Undertaking MLOCers - pet hate
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Brimstone on 10 Aug 2010 10:45 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:13dcvxsryihi3$.1d2hzxr7v3uo3.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 15:21:45 +0100, Brimstone wrote: > >>> if you want to be pedantic it's "bollocks". > >>If I wanted to be pedantic I'd have spelt it that way. > > Its hard to see how trying to correct "bolox" (which I prefer if i'm not > going to write "bollocks") can be other than pedantic. I think we can put that down to a "woooosh" then, don't you? >>> Nothing changes the simple fact >>> that if you are being followed by a traffic police car driving down the >>> road and you overtake the car in front (or try!) on the left outside of >>> the >>> accepted exceptions, they will nick you. That's all that matters. >>> >> I agree they may well stop you for a chat. As for nicking you, it >> probably >> depends. > > of course! Apart from speed cameras everything is a warning or a > prosecution depending partly on your reaction. The police must see > prosecutable driving 100 times a day without taking action. > Exactly, and do such things themselves.
From: Nick Finnigan on 10 Aug 2010 14:48 Chelsea Tractor Man wrote: > On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 18:12:17 +0100, Ian Dalziel wrote: > >> The part which is confusing you is that you seem to think "dangerous" >> is spelt "careless". Go on - get your thumb paper out and try to read >> it again. C for cat, A for apple... > > the texts I went to the trouble of googling and reading related cases where > dangerous driving had been pursued rather than careless, so I wouldn't > waste a lot of time on that irrelevance. I could not find any cases through Google where passing was the only evidence given in court for bad driving. Could you give some examples?
From: Nick Finnigan on 10 Aug 2010 14:48 GT wrote: > "Nick Finnigan" <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote in message > news:i3m9gh$uet$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> GT wrote: >>> "Nick Finnigan" <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote in message >>> news:i3he1p$6k6$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>> Chelsea Tractor Man wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 22:47:34 +0100, Nick Finnigan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Didn't you see Chelsea's post - dwdca. >>>>>> Which does not mention overtaking, undertaking, passing, inside, >>>>>> outside, on the left, on the right, exceptions nor anything remotely >>>>>> connected. >>>>> do you think ignoring the highway code is driving with due care and >>>>> attention? >>>> It can be. e.g. to pass on the left at a suitable speed, where there is >>>> room: >>> Yes, we already quoted most of those as legitimate examples (without the >> I was asked a question specifically about the HC, so I answered it. > > No, we were talking about the law. Somebody decide to ask specifically about (ignoring) the HC as well. I don't have a problem with that. > Apart from the 2 lines that say undertaking is considered 'dangerous > driving' and lane hogging is 'inconsiderate driving'. There are no such 2 lines.
From: GT on 10 Aug 2010 15:08
"Nick Finnigan" <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote in message news:i3s6ut$2pr$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > GT wrote: >> "Nick Finnigan" <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:i3m9gh$uet$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> GT wrote: >>>> "Nick Finnigan" <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote in message >>>> news:i3he1p$6k6$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>>> Chelsea Tractor Man wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 22:47:34 +0100, Nick Finnigan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Didn't you see Chelsea's post - dwdca. >>>>>>> Which does not mention overtaking, undertaking, passing, inside, >>>>>>> outside, on the left, on the right, exceptions nor anything remotely >>>>>>> connected. >>>>>> do you think ignoring the highway code is driving with due care and >>>>>> attention? >>>>> It can be. e.g. to pass on the left at a suitable speed, where there >>>>> is room: >>>> Yes, we already quoted most of those as legitimate examples (without >>>> the >>> I was asked a question specifically about the HC, so I answered it. >> >> No, we were talking about the law. > > Somebody decide to ask specifically about (ignoring) the HC as well. I > don't have a problem with that. > >> Apart from the 2 lines that say undertaking is considered 'dangerous >> driving' and lane hogging is 'inconsiderate driving'. > > There are no such 2 lines. Which just proves that you are spouting shite without reading the previous posts - check Chelsea's link. |