Man fined after driving into his own driveway
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: The horrors of biofuels.
Next: Start/Stop "ECO" cars
From: JNugent on 28 Apr 2010 20:13 Steve Firth wrote: > Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> Looking at the photographs, it's pretty obvious that the house is fairly >> old (1920s or 30s?). If so, the zig-zag lines are very much a >> late-comer. It seems unreasonable that their addition should prevent >> anyone from using their driveway as normal. > Right... and my own home is 300 years old, so it pre-dates all traffic > signals, road signs, speed restrictions, painted lines etc. By your > reasoning I shouldn't have to obey any traffic laws? That's not what he said, is it?
From: NM on 28 Apr 2010 21:44 On 29 Apr, 00:02, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "Mike P" <french...(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message > > news:hraecp$amd$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > > > > On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:25:45 -0700, NM sang, in the style of Bill Bailey: > > >> On 28 Apr, 14:51, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> "Jethro" <krazyka...(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message > > >>> news:1ee1b7fa-0e27-4217-82d3- > > f4857f470...(a)k33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > >>> > On 28 Apr, 13:41, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >> PhilO <goo18...(a)yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like > >>> >> they were > >>> >> saying: > > >>> >> > They told him he was committing an offence because he was > >>> >> > stationary on the zigzag markings of the crossing and told him to > >>> >> > move on. But when they returned after driving a mile up the road > >>> >> > he was still there, waiting for his chance to reverse into the > >>> >> > house" > > >>> >> He was warned. > >>> >> He ignored the warning. > >>> >> He got nicked. > > >>> >> Any sympathy just evaporated. > > >>> > indeed. > > >>> > It's amazing how many of these "POLICE HARASS INNOCENT BRITS" Daily- > >>> > Heil type headlines turn out on deeper inspection to be down to the > >>> > "inncoent brit" rather than police malice. > > >>> Not police malice. More individual police officers sticking to the > >>> letter of the law rather than the spirit and using some common sense. > > >> But wouldn't it have been a whole lot better, less paperwork and good > >> police public relations for them to stop the traffic allow him to back > >> in then discussed their view of how he should avoid infringment in > >> future, result smiles all round and job done. Instead we have ill > >> feeling and long faces, what happened to common sense, I agree with the > >> earlier poster, this country is fucked. > > > It's only fucked for people like you, who appear to be unable to think > > for themselves and seek to blame "someone else" for their own failings. > > > Why *should* a copper help this guy? > > Because it's the sensible thing to do. Compare the cost to the taxpayer of > stopping the traffic for a couple of minutes while the chap reverses into > his drive way ( which I suspect he's done many time before) compared to the > cost of taking him through the court system and the resulting bad publicity. > > > They asked him to move, he didn't. > > He needs to learn the HC properly for a start. > > And those who put design and implement road layouts need to take heed of > what's adjacent. > > AIUI the law re zig-zags says that one must not park. He wasn't parked, he > was stopped. Exactly, otherwise pedestrians could not use the crossings if vehicles were not allowed to stop, a minor but to some, inconvenient point
From: NM on 28 Apr 2010 21:45 On 29 Apr, 01:13, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > Steve Firth wrote: > > Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjack...(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> Looking at the photographs, it's pretty obvious that the house is fairly > >> old (1920s or 30s?). If so, the zig-zag lines are very much a > >> late-comer. It seems unreasonable that their addition should prevent > >> anyone from using their driveway as normal. > > Right... and my own home is 300 years old, so it pre-dates all traffic > > signals, road signs, speed restrictions, painted lines etc. By your > > reasoning I shouldn't have to obey any traffic laws? > > That's not what he said, is it? He never let reality get in the way of his trolls.
From: PM on 29 Apr 2010 03:37 Nick Finnigan wrote: > Ian Jackson wrote: >> >> BTW, I haven't checked, but I don't think that reversing out onto a >> main road is a 'must not' against the Highway Code (even though it's >> obviously dangerous). I've always understood it was that you weren't >> supposed to reverse out of a side-road. > > The only 'must not' for reversing is Motorways. > > You are allowed to stop on zig zags 'for the purpose of making a > left or right turn'. And, presumably, to allow pedestrians to cross.
From: Man at B&Q on 29 Apr 2010 05:33
On Apr 28, 6:15 pm, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVETHISjack...(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:RLuYI+OndF2LFwVK(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk... > > > In message <83r289Ffg...(a)mid.individual.net>, Adrian > > <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> writes > >>Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjack...(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, > >>sounding much like they were saying: > > >>> However, rather than fine him, I'm sure that there was a more sensible > >>> solution to the problem. > > >>Indeed. > > >>They could have stopped, advised him of the problem, and requested him to > >>move on. > > >>Oh, wait. They did. He didn't. > > > No. What they could have done was to point out to him that, if he > > continued to do what he was doing, they would have no alternative but to > > issue a penalty (if necessary, pointing out why this law had been made).. > > They then should have discussed the problem with him, and helped him find > > a practical solution which didn't involve him reversing into the road > > (which is probably just as dangerous). > > -- > > Indeed, they could have stopped the oncoming traffic for him and allowed him > to reverse into his driveway. If the police spent all their time doing little helpful things like that would you be happy? Or would you rather they concentrate on higher level crime. They did give him a warning and a fair chance to comply with the law. He chose to be a fuckwit. MBQ |