Slyfox I did NOT miss the point. I was just throwing another factor into the debate - nobody ever seems to take insurance risk into consideration when they're taking a shortcut. . .. .Taking a shortcut when it comes to checking fuel or doing fuel calcs and have an accident - try to get your insurer to pay for that one (and try to get insurance in future). Did they have an "way out" for that one? Nope. Extreme example? Unfortunately it happens all too frequently. . .. .But talk on a mobile phone in your vehicle and have an accident, which again, happens all the time, and it's a different story. Your insurer will pay, and you will have no problem getting insurance in future.. .. .Ok, now I'll put my 2c worth in on the topic in general.. .. .The definition of "acceptable shortcut" is a personal thing which relies on judgement based on experience and situation. But judgement based on experience can be notoriously flawed. For example, a certain proportion of aviation accidents happen each year just for the simple reason that a checklist wasn't followed! Now there's a simple shortcut which it's only human to take, but who would think that skimping on a checklist is REALLY a problem? . .. .Spinnerhead's mate is correct - if you take a shortcut you'd better be 100% sure about what you are doing. But not only that, but 100% sure that you can cope with the penalties if the sh!t hits the fan, because there is no such thing as a "guaranteed out". And if you're not sure 100% on BOTH counts, then don't do it.. . . . <small>[ 17 March 2002, 10:10: Message edited by: VictorBravo ]</small>