Give him a medal
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Speeding - a few questions
Next: Smartcom 12s relay?
From: Simon Finnigan on 18 Aug 2006 15:51 Adrian wrote: > Simon Finnigan (SimonFinnigan(a)hotmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying : > >> and I reduce the chance of being involved in an RTC, since the vast >> majority are caused by idiots driving too fast, too close and not >> paying any attention to the road around them. > > Two of those three reasons are just plain redundant. I saw a brilliant (but terrifying clip) on one of those police camera action style shows. A police car en-route to an RTC is trying to pass a white metro (IIRC) in lane 3. Despite having flashing blue lights and a siren the metro fails to notice the police car. They also failed to notice the car stuck into the central reservation too, and drove straight into it without a hint of braking. And the scary thing is that most cars in lane 3 take at least a couple of seconds to notice a police car trying to get past - i`ve seen one car take 30 seconds to realise there was a police car trying to get past to go and help the people in a fairly serious RTC a few miles down the road. If you don`t notice a big brightly coloured car flashing white and blue lights, making lots of noise and sounding the horn a few feet off your bumper, are you paying ANY attention to the world round you? Incidentally, i`m still hoping that someone will turn up a study on the impact of a hands free kit on driving ability.
From: Alex Heney on 18 Aug 2006 16:40 On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:58:04 GMT, JAF <anarchSPAMKILLER(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: >On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:07:41 +0100, Paul {Hamilton Rooney} <craig(a)oil.com> >wrote: > >>It meant a fixed thing or place. > >Post (stick in the ground) and post (mail) have different origins. And "undertake" (to take upon oneself), "undertake" (to carry out funerals) and "undertake" (to pass on the "wrong" side) all have different origins. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager "Freedom defined is freedom denied." -The Illuminatus To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Alex Heney on 18 Aug 2006 16:42 On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:58:21 +0100, davek <news(a)smutchin.co.uk> wrote: >Conor wrote: >> Not really. Chances are he wasn't breaking the law. > >Regardless of the OP's offences, is tailgating and flashing not >"inconsiderate driving"? Yes. Nobody has tried to suggest that the caravanner was not breaking the law. It has just been pointed out to DieSea that regardless of what the caravanner was doing, *he* (DieSea) was breaking it. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager ....On the other hand, you have different fingers. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Alex Heney on 18 Aug 2006 16:43 On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 02:24:40 +0100, "Ivor Jones" <ivor(a)despammed.invalid> wrote: >"JNugent" <not.telling(a)isp.com> wrote in message >news:-vmdnbC_c6_yAHnZRVnygA(a)pipex.net > >[snip] > >> And even if the following driver wants to exceed the 70 >> limit, it's not the business of the driver in front to >> prevent it. > >But he's not doing anything wrong by so doing. > Yes he is. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Marriage is one of the chief causes of divorce. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Alex Heney on 18 Aug 2006 16:47
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:44:28 +0100, "Ivor Jones" <ivor(a)despammed.invalid> wrote: > > >"Christian McArdle" <cmcardle75(a)nospam.yahooxxxx.co.uk> >wrote in message >news:44e5756f$0$11537$4d4eb98e(a)read.news.uk.uu.net >> > > And even if the following driver wants to exceed the >> > > 70 limit, it's not the business of the driver in >> > > front to prevent it. >> > >> > But he's not doing anything wrong by so doing. >> >> Yes. He is breaking the law by not moving left after >> overtaking. > >So it's a distinct *law* that is being broken whenever someone does not >move to the left-most lane at all times except when overtaking, thankyou I >was unaware of that. Which section of which law, please, I'd like to look >it up. > You misunderstood the previous poster. Due to the fact that he missed off part of what he should have said. What the previous poster *should* have said is "He is breaking the law by not moving left after overtaking when not doing so causes unnecessary obstruction to another road user". There is no law that says you must *always* move to the left most lane except when overtaking. >> For example, it is wrong for a burglar to break into my >> house. It is also wrong, after me discovering the fact, >> to go round his house and break his legs, thus preventing >> further burglary. >> You may not commit a criminal offence just because you >> believe someone else has, or is about to commit an >> offence themselves. Intentionally blocking someone on the >> motorway because you are a fuckwit is not allowed. > >Ah, foul language again. Why *is* it some people can't make a point >without using it..? > Because it is often the best way to make it obvious how strong your feelings are. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager No sense being pessimistic. It wouldn't work anyway. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |