From: Ian Dalziel on 10 Aug 2010 03:12
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 06:41:38 +0100, Chelsea Tractor Man
>On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 22:47:28 +0100, Ian Dalziel wrote:
>>>usually. Why don't you just accept the bloody obvious?
>> Why don't you accept the law?
>I do, undertake (other than the exceptions) and you put yourself at risk of
And where are the exceptions specified? No-one is disputing that
overtaking on the nearside, in traffic, when there is a clear
alternative, constitutes an offence. In most cases where a vehicle
passes another on the nearside it is perfectly legal. There is no law
which specifies that passing on the nearside is illegal - there
couldn't be. There is no law which specifies that disregarding the
Highway Code constitutes an offence.
No, either quote a LAW which disproves what I am saying, or have
another go at understanding the thread.
From: Ian Dalziel on 10 Aug 2010 03:14
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 06:43:42 +0100, Chelsea Tractor Man
>On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 18:12:17 +0100, Ian Dalziel wrote:
>> The part which is confusing you is that you seem to think "dangerous"
>> is spelt "careless". Go on - get your thumb paper out and try to read
>> it again. C for cat, A for apple...
>the texts I went to the trouble of googling and reading related cases where
>dangerous driving had been persued rather than careless, so I wouldn't
>waste a lot of time on that irrelevance.
Might those have been cases where the operation was dangerous, do you
think? Or are you not going to waste any time on that irrelevance
From: Brimstone on 10 Aug 2010 07:03
"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:14:53 +0100, Ian Dalziel wrote:
>> Might those have been cases where the operation was dangerous, do you
>> think? Or are you not going to waste any time on that irrelevance
> just stop wasting everybody's time with a load of pedantic bolox.
The word is "bollox".
From: Ian Dalziel on 10 Aug 2010 07:34
On 10 Aug, 09:29, Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk>
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:12:40 +0100, Ian Dalziel wrote:
> > or have
> > another go at understanding the thread.
> stop being a prat.
I have no answer to such incisive, devastating logic.
From: Nkosi (ama-ecosse) on 10 Aug 2010 08:01
On 9 Aug, 16:43, Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk>
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 15:18:33 +0000 (UTC), boltar2...(a)boltar.world wrote:
> > So why
> > do they feel that undertaking is dangerous?
> because its unexpected.
> Gone Beyond the Ultimate Driving Machine
It should be expected if you are hogging the outside lane of a dual
carraigeway or a motorway and are refusing to move over to an inner
lane (when the road ahead is clear in both lanes) through sheer
stubbornness when a vehicle has come up behind you and is obviously
driving quicker. It is inconsiderate to say the very least. The
highway code says allow faster vehicles to overtake and judging by the
opinions on here (and that is just what they are), then it is illegal
not to move over. You are driving without due care and attention if
you are not observing your rear view mirrors for traffic approaching
from the rear, if you have noticed them, and don't move over then it
can be argued that you are driving dangerously because you are
instituting a scenario where a problem could occur because of your
driving, you are therefore guilty of the higher charge of Dangerous
Driving by failing to move over to the inner lane when it is clear to
do so. I say Dangerous because I am not sure if there is such a
charge as negligent driving where you put people at risk unwittingly
as opposed to dangerous where people are put at risk because you just
Now for the fuckwit in the Bannerman white van on the M9 this morning,
my MGF will always be faster than your transit van. If you had moved
over when you should have I would not have had to move into the inner
lane to pass you, the inner lane coincedently where I could stay for
the next 3 miles of clear motorway. That would mean you would not have
gone red in the face, pumped up your blood pressure and nearly broken
you indivcator and full beam switch stalk they way you must have as
witnessed by the way in which you flashed your lights at me.