck, but an over-sized plant
pot with its fronds trailing.

A triffid?

Audrey II.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by Ross

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by musika

Post by h***@gmail.com

Richard Belcher wrote...

: Hi,
: Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
: "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found
: a satisfactory answer.
: Thanks,
: Patricia
Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.

Not here it hasn't. I don't know anyone British who says "plant" when
they mean "factory".

Really? "The Ford plant in Dagenham"? You don't know anyone who
would say that?

Mike posted that in 1996. He died in 2016. Don't expect a reply.

In BrE "plant" tends to mean machinery used on construction sites, etc.
While most people may not use the word in that sense they are likely to
https://www.safetyshop.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/G/C/GCS15.jpg
Plant
crossing
https://www.gsbhealthandsafetysigns.co.uk/images/thumbnails/280/210/detailed/2/Heaviy_plant_crossing.png
Caution
Heavy plant
crossing
https://thoughtsbyanidlemind.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/thoughts-on-heavy-plant-crossing/
<image of a "heavy plant crossing" sign>
I’m assuming it’s a rather serious sign, warning of large machinery
lumbering across the road.
Yet to me, I’ve always imagined not a truck, but an over-sized plant
pot with its fronds trailing.

A triffid?

Yes. That's what it suggests to me. However, I don't know how well
triffids are known to younger people.

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Ross

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by musika

Post by h***@gmail.com

Richard Belcher wrote...

: Hi,
: Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
: "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found
: a satisfactory answer.
: Thanks,
: Patricia
Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.

Not here it hasn't. I don't know anyone British who says "plant" when
they mean "factory".

Really? "The Ford plant in Dagenham"? You don't know anyone who
would say that?

Mike posted that in 1996. He died in 2016. Don't expect a reply.

In BrE "plant" tends to mean machinery used on construction sites, etc.
While most people may not use the word in that sense they are likely to
https://www.safetyshop.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/G/C/GCS15.jpg
Plant
crossing
https://www.gsbhealthandsafetysigns.co.uk/images/thumbnails/280/210/detailed/2/Heaviy_plant_crossing.png
Caution
Heavy plant
crossing
https://thoughtsbyanidlemind.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/thoughts-on-heavy-plant-crossing/
<image of a "heavy plant crossing" sign>
I’m assuming it’s a rather serious sign, warning of large machinery
lumbering across the road.
Yet to me, I’ve always imagined not a truck, but an over-sized plant
pot with its fronds trailing.

A triffid?

Yes. That's what it suggests to me. However, I don't know how well
triffids are known to younger people.

Or even to some older ones.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Ross

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
<image of a "heavy plant crossing" sign>
I’m assuming it’s a rather serious sign, warning of large machinery
lumbering across the road.
Yet to me, I’ve always imagined not a truck, but an over-sized plant
pot with its fronds trailing.

A triffid?

(That's what I thought immediately.)

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Yes. That's what it suggests to me. However, I don't know how well
triffids are known to younger people.

The novel was recommended to me by my first employer at Chicago (he was
Director of the Oriental Institute, I was Research Assistant, which meant
I typed the ms. pages he'd written the day before). It was frightening.
A while later I saw the movie. It wasn't.

[Dr. HotSalt]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by musika

Post by h***@gmail.com

Richard Belcher wrote...

: Hi,
: Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
: "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found
: a satisfactory answer.
: Thanks,
: Patricia
Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.

Not here it hasn't. I don't know anyone British who says "plant" when
they mean "factory".

Really? "The Ford plant in Dagenham"? You don't know anyone who
would say that?

Mike posted that in 1996. He died in 2016. Don't expect a reply.

In BrE "plant" tends to mean machinery used on construction sites, etc.
While most people may not use the word in that sense they are likely to
https://www.safetyshop.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/G/C/GCS15.jpg
Plant
crossing
https://www.gsbhealthandsafetysigns.co.uk/images/thumbnails/280/210/detailed/2/Heaviy_plant_crossing.png
Caution
Heavy plant
crossing
https://thoughtsbyanidlemind.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/thoughts-on-heavy-plant-crossing/
<image of a "heavy plant crossing" sign>
I’m assuming it’s a rather serious sign, warning of large machinery
lumbering across the road.
Yet to me, I’ve always imagined not a truck, but an over-sized plant
pot with its fronds trailing.

That was my first thought too (Triffid, Audrey II), but this does not
occur in the US. If it does in Canada it might drift over the border like
roundabouts did. I sincerely hope not.

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

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

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


Dr. HotSalt

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 19:40:08 -0800 (PST), "Dr. HotSalt"

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

I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point, but the signs are posted where
large trucks enter from places like construction zones and phosphate
pits.

[Lewis]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 19:40:08 -0800 (PST), "Dr. HotSalt"

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

I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point, but the signs are posted where
large trucks enter from places like construction zones and phosphate
pits.

I have seen temporary signs for when very large equipment, too large to
normally be on roads, is going to be on a road or crossing a road,
though I cannot recall the exact wording. Not merely large trucks but
massive moving projects along the lines of multi-story buildings or
gigantic mining equipment.

But along the lines of "heavy equipment crossing" and not merely the
"Wide load" pilot and chase cars one sees.

[Mark Brader]

Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...

Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...

Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.

They don't make it sound like that to me,
but then I'm used to seeing those signs
on limited access highways (aka "freeways").

