|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Thieving Hull cyclist caught with the aid of a passing motorist
On 24/05/2019 22:45, Simon Jester wrote:
You did not make any point. All you did was cite an article. In your sad, lonely world you think this means all cyclists are burglars. ....and that one "passing motorist" being a good samaritan means all must be. Or trying to suggest that burglars would find a car makes a more practical getaway vehicle. A policeman wouldn't think about running after you when you can do 85mph in a 30 limit. Besides, breaking a speed limit is not really law breaking whereas riding a bicycle on the pavement is the epitomy of evil. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Thieving Hull cyclist caught with the aid of a passing motorist
On Saturday, May 25, 2019 at 11:35:41 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/05/2019 22:45, Simon Jester wrote: You did not make any point. All you did was cite an article. In your sad, lonely world you think this means all cyclists are burglars. ...and that one "passing motorist" being a good samaritan means all must be. Or trying to suggest that burglars would find a car makes a more practical getaway vehicle. A policeman wouldn't think about running after you when you can do 85mph in a 30 limit. Besides, breaking a speed limit is not really law breaking whereas riding a bicycle on the pavement is the epitomy of evil. This driver only got 3 points for driving over a child, then attempting to scarper afterwards! https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...riving-2905907 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Thieving Hull cyclist caught with the aid of a passing motorist
On 25/05/2019 14:32, Simon Mason wrote:
On Saturday, May 25, 2019 at 11:35:41 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote: On 24/05/2019 22:45, Simon Jester wrote: You did not make any point. All you did was cite an article. In your sad, lonely world you think this means all cyclists are burglars. ...and that one "passing motorist" being a good samaritan means all must be. Or trying to suggest that burglars would find a car makes a more practical getaway vehicle. A policeman wouldn't think about running after you when you can do 85mph in a 30 limit. Besides, breaking a speed limit is not really law breaking whereas riding a bicycle on the pavement is the epitomy of evil. This driver only got 3 points for driving over a child, then attempting to scarper afterwards! https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...riving-2905907 QUOTE: A woman who ran over a seven-year-old boy did not have a driving licence. ENDQUOTE So other than being a pedestrian, she was only qualified to be a cyclist. QUOTE: Miss Weatherill said: "She was given a lift back to Hornsea by the police and we've been told she only had three points put on her licence. She only had a provisional. ENDQUOTE Ah... so it's the good old "a mate of mine down the pub reckons..." school of "facts". First of all, is it "no licence" or "just a provisional"? The two are not the same. In reality, for a provisional licence-holder, driving without L plates (PL10), driving without an accompanying qualified driver (LC10) and driving (perforce) without the benefit of an insurance policy - whether one theoretically exists or not - are all separate offences with penalty point counts of between three (the L plates) and a minimum of six (no effective insurance). It gets worse... most insurers will (rightly) repudiate a claim made by anyone driving without a licence or outside the terms of any licence they hold, so "no insurance" becomes an automatic charge and is punished by most courts with a period of disqualification and an exemplary fine (there is no upper limit on that power of a court). Even if the offender escapes a ban, there is a mandatory six points minimum penalty in addition to a fine. And that's not even counting the probability of a DWDCAA summons. But hey... why bother with reality? It's more fun to pretend that dangerous, careless and inconsiderate offenders escape without effective penalty, isn't it? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Thieving Hull cyclist caught with the aid of a passing motorist
On Saturday, May 25, 2019 at 3:59:40 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Thieving Hull cyclist caught with the aid of a passing motorist
JNugent wrote:
On 25/05/2019 14:32, Simon Mason wrote: On Saturday, May 25, 2019 at 11:35:41 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote: On 24/05/2019 22:45, Simon Jester wrote: You did not make any point. All you did was cite an article. In your sad, lonely world you think this means all cyclists are burglars. ...and that one "passing motorist" being a good samaritan means all must be. Or trying to suggest that burglars would find a car makes a more practical getaway vehicle. A policeman wouldn't think about running after you when you can do 85mph in a 30 limit. Besides, breaking a speed limit is not really law breaking whereas riding a bicycle on the pavement is the epitomy of evil. This driver only got 3 points for driving over a child, then attempting to scarper afterwards! https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...riving-2905907 QUOTE: A woman who ran over a seven-year-old boy did not have a driving licence. ENDQUOTE So other than being a pedestrian, she was only qualified to be a cyclist. QUOTE: Miss Weatherill said: "She was given a lift back to Hornsea by the police and we've been told she only had three points put on her licence. She only had a provisional. ENDQUOTE Ah... so it's the good old "a mate of mine down the pub reckons..." school of "facts". The reporter, and the publishers, of this story are really those who should be held responsible for its content. First of all, is it "no licence" or "just a provisional"? The two are not the same. In reality, for a provisional licence-holder, driving without L plates (PL10), driving without an accompanying qualified driver (LC10) and driving (perforce) without