Edinburgh cyclists: Difficulties with "Speedfresh Exotics" van

Hello,

Anyone else Edinburgh-based get grief from the operators of this
vehicle (reg ?S42 DWC)? Googling reveals the company is based in
Bradford, oddly and the phone number on the back of the van bears this
out (01274 745225).

Anyway, we seem to share the same route in the morning if I'm a bit
late up (up Colinton Road, crossing Morningside at Holy Corner then
down Strathearn Pl/Strathearn Road towards Causewayside). I've had
numerous instances of minor bother over the past few months, usually
agressive and close overtaking followed by hard braking, engine
revving if I happen to be in front of the vehicle while waiting at
lights and suchlike ****ty behaviour. Time is usually 0730-0740 but
I'm usually out and about earlier than this so this is by no means a
daily occurrence.

It isn't really the actions themselves that bother me but the fact
that the behaviour is sustained, so I'm considering getting one of
those wee video cameras - anyone else got experiences to share? I
Might ring up the company too.

Regards,

-david

In article ,
says...
Hello,

Anyone else Edinburgh-based get grief from the operators of this
vehicle (reg ?S42 DWC)? Googling reveals the company is based in
Bradford, oddly and the phone number on the back of the van bears this
out (01274 745225).

Anyway, we seem to share the same route in the morning if I'm a bit
late up (up Colinton Road, crossing Morningside at Holy Corner then
down Strathearn Pl/Strathearn Road towards Causewayside). I've had
numerous instances of minor bother over the past few months, usually
agressive and close overtaking followed by hard braking, engine
revving if I happen to be in front of the vehicle while waiting at
lights and suchlike ****ty behaviour. Time is usually 0730-0740 but
I'm usually out and about earlier than this so this is by no means a
daily occurrence.

It isn't really the actions themselves that bother me but the fact
that the behaviour is sustained, so I'm considering getting one of
those wee video cameras - anyone else got experiences to share? I
Might ring up the company too.

Regards,

-david

I'd ring the company. A few years ago I'd been having problems
regularly with a builders van, passengers hanging out the window
shouting, and one day when I got home my wife saw that I was
annoyed. I told her about it so she phoned the company. Next day
a manager phoned back to apologise and said that the driver had
been given a warning. I never had a problem after that.
This was in Edinburgh too, Slateford road - Lanark road.

--
Cheers
the.Mark

On 22 May 2007 08:44:56 GMT, David Nutter wrote:

Hello,

Anyone else Edinburgh-based get grief from the operators of this
vehicle (reg ?S42 DWC)? Googling reveals the company is based in
Bradford, oddly and the phone number on the back of the van bears this
out (01274 745225).

You might want to get a better handle on that number plate.

?S42 DWC is not a new (post-2001) license plate, because the number
preceding 2 would need to be 0 or 5. It's not a pre-2001 plate, because
a single letter is followed by 3 numbers. (NB, I'm not a number plate
weenie, so I could be wrong).

Assuming that the S is really meant to be a 5, and the first character
is in the range A-Z, I get hits for B, E, G, K and N, but they're all
cars, not vans.

Sorry.

In ,
Marc Brett tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:

You might want to get a better handle on that number plate.

?S42 DWC is not a new (post-2001) license plate, because the number
preceding 2 would need to be 0 or 5. It's not a pre-2001 plate,
because a single letter is followed by 3 numbers. (NB, I'm not a
number plate weenie, so I could be wrong).


Pre-2001 plates could be a single letter followed by 1, 2 or 3 numbers - I
had one with but two.

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
I thought I saw his name on a jar of marmalade the other day,
but when I looked more closely, I saw it read 'thick cut'.

Marc Brett said the following on 22/05/2007 11:19:

?S42 DWC is not a new (post-2001) license plate, because the number
preceding 2 would need to be 0 or 5. It's not a pre-2001 plate, because
a single letter is followed by 3 numbers. (NB, I'm not a number plate
weenie, so I could be wrong).

You are wrong! S42 DWC is a valid plate. It doesn't have to be three
numbers after the year letter.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

On Tue, 22 May 2007 12:04:00 +0100, Paul Boyd
usenet.dont.work@plusnet wrote:

Marc Brett said the following on 22/05/2007 11:19:

?S42 DWC is not a new (post-2001) license plate, because the number
preceding 2 would need to be 0 or 5. It's not a pre-2001 plate, because
a single letter is followed by 3 numbers. (NB, I'm not a number plate
weenie, so I could be wrong).

You are wrong! S42 DWC is a valid plate. It doesn't have to be three
numbers after the year letter.


I originally parsed it as "unknown character followed by S42 DWC",
rather than "I think it was S42 DWC"

Mind you,the DVLA wotsit doesn't know about it. Not that this means
it doesn't exist of course.


Tim

On Tue, 22 May 2007 12:04:00 +0100, Paul Boyd usenet.dont.work@plusnet
wrote:

Marc Brett said the following on 22/05/2007 11:19:

?S42 DWC is not a new (post-2001) license plate, because the number
preceding 2 would need to be 0 or 5. It's not a pre-2001 plate, because
a single letter is followed by 3 numbers. (NB, I'm not a number plate
weenie, so I could be wrong).

You are wrong! S42 DWC is a valid plate.

....except that it's not in the DVLA database.

On 2007-05-22, Tim Hall wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 12:04:00 +0100, Paul Boyd
usenet.dont.work@plusnet wrote:

Marc Brett said the following on 22/05/2007 11:19:

?S42 DWC is not a new (post-2001) license plate, because the number
preceding 2 would need to be 0 or 5. It's not a pre-2001 plate, because
a single letter is followed by 3 numbers. (NB, I'm not a number plate
weenie, so I could be wrong).

You are wrong! S42 DWC is a valid plate. It doesn't have to be three
numbers after the year letter.


I originally parsed it as "unknown character followed by S42 DWC",
rather than "I think it was S42 DWC"

Mind you,the DVLA wotsit doesn't know about it. Not that this means
it doesn't exist of course.

It's entirely possible that the plate number is wrong. Unfortunately I
didn't write the plate number down and the one photo I've managed to
take was lamentably fuzzy so I needed to fall back to the Mk. 1 Human
Brain which isn't particularly reliable. The '?' was meant to indicate
uncertainty - I intended to flesh this out before sending the message
but forgot. Sorry!

Regards,

-david


--

David Nutter wrote on 22/05/2007 09:44 +0100:

Phone the company. I've done it twice. The first one (P&O RORO) the
Chairman wrote to say that they had several complaints about the driving
of that subcontractor and they had terminated their contract. On the
second the Operations Manager got back to me and apologised and said the
driver had been given a written warning. The company is far better
placed to sort it than anyone else - these days the behaviour of their
drivers affects how their potential customer view them.


--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Marc Brett said the following on 22/05/2007 12:56:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 12:04:00 +0100, Paul Boyd usenet.dont.work@plusnet
You are wrong! S42 DWC is a valid plate.

...except that it's not in the DVLA database.

I meant 'valid' as in 'correct format' :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/