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

/dps

[charles]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...

Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.

what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by charles

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...

Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.

what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .

What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by charles

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...

Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.

what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .

What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)

He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.

For the curious:
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by charles

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...

Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.

what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .

What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)

He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving

Alternatively, there is a BBC article
"Older drivers: Is age a factor behind the wheel?"

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

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

Hence Philip is a stripling.

p.s. He's back behind the wheel again today.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by charles

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...

Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.

what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .

What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)

He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving

Alternatively, there is a BBC article
"Older drivers: Is age a factor behind the wheel?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46916429
There are roughly 300 licenced drivers over the age of 100 in the UK.
Hence Philip is a stripling.
p.s. He's back behind the wheel again today.

He must have very good automobile insurance. I saw a photograph of
his replacement Land Rover being delivered either the same day of the
accident or the next day.

In the US, he'd still be fighting the insurance company for
compensation.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by charles

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...

Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.

what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .

What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)

He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving

Alternatively, there is a BBC article
"Older drivers: Is age a factor behind the wheel?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46916429
There are roughly 300 licenced drivers over the age of 100 in the UK.
Hence Philip is a stripling.
p.s. He's back behind the wheel again today.

He must have very good automobile insurance. I saw a photograph of
his replacement Land Rover being delivered either the same day of the
accident or the next day.
In the US, he'd still be fighting the insurance company for
compensation.
--

I suspect that, were the President or First Person involved, equally
rapid service would be expected.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
I suspect that, were the President or First Person involved, equally
rapid service would be expected.

The President is not permitted to drive. Obama sometimes persuaded them
to let him drive around the little roads inside the White House compound.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
I suspect that, were the President or First Person involved, equally
rapid service would be expected.

The President is not permitted to drive. Obama sometimes persuaded them
to let him drive around the little roads inside the White House compound.

When the Obamas visited the UK in 2016 Philip drove them around, but he
was only 94 at the time.
(I don't think he was free-lancing as an Uber driver)

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 14:59:23 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by charles

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...

Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.

what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .

What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)

He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving

Alternatively, there is a BBC article
"Older drivers: Is age a factor behind the wheel?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46916429
There are roughly 300 licenced drivers over the age of 100 in the UK.
Hence Philip is a stripling.
p.s. He's back behind the wheel again today.

He must have very good automobile insurance. I saw a photograph of
his replacement Land Rover being delivered either the same day of the
accident or the next day.

It was being delivered from elsewhere on the royal estates. It is not a
replacement paid for by the insurance company.

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

I imagine he has cars in various parts of the country: Sandringham,
Balmoral, Windsor, etc.

Post by Tony Cooper
In the US, he'd still be fighting the insurance company for
compensation.

I suspect that has hardly started.

It is not clear whether the crash was the fault of either driver, both
or neither. There is an ongoing police investigation.

[Janet]

In article <***@4ax.com>, tonycooper214
@invalid.com says...

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by charles

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...

Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.

what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .

What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)

He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving

Alternatively, there is a BBC article
"Older drivers: Is age a factor behind the wheel?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46916429
There are roughly 300 licenced drivers over the age of 100 in the UK.
Hence Philip is a stripling.
p.s. He's back behind the wheel again today.

He must have very good automobile insurance.

He has a very rich wife, so a higher insurance premium won't deter
him.

Janet

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by Janet
@invalid.com says...

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by charles

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...

Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.

what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .

What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)

He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving

Alternatively, there is a BBC article
"Older drivers: Is age a factor behind the wheel?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46916429
There are roughly 300 licenced drivers over the age of 100 in the UK.
Hence Philip is a stripling.
p.s. He's back behind the wheel again today.

He must have very good automobile insurance.

He has a very rich wife, so a higher insurance premium won't deter
him.
Janet

<smile>

It seems that the speed limit on the strech of road he was turning on to
was 60mph. By "coincidence" it was reduced to 50 mph soon after then
crash.
There was a proposal to install speed cameras there about three years
ago. It is still being discussed.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 23:59:51 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Janet
@invalid.com says...

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by charles

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...

Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.

what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .

What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)

He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving

Alternatively, there is a BBC article
"Older drivers: Is age a factor behind the wheel?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46916429
There are roughly 300 licenced drivers over the age of 100 in the UK.
Hence Philip is a stripling.
p.s. He's back behind the wheel again today.

He must have very good automobile insurance.

He has a very rich wife, so a higher insurance premium won't deter
him.
Janet

<smile>
It seems that the speed limit on the strech of road he was turning on to
was 60mph. By "coincidence" it was reduced to 50 mph soon after then
crash.
There was a proposal to install speed cameras there about three years
ago. It is still being discussed.

Is insurance mandatory for all drivers in the UK? Could the Royals be
self-insured?

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 19:28:28 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 23:59:51 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Janet
@invalid.com says...

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by charles

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...

Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.

what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .

What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)

He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving

Alternatively, there is a BBC article
"Older drivers: Is age a factor behind the wheel?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46916429
There are roughly 300 licenced drivers over the age of 100 in the UK.
Hence Philip is a stripling.
p.s. He's back behind the wheel again today.

He must have very good automobile insurance.

