This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Webmaster forum > January 2005 > Re: British crime
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| alandem 2005-01-25, 12:40 pm |
| Makes me laugh. What about all the drivers I see every day with a cigarette
in one hand and the other hand on the wheel. Even saw a police officer in a
van doing that the other day, bet they dont get busted for not being in
control of a deadly weapon?! One rule for one......
Al
www.AmericanSweets.co.uk
"Charles Sweeney" <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E9689EB9829mecharlessweeneycom@130.133.1.4...
> Driver fined for holding an apple:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/4203375.stm
>
> Bet you didn't know Britain was crime-free, and all we have to do now is
> get the rogue drivers!!
>
> --
> Charles Sweeney
> http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Matt Probert 2005-01-25, 7:24 pm |
| Once upon a time, far far away, the king summoned "alandem"
<alandem@ntlworld.com> who replied:
>Makes me laugh. What about all the drivers I see every day with a cigarette
>in one hand and the other hand on the wheel. Even saw a police officer in a
>van doing that the other day, bet they dont get busted for not being in
>control of a deadly weapon?! One rule for one......
>
Actually (<g> )
It is illegal to drive with only one hand on the wheel, a friend of
mine got stopped for having a cigarette in his hand, which was not on
the wheel. That he was a passenger meant he got off without charge (it
was a left-hand drive car).
Matt
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-01-25, 7:24 pm |
| alandem wrote
> Makes me laugh. What about all the drivers I see every day with a
> cigarette in one hand and the other hand on the wheel. Even saw a
> police officer in a van doing that the other day, bet they dont get
> busted for not being in control of a deadly weapon?! One rule for
> one......
Hi Al, hope you're well.
I forgot to mention earlier the other thing one does with one hand
whilst driving. Two-way radios in taxis, delivery vehicles etc. CB
radio.
To use the full force of the law to nail this young nursery nurse for
eating her apple, is nothing short of an out and out disgrace, and
symptomatic of the New Labour police state we live in.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
|
|
"Charles Sweeney" <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E9EC90432B0mecharlessweeneycom@130.133.1.4...
> alandem wrote
>
>
> Hi Al, hope you're well.
>
> I forgot to mention earlier the other thing one does with one hand
> whilst driving. Two-way radios in taxis, delivery vehicles etc. CB
> radio.
>
> To use the full force of the law to nail this young nursery nurse for
> eating her apple, is nothing short of an out and out disgrace, and
> symptomatic of the New Labour police state we live in.
I disagree, it's perfectly acceptable for her to be done for this. She was
given a £30 fixed penalty, but the police officer said "Don't do it again,
it'll be pear-shaped", so she got on her high horse and took it to court.
How come nobody has suggested that *she* wasted the taxpayers money? Bet she
didn't pay for her own lawyer either.
As a cyclist, I often see car drivers reading maps, eating, drinking, even
texting whilst driving. It has to be nailed into the psyché that it is
unacceptable to not be attentive whilst at the wheel of a one ton+ vehicle.
I do agree with the comments r.e. CB etc, but I think you'll find they are
exempt. Yup, just googled and got a caravanner page.
http://www.motorcaravanners.org.uk/CBR.htm
As many listeners will be aware, a new law comes into effect on the 1st of
December which outlaws the use of mobile phones whilst driving. Many radio
amateurs have contacted RSGB headquarters to ask for guidance if stopped by
police for operating mobile amateur radio after the new law comes into
effect. The use of two-way radio equipment when driving - unless the device
can also be used as a phone - is not included in the new offence. It must be
remembered, however, that there is still a risk of distraction and
prosecution under other laws should an accident occur. If stopped by the
police for operating mobile amateur radio, the reference to quote is: "The
Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No.4) Regulations 2003
Statutory Instrument 2003 No 2695." This lays out clearly the exemptions
under the new law.
| |
| William Tasso 2005-01-28, 7:43 pm |
| elyob wrote:
> ...
> but the police officer said "Don't do it again,
> it'll be pear-shaped"
Frankly, you would expect a public servant to conduct themselves with
more dignity and respect for fellow citizens.
> ...
> As a cyclist, I often see car drivers ...