the benefit of an insurance policy - whether one theoretically exists or not - are all separate offences with penalty point counts of between three (the L plates) and a minimum of six (no effective insurance). It gets worse... most insurers will (rightly) repudiate a claim made by anyone driving without a licence or outside the terms of any licence they hold, so "no insurance" becomes an automatic charge and is punished by most courts with a period of disqualification and an exemplary fine (there is no upper limit on that power of a court). Even if the offender escapes a ban, there is a mandatory six points minimum penalty in addition to a fine. And that's not even counting the probability of a DWDCAA summons. But hey... why bother with reality? It's more fun to pretend that dangerous, careless and inconsiderate offenders escape without effective penalty, isn't it? The report was written by Sophie Corcoran, and it does her no credit. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Thieving Hull cyclist caught with the aid of a passing motorist
On Saturday, May 25, 2019 at 11:35:41 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/05/2019 22:45, Simon Jester wrote: You did not make any point. All you did was cite an article. In your sad, lonely world you think this means all cyclists are burglars. ...and that one "passing motorist" being a good samaritan means all must be. Or trying to suggest that burglars would find a car makes a more practical getaway vehicle. A policeman wouldn't think about running after you when you can do 85mph in a 30 limit. Besides, breaking a speed limit is not really law breaking whereas riding a bicycle on the pavement is the epitomy of evil. Yes, but motorists are highly trained and have encyclopaedic knowledge of the Highway Code. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS_WmVQo48s |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Thieving Hull cyclist caught with the aid of a passing motorist
On 26/05/2019 17:07, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, May 25, 2019 at 11:35:41 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote: On 24/05/2019 22:45, Simon Jester wrote: You did not make any point. All you did was cite an article. In your sad, lonely world you think this means all cyclists are burglars. ...and that one "passing motorist" being a good samaritan means all must be. Or trying to suggest that burglars would find a car makes a more practical getaway vehicle. A policeman wouldn't think about running after you when you can do 85mph in a 30 limit. Besides, breaking a speed limit is not really law breaking whereas riding a bicycle on the pavement is the epitomy of evil. Yes, but motorists are highly trained and have encyclopaedic knowledge of the Highway Code. Though I don't think their attention span gets them as far as rule 170. The writers should reorder it so that rules 1 to 88 are moved to the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS_WmVQo48s To be fair, whether the sequence was red to amber to green or red to red plus amber to green doesn't make any practical difference so is unnecessary information. It only matters in quiz shows. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Thieving Hull cyclist caught with the aid of a passing motorist
On Sun, 26 May 2019 23:57:46 +0100
TMS320 wrote: To be fair, whether the sequence was red to amber to green or red to red plus amber to green doesn't make any practical difference so is unnecessary information. It only matters in quiz shows. No, it matters when you're approaching an amber light - does it mean slam on the brakes because it's about to be red, or just lift off the throttle because it's about to be green? Bearing in mind that the amber before red means "stop", not "if you're lucky the red won't show until you're over the line". |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Thieving Hull cyclist caught with the aid of a passing motorist
On Thu, 30 May 2019 02:49:27 GMT, Rob Morley wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2019 23:57:46 +0100 TMS320 wrote: To be fair, whether the sequence was red to amber to green or red to red plus amber to green doesn't make any practical difference so is unnecessary information. It only matters in quiz shows. No, it matters when you're approaching an amber light - does it mean slam on the brakes because it's about to be red, or just lift off the throttle because it's about to be green? Bearing in mind that the amber before red means "stop", not "if you're lucky the red won't show until you're over the line". I'm not sure many box drivers know this. -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Thieving Hull cyclist caught with the aid of a passing motorist
On 30/05/2019 03:49, Rob Morley wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2019 23:57:46 +0100 TMS320 wrote: To be fair, whether the sequence was red to amber to green or red to red plus amber to green doesn't make any practical difference so is unnecessary information. It only matters in quiz shows. No, it matters when you're approaching an amber light - does it mean slam on the brakes because it's about to be red, or just lift off the throttle because it's about to be green? Well, we know from experience that local authorities set the lights so that 95% of time it will be necessary to stop... It seems very unlikely you could be approaching and not see what preceded it. The amber phase between red and green is very short so you would need to be teleported to the spot in front of it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Moment motorist driving a convertible is caught on camera confronting a cyclist and repeatedly calling him a ‘f***** idiot’ | Bod[_5_] | UK | 30 | September 3rd 16 07:26 PM |
Thieving cyclist gets caught and owned by car driver | Mrcheerful | UK | 14 | January 30th 14 10:23 AM |
Another thieving scumbag motorist | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 12 | September 13th 10 08:01 AM |
Another thieving scumbag motorist | Doug[_3_] | UK | 0 | September 1st 10 08:34 AM |