He has a very rich wife, so a higher insurance premium won't deter
him.
Janet

<smile>
It seems that the speed limit on the strech of road he was turning on to
was 60mph. By "coincidence" it was reduced to 50 mph soon after then
crash.
There was a proposal to install speed cameras there about three years
ago. It is still being discussed.

Is insurance mandatory for all drivers in the UK? Could the Royals be
self-insured?

As far as I know insurance is mandatory for all drivers in the UK. I've
not heard of any exceptions.
Government website:
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance

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

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

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

Most people have "comprehensive insurance" which covers damage to their
own vehicle.

[RHDraney]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 19:28:28 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
Is insurance mandatory for all drivers in the UK? Could the Royals be
self-insured?

As far as I know insurance is mandatory for all drivers in the UK. I've
not heard of any exceptions.
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance
You must have motor insurance to drive your vehicle on UK roads.
Third party insurance is the legal minimum. This means you’re
covered if you have an accident causing damage or injury to any
other person, vehicle, animal or property. It doesn’t cover any
other costs like repair to your own vehicle.
If you have "third party insurance" you are self-insured for damage to
your own vehicle.
Most people have "comprehensive insurance" which covers damage to their
own vehicle.

It's not strictly required here in the US either, or at least not in
Arizona...in lieu of proof of insurance, you can post a bond to cover
the corresponding claims...I haven't looked at the statute recently, but
the last time I did the amount of the bond had to be at least $40,000,
which may be why few people choose that option....r

[Janet]

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 19:28:28 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
Is insurance mandatory for all drivers in the UK? Could the Royals be
self-insured?

As far as I know insurance is mandatory for all drivers in the UK. I've
not heard of any exceptions.
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance
You must have motor insurance to drive your vehicle on UK roads.
Third party insurance is the legal minimum. This means you?re
covered if you have an accident causing damage or injury to any
other person, vehicle, animal or property. It doesn?t cover any
other costs like repair to your own vehicle.
If you have "third party insurance" you are self-insured for damage to
your own vehicle.
Most people have "comprehensive insurance" which covers damage to their
own vehicle.

It's not strictly required here in the US either, or at least not in
Arizona...in lieu of proof of insurance, you can post a bond to cover
the corresponding claims...I haven't looked at the statute recently, but
the last time I did the amount of the bond had to be at least $40,000,
which may be why few people choose that option....r

Third party insurance is mandatory for drivers in UK.

Janet.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
As far as I know insurance is mandatory for all drivers in the UK.
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance
You must have motor insurance to drive your vehicle on UK roads.
Third party insurance is the legal minimum. This means you’re covered
if you have an accident causing damage or injury to any other person,
vehicle, animal or property. It doesn’t cover any other costs like
repair to your own vehicle.
If you have "third party insurance" you are self-insured for damage
to your own vehicle.
Most people have "comprehensive insurance" which covers damage to
their own vehicle.

The situation in NSW, and I suspect in other Australian states, is that
third party insurance, also known as "green slip insurance", is
separated out as a special kind of insurance. To re-register a vehicle
each year, you must submit both a roadworthiness certificate (except for
relatively new vehicles) and the green slip. (Which are both done over
the internet these days.) There are no exceptions.

If you also want comprehensive insurance, that's optional, and is a
separate insurance policy. A "comprehensive" insurance policy does not
include third party cover, because it's understood you're already
covered for that.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
As far as I know insurance is mandatory for all drivers in the UK.
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance
You must have motor insurance to drive your vehicle on UK roads.
Third party insurance is the legal minimum. This means you’re covered
if you have an accident causing damage or injury to any other person,
vehicle, animal or property. It doesn’t cover any other costs like
repair to your own vehicle.
If you have "third party insurance" you are self-insured for damage
to your own vehicle.
Most people have "comprehensive insurance" which covers damage to
their own vehicle.

The situation in NSW, and I suspect in other Australian states, is that
third party insurance, also known as "green slip insurance", is
separated out as a special kind of insurance. To re-register a vehicle
each year, you must submit both a roadworthiness certificate (except for
relatively new vehicles) and the green slip. (Which are both done over
the internet these days.) There are no exceptions.
If you also want comprehensive insurance, that's optional, and is a
separate insurance policy. A "comprehensive" insurance policy does not
include third party cover, because it's understood you're already
covered for that.

Bafflingly unnecessary! Do other liability insurances come separately
too?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
As far as I know insurance is mandatory for all drivers in the UK.
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance
You must have motor insurance to drive your vehicle on UK roads.
Third party insurance is the legal minimum. This means you’re covered
if you have an accident causing damage or injury to any other person,
vehicle, animal or property. It doesn’t cover any other costs like
repair to your own vehicle.
If you have "third party insurance" you are self-insured for damage
to your own vehicle.
Most people have "comprehensive insurance" which covers damage to
their own vehicle.

The situation in NSW, and I suspect in other Australian states, is that
third party insurance, also known as "green slip insurance", is
separated out as a special kind of insurance. To re-register a vehicle
each year, you must submit both a roadworthiness certificate (except for
relatively new vehicles) and the green slip. (Which are both done over
the internet these days.) There are no exceptions.
If you also want comprehensive insurance, that's optional, and is a
separate insurance policy. A "comprehensive" insurance policy does not
include third party cover, because it's understood you're already
covered for that.

Bafflingly unnecessary! Do other liability insurances come separately
too?

