Give him a medal

> 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.
> --
Of course, my phone can take videos, I will use that while I drive along to
show to the police.............................


Silly me, lol

Steve

---

› See More: Give him a medal

DieSea wrote on 15/08/2006 18:30 +0100:
>
> 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
>

You are a fully paid up member of the Middle Lane Residents Association
and ICMFP.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

> 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.

I have seen a motorbike rider TEXTING while riding a bike, so dont think for
one second that its just car drivers!!!!

Oh, and sorry for hihacking the thread but why do motorbike riders sit on
your tail hoping that you move over to the left so they can overtake you ( I
do move over by the way, bikes are quicker than me, so pointless holding
them back) but when they decide to slow down they sit 6 inches from the
center line as if to stop cars overtaking them??

Steve

>
> 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:-
>
> The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations
> 2003,
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032695.htm
> s 2 [110] (4)
>
> EXPLANATORY NOTE
>
> Regulation 110(4) provides a definition of devices that are considered
> similar to hand-held mobile telephones for the purpose of these
> regulations. This definition excludes two-way radios.
>

Police dont use 2 way radios and so are covered by the regulations. 2-way
radios are so defined by the name, they send and recieve data/voice between
2 radios, ie the ones you buy for your kids while out camping.

Steve

Steve <[email protected]> wrote:

> > 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.
>
> I have seen a motorbike rider TEXTING while riding a bike, so dont think for
> one second that its just car drivers!!!!
>
> Oh, and sorry for hihacking the thread but why do motorbike riders sit on
> your tail hoping that you move over to the left so they can overtake you ( I
> do move over by the way, bikes are quicker than me, so pointless holding
> them back) but when they decide to slow down they sit 6 inches from the
> center line as if to stop cars overtaking them??

Probably because they're sticking to a 30 / 40 / 50 limit rather than
doing the usual blind bastard car driver trick of driving at 40mph
everywhere.

HTH.

--
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI - COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

SteveH wrote:

> Steve <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>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.

>>I have seen a motorbike rider TEXTING while riding a bike, so dont think for
>>one second that its just car drivers!!!!

>>Oh, and sorry for hihacking the thread but why do motorbike riders sit on
>>your tail hoping that you move over to the left so they can overtake you ( I
>>do move over by the way, bikes are quicker than me, so pointless holding
>>them back) but when they decide to slow down they sit 6 inches from the
>>center line as if to stop cars overtaking them??

> Probably because they're sticking to a 30 / 40 / 50 limit rather than
> doing the usual blind bastard car driver trick of driving at 40mph
> everywhere.
> HTH.

Speed limits don't apply to motor-bikes, do they?

JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Probably because they're sticking to a 30 / 40 / 50 limit rather than
> > doing the usual blind bastard car driver trick of driving at 40mph
> > everywhere.
> > HTH.
>
> Speed limits don't apply to motor-bikes, do they?

I think you'll find that *most* motorcyclists treat NSL signs as a 'GLF'
[1] sign, but will happily obey 30/40/50 mph limits.

[1] Go Like ****.
--
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI - COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> "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?

A good example of how ignorant so many drivers are.

For your benefit; Mobile phone conversations have nothing to do with the
task at hand. Much brain power is taken up with images of the conversation
being discussed. Calls are constant and can take a great deal of time.

Two way radio conversation between police and control, are pre-learnt short
phrases. They are talking about the task in hand, so require much less
concentration.

--
MrBitsy

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

>
>"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
>

They should have done you for inconsiderate driving. (Road Traffic Act
1988 Section 3)

If it was *possible* for him to pass you on the inside, then you
should have been in the inside lane. Regardless of what speed you were
doing.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Trust me, I'm a lawyer..
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:21:17 +0100, "DieSea"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
><[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
>

So how was he able to pull alongside you in the inside lane - *after*
tailgating you and flashing lights at you?


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

Even if you know the trailer was un braked, that is totally
irrelevant.

He may have been breaking the law, but so were you by not allowing him
past.

>
>You learn by other peoples misfortunes

You obviously don't.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Don't mess with Murphy.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:39:39 GMT, "Steve" <[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:-
>>
>> The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations
>> 2003,
>> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032695.htm
>> s 2 [110] (4)
>>
>> EXPLANATORY NOTE
>>
>> Regulation 110(4) provides a definition of devices that are considered
>> similar to hand-held mobile telephones for the purpose of these
>> regulations. This definition excludes two-way radios.
>>
>
>Police dont use 2 way radios and so are covered by the regulations. 2-way
>radios are so defined by the name, they send and recieve data/voice between
>2 radios, ie the ones you buy for your kids while out camping.
>

Utter rubbish.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

MrBitsy wrote:

|| Two way radio conversation between police and control, are
|| pre-learnt short phrases. They are talking about the task in hand,
|| so require much less concentration.

And they end with "Out", not:

OK then
OK then
See ya
Yeah, see ya
Love yoooo
Love yoooo
<giggle> OK then
OK then
Tara then
Yeah, tara
By the way, did you get the milk?
Nah, sorry
Can you...
Christ, where'd he come from?

--
Rich
==============================

I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.

>>
>
> He was in the same lane to start off with
>
> Then he tied to over take me on the inside lane


so move over, you pompous cretin.

MrBitsy wrote:
> 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.

You have now got to be almost the front runner for the "Biggest Missing Of
The Point" 2006.

If i'm near the centre instead of the middle of the lane it's to check
it's safe for me to just slip up to the lights and get ahead of all the
cagers on their mobiles when the lights change


Steve wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I have seen a motorbike rider TEXTING while riding a bike, so dont think for
> one second that its just car drivers!!!!
>
> Oh, and sorry for hihacking the thread but why do motorbike riders sit on
> your tail hoping that you move over to the left so they can overtake you ( I
> do move over by the way, bikes are quicker than me, so pointless holding
> them back) but when they decide to slow down they sit 6 inches from the
> center line as if to stop cars overtaking them??
>
> Steve