Give him a medal

"Mozzer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave M wrote:
>> More than 20 motorists in Hampshire have fallen victim to a mystery
>> vigilante who appears to target drivers spotted using mobile phones.
>>
>> All the car owners have found their tyres have been slashed and, in many
>> cases, a note on their windscreens.
>>
>> The sinister message, made from newspaper cuttings, says the driver was
>> seen using a phone.
>>
>> Hampshire Police are investigating the incidents in Gosport,
>> Lee-on-the-Solent and Stubbington.
>
> As a motorbike rider i'm going to go ahead and sing the guy some
> praises. Unaware car drivers doing the most stupid manouvres are
> possibly the most dangerous thing I can think of.

Is that a different set of stupid manouvres than those which a very large
number of motor cyclists do?

> I mean, they're insured, they're strapped in, they're in a nice big
> metal cage... why should they care if they hit something; Chances are
> they are going to be fine, if not come out better with a claim or two.

And motor cyclist who cause accidents by suddenly driving across in front of
cars, without bothering to look to see whether there is anything coming or
not?

---

› See More: Give him a medal

In message <[email protected]>, MrBitsy
<[email protected]> writes
>David Taylor wrote:
>> On 2006-08-15, Lumpy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is criminal damage, even if he did have the "excuse" of having
>>>> seen the people using a mobile, which he knew the police would do
>>>> nothing about.
>>>
>>> If the man ia accusing those people of using phones whilst driving, I
>>> would say the police have a duty to investigate, and to serve those
>>> idiots with the apporpriate punishment.
>>
>> How are they supposed to investigate? Where will there be any
>> evidence of the victims using a phone whilst driving?
>
>That is a good point - if we all had a little more gumption, we could take
>videos of the idiots who insist on using a mobile while driving.

Yes, we could use the video cameras in our mobile phones to do it. Oh,
hang on...

--
Steve Walker

"David Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2006-08-15, Lumpy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>
>>> It is criminal damage, even if he did have the "excuse" of having seen
>>> the people using a mobile, which he knew the police would do nothing
>>> about.
>>
>> If the man ia accusing those people of using phones whilst driving, I
>> would say the police have a duty to investigate, and to serve those
>> idiots with the apporpriate punishment.
>
> How are they supposed to investigate? Where will there be any evidence
> of the victims using a phone whilst driving?


With so many cameras it wouldn't be that difficult.

--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

MrBitsy wrote:
> David Taylor wrote:
>
>>On 2006-08-15, Lumpy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Alex Heney wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It is criminal damage, even if he did have the "excuse" of having
>>>>seen the people using a mobile, which he knew the police would do
>>>>nothing about.
>>>
>>>If the man ia accusing those people of using phones whilst driving, I
>>>would say the police have a duty to investigate, and to serve those
>>>idiots with the apporpriate punishment.
>>
>>How are they supposed to investigate? Where will there be any
>>evidence of the victims using a phone whilst driving?
>
>
> That is a good point - if we all had a little more gumption, we could take
> videos of the idiots who insist on using a mobile while driving.

Yeah, right.

Using a video camera while driving probably isn't an offence, eh?

Or did you mean pedestrian operators, aiming a visible camera at oncoming
traffic? You'd certainly see a few emergency applications of the brakes...

MrBitsy wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
>
>>What a weird sense of priorities you have. You choose to disbelieve
>>the word of the victim and to believe the allegations of an anonymous
>>nutter who is committing criminal damage (the legal equivalent of
>>theft).
>
>
> Just who is the nutter?

The person damaging other peoples' property. He does it intentionally.

> At least the tyre slasher is doing it when the car is stationary.

Don't be daft.

"Tim S Kemp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave M <[email protected]> wrote:
>> All the car owners have found their tyres have been slashed and, in
>> many cases, a note on their windscreens.
>
> A medal? For criminal damage?

If I find out where the piece of s**t who came within an inch of killing me
on my journey home tonight lives, he won't just be worried about criminal
damage - he'll need major surgery. BMW, green, north Bristol, and talking
on a mobile phone. 17:10, N914 YOG, young, black driver. Oh dear, have I
accidentally published his details? What a shame.

I did what you're supposed to do and reported it to the police. Guess what?
nothing will happen according to the officer I reported it to. Is it any
wonder that people take the law into their own hands? If following the law
means that criminals who threaten my life will never be convicted, then
maybe it's time for direct action.

"burt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tim S Kemp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Dave M <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> All the car owners have found their tyres have been slashed and, in
>>> many cases, a note on their windscreens.
>>
>> A medal? For criminal damage?
>
> If I find out where the piece of s**t who came within an inch of killing me on
> my journey home tonight lives, he won't just be worried about criminal damage -
> he'll need major surgery. BMW, green, north Bristol, and talking on a mobile
> phone. 17:10, N914 YOG, young, black driver. Oh dear, have I accidentally
> published his details? What a shame.
>
> I did what you're supposed to do and reported it to the police. Guess what?
> nothing will happen according to the officer I reported it to. Is it any wonder
> that people take the law into their own hands? If following the law means that
> criminals who threaten my life will never be convicted, then maybe it's time for
> direct action.
>

Talking to a traffic cop that is in a group I get together with on a rgular basis

I told him of an experience of mine recently and asked what should be done

The situation was that a car towing a tatty old camping trailer was tailgating me
in the middle lane of a motorway , flashing his lights for me to get out of the
way

I was solo and doing a BIT more than 70

He eventfully came up on the inside and pushed me out into the outside lane

Would the cops do anything , not unless you had to independent witness's

Ohhh well

DieSea

JNugent wrote:
> MrBitsy wrote:
>> JNugent wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What a weird sense of priorities you have. You choose to disbelieve
>>> the word of the victim and to believe the allegations of an
>>> anonymous nutter who is committing criminal damage (the legal
>>> equivalent of theft).
>>
>>
>> Just who is the nutter?
>
> The person damaging other peoples' property. He does it intentionally.