They'll be happy to sell you insurance on whatever you want insured.

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

Some time in the early 1980s -- a year or two after I became a driver and
a car-owner -- Illinois became the last state to make car insurance
mandatory.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter Moylan
The situation in NSW, and I suspect in other Australian states, is
that third party insurance, also known as "green slip insurance",
is separated out as a special kind of insurance. To re-register a
vehicle each year, you must submit both a roadworthiness
certificate (except for relatively new vehicles) and the green
slip. (Which are both done over the internet these days.) There are
no exceptions.
If you also want comprehensive insurance, that's optional, and is
a separate insurance policy. A "comprehensive" insurance policy
does not include third party cover, because it's understood you're
already covered for that.

Bafflingly unnecessary! Do other liability insurances come
separately too?

The sole point of the legislation is to distinguish between compulsory
and non-compulsory insurance, and to have a mechanism to ensure that all
cars are covered by the compulsory one. (Note that a car cannot be
registered until _after_ the compulsory insurance is in place.) I don't
see why anyone would find that baffling.

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

The details of any non-compulsory insurance are a matter between the
insurance companies and their customers.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:31:57 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter Moylan
The situation in NSW, and I suspect in other Australian states, is
that third party insurance, also known as "green slip insurance",
is separated out as a special kind of insurance. To re-register a
vehicle each year, you must submit both a roadworthiness
certificate (except for relatively new vehicles) and the green
slip. (Which are both done over the internet these days.) There are
no exceptions.
If you also want comprehensive insurance, that's optional, and is
a separate insurance policy. A "comprehensive" insurance policy
does not include third party cover, because it's understood you're
already covered for that.

Bafflingly unnecessary! Do other liability insurances come
separately too?

The sole point of the legislation is to distinguish between compulsory
and non-compulsory insurance, and to have a mechanism to ensure that all
cars are covered by the compulsory one. (Note that a car cannot be
registered until _after_ the compulsory insurance is in place.) I don't
see why anyone would find that baffling.

What is baffling is why it is necessary to have two separate policies,
one for compulsory insurance and the other for non-compulsory. In the UK
all car insurance policies meet the compulsory requirements. They differ
in their non-compulsory provisions.

Post by Peter Moylan
A detail that I forgot to mention is that these third-party policies are
tightly regulated, to ensure that all such policies are up to the same
standard. Back in the days when third party insurance was just a
component of an overall insurance policy, there was no consistency
between companies as to how well the relevant third parties were covered.
The details of any non-compulsory insurance are a matter between the
insurance companies and their customers.

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:06:15 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:31:57 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter Moylan
The situation in NSW, and I suspect in other Australian states, is
that third party insurance, also known as "green slip insurance",
is separated out as a special kind of insurance. To re-register a
vehicle each year, you must submit both a roadworthiness
certificate (except for relatively new vehicles) and the green
slip. (Which are both done over the internet these days.) There are
no exceptions.
If you also want comprehensive insurance, that's optional, and is
a separate insurance policy. A "comprehensive" insurance policy
does not include third party cover, because it's understood you're
already covered for that.

Bafflingly unnecessary! Do other liability insurances come
separately too?

The sole point of the legislation is to distinguish between compulsory
and non-compulsory insurance, and to have a mechanism to ensure that all
cars are covered by the compulsory one. (Note that a car cannot be
registered until _after_ the compulsory insurance is in place.) I don't
see why anyone would find that baffling.

What is baffling is why it is necessary to have two separate policies,
one for compulsory insurance and the other for non-compulsory. In the UK
all car insurance policies meet the compulsory requirements. They differ
in their non-compulsory provisions.

Post by Peter Moylan
A detail that I forgot to mention is that these third-party policies are
tightly regulated, to ensure that all such policies are up to the same
standard. Back in the days when third party insurance was just a
component of an overall insurance policy, there was no consistency
between companies as to how well the relevant third parties were covered.
The details of any non-compulsory insurance are a matter between the
insurance companies and their customers.

I'm a bit confused by this conversation. It seems to be saying that a
UK driver is insured by more than one company.

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

For example, I can choose to have a $500 deductible or a $1,000
deductible meaning I will pay either $500 or $1,000 towards the damage
amount and the insurance will pay the rest. My premium will be lower
if I choose the $1,000 option.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:06:15 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:31:57 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter Moylan
The situation in NSW, and I suspect in other Australian states, is
that third party insurance, also known as "green slip insurance",
is separated out as a special kind of insurance. To re-register a
vehicle each year, you must submit both a roadworthiness
certificate (except for relatively new vehicles) and the green
slip. (Which are both done over the internet these days.) There are
no exceptions.
If you also want comprehensive insurance, that's optional, and is
a separate insurance policy. A "comprehensive" insurance policy
does not include third party cover, because it's understood you're
already covered for that.

Bafflingly unnecessary! Do other liability insurances come
separately too?

The sole point of the legislation is to distinguish between compulsory
and non-compulsory insurance, and to have a mechanism to ensure that all
cars are covered by the compulsory one. (Note that a car cannot be
registered until _after_ the compulsory insurance is in place.) I don't
see why anyone would find that baffling.

What is baffling is why it is necessary to have two separate policies,
one for compulsory insurance and the other for non-compulsory. In the UK
all car insurance policies meet the compulsory requirements. They differ
in their non-compulsory provisions.

