 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / UK Car Forums / Driving (UK group) / April 2004Traffic Cops BBC1
How come the result of driving without insurance, stealing cars on the pikey site, and drunk no insurance, no helmets on the moped and all the other cases, they get about a £90 fine. Makes paying insurance, tax and taking a driving test seem a bit pointless. Just nick a car " I don't think we'll ever get to the bottom of this" says the cop after finding the car with a drill and one screw out of the numberplate parked next to the caravan along with a shotgun shell; don't bother with insurance MOT, tax or a licence and get on with it. On a similar note the life of grime, capturing a bloke street trading dodgy food from the back of his van was fined £70, if these are the kind of punishments available then going the whole hog on illegalities seems to make good financial sense. > How come the result of driving without insurance, stealing cars > on the pikey site, and drunk no insurance, no helmets on the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > with a shotgun shell; don't bother with insurance > MOT, tax or a licence and get on with it. Makes me laugh when banned drivers caught driving get their ban extended... like.. that'll teach 'em.... > > How come the result of driving without insurance, stealing cars > > on the pikey site, and drunk no insurance, no helmets on the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Makes me laugh when banned drivers caught driving get their ban extended... > like.. that'll teach 'em.... That would be the guy who is twice banned gets his ban extended, so next time they catch him, it will be 3x ban coming over the radio then.  SignatureThe poster formerly known as Skodapilot. http://www.bouncing-czechs.com >>>How come the result of driving without insurance, stealing cars >>>on the pikey site, and drunk no insurance, no helmets on the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>Makes me laugh when banned drivers caught driving get their ban extended... >>like.. that'll teach 'em.... > That would be the guy who is twice banned gets his ban extended, so next > time they catch him, it will be 3x ban coming over the radio then. Should just crush their car into a cube each time. > Should just crush their car into a cube each time. That is what they were doing. It was an untaxed, unMOTed 5 door nova. The police called it a "Puller" car. Because banned drivers buy them, because they know they will be pulled, so losing it isn't a hardship. SignatureThe poster formerly known as Skodapilot. http://www.bouncing-czechs.com > > Should just crush their car into a cube each time. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The police called it a "Puller" car. Because banned drivers buy them, > because they know they will be pulled, so losing it isn't a hardship. i thought the term was 'pool car' because they circulate among the banned drivers and other scrotes in an area for the price of a couple fixes or settling the latest fine or whatever > > > Should just crush their car into a cube each time. > > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > because they circulate among the banned drivers and other scrotes in an area > for the price of a couple fixes or settling the latest fine or whatever Hmm, maybe you are right, sounds plausable. SignatureThe poster formerly known as Skodapilot. http://www.bouncing-czechs.com >> The police called it a "Puller" car. Because banned drivers buy >> them, because they know they will be pulled, so losing it isn't a >> hardship. > > i thought the term was 'pool car' That's what they were subtitling it as. > because they circulate among the banned drivers and other scrotes in > an area for the price of a couple fixes or settling the latest fine > or whatever Aha. Makes sense. I thought t' subtitler 'ad mis'eard "pull" in t'Yorkshire accent, lahk. SignatureTony > > "MeatballTurbo" <carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote in message > > news:MPG.1af04c8fdaf15b6698a0af@news.individual.net... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Aha. Makes sense. I thought t' subtitler 'ad mis'eard "pull" in > t'Yorkshire accent, lahk. BBC subtitlers think the UK is run by a "Toe-Knee Blair". (When, of course, we know it's run by George Bush :) SignatureDom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk /* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor), http://LeilaniWeb.co.uk (editor), /* 970 DVDs, 284 games, 33 videos, 81 cinema films, 72 CDs, laserdiscs & news /* battle royale, the shins, lee mendelson, easter beagle, max payne (gba) Fight back against "PRESS RED": http://dvdfever.co.uk/pressrel/pressred.shtml DVDfever.co.uk - as featured on BBC News 24's Click Online He had been caught twice before. He does not care. Take his licence away - for ever. As for the pikey site - their idea of punishment. > He had been caught twice before. > He does not care. > Take his licence away - for ever. Which would make a difference how, exactly? (Clue: he didn't have a licence when they caught him) SignatureTony Clearly the punishment handed out has had no effect. There must be some punishment that could have an impact on the yob. Not just extend his ban. > > He had been caught twice before. > > He does not care. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > (Clue: he didn't have a licence when they caught him) > Clearly the punishment handed out has had no effect. > There must be some punishment that could have an impact on the yob. > Not just extend his ban. 20 travellers with bricks. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. >>> He had been caught twice before. He does not care. Take his >>> licence away - for ever. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > some punishment that could have an impact on the yob. Not just extend > his ban. That's why I don't understand why you're just proposing extending his ban (albeit indefinitely, it's just an extended ban). SignatureTony > Clearly the punishment handed out has had no effect. > There must be some punishment that could have an impact on the yob. > Not just extend his ban. How about death by lethal injection? SignatureLinux registered user: #330012 19:21:02 up 8 days, 29 min, 2 users, load average: 0.29, 0.22, 0.17 > There must be some punishment that could have an impact on the yob. What punishment would have an impact on your top-posting? In uk.media.tv.misc on Wed, 21 Apr 2004, MeatballTurbo wrote : >> Should just crush their car into a cube each time. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The police called it a "Puller" car. Because banned drivers buy them, >because they know they will be pulled, so losing it isn't a hardship. Perish the thought that they should 'forget' to remove the banned drivers before crushing them... SignaturePaul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett > > That would be the guy who is twice banned gets his ban extended, so next > > time they catch him, it will be 3x ban coming over the radio then. > > Should just crush their car into a cube each time. Harking back to the Simpsons quotes earlier: (Homer reading Mr Burns' messages) "1. You have 30 minutes to remove your car. 2. You have 10 minutes to remove your car. 3. Your car has been crushed into a cube. 4. You have 30 minutes to remove your cube." SignatureDom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk /* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor), http://LeilaniWeb.co.uk (editor), /* 970 DVDs, 284 games, 33 videos, 81 cinema films, 72 CDs, laserdiscs & news /* battle royale, the shins, lee mendelson, easter beagle, max payne (gba) Fight back against "PRESS RED": http://dvdfever.co.uk/pressrel/pressred.shtml DVDfever.co.uk - as featured on BBC News 24's Click Online Dom Robinson <murphyisamuppet@hotmail.com> wrote on Wed, 21 Apr 2004 19:50:37 +0100: >> > That would be the guy who is twice banned gets his ban extended, so next >> > time they catch him, it will be 3x ban coming over the radio then. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 3. Your car has been crushed into a cube. > 4. You have 30 minutes to remove your cube." (Phone rings) Mr Burns: Is it about my cube? SignatureDavid Taylor davidt-news@yadt.co.uk "The future just ain't what it used to be." > On a similar note the life of grime, capturing > a bloke street trading dodgy food from the > back of his van was fined £70, if these are > the kind of punishments available then > going the whole hog on illegalities seems > to make good financial sense. He was fined £300 in court, not £70. Try watching the programme next time. SignatureDom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk /* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor), http://LeilaniWeb.co.uk (editor), /* 970 DVDs, 284 games, 33 videos, 81 cinema films, 72 CDs, laserdiscs & news /* battle royale, the shins, lee mendelson, easter beagle, max payne (gba) Fight back against "PRESS RED": http://dvdfever.co.uk/pressrel/pressred.shtml DVDfever.co.uk - as featured on BBC News 24's Click Online > > On a similar note the life of grime, capturing > > a bloke street trading dodgy food from the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Try watching the programme next time. It's still very cheap. I'm paying £800 for my insurance, with 1 years NCD, and a car which is in insurance group 1. Crime always pays and until they do something it's always going to be that way. Our taxes are spent on criminals, I think it costs about £14,000/year to keep somebody in prison! If you think about the £300, how much would the court case have cost, and all the police time? Probably a lot more than £300, but the tax payers can pay for that can't we. We can't take all of the criminals money, after all they probably worked hard to steal it! >>>On a similar note the life of grime, capturing >>>a bloke street trading dodgy food from the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It's still very cheap. I'm paying £800 for my insurance, with 1 years > NCD, and a car which is in insurance group 1. What on earth has that to do with the fine issued to a bloke selling dodgy chickens? > Crime always pays and until they do something it's always going to be > that way. Our taxes are spent on criminals, I think it costs about > £14,000/year to keep somebody in prison! If you think about the £300, > how much would the court case have cost, and all the police time? > Probably a lot more than £300, but the tax payers can pay for that > can't we. True, though when you get fined you usually also have "costs" awarded against you. "He was fined £260" was probably short for "he was fined £260 with £50 costs". Nothing near to the real cost though (of course, lawyers charging £umpteen per hour doesn't help). SignatureTony > How come the result of driving without insurance, stealing cars > on the pikey site, and drunk no insurance, no helmets on the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > going the whole hog on illegalities seems > to make good financial sense. I was about to post practically the same thing. The one who rammed the police-car in the pikey-park (just out of the nick) - he got what - a £270 fine? Even if he did pay it (ha!) he was laughing - looks like it saved his worthless smackhead life. Lorry