What's wrong with these people, power crazed?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Road Casualties Q1 2010
Next: Nexen tyres
From: Adrian on 8 Aug 2010 12:23 "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng08(a)yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>>> Under what law? >>>> The Road Traffic Act. >>> There are many, which one? >> There is only one Road Traffic Act. > Not true. There is one act (RTA88) with several amending acts. >> The subsection I am referring to is the one which gives the police >> powers to stop a motorist. > Which is? You could try RTA88 s163 as a start... 163 - Power of police to stop vehicles (1) A person driving a motor vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform. (2) A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform. (3) If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an offence.
From: Brimstone on 8 Aug 2010 13:28 "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8c83v5FfhcU5(a)mid.individual.net... > "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng08(a)yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: > >>>>>> Under what law? > >>>>> The Road Traffic Act. > >>>> There are many, which one? > >>> There is only one Road Traffic Act. > >> Not true. > > There is one act (RTA88) with several amending acts. Thus there are several acts. >>> The subsection I am referring to is the one which gives the police >>> powers to stop a motorist. > >> Which is? > > You could try RTA88 s163 as a start... > > 163 - Power of police to stop vehicles > > (1) A person driving a motor vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on > being required to do so by a constable in uniform. > > (2) A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being > required to do so by a constable in uniform. > > (3) If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an > offence. Yup, no problem with any of that. But, it doesn't deal with my question.
From: Adrian on 8 Aug 2010 13:47 "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng08(a)yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>>>>> Under what law? >>>>>> The Road Traffic Act. >>>>> There are many, which one? >>>> There is only one Road Traffic Act. >>> Not true. >> There is one act (RTA88) with several amending acts. > Thus there are several acts. Not really. >>>> The subsection I am referring to is the one which gives the police >>>> powers to stop a motorist. >>> Which is? >> You could try RTA88 s163 as a start... >> >> 163 - Power of police to stop vehicles >> >> (1) A person driving a motor vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on >> being required to do so by a constable in uniform. >> >> (2) A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being >> required to do so by a constable in uniform. >> >> (3) If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an >> offence. > Yup, no problem with any of that. But, it doesn't deal with my question. I've clearly missed something. I thought you wanted to know which bit of legislation required drivers to stop when requested by the police in uniform - which would include in a marked police car. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody (who wasn't trolling ever so slightly) who would say that lights & siren, in this context, are an unambiguous request to stop. And the answer is RTA88 s163, reinforced (and referenced) by HC106 - and there is, of course, an assumption that a road user is familiar with the HC.
From: Steve O on 8 Aug 2010 14:31 "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng08(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:csCdnRWbuZ7-NMPRnZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > "Steve O" <nospamhere(a)thanks.com> wrote in message > news:8c6fs4Fb74U1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> >> "NM" <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> wrote in message >> news:818cfe14-a4d5-448b-b6fa-f947c170ea87(a)v41g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... >>> On 7 Aug, 14:29, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >>>> "NM" <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>> news:9406553c-28e5-4a21-b31f-abec62d16ca3(a)v41g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > On 7 Aug, 11:10, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >>>> >> "NM" <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>> >>news:73f971cf-4c87-4e10-ac53-601d752bafe4(a)5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... >>>> >>>> >> > On 6 Aug, 22:54, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >>>> >> >> "NM" <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>> >> >>news:186a40ce-eec0-4e43-a9d3-86440a891be5(a)x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... >>>> >>>> >> >> > On 6 Aug, 15:20, Chelsea Tractor Man >>>> >> >> > <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk> >>>> >> >> > wrote: >>>> >> >> >> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:54:01 +0100, GT wrote: >> >>>> >>>> > But really they were enjoying a bit of legalised bullying, as you >>>> > well >>>> > know and can be seen in the video. >>>> >>>> Why would you call it bullying? >>> >>> What would you call several fit active thugs in uniform terrorising an >>> OAP? >> >> They weren't terrorising anyone- they were trying to stop a driver who >> would not comply. > > He was stopped. > >>>> Do you have any other suggestions as to how the vehicle could be >>>> stopped? >>> >>> He did the stopping by himself. there was no need for the thugs. >> >> No, he stopped because the police had deployed a stop stick across the >> road. > > He stopped because a copper in front signalled him to do so. Which gives > the lie to your comment above. > Read the articles A stinger was deployed, but he did not cross it. Do you normally accuse people of lying without foundation, or do you simply just get confused? >> He could have even performed a u-turn, unless he was stopped by the >> officer who "opened" his window. > > Why would he turn round, his destination was in front? To continue trying to get away from the police? I've seen old duffers like that before- they seem to think that if they keep going, the police will eventually give up and go away. > >>>> Or do you think that motorists who fail to stop for the police after >>>> striking one of them should be allowed to go about their business? >>> >>> He wasn't charged with striking one. >>> >> But that is exactly what he did. > > Evidence? His own admission. > >> I assume the police accepted that it was not deliberate, and therefore >> did not charge him with that offence. > > Perhaps they didn't charge him because there was no contact. > >>> Behaviour worthy of 1930's Nazi's in Germany. >> >> Reasonable behaviour, in my opinion. > > Reasonable behaviour for a thug, maybe. > >> The old duffer was lucky - in the US he'd had been fishtailed off the >> road.
From: Brimstone on 8 Aug 2010 16:36
"Steve O" <nospamhere(a)thanks.com> wrote in message news:8c8bgtFhh9U1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng08(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:csCdnRWbuZ7-NMPRnZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> >> "Steve O" <nospamhere(a)thanks.com> wrote in message >> news:8c6fs4Fb74U1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> >>> >>> "NM" <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> wrote in message >>> news:818cfe14-a4d5-448b-b6fa-f947c170ea87(a)v41g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... >>>> On 7 Aug, 14:29, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >>>>> "NM" <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote in message >>>>> >>>>> news:9406553c-28e5-4a21-b31f-abec62d16ca3(a)v41g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > On 7 Aug, 11:10, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >>>>> >> "NM" <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote in message >>>>> >>>>> >>news:73f971cf-4c87-4e10-ac53-601d752bafe4(a)5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... >>>>> >>>>> >> > On 6 Aug, 22:54, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >>>>> >> >> "NM" <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote in message >>>>> >>>>> >> >>news:186a40ce-eec0-4e43-a9d3-86440a891be5(a)x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... >>>>> >>>>> >> >> > On 6 Aug, 15:20, Chelsea Tractor Man >>>>> >> >> > <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk> >>>>> >> >> > wrote: >>>>> >> >> >> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:54:01 +0100, GT wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> > But really they were enjoying a bit of legalised bullying, as you >>>>> > well >>>>> > know and can be seen in the video. >>>>> >>>>> Why would you call it bullying? >>>> >>>> What would you call several fit active thugs in uniform terrorising an >>>> OAP? >>> >>> They weren't terrorising anyone- they were trying to stop a driver who >>> would not comply. >> >> He was stopped. >> >>>>> Do you have any other suggestions as to how the vehicle could be >>>>> stopped? >>>> >>>> He did the stopping by himself. there was no need for the thugs. >>> >>> No, he stopped because the police had deployed a stop stick across the >>> road. >> >> He stopped because a copper in front signalled him to do so. Which gives >> the lie to your comment above. >> > Read the articles > A stinger was deployed, but he did not cross it. > Do you normally accuse people of lying without foundation, or do you > simply just get confused? Your comment about the "stop stick" suggests that it was that which stopped him. You've now admitted that he stopped before crossing it. Therefore he must have stopped in response to a copper's signal. >>> He could have even performed a u-turn, unless he was stopped by the >>> officer who "opened" his window. > >> >> Why would he turn round, his destination was in front? > > To continue trying to get away from the police? > I've seen old duffers like that before- they seem to think that if they > keep going, the police will eventually give up and go away. You seem to think he was trying to get away. He say he believed the matter to have been concluded. Why would he be "trying to get away"? >>>>> Or do you think that motorists who fail to stop for the police after >>>>> striking one of them should be allowed to go about their business? >>>> >>>> He wasn't charged with striking one. >>>> >>> But that is exactly what he did. >> >> Evidence? > > His own admission. The report I read says the he denied the allegation. |