Post by Peter Moylan
A detail that I forgot to mention is that these third-party policies are
tightly regulated, to ensure that all such policies are up to the same
standard. Back in the days when third party insurance was just a
component of an overall insurance policy, there was no consistency
between companies as to how well the relevant third parties were covered.
The details of any non-compulsory insurance are a matter between the
insurance companies and their customers.

I'm a bit confused by this conversation. It seems to be saying that a
UK driver is insured by more than one company.

Not UK!

Post by Tony Cooper
In the US, automobile insurance coverage is from one vendor. The
customer chooses the extent and limits of the coverage, and the rate
is based this.
For example, I can choose to have a $500 deductible or a $1,000
deductible meaning I will pay either $500 or $1,000 towards the damage
amount and the insurance will pay the rest. My premium will be lower
if I choose the $1,000 option.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 09:18:27 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:06:15 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:31:57 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter Moylan
The situation in NSW, and I suspect in other Australian states, is
that third party insurance, also known as "green slip insurance",
is separated out as a special kind of insurance. To re-register a
vehicle each year, you must submit both a roadworthiness
certificate (except for relatively new vehicles) and the green
slip. (Which are both done over the internet these days.) There are
no exceptions.
If you also want comprehensive insurance, that's optional, and is
a separate insurance policy. A "comprehensive" insurance policy
does not include third party cover, because it's understood you're
already covered for that.

Bafflingly unnecessary! Do other liability insurances come
separately too?

The sole point of the legislation is to distinguish between compulsory
and non-compulsory insurance, and to have a mechanism to ensure that all
cars are covered by the compulsory one. (Note that a car cannot be
registered until _after_ the compulsory insurance is in place.) I don't
see why anyone would find that baffling.

What is baffling is why it is necessary to have two separate policies,
one for compulsory insurance and the other for non-compulsory. In the UK
all car insurance policies meet the compulsory requirements. They differ
in their non-compulsory provisions.

Post by Peter Moylan
A detail that I forgot to mention is that these third-party policies are
tightly regulated, to ensure that all such policies are up to the same
standard. Back in the days when third party insurance was just a
component of an overall insurance policy, there was no consistency
between companies as to how well the relevant third parties were covered.
The details of any non-compulsory insurance are a matter between the
insurance companies and their customers.

I'm a bit confused by this conversation. It seems to be saying that a
UK driver is insured by more than one company.

That was Pter Moylan referring to Australia.

Post by Tony Cooper
In the US, automobile insurance coverage is from one vendor. The
customer chooses the extent and limits of the coverage, and the rate
is based this.
For example, I can choose to have a $500 deductible or a $1,000
deductible meaning I will pay either $500 or $1,000 towards the damage
amount and the insurance will pay the rest. My premium will be lower
if I choose the $1,000 option.

[Quinn C]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:06:15 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:31:57 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter Moylan
The situation in NSW, and I suspect in other Australian states, is
that third party insurance, also known as "green slip insurance",
is separated out as a special kind of insurance. To re-register a
vehicle each year, you must submit both a roadworthiness
certificate (except for relatively new vehicles) and the green
slip. (Which are both done over the internet these days.) There are
no exceptions.
If you also want comprehensive insurance, that's optional, and is
a separate insurance policy. A "comprehensive" insurance policy
does not include third party cover, because it's understood you're
already covered for that.

Bafflingly unnecessary! Do other liability insurances come
separately too?

The sole point of the legislation is to distinguish between compulsory
and non-compulsory insurance, and to have a mechanism to ensure that all
cars are covered by the compulsory one. (Note that a car cannot be
registered until _after_ the compulsory insurance is in place.) I don't
see why anyone would find that baffling.

What is baffling is why it is necessary to have two separate policies,
one for compulsory insurance and the other for non-compulsory. In the UK
all car insurance policies meet the compulsory requirements. They differ
in their non-compulsory provisions.

Post by Peter Moylan
A detail that I forgot to mention is that these third-party policies are
tightly regulated, to ensure that all such policies are up to the same
standard. Back in the days when third party insurance was just a
component of an overall insurance policy, there was no consistency
between companies as to how well the relevant third parties were covered.
The details of any non-compulsory insurance are a matter between the
insurance companies and their customers.

I'm a bit confused by this conversation. It seems to be saying that a
UK driver is insured by more than one company.
In the US, automobile insurance coverage is from one vendor. The
customer chooses the extent and limits of the coverage, and the rate
is based this.

In Quebec, you will actually deal with two entities. The province
provides insurance coverage for injury or death, which you need to pay
even just to have your driver's license - more if you have a car
registered. Apart from that, you need civil liability insurance from a
private company, some minimum of which is also compulsory if you have a
car.

Since the province is the only insurer for injury and death, in those
cases there is no fight over who should pay what (as long as you're
dealing with accidents on public highways.)

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:41:25 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:06:15 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:31:57 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter Moylan
The situation in NSW, and I suspect in other Australian states, is
that third party insurance, also known as "green slip insurance",
is separated out as a special kind of insurance. To re-register a
vehicle each year, you must submit both a roadworthiness
certificate (except for relatively new vehicles) and the green
slip. (Which are both done over the internet these days.) There are
no exceptions.
If you also want comprehensive insurance, that's optional, and is
a separate insurance policy. A "comprehensive" insurance policy
does not include third party cover, because it's understood you're
already covered for that.