to dangerous to drive? Off you trot lads, we'll deal it no problem... What gets me is that if your are a tax/insurance/MOT etc paying driver and you get caught-out by a grey robo-cop, and you have the audacity to go to court, all they want to know is "how much can you pay?". I wonder if anyone keeps a record of the crimes v. the punishments featured in UK cops-chase-chavs shows, so that they may be referred to - seems I'd have to shot a copper in S. Yorks to warrant the fine Oxon magistrates gave for exceeding a 30 limit... Not even WPC Lam this week :( > > How come the result of driving without insurance, stealing cars > > on the pikey site, and drunk no insurance, no helmets on the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > his worthless smackhead life. Lorry to dangerous to drive? Off you trot > lads, we'll deal it no problem... and chase the owner of the vehicle for 'his' offences > What gets me is that if your are a tax/insurance/MOT etc paying driver and > you get caught-out by a grey robo-cop, and you have the audacity to go to > court, all they want to know is "how much can you pay?". if you are not prepared to pay the fine , don't speed also you could argue that anyone coaught be a Speed camera should be doen for drivign without due care and attention - as after all you've just mised a 3 ft square panel of diamond grade reflective > I wonder if anyone keeps a record of the crimes v. the punishments featured > in UK cops-chase-chavs shows, so that they may be referred to - seems I'd > have to shot a copper in S. Yorks to warrant the fine Oxon magistrates gave > for exceeding a 30 limit... means and ability to pay ? > if you are not prepared to pay the fine , don't speed my word! I hardly expected to encounter self-righteous indignation on Usenet... > also you could argue that anyone coaught be a Speed camera should be doen > for drivign without due care and attention - as after all you've just > mised > a 3 ft square panel of diamond grade reflective This was before they carried the reflective panel. The circumstances were more than a little skewed agaist the motorist new to the area to say the least - this was in Oxford fgs, where devious placement of cameras is an art-form. Can I get a witness? > means and ability to pay ? My point exactly. In my experience, there was nothing else on the magistrates mind, and I was a fool to think a suit, polished boots and a contrite attitude was a good idea. If it happens against, I'll be attending as 'Compo'... > Lorry to dangerous to drive? Off you trot > lads, we'll deal it no problem... Wasn't a lorry, it was a 7.5 tonner...a PLG class vehicle. HOWEVER it does highlight the need for them to come under the HGV licence category. A HGV driver wouldn't have even taken it out of the yard. A car licenced driver, being used somewhat to seeing Ford Transits in a similar condition, would quite happily take it out as they wouldn't have the slightest clue that it had to have an O licence for a start. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. >> Lorry to dangerous to drive? Off you trot >>lads, we'll deal it no problem... > > Wasn't a lorry, it was a 7.5 tonner...a PLG class vehicle. HOWEVER it > does highlight the need for them to come under the HGV licence > category. They do now. > >> Lorry to dangerous to drive? Off you trot > >>lads, we'll deal it no problem... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > They do now. C1 isn't the same as a HGV although it is a step in the right direction. Alot of people may take C1 just to drive horseboxes. THey'll still be as clueless as an ordinary car licence holder. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. THey'll > still be as clueless as an ordinary car licence holder. That reminds me: Did you pass your Advanced Driving Test in the end? > THey'll > > still be as clueless as an ordinary car licence holder. > > That reminds me: Did you pass your Advanced Driving Test in the end? Didn't do it. I'd done a defensive driving course at work. I personally felt it was of no benefit to me as the only things they pulled me on were things that I do as a result of being a HGV driver such as waiting until I've more room than I actually need at T junctions etc or not overtaking when I could've. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. > > THey'll > > > still be as clueless as an ordinary car licence holder. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > until I've more room than I actually need at T junctions etc or not > overtaking when I could've. they pulled you up for driving too defensivly on a defensive driving course? > > > THey'll > > > > still be as clueless as an ordinary car licence holder. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > they pulled you up for driving too defensivly on a defensive driving course? No. THey pulled me up for driving too cautiosly on the IAM assessment drive. Strangely though on the defensive driving course, they actually teach you methods to make better use of the superior view which mean you make more progress. One example was leaving a larger gap as you approach a roundabout with a car in front of you so, if you time it right then by the time you get there he's gone and you can continue without having to stop (assuming the roundabout is clear). In a lorry that saves ALOT of time over setting off from standstill. Driving defensively doesn't mean taking longer. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. > Didn't do it. I'd done a defensive driving course at work. I personally > felt it was of no benefit to me as the only things they pulled me on > were things that I do as a result of being a HGV driver such as waiting > until I've more room than I actually need at T junctions etc or not > overtaking when I could've. A lot of people say that they get told that, but that's because most people have a problem either judging the relative movements of other vehicles or having the confidence to trust their own judgement. Anyway, I'm sure you could do it if you put your mind to it. If girls can, I'm sure a hairy trucker wouldn't find it too hard with a bit of coaching coupled with an open mind. > > Didn't do it. I'd done a defensive driving course at work. I personally > > felt it was of no benefit to me as the only things they pulled me on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > people have a problem either judging the relative movements of other > vehicles or having the confidence to trust their own judgement. 90% of the mileage I do in a year is in a lorry that accelerates from standstill alot slower than a car thus needing more room to pull out or overtake. Driving to account for this is naturally going to affect the way I drive a car too. > Anyway, I'm sure you could do it if you put your mind to it. If girls > can, I'm sure a hairy trucker wouldn't find it too hard with a bit of > coaching coupled with an open mind. It'll teach me nothing. In fact it could actually be detrimental. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. >> Didn't do it. I'd done a defensive driving course at work. I personally >> felt it was of no benefit to me as the only things they pulled me on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >can, I'm sure a hairy trucker wouldn't find it too hard with a bit of >coaching coupled with an open mind. Must admit be interested to hear other peoples comments on Defenesive driving training against IAM test I am in lucky position of having had both and like ti think I picked the sensible bits from one Like keeping a foot on the foot break when stopped to keep the break lights on and give a positive feedback message to drives that I really am sat here and dont need a smack up the back end. (Drive and Survive). What do others thing my boss asked me to consider ideas for the work place so what do you guys all think Defensive, IAM or even ROSPA if its still available. Jd > >> Didn't do it. I'd done a defensive driving course at work. I personally > >> felt it was of no benefit to me as the only things they pulled me on [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > keeping a foot on the foot break when stopped to keep the break lights > on Is that the one that usually results in warped brake discs? > What do others thing my boss asked me to consider ideas for the work > place so what do you guys all think Defensive, IAM or even ROSPA if > its still available. Any of the above. THe standard of driving in this country is so abysmal that 99% of people would benefit from any of them. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. > > Must admit be interested to hear other peoples comments on Defenesive > > driving training against IAM test I am in lucky position of having had > > both and like ti think I picked the sensible bits from one Like > > keeping a foot on the foot break when stopped to keep the break lights > > on > Is that the one that usually results in warped brake discs? So what's the difference if I use my hand brake instead? (which I do, and it operates on main front pads) clive > > > Must admit be interested to hear other peoples comments on Defenesive > > > driving training against IAM test I am in lucky position of having had [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So what's the difference if I use my hand brake instead? (which I do, and it > operates on main front pads) It'll be just as bad in your case. It concentrates the heat in one spot. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. > > > > Must admit be interested to hear other peoples comments on Defenesive > > > > driving training against IAM test I am in lucky position of having had [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It'll be just as bad in your case. It concentrates the heat in one > spot. So how do I and everybody else with cars like mine hold the car on a hill when we've got hot brakes then? cheers, clive > So how do I and everybody else with cars like mine hold the car on a hill > when we've got hot brakes then? With the handbrake but you'll have to accept that its a contributor to warped discs. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. > With the handbrake but you'll have to accept that its a contributor to > warped discs. I think that may be an urban myth. > > With the handbrake but you'll have to accept that its a contributor to > > warped discs. > > I think that may be an urban myth. Nope. Think about it. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. > >> Didn't do it. I'd done a defensive driving course at work. I personally > >> felt it was of no benefit to me as the only things they pulled me on [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > on and give a positive feedback message to drives that I really am sat > here and dont need a smack up the back end. (Drive and Survive). If the road is level enough consider pulsing the break pedal instead, it has a greater degree of visibility (IIRC something in the vicinity of 50% more lightly to be spotted) and also helps with cooling the breaks. Oh and don't forget to take your foot off the pedal when a car has stopped behind you. > If the road is level enough consider pulsing the break pedal instead, it has a > greater degree of visibility (IIRC something in the vicinity of 50% more lightly > to be spotted) and also helps with cooling the