As a cyclist, a biker, a motorist and even sometimes a pedestrian, may I
suggest that we don't go there :/
> It has to be nailed into the psyché that it is
> unacceptable to not be attentive whilst at the wheel of a one ton+ vehicle.
Don't think that goes far enough - that should apply to /all/ road users
regardless of vehicle weight.
The first rule in the British Highway Code is (maybe: used to be) Do
nothing which causes another road user to alter speed or direction."
Contravention of this simple edict could easily be defined as the first
level of 'harm'.
> ...
> This lays out clearly the exemptions
> under the new law.
A law which costs the tax payer far too much money to legislate.
Exemptions which cost the tax payer far too much money.
A law (along with many others) which should not even be necessary were
governments (and their agents) to start along the path of prosecuting
for actual harm done rather than chasing the ghosts of things that may
happen.
--
William Tasso
| |
| Des Perado 2005-01-28, 7:43 pm |
|
"alandem" <alandem@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:JiuJd.606$tF6.171@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> Makes me laugh. What about all the drivers I see every day with a
> cigarette
> in one hand and the other hand on the wheel. Even saw a police officer in
> a
> van doing that the other day, bet they dont get busted for not being in
> control of a deadly weapon?! One rule for one......
>
>
I wonder if, while we are rectifying this problem, we could also do
something about the increasing number of halfwits, twerps and imbeciles who
seem to find it necessary to drive around the UK with front fog lights on in
perfectly clear conditions. (Note, it too is a crime.)
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-01-28, 7:43 pm |
| elyob wrote
> I disagree, it's perfectly acceptable for her to be done for this.
Every minute spent nailing this young nurse is a minute taken from
resources to tackle real crime. Completely and utterly unacceptable.
> As a cyclist, I often see car drivers reading maps, eating, drinking,
> even texting whilst driving. It has to be nailed into the psyché that
> it is unacceptable to not be attentive whilst at the wheel of a one
> ton+ vehicle.
I'm a cyclist too, in the summer! The most annoying thing is people
passing too quickly. I am also a delivery driver sometimes. I have
done all the stuff, read maps, used my phone, rolled a fag. In the 25
years I have never had an accident. In fact I am a damn good driver.
> I do agree with the comments r.e. CB etc, but I think you'll find they
> are exempt. Yup, just googled and got a caravanner page.
>
> http://www.motorcaravanners.org.uk/CBR.htm
>
> As many listeners will be aware, a new law comes into effect on the
> 1st of December which outlaws the use of mobile phones whilst driving.
> Many radio amateurs have contacted RSGB headquarters to ask for
> guidance if stopped by police for operating mobile amateur radio after
> the new law comes into effect. The use of two-way radio equipment when
> driving - unless the device can also be used as a phone - is not
> included in the new offence. It must be remembered, however, that
> there is still a risk of distraction and prosecution under other laws
> should an accident occur. If stopped by the police for operating
> mobile amateur radio, the reference to quote is: "The Road Vehicles
> (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No.4) Regulations 2003 Statutory
> Instrument 2003 No 2695." This lays out clearly the exemptions under
> the new law.
Makes a mockery of the phone law, which it already was anyway.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-01-28, 7:43 pm |
| William Tasso wrote
> elyob wrote:
>
> Frankly, you would expect a public servant to conduct themselves with
> more dignity and respect for fellow citizens.
Absolutely. However, in Blair's police state, you can expect more of this.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-01-28, 7:43 pm |
| Des Perado wrote
> I wonder if, while we are rectifying this problem, we could also do
> something about the increasing number of halfwits, twerps and
> imbeciles who seem to find it necessary to drive around the UK with
> front fog lights on in perfectly clear conditions. (Note, it too is a
> crime.)
Tee hee! Rear ones are just as annoying, although they are normally left
on in error.
As you will know, front fog lights should only be used in fog or falling
snow, and should be less than 2' above the road level.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| William Tasso 2005-01-28, 7:43 pm |
| Charles Sweeney wrote:
> Des Perado wrote
>
> Tee hee! Rear ones are just as annoying, although they are normally left
> on in error.
More so im[ns]ho
> As you will know, front fog lights should only be used in fog or falling
> snow, and should be less than 2' above the road level.