Bafflingly unnecessary! Do other liability insurances come
separately too?

The sole point of the legislation is to distinguish between compulsory
and non-compulsory insurance, and to have a mechanism to ensure that all
cars are covered by the compulsory one. (Note that a car cannot be
registered until _after_ the compulsory insurance is in place.) I don't
see why anyone would find that baffling.

What is baffling is why it is necessary to have two separate policies,
one for compulsory insurance and the other for non-compulsory. In the UK
all car insurance policies meet the compulsory requirements. They differ
in their non-compulsory provisions.

Post by Peter Moylan
A detail that I forgot to mention is that these third-party policies are
tightly regulated, to ensure that all such policies are up to the same
standard. Back in the days when third party insurance was just a
component of an overall insurance policy, there was no consistency
between companies as to how well the relevant third parties were covered.
The details of any non-compulsory insurance are a matter between the
insurance companies and their customers.

I'm a bit confused by this conversation. It seems to be saying that a
UK driver is insured by more than one company.
In the US, automobile insurance coverage is from one vendor. The
customer chooses the extent and limits of the coverage, and the rate
is based this.

In Quebec, you will actually deal with two entities. The province
provides insurance coverage for injury or death, which you need to pay
even just to have your driver's license - more if you have a car
registered. Apart from that, you need civil liability insurance from a
private company, some minimum of which is also compulsory if you have a
car.
Since the province is the only insurer for injury and death, in those
cases there is no fight over who should pay what (as long as you're
dealing with accidents on public highways.)

Florida is a "no fault" state. If I am in an automobile accident my
insurance covers me no matter if I am at fault or the other party is
at fault. My insurance provider may try to recover costs from the
other party's provider, but they will pay the charges (less the
deductible). They will even go after the other provider for the
deductible amount if the other party is at fault.

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

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

This is a bit off the subject but I once damaged my hand attaching my
utility trailer to the trailer hitch. It required several stitches in
the ER. My medical insurance did not cover it. That's considered
covered by my automobile insurance. I had to provide proof of
automobile insurance at the hospital when I told them what happened.

[Peter T. Daniels]

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

If they determine that you were at fault, they're free to raise your
premium (maybe as much as they want, maybe it's regulated) or to drop
you entirely. There are insurance companies -- not the ones that advertise
on TV -- that specialize in insuring the "uninsurable," and their rates
are astronomical. If you fall under their purview, you must either pay
what they ask or give up driving.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:29:10 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

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

If they determine that you were at fault, they're free to raise your
premium (maybe as much as they want, maybe it's regulated) or to drop
you entirely.

Of course, but that has nothing to do with "no fault". That is true
under any system. The rate increase would go into effect at the next
renewal.

[Quinn C]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:29:10 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

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

If they determine that you were at fault, they're free to raise your
premium (maybe as much as they want, maybe it's regulated) or to drop
you entirely.

Of course, but that has nothing to do with "no fault". That is true
under any system. The rate increase would go into effect at the next
renewal.

But it won't happen in the Quebec system. Well, not in the same way.
Your premium goes up if you have demerit points, but that also means
it'll go down again when the points get canceled, usually after 2
years.

To my understanding - no direct experience.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 12:49:51 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:29:10 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

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

If they determine that you were at fault, they're free to raise your
premium (maybe as much as they want, maybe it's regulated) or to drop
you entirely.

Of course, but that has nothing to do with "no fault". That is true
under any system. The rate increase would go into effect at the next
renewal.

But it won't happen in the Quebec system. Well, not in the same way.
Your premium goes up if you have demerit points, but that also means
it'll go down again when the points get canceled, usually after 2
years.
To my understanding - no direct experience.

The "points" also come off after a period of x years here, too. I'm
not sure what the time period is having not experienced it. A driver
can get "points" assessed even if there's no accident. A traffic
infraction may result in "points".

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

PTD did - uncharacteristically - allow that the rate hike is
conditional: "...they're free to raise your premium". It is not
necessarily an automatic rate hike.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:29:10 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

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

If they determine that you were at fault, they're free to raise your
premium (maybe as much as they want, maybe it's regulated) or to drop
you entirely.

Of course, but that has nothing to do with "no fault". That is true
under any system. The rate increase would go into effect at the next
renewal.

You made it sound as if there's miraculously no down-side to no-fault as
compared with the old-fashioned way of doing it.

[Tak To]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

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

If they determine that you were at fault, they're free to raise your
premium (maybe as much as they want, maybe it's regulated) or to drop
you entirely.

In some state there is an appeal process. I have successfully
appealed a case against me when I lived in Massachusetts.

There are insurance companies -- not the ones that advertise

Post by Peter T. Daniels
on TV -- that specialize in insuring the "uninsurable," and their rates
are astronomical. If you fall under their purview, you must either pay
what they ask or give up driving.

It seems only fair.

[Quinn C]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:41:25 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
I'm a bit confused by this conversation. It seems to be saying that a
UK driver is insured by more than one company.
In the US, automobile insurance coverage is from one vendor. The
customer chooses the extent and limits of the coverage, and the rate
is based this.