You think the drivers making calls are doing it unintentionally?

>
>> At least the tyre slasher is doing it when the car is stationary.
>
> Don't be daft.

I'm not - the tyre slasher is causing less danger.
--
MrBitsy

We have all the "safe" drivers complaining about the Police wasting their
resource chasing them and the one rule for the police etc. etc.


Do you think theres a pedophile NG with the same type of arrant drivel
being spouted?

"Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> "David Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 2006-08-15, R. Mark Clayton <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well they could always start by issuing themselves with FPN's
>>>> whenever they
>>>> use their push to talk half duplex personal radios while driving
>>>> and it isn't an emergency - but oops I forgot it is one law for
>>>> them and another law for the rest of us see:-
>>>
>>> Er, no. As you quoted below it is the same law for them and us.
>>>
>>> It is entirely legal for a police officer to use a two-way radio
>>> whilst driving, just as it is entirely legal for _you_ to use a
>>> two-way radio whilst driving.
>>
>> Unless it just happens to be a mobile phone.
>>
>> The upshot is that the police use two way half duplex radio
>> (therefore you have to press to talk) all the time, whereas if you
>> use your full duplex radio phone the very same police officer who has
>> just PNC'ed your vehicle over the radio while following you will give
>> you a ticket.
>
> And?
>
Hypocrisy brings the law into disrepute and leads to it not being respected.
If a TC stops someone and tells them how dangerous it is to use their mobile
when driving (while giving them a bill for £60), how seriously are they
going to take this when they saw the TC in their mirror talking on his radio
just a moment before they were pulled over?

"R. Mark Clayton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> R. Mark Clayton wrote:

>>> The upshot is that the police use two way half duplex radio
>>> (therefore you have to press to talk) all the time, whereas if you
>>> use your full duplex radio phone the very same police officer who has
>>> just PNC'ed your vehicle over the radio while following you will give
>>> you a ticket.
>>
>> And?
>>
> Hypocrisy brings the law into disrepute and leads to it not being
> respected. If a TC stops someone and tells them how dangerous it is to use
> their mobile when driving (while giving them a bill for £60), how
> seriously are they going to take this when they saw the TC in their mirror
> talking on his radio just a moment before they were pulled over?

A two way radio is not a mobile phone. Different device, different method of
use, different rules. Two way radios are usually used for passing messages,
not having conversations that can become involved and distract the driver
fom his/her primary job.

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:30:59 +0100, "DieSea"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The situation was that a car towing a tatty old camping trailer was tailgating me
>in the middle lane of a motorway , flashing his lights for me to get out of the
>way
>
>I was solo and doing a BIT more than 70

Perhaps he wanted you to move over because trailers aren't allowed in
the third lane.

If he was able to drive up on your nearside, you can't have been
overtaking, so you were breaking the law.

--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

[email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:30:59 +0100, "DieSea"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The situation was that a car towing a tatty old camping trailer was
>> tailgating me in the middle lane of a motorway , flashing his
>> lights for me to get out of the way
>>
>> I was solo and doing a BIT more than 70
>
> Perhaps he wanted you to move over because trailers aren't allowed in
> the third lane.

Nor are they allowed to exceed 60mph.

> If he was able to drive up on your nearside, you can't have been
> overtaking, so you were breaking the law.

How does one tailgate when in a different lane?

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:30:59 +0100, "DieSea"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>The situation was that a car towing a tatty old camping trailer was tailgating
>>me
>>in the middle lane of a motorway , flashing his lights for me to get out of
>>the
>>way
>>
>>I was solo and doing a BIT more than 70
>
> Perhaps he wanted you to move over because trailers aren't allowed in
> the third lane.
>
> If he was able to drive up on your nearside, you can't have been
> overtaking, so you were breaking the law.
>
> --
>
> Iain
> the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
> http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
> Browse now while stocks last!

No Iain I was overtaking , but I travel with sufficient space between me and the
vehicle in front

There was no way he should have been travelling at 70 MPH with an un-braked
trailer

The only time I tailgate is when I'm in a queue and doing 5 miles an hour then its
10 feet behind.

Several years ago my wife was in a multiple shunt and as a result suffered severe
whiplash

She was stopped at traffic lights , the car behind didn't stop

You learn by other peoples misfortunes

DieSea

"Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:30:59 +0100, "DieSea"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> The situation was that a car towing a tatty old camping trailer was
>>> tailgating me in the middle lane of a motorway , flashing his
>>> lights for me to get out of the way
>>>
>>> I was solo and doing a BIT more than 70
>>
>> Perhaps he wanted you to move over because trailers aren't allowed in
>> the third lane.
>
> Nor are they allowed to exceed 60mph.
>
>> If he was able to drive up on your nearside, you can't have been
>> overtaking, so you were breaking the law.
>
> How does one tailgate when in a different lane?
>

He was in the same lane to start off with

Then he tied to over take me on the inside lane

nuff said

DieSea