I wonder what makes a light a 'fog light' as opposed to any other white
lamp at the front of a vehicle.
--
William Tasso
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-01-28, 7:43 pm |
| Charles Sweeney wrote
> In the 25 years I have never had an accident.
Should read: In the 25 years I have been driving, I have never had an
accident.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-01-28, 7:43 pm |
| William Tasso wrote
> Charles Sweeney wrote:
>
> More so im[ns]ho
>
>
> I wonder what makes a light a 'fog light' as opposed to any other
> white lamp at the front of a vehicle.
It's the pattern of light due to the lens mainly. It makes a horizontal
beam.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| William Tasso 2005-01-28, 7:43 pm |
| Charles Sweeney wrote:
> William Tasso wrote
>
> It's the pattern of light due to the lens mainly.
Oh - nothing to do with brightness? ok.
> It makes a horizontal beam.
As opposed to what? Dipped?
--
William Tasso
| |
|
| Des Perado <des@per.ado> wrote:
> I wonder if, while we are rectifying this problem, we could also do
> something about the increasing number of halfwits, twerps and
> imbeciles who
> seem to find it necessary to drive around the UK with front fog
> lights on in
> perfectly clear conditions. (Note, it too is a crime.)
What I hate is the halogen headlights. Even low beams blind the hell
out of you.
| |
|
| William Tasso <SpamBlocked@tbData.com> wrote:
> Charles Sweeney wrote:
>
> Oh - nothing to do with brightness? ok.
>
>
> As opposed to what? Dipped?
>
Headlights spread the light arount. Fog lights are a more focused
beam, so are quite distracting when there's no fog to refract the beam
from your poor eyes.
| |
|
| Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote:
> Charles Sweeney wrote
>
>
> Should read: In the 25 years I have been driving, I have never had
> an
> accident.
>
I'd say you're unusual. Well, granted I drive at least twice the
average. But in 20 years of being a licenced driver:
An accident early in my driving "career" - evading a crazy driver I
lost control and slid on a wet road, did a sort of jump off a hill,
bounced off a tree and landed in the middle of the road. Broken nose,
and it looked better after surgery than before the accident, so that
worked out.
Tapped a lady's bumper at 2 MPH at an intersection once - she stopped
suddenly, I reacted a split second too slow. Zero damage to vehicle or
bodies. She went mental (would not even roll down her window to accept
my apology! I had to hold my license up to her damn window so she
could get information...) and filed a police report. The police
officer and my insurance agent laughed about it. Never amounted to
squat.
A few years ago, did about $2000 body damage while navigating a
blizzard.
And that's it.
| |
| Des Perado 2005-01-28, 7:43 pm |
|
"Neal" <neal413@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:opsk8k89e06v6656@news.individual.net...
> Des Perado <des@per.ado> wrote:
>
>
> What I hate is the halogen headlights. Even low beams blind the hell out
> of you.
Yes, increasingly I see that new cars have dipped lights which look just
like an unfocussed light source as opposed to a correctly pointed
down-and-to-the-left arrangement. I wonder how many of them will fail the
MOT test for this when their turns to be tested come round in 2 or 3 years?
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-01-28, 7:44 pm |
| Neal wrote
> Tapped a lady's bumper at 2 MPH
I once tapped a friend's bumper in a private snow-covered yard. Never hit
anything on the road. I have been hit twice in the back, both by women as
it happens!
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-01-28, 7:44 pm |
| Neal wrote
> Des Perado <des@per.ado> wrote:
>
>
>
> What I hate is the halogen headlights. Even low beams blind the hell
> out of you.
:o) Yes, they are bright. You can get xenon bulbs now, that are
brighter again!
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| William Tasso 2005-01-28, 7:44 pm |
| Charles Sweeney wrote:
> Neal wrote
>
> :o) Yes, they are bright. You can get xenon bulbs now, that are
> brighter again!
Are these the ones with the blue tint? for want of a better expression.
--
William Tasso
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-01-29, 12:18 pm |
| William Tasso wrote
> Charles Sweeney wrote:
>
> Are these the ones with the blue tint? for want of a better
expression.
Not sure if the blue tint is available for halogen or xenon only, some
bulbs here (bottom of page):
http://tinyurl.com/495d6
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|