In Quebec, you will actually deal with two entities. The province
provides insurance coverage for injury or death, which you need to pay
even just to have your driver's license - more if you have a car
registered. Apart from that, you need civil liability insurance from a
private company, some minimum of which is also compulsory if you have a
car.
Since the province is the only insurer for injury and death, in those
cases there is no fight over who should pay what (as long as you're
dealing with accidents on public highways.)

Florida is a "no fault" state. If I am in an automobile accident my
insurance covers me no matter if I am at fault or the other party is
at fault. My insurance provider may try to recover costs from the
other party's provider, but they will pay the charges (less the
deductible). They will even go after the other provider for the
deductible amount if the other party is at fault.
"No fault" doesn't mean that neither party is found to be at fault. It
means that each party's insurance initially pays for their insured's
damages.

So there are ways to do "no fault" with multiple private insurers. The
details have to be worked out, of course. For example, who pays for a
pedestrian who has no insurance, or what happens with out of state
drivers. The short overview for Quebec notes that the coverage extends
to tourists.

Post by Tony Cooper
That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight.

Which you have to pay for, though, ultimately.

Post by Tony Cooper
This is a bit off the subject but I once damaged my hand attaching my
utility trailer to the trailer hitch. It required several stitches in
the ER. My medical insurance did not cover it. That's considered
covered by my automobile insurance. I had to provide proof of
automobile insurance at the hospital when I told them what happened.

I believe that was in the short list of things not covered by Quebec
public insurance (I only skimmed through it.)

Then again, Quebec has a public health system, so medical bills are an
issue on a very different scale from the US.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 18:04:58 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:41:25 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
I'm a bit confused by this conversation. It seems to be saying that a
UK driver is insured by more than one company.
In the US, automobile insurance coverage is from one vendor. The
customer chooses the extent and limits of the coverage, and the rate
is based this.

In Quebec, you will actually deal with two entities. The province
provides insurance coverage for injury or death, which you need to pay
even just to have your driver's license - more if you have a car
registered. Apart from that, you need civil liability insurance from a
private company, some minimum of which is also compulsory if you have a
car.
Since the province is the only insurer for injury and death, in those
cases there is no fight over who should pay what (as long as you're
dealing with accidents on public highways.)

Florida is a "no fault" state. If I am in an automobile accident my
insurance covers me no matter if I am at fault or the other party is
at fault. My insurance provider may try to recover costs from the
other party's provider, but they will pay the charges (less the
deductible). They will even go after the other provider for the
deductible amount if the other party is at fault.
"No fault" doesn't mean that neither party is found to be at fault. It
means that each party's insurance initially pays for their insured's
damages.

So there are ways to do "no fault" with multiple private insurers.

Well, an accident involving multiple automobiles could involve
multiple insurers.

The

Post by Quinn C
details have to be worked out, of course. For example, who pays for a
pedestrian who has no insurance,

The driver's insurance is responsible for the cost of the injuries to
the pedestrian.

Post by Quinn C
or what happens with out of state drivers.

If I am in an accident involving an out-of-state driver my insurer
pays for the damages to my vehicle. That driver's insurance provider
will have to hash it out with my insurance provider for coverage of
that vehicle if I'm at fault.

The short overview for Quebec notes that the coverage extends

Post by Quinn C
to tourists.

Post by Tony Cooper
That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight.

Which you have to pay for, though, ultimately.

Of course. But under what type of coverage is that *not* the case?

[Quinn C]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 18:04:58 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight.

Which you have to pay for, though, ultimately.

Of course. But under what type of coverage is that *not* the case?

In the model that I was talking about, of course. Since there's only
one insurer, there won't be any quibbling between it.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 22:56:46 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 18:04:58 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight.

Which you have to pay for, though, ultimately.

Of course. But under what type of coverage is that *not* the case?

In the model that I was talking about, of course. Since there's only
one insurer, there won't be any quibbling between it.

You don't think, in that case, that the insured is not paying for it?
I don't mean the premium, but the insurer's cost of processing a claim
because it's not a no-fault state.

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

The last part is added because in some states the rates have to be
approved by the state. In Florida, for example, the insurance
companies have to apply to the state if they want a rate increase and
show why.

[Quinn C]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 22:56:46 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 18:04:58 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight.

Which you have to pay for, though, ultimately.

Of course. But under what type of coverage is that *not* the case?

In the model that I was talking about, of course. Since there's only
one insurer, there won't be any quibbling between it.

You don't think, in that case, that the insured is not paying for it?
I don't mean the premium, but the insurer's cost of processing a claim

Of course. I was talking about the quibbling. Wasn't that clear?

A company tries to reduce their payouts by quibbling with other
insurance companies. If they win more often than not, that may be true,
but in the bigger picture, all the insured have to shoulder all the
payouts plus the costs of all quibbling.

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

I'm not sure what you're arguing about here.

Quebec has a no-fault rule, and when it comes to bodily injury, only
one insurer. It made sense to me that no-fault works in this case,
because it's really irrelevant who's at fault when the payout always
comes from the same source anyway. I found it harder to imagine how
no-fault would work if the parties involved in an accident may have
different insurers, but I get the approximate idea now.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:31:57 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter Moylan
The situation in NSW, and I suspect in other Australian states, is
that third party insurance, also known as "green slip insurance",
is separated out as a special kind of insurance. To re-register a
vehicle each year, you must submit both a roadworthiness
certificate (except for relatively new vehicles) and the green
slip. (Which are both done over the internet these days.) There are
no exceptions.
If you also want comprehensive insurance, that's optional, and is
a separate insurance policy. A "comprehensive" insurance policy
does not include third party cover, because it's understood you're
already covered for that.

