You tube (shunt) lorry driver keeps his HGV licence
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 27 May 2010 09:36 On Thu, 27 May 2010 06:22:40 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q" <manatbandq(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >So what's the frequency response of that "low quality, low >sensitivity" microphone? How does it corrspond to the frequencies >being emitted from (a) the scraping of the car (b) the engine noise? I just listened to it again and all I can hear is a load of microphone induced stuff thats probably being created in the filming car, nothing that would tell me there is evidence the lorry is pushing a car along and what does the witness say? "he hasn't even seen it!" -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 27 May 2010 09:39 On Thu, 27 May 2010 14:34:00 +0100, "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote: >OH! He did! he was even praised for his subsequent behaviour. >" > >Nobody questioned that - its the amount of time from the 'joining of >vehicles' to the stopping that is the problem. during which the authorities are satisfied he was unaware of it so is a non issue. -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: bod on 27 May 2010 10:46 Brimstone wrote: > "bod" <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message > news:866rjrF6lmU12(a)mid.individual.net... >> Brimstone wrote: >>> "bod" <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message >>> news:866qevF6lmU6(a)mid.individual.net... >>> >>>> >>>> Like I said at the start of this thread; "Why hasn't she been >>>> nicked for her obvious dangerous driving"? Or at the least, 'driving >>>> without due care and attention'? >>>> >>> I'd guess because it was a damage only incident so the police will >>> leave to the insurance companies. >>> >>> >> But he was taken to court and on the face of it, it was (IMO) her >> fault. Seems a bit one sided? >> > I hadn't realised he'd been prosecuted. As you say, one sided, but > "very" rather than "a bit". > > I thought a judge said he could keep his licence? Bod
From: Adrian on 27 May 2010 10:48 bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> But he was taken to court and on the face of it, it was (IMO) her >>> fault. Seems a bit one sided? >> I hadn't realised he'd been prosecuted. As you say, one sided, but >> "very" rather than "a bit". > I thought a judge said he could keep his licence? The traffic commissioner. He hasn't - afaik - been prosecuted.
From: bod on 27 May 2010 10:54
Adrian wrote: > bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: > >>>> But he was taken to court and on the face of it, it was (IMO) her >>>> fault. Seems a bit one sided? > >>> I hadn't realised he'd been prosecuted. As you say, one sided, but >>> "very" rather than "a bit". > >> I thought a judge said he could keep his licence? > > The traffic commissioner. He hasn't - afaik - been prosecuted. > > Fairyfluff. Bod |