Undertaking MLOCers - pet hate
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: GT on 9 Aug 2010 08:46 "Ian Dalziel" <iandalziel7(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:0703ef2f-f66f-4e02-b949-66f838980666(a)z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On 9 Aug, 10:45, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >> "Ian Dalziel" <iandalz...(a)lineone.net> wrote in message >> news:uopr56l84gqa1fu322g7iv1eck6gahs0t5(a)4ax.com... >> >> > You haven't quoted a law, though, have you? >> >> Not personnally, but you have and so has Chelsea. Anything else you need >> help with? > > No-one has quoted a law which says it is illegal to pass on the > nearside. Yes they have - in your own text, 2 posts ago, quote: "you could be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention". Chelsea has said the same thing and I haven't reposted it, but agree. It is documented in the goverment document linked to by Chelsea. What more do you need > No-one is going to quote a law which says it is illegal to pass on the > nearside. See above - 2 people (including you!) have. > This is because there is no law which says it is illegal to pass on > the nearside. Yes there is - you quoted it yourself! > Is that simple enough for you? Try re-reading the thread. Print it out > and use a ruler to move your finger along if that makes it easier. I suggest that you re-read it yourself - you might want to focus on your own posts as you quoted the law yourself, that you are now denying!!
From: Mike Barnes on 9 Aug 2010 09:56 boltar2003(a)boltar.world: >On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:47:28 +0100 >"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote: >>>> specific road examples) - we are talking specifically about the >>>> undertaking of lane hoggers - you jumped in and told us that it is >>>> perfectly legal. >>> >>> The HC and the CPS document make no distinction for 'lane hogging'. >> >>Apart from the 2 lines that say undertaking is considered 'dangerous >>driving' and lane hogging is 'inconsiderate driving'. > >I wonder why the people who wrote that document consider it dangerous driving. There's a clue in the title: "Driving offences involving death". -- Mike Barnes
From: boltar2003 on 9 Aug 2010 11:18 On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 14:56:56 +0100 Mike Barnes <mikebarnes(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: >boltar2003(a)boltar.world: >>On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:47:28 +0100 >>"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote: >>>>> specific road examples) - we are talking specifically about the >>>>> undertaking of lane hoggers - you jumped in and told us that it is >>>>> perfectly legal. >>>> >>>> The HC and the CPS document make no distinction for 'lane hogging'. >>> >>>Apart from the 2 lines that say undertaking is considered 'dangerous >>>driving' and lane hogging is 'inconsiderate driving'. >> >>I wonder why the people who wrote that document consider it dangerous driving. > >There's a clue in the title: "Driving offences involving death". Reversing out of driveways has killed a number of children. I don't however consider reversing out of a drive particularly dangerous. So why do they feel that undertaking is dangerous? B2003
From: GT on 9 Aug 2010 11:40 <boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message news:i3p689$vdg$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 14:56:56 +0100 > Mike Barnes <mikebarnes(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: >>boltar2003(a)boltar.world: >>>On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:47:28 +0100 >>>"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote: >>>>>> specific road examples) - we are talking specifically about the >>>>>> undertaking of lane hoggers - you jumped in and told us that it is >>>>>> perfectly legal. >>>>> >>>>> The HC and the CPS document make no distinction for 'lane hogging'. >>>> >>>>Apart from the 2 lines that say undertaking is considered 'dangerous >>>>driving' and lane hogging is 'inconsiderate driving'. >>> >>>I wonder why the people who wrote that document consider it dangerous >>>driving. >> >>There's a clue in the title: "Driving offences involving death". > > Reversing out of driveways has killed a number of children. I don't > however consider reversing out of a drive particularly dangerous. So why > do they feel that undertaking is dangerous? Because its something that we aren't supposed to do in this country, so the official line is that it is therefore 'dangerous'.
From: boltar2003 on 9 Aug 2010 11:54
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:43:40 +0100 Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 15:18:33 +0000 (UTC), boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: > >> So why >> do they feel that undertaking is dangerous? > >because its unexpected. So is someone pulling out of a side road but that doesn't inherently make it dangerous. B2003 |