Bafflingly unnecessary! Do other liability insurances come
separately too?

The sole point of the legislation is to distinguish between compulsory
and non-compulsory insurance, and to have a mechanism to ensure that all
cars are covered by the compulsory one. (Note that a car cannot be
registered until _after_ the compulsory insurance is in place.) I don't
see why anyone would find that baffling.

What is baffling is why it is necessary to have two separate policies,
one for compulsory insurance and the other for non-compulsory. In the UK
all car insurance policies meet the compulsory requirements. They differ
in their non-compulsory provisions.

The Australian system means that there are twice as many insurance
policies, and thus twice the administrative overheads - which come out
of the car owner's pocket. Claims for an accident between two cars
would involve four insurance companies.

[s***@gowanhill.com]

Post by Tony Cooper
Is insurance mandatory for all drivers in the UK? Could the Royals be
self-insured?

Third-party insurance has been mandatory in the UK since 1930 (the first country to introduce mandatory motor insurance) but there are a couple of very limited alternatives.

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

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

A consultation on whether to remove these alternatives has closed.

Owain

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Janet
@invalid.com says...

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by charles

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...

Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.

what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .

What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)

He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving

Alternatively, there is a BBC article
"Older drivers: Is age a factor behind the wheel?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46916429
There are roughly 300 licenced drivers over the age of 100 in the UK.
Hence Philip is a stripling.
p.s. He's back behind the wheel again today.

He must have very good automobile insurance.

He has a very rich wife, so a higher insurance premium won't deter
him.

Does he? Isn't bigamy a crime?

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by charles

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...

Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.

what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .

What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)

He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving

Alternatively, there is a BBC article
"Older drivers: Is age a factor behind the wheel?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46916429
There are roughly 300 licenced drivers over the age of 100 in the UK.
Hence Philip is a stripling.
p.s. He's back behind the wheel again today.

No, he's in posession of a new car. There is no confirmation yet
that he is driving it.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
No, he's in posession of a new car. There is no confirmation yet
that he is driving it.

What!
You doubt the BBC? - who were quoting the Daily Mail and the Sun?

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
No, he's in posession of a new car. There is no confirmation yet
that he is driving it.

What!
You doubt the BBC? - who were quoting the Daily Mail and the Sun?

In any case he is reported to have been seen driving on private land,
not on a public road.

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

OK, Philip's "horse" had four wheels rather than four legs, but the
principle still applies.

[LFS]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Sam Plusnet
There are roughly 300 licenced drivers over the age of 100 in the UK.
Hence Philip is a stripling.
p.s. He's back behind the wheel again today.

No, he's in posession of a new car. There is no confirmation yet
that he is driving it.

Not only has he been driving it, he's been spotted driving it without
wearing a seatbelt and the police have confirmed that they have spoken
to him about this.

I think he deserves public thanks for pushing the other stuff out of the
headlines for a couple of days.

[bill van]

Post by LFS

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Sam Plusnet
There are roughly 300 licenced drivers over the age of 100 in the UK.
Hence Philip is a stripling.
p.s. He's back behind the wheel again today.

No, he's in posession of a new car. There is no confirmation yet
that he is driving it.

Not only has he been driving it, he's been spotted driving it without
wearing a seatbelt and the police have confirmed that they have spoken
to him about this.
I think he deserves public thanks for pushing the other stuff out of
the headlines for a couple of days.

I think he'd be hilarious if he chose to sit for truthful interviews
about his life, times and observations.

bill

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by LFS
Not only has he been driving it, he's been spotted driving it without
wearing a seatbelt and the police have confirmed that they have spoken
to him about this.
I think he deserves public thanks for pushing the other stuff out of the
headlines for a couple of days.

Well it would be difficult to arrange another royal wedding at short
notice, but...

No, that's a conspiracy theory too far.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by charles

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point...

Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.

what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .

What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)

He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.

A good thing he wasn't taking the Missus out for a spin!

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving

[charles]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by charles

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Tony Cooper
I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite
a bit is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can
expect some trucks to enter a highway at any point...

Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They
make it sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to
need to watch the road in front of them.

what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are
going. As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .

What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a
capsized SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age
limits on "driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)

He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency
of any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen
to be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.

A good thing he wasn't taking the Missus out for a spin!

But I've seen him doing that near Balmoral. I stopped in a passing place to
let an oncoming vehicle pass and he was the driver.

[Quinn C]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels
What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)

He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving

I suspect it's also seen as unwise to pester royal highnesses about it.

[Janet]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV?
They didn't say whether he was driving.

He was.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)

Only for youths.

Janet.

[Sam Plusnet]

On 18-Jan-19 3:40, Dr. HotSalt wrote:

<out of context snip>

Post by Dr. HotSalt
That was my first thought too (Triffid, Audrey II), but this does not
occur in the US. If it does in Canada it might drift over the border like
roundabouts did.

Are plate tectonics so active along (or across) the Canadian border?

[c***@gmail.com]

Great answer