breaks. Oh and don't forget to > take your foot off the pedal when a car has stopped behind you. I wouldn't bother. So much effort for so little benefit. I picked the sensible bits from one Like > keeping a foot on the foot break when stopped to keep the break lights > on and give a positive feedback message to drives that I really am sat > here and dont need a smack up the back end. (Drive and Survive). I think that the fear of being hit from behind is overplayed. I would say it's extremely rare for an approaching vehicle to plow into the back of a stationary one unless the driver was drunk or very stupid. Most rear shunts happen when a following vehicle either wrongly assumes the vehicle in front will move off - such as when entering a roundabout or pulling out at a junction or when following too closely at speed. To get on to the subject of Advanced Driving verses Defensive Driving, the former in a course leading up to an advanced qualification; usually meaning either IAM or RoSPA, Defensive Driving, whatever that is, can mean anything at all really depending on how much you want to pay. >I picked the sensible bits from one Like >> keeping a foot on the foot break when stopped to keep the break lights [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >say it's extremely rare for an approaching vehicle to plow into the back >of a stationary one unless the driver was drunk or very stupid. Of course, that's a big 'unless'. >Most >rear shunts happen when a following vehicle either wrongly assumes the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >meaning either IAM or RoSPA, Defensive Driving, whatever that is, can >mean anything at all really depending on how much you want to pay. Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk > Of course, that's a big 'unless'. Still no reason to flash like a demented pervert to all and sundry. IMO, of course. :-) >> Of course, that's a big 'unless'. > >Still no reason to flash like a demented pervert to all and sundry. IMO, >of course. :-) Interesting that you say to release the peddle when a car stops behind u as drive and survive says keep it until you move off ! Must admit I dont but its a direct contracdiction they work on the theory thats its a positive message saying I arent moving regardless of the fact that you think I should be. Jd drive and survive says keep it until you move off ! Who? Must admit I > dont but its a direct contracdiction they work on the theory thats its > a positive message saying I arent moving regardless of the fact that > you think I should be. If you get shunted from behind with your foot on the footbrake, it won't stay there and you run the risk of being shunted into the vehicle in front or, worse, the flow of traffic. If the handbrake is applied, this will not happen. The other problem with leaving the brake pedal depressed, is when you release it to move, the driver behind may assume you're moving off right away a go into the back of you. Silk (me@privacy.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying >> drive and survive says keep it until you move off ! > Who? One of the largest and best known commercial advanced/defensive driving course companies. > One of the largest and best known commercial advanced/defensive driving > course companies. Oh. Never heard of them. I can find no reference to leaving your foot on the brake, as described, in Roadcraft and that's the official handbook of just about every driver training organisation in the UK. > > One of the largest and best known commercial advanced/defensive driving > > course companies. > > Oh. Never heard of them. I can find no reference to leaving your foot on > the brake, as described, in Roadcraft and that's the official handbook > of just about every driver training organisation in the UK. OK, I agree that Roadcraft is an excellent book, but it does not contain all there is to know, and it would be wrong to suppose that it can not be improved upon. I have a copy published in 1960, but the latest versions are far better, so who is to say that nothing more needs to be learned and that further improvements are not possible. It is - or should be - a never ending process. Nevertheless IMHO the later versions do contain a certain amount of nonsense in Chapter One, and I refer especially to the questions set out in the tables on pages 11 and 12 of the 2001 edition. According to my score when I answer the questions, the implication is that my attitude is completely wrong and I am probably a complete menace to one and all. In reality my record suggests otherwise. Take care all, Dave - alias TripleS. SignatureAny opinions expressed are the author's personal ones only and do not represent the official position of MDK Consultancy Ltd. > >I think that the fear of being hit from behind is overplayed. I would > >say it's extremely rare for an approaching vehicle to plow into the back > >of a stationary one unless the driver was drunk or very stupid. > > Of course, that's a big 'unless'. and an increasing 'unless' too, now that drunks have worked out that a camera can't spot them. SignatureThe poster formerly known as Skodapilot. http://www.bouncing-czechs.com > I think that the fear of being hit from behind is overplayed. I would > say it's extremely rare for an approaching vehicle to plow into the back > of a stationary one unless the driver was drunk or very stupid. It has happened to me five times so far. I would agree that each of the drivers was very, very stupid. But in each case the impact was at relatively high speed. If I had not had my handbrake on each time *and* allowed enough room ahead of me I would have been pushed far enough forward to damage the car in front. It's also worth noting that by now most of my friends have been at some time or other in an accident and that all of them have been involved in being rear-ended by someone. FWIW the list of incidents was: 1987 - Driving on a snow-covered road into Guildford, woman in following car driving too fast panic braked, slid into rear of my car. 1988 - Waiting at traffic lights near Woking. Transit ploughed into back of car. Transit driver "didn't notice that the lights were red." 1992 - Driver approaching roundabout failed to give way to traffic on the roundabout and realised (too late) that the exit road was blocked by stationary traffic. Ploughed into the back of my car. 1995 - I was indicating to turn into an RAF base, driver slammed into the back of my Land Rover at > 60 mph (in a 40 limit). Gave excuse to the police that he "didn't see" my large white vehicle. The impact was so severe that he broke the rear of the LR chassis. Also broke my neck, something that I didn't realise until several hours after the accident. 2002 - Waiting at roundabout in a queue of traffic. Driver approached queue at speed, intending to take filter lane to left. Realised too late that their vehicle was too wide for the space available and swerved into the back of my car. SignatureHaving problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for friendly advice in a flame-free environment. > FWIW the list of incidents was: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 1995 - > 2002 - Were all the incidents darn Sarf ? > > FWIW the list of incidents was: > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Were all the incidents darn Sarf ? Yes, Guidford, Woking, Farnborough, Odiham and Havant. Never a single incident in the 10 years previously when I lived in the north west. SignatureHaving problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for friendly advice in a flame-free environment. > > > FWIW the list of incidents was: > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Never a single incident in the 10 years previously when I lived in the > north west. . . and if you were fortunate enough to live in North Yorkshire you would probably have been much safer still. Most of the good drivers (quick but safe) live around here you know. :-) Best wishes all, Dave - alias TripleS. SignatureAny opinions expressed are the author's personal ones only and do not represent the official position of MDK Consultancy Ltd. > . . and if you were fortunate enough to live in North Yorkshire you would > probably have been much safer still. Possibly, but I couldn't cope with the requirement to marry my sister at the age of 13. SignatureHaving problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for friendly advice in a flame-free environment. > > . . and if you were fortunate enough to live in North Yorkshire you would > > probably have been much safer still. > > Possibly, but I couldn't cope with the requirement to marry my sister at > the age of 13. Yeah sorry about that. It seemed to start when Southerners bought 2nd homes or moved up here. :-) SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. > 1995 - I was indicating to turn into an RAF base, driver slammed into > the back of my Land Rover at > 60 mph (in a 40 limit). Gave excuse to > the police that he "didn't see" my large white vehicle. The impact was > so severe that he broke the rear of the LR chassis. Also broke my neck, > something that I didn't realise until several hours after the accident. Reminds me of that Australian insurance claim "I told the police I was uninjured but upon removing my hat I found I had a fractured skull" ;) > Reminds me of that Australian insurance claim "I told the police I was > uninjured but upon removing my hat I found I had a fractured skull" ;) Err well my claim did look like that. I told the police I was OK and they inspected the Land Rover and told me it was OK to drive. So I went to work an hour later I felt dreaful, throwing up and dizzy. My mates thought it was shock and I was taken to hospital. They X-rayed me and diagnosed whiplash and fitted a neck brace. Later that week I had to visit another doctor for an insurance medical he discovered when he looked at the earlier X-rays that I had a hairline fracture in my neck, straight back to hospital and immobilised for week. The Land Rover was bolloxed as well the rear cross member had come away from the chassis at both ends. It was held in place by the bolts securing it to the body work. The Rover 600 that hit me was unsurprisingly a complete write-off. SignatureHaving problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for friendly advice in a flame-free environment. > On a similar note the life of grime, capturing > a bloke street trading dodgy food from the > back of his van was fined £70, if these are > the kind of punishments available then > going the whole hog on illegalities seems > to make good financial sense. FFS! If you were caught and prosecuted for watching this sh.t TV programme without paying the BBC Tax, you would be fined £145 plus £45 costs! It kind of shows the priority the State has, that the fine for not subscribing to the "public" entertainer cartel is double that of causing harmful criminal damage to someone else's property. ;-) That'll be Grand... > > On a similar note the life of grime, capturing > > a bloke street trading dodgy food from the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > ;-) That'll be Grand... except of course the street trader in question was fined 300 GBP and no doubt will be carefully watched by the EHOs again again and again |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.