"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "dennis@home"
saying something like:

Well I hope he gets done for no insurance as well as no tax.
The damn

You stupid ****.

Sore point?
I take it you are a poor driver from a comment like that.
Many points?

Instead of posting like an idiot, why not find out a bit of background
first ?

What that Grimly is a pratt, that is evident from *his* post and now it is
evident from yours too.

"geoff" wrote in message
news
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Colin Wilson" o.uk
wrote in message ...
Well I hope he gets done for no insurance as well as no tax.
The damn thing shouldn't have been on the pavement even if it were
taxed.

By a whole 2 inches ? - he tried to conform with the spirit of the
law, and made a minor error.

He said 2 inches, they said half a car.
Looking at the video I expect they were correct.
They claim to have photographic evidence.

I've seen the photo - it's about 9" to a foot over the line

Small wheels then? The wheel was supposed to be on the pavement so they
could attach the clamp.

It was actually parked in a bay off the road, but overhung a bit

according to him, the back bumper was overhanging, but the photo I saw
showed that the nearside rear wheel was outside the parking bay




definitely a case of the difference between the spirit of the law and
strict observance therof

That may or may not be true, for all you and I know he might be running a
car business like they do in places around here.

"Ian Taylor, 40, of Tredworth, said: "I bought the car for my stepson to
do up but it was below economical to do it so it has been parked on the
drive for months.

"I have a SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification) certificate and it has
never been driven on the roads"

But it is parked on them.
No tax and no insurance.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Mark wrote:
If the car was parked on his drive, with a little of the car on the
pavement, why were the NCP involved at all?

The owner had declared SORN -(statuary off road notice) to avoid paying
the VED. But the car was not off road.

Yes it was. It was in a bay off the road ... with the nearside wheel
outside the box

So it wasn't off road.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
.. .
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "dennis@home"
saying something like:

Well I hope he gets done for no insurance as well as no tax.
The damn

You stupid ****.

Sore point?
I take it you are a poor driver from a comment like that.
Many points?

Instead of posting like an idiot, why not find out a bit of
background first ?

What that Grimly is a pratt, that is evident from *his* post and now it
is evident from yours too.

I was referring to the original story - which you seem very ready to
pass judgement on without actually knowing the details



--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
. ..
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "dennis@home"
saying something like:

Well I hope he gets done for no insurance as well as no tax.
The damn

You stupid ****.

Sore point?
I take it you are a poor driver from a comment like that.
Many points?

Instead of posting like an idiot, why not find out a bit of background
first ?

What that Grimly is a pratt, that is evident from *his* post and now it is
evident from yours too.

I was referring to the original story - which you seem very ready to pass
judgement on without actually knowing the details


And you aren't?
At least I did state *if* unlike you!

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Mark wrote:
If the car was parked on his drive, with a little of the car on the
pavement, why were the NCP involved at all?

The owner had declared SORN -(statuary off road notice) to avoid paying
the VED. But the car was not off road.

Yes it was. It was in a bay off the road ... with the nearside wheel
outside the box

So it wasn't off road.

Look eejit

Watch the video

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/g...re/7395452.stm

look and learn - it's on the pavement, you can see the kerb 'n all

just get a clue


--
geoff

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"geoff" wrote in message
news
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Colin Wilson" o.uk
wrote in message ...
Well I hope he gets done for no insurance as well as no tax.
The damn thing shouldn't have been on the pavement even if it were
taxed.

By a whole 2 inches ? - he tried to conform with the spirit of the
law, and made a minor error.

He said 2 inches, they said half a car.
Looking at the video I expect they were correct.
They claim to have photographic evidence.

I've seen the photo - it's about 9" to a foot over the line

Small wheels then? The wheel was supposed to be on the pavement so they
could attach the clamp.

It was actually parked in a bay off the road, but overhung a bit

according to him, the back bumper was overhanging, but the photo I saw
showed that the nearside rear wheel was outside the parking bay




definitely a case of the difference between the spirit of the law and
strict observance therof

That may or may not be true, for all you and I know he might be running a
car business like they do in places around here.

"Ian Taylor, 40, of Tredworth, said: "I bought the car for my stepson to
do up but it was below economical to do it so it has been parked on the
drive for months.

"I have a SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification) certificate and it has
never been driven on the roads"

But it is parked on them.
No tax and no insurance.

Do you need insurance to leave a car on the road? Tax and MOT are a must but
what about insurance if you do not drive the car.

Adam

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Mark wrote:
If the car was parked on his drive, with a little of the car on the
pavement, why were the NCP involved at all?

The owner had declared SORN -(statuary off road notice) to avoid paying
the VED. But the car was not off road.

Yes it was. It was in a bay off the road ... with the nearside wheel
outside the box

So it wasn't off road.

Look eejit

Watch the video

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/g...re/7395452.stm

look and learn - it's on the pavement, you can see the kerb 'n all

just get a clue

Isn't it amazing how its always stupid people like you that accuse others of
being stupid.
Lets just take what you said apart so even you know you are stupid and
finish this..

one: the video is post event so you can't tell if it was on the *road* when
it happened.
two: it is on the *road* in the video
three: the *road* includes the public pavement for car tax and insurance,
etc laws.
four: you are stupid.
five: you are stupid.
Now do you understand?
That is rhetorical by the way as you are so stupid that you don't understand
even now.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in
message ...
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "dennis@home"
saying something like:

Well I hope he gets done for no insurance as well as no tax.
The damn

You stupid ****.

Sore point?
I take it you are a poor driver from a comment like that.
Many points?

Instead of posting like an idiot, why not find out a bit of
background first ?

What that Grimly is a pratt, that is evident from *his* post and now
it is evident from yours too.

I was referring to the original story - which you seem very ready to
pass judgement on without actually knowing the details


And you aren't?
At least I did state *if* unlike you!

Lets look

I have seen the photo taken by NCP showing the position they claim the
car was in when they clamped it

I've seen a video which shows it being in the same place, (but
conveniently nudged back into place) which is on the pavement, off the
road,

I've read a perfectly feasible explanation as to why it was parked there

You on the other hand seem to prefer avoiding letting your arguments get
polluted by facts or evidence

Do you want to stop digging that hole now ?


--
geoff

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Mary Fisher wrote:

Well I hope he gets done for no insurance as well as no tax. The damn
thing shouldn't have been on the pavement even if it were taxed.


I agree with everything you've said.


The road at the end of this one is a sort of minor main road. Ie something
busier than a normal urban side road. Residents often parked half on the
pavement - and often got 'tickets' for doing so.
Then the council introduced resident's parking. And marked out the bays
half on the pavement - exactly where people used to park illegally...

How does that make it legal to obstruct the foot path, or the road?
The A6, near me, has a speed camera on it and I regularly drive past it.
There is a cycle lane on the road and 99% of the time 2 cars parked on
the road, across the cycle way and onto the foot path. I keep meaning to
write to the police to ask if they book someone for speeding, do they
book the visible car that has parked as above.

Dave

geoff wrote:

In message , PeterMcC
writes

Mark wrote in


snip


I wish they would fine drivers around where I live for parking on the
pavement. I'm fed up with having to walk my small children on the
road when taking them to school.


And it makes it so dangerous for the cyclists.

What cyclists ?

They all ride on the pavement around here

Our local council has put cycle lanes on some footpaths that were never
designed to have them. All the white lines were put down along with
pedestrian and cycle symbols, but guess who got the lampposts in the
middle of the path.

On another subject, when did pelican crossings have their sounds for the
blind, telling that it was safe to cross, get removed. They have the
knobbly flag stones but no way to let them know it is safe to cross.


Dave

Mary Fisher wrote:

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Mark" wrote in message
. ..

On Mon, 12 May 2008 19:14:10 GMT, "ARWadworth"
wrote:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/g...re/7395452.stm

Mind you it looks like he has stolen the clamp.

If the car was parked on his drive, with a little of the car on the
pavement, why were the NCP involved at all?

I wish they would fine drivers around where I live for parking on the
pavement. I'm fed up with having to walk my small children on the
road when taking them to school.

Have you complained about it?


I've complained to councillors, the police, Highways, our MP - nothing gets
done.

If there IS room to walk past the car on the pavement I've sometimes bruised
my arm when it's hit the wing mirror - I believe those are quite expensive
to replace ...

Go for the paint, it costs a lot more than a spring back mirror :-)

Dave

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Mark wrote:
If the car was parked on his drive, with a little of the car on the
pavement, why were the NCP involved at all?

The owner had declared SORN -(statuary off road notice) to avoid paying
the VED. But the car was not off road.

Yes it was. It was in a bay off the road ... with the nearside
wheel outside the box

So it wasn't off road.

Look eejit

Watch the video

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/g...re/7395452.stm

look and learn - it's on the pavement, you can see the kerb 'n all

just get a clue

Isn't it amazing how its always stupid people like you that accuse
others of being stupid.
Lets just take what you said apart so even you know you are stupid and
finish this..

one: the video is post event so you can't tell if it was on the *road*
when it happened.
two: it is on the *road* in the video
three: the *road* includes the public pavement for car tax and
insurance, etc laws.
four: you are stupid.
five: you are stupid.
Now do you understand?
That is rhetorical by the way as you are so stupid that you don't
understand even now.

no - I called you an eejit

I also stated that the car was in the same position as the photo taken
by the NCP employee

eejit

end of post

--
geoff

dennis@home wrote:



"geoff" wrote in message
...

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes

In article ,
Mark wrote:

If the car was parked on his drive, with a little of the car on the
pavement, why were the NCP involved at all?


The owner had declared SORN -(statuary off road notice) to avoid paying
the VED. But the car was not off road.

Yes it was. It was in a bay off the road ... with the nearside wheel
outside the box


So it wasn't off road.

Probably not a good point to jump in here, but a couple weeks ago, I
went to buy my morning paper and couldn't park in the lay-by that I
normally use. Turned out to be a good thing really.

NCP (now where have I seen that before) were booking cars in the lay-by.
The yellow lines were all but non existent, had no deliminator bars at
the end of the lines, had traffic calming bult into one end, thus
deleting the end deliminator bar. I went over to talk to him. He was one
of the most ignorant men that I have ever come across. He wouldn't open
up a dialogue, let alone speak to me. I went away in disgust.

Later in the day, I asked our son, who is a police officer in the
Manchester force about it and he more or less said that if there was any
evidence that there had been any yellow lines there, they could issue a
ticket. Now my understanding of the law is that both sides have to play
by the rules. Yellow lines have to be there, be continuous, be marked at
the end of the no parking zone with a deliminator and be of the defined
colour. As I wrote above, the lines have almost been obliterated over
the years. I must take a look in the morning to see if the local scroats
have left the no parking signs up.

Am I wrong, or could Mr. Loop Hole get me off on this?

Dave

Tony Bryer wrote:

On Tue, 13 May 2008 05:14:03 -0700 (PDT) Man at B&Q wrote :

Why should there be any latitude? If people know it's safe to do a few
mph over the limit then they will, making the limit ineffective. We
might just as awell say the limit is 34mph with no latitude.


As speed limits are set in 10mph increments, there's a 50% chance that
34mph is a safe speed.

There is also a 50% chance that your speedo is reading high. The last 3
cars I have bought, all read high at every speed from 30 to 70 MPH
according to a GPS and the police's own speed check trailers (no
cameras, just a speed detector.) One by as much as 4 MPH at 30. At an
indicated 85 MPH, I doubt that any traffic cop would have stopped me and
issued a ticket.

Dave

In message , Dave
writes
Probably not a good point to jump in here, but a couple weeks ago, I
went to buy my morning paper and couldn't park in the lay-by that I
normally use. Turned out to be a good thing really.

NCP (now where have I seen that before) were booking cars in the
lay-by. The yellow lines were all but non existent, had no deliminator
bars at the end of the lines, had traffic calming bult into one end,
thus deleting the end deliminator bar. I went over to talk to him. He
was one of the most ignorant men that I have ever come across. He
wouldn't open up a dialogue, let alone speak to me. I went away in disgust.

Later in the day, I asked our son, who is a police officer in the
Manchester force about it and he more or less said that if there was
any evidence that there had been any yellow lines there, they could
issue a ticket. Now my understanding of the law is that both sides have
to play by the rules. Yellow lines have to be there, be continuous, be
marked at the end of the no parking zone with a deliminator and be of
the defined colour. As I wrote above, the lines have almost been
obliterated over the years. I must take a look in the morning to see if
the local scroats have left the no parking signs up.

Am I wrong, or could Mr. Loop Hole get me off on this?

There is a definition of what yellow lines are

look it up, if they are not continuous, etc, then they can't be legally
binding IMO

See if you can download the first episode of "Dom Joly's complainers"
(which is on CH5 on monday at 10pm), they had someone that who went into
the legalities in sufficient detail to give you an idea

plus, watching a clamper get clamped was also worth a watch


--
geoff

Dave wrote:
On another subject, when did pelican crossings have their sounds for the
blind, telling that it was safe to cross, get removed. They have the
knobbly flag stones but no way to let them know it is safe to cross.

That's why the residential speed limits were introduced. So that
emergency stops can be performed at the point of someone crossing the
road unware of the potential collision heading their way.

Though at higher speeds there are no problems of this nature in other
countries. In Cairo in Egypt, to cross the road on a busy road you just
cross. The drivers will expertly drive about ye and Him above will look
after ye. We have some catching up to do - chicken/dodgems on the M25
anyone?

:-)

--
Adrian C

"ARWadworth" wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"geoff" wrote in message
news
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Colin Wilson" o.uk
wrote in message ...
Well I hope he gets done for no insurance as well as no tax.
The damn thing shouldn't have been on the pavement even if it were
taxed.

By a whole 2 inches ? - he tried to conform with the spirit of the
law, and made a minor error.

He said 2 inches, they said half a car.
Looking at the video I expect they were correct.
They claim to have photographic evidence.

I've seen the photo - it's about 9" to a foot over the line

Small wheels then? The wheel was supposed to be on the pavement so they
could attach the clamp.

It was actually parked in a bay off the road, but overhung a bit

according to him, the back bumper was overhanging, but the photo I saw
showed that the nearside rear wheel was outside the parking bay




definitely a case of the difference between the spirit of the law and
strict observance therof

That may or may not be true, for all you and I know he might be running
a car business like they do in places around here.

"Ian Taylor, 40, of Tredworth, said: "I bought the car for my stepson to
do up but it was below economical to do it so it has been parked on the
drive for months.

"I have a SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification) certificate and it has
never been driven on the roads"

But it is parked on them.
No tax and no insurance.

Do you need insurance to leave a car on the road? Tax and MOT are a must
but what about insurance if you do not drive the car.

I think so, but you would have to check with a lawyer if you want a
definitive answer.
You would need insurance to get the tax of course.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Mark wrote:
If the car was parked on his drive, with a little of the car on the
pavement, why were the NCP involved at all?

The owner had declared SORN -(statuary off road notice) to avoid
paying
the VED. But the car was not off road.

Yes it was. It was in a bay off the road ... with the nearside wheel
outside the box

So it wasn't off road.

Look eejit

Watch the video

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/g...re/7395452.stm

look and learn - it's on the pavement, you can see the kerb 'n all

just get a clue

Isn't it amazing how its always stupid people like you that accuse others
of being stupid.
Lets just take what you said apart so even you know you are stupid and
finish this..

one: the video is post event so you can't tell if it was on the *road*
when it happened.
two: it is on the *road* in the video
three: the *road* includes the public pavement for car tax and insurance,
etc laws.
four: you are stupid.
five: you are stupid.
Now do you understand?
That is rhetorical by the way as you are so stupid that you don't
understand even now.

no - I called you an eejit

I also stated that the car was in the same position as the photo taken by
the NCP employee

So you knew it was on the road when you posted.. talk about idiots.


eejit

end of post

--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
. ..
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when
the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "dennis@home"
saying something like:

Well I hope he gets done for no insurance as well as no tax.
The damn

You stupid ****.

Sore point?
I take it you are a poor driver from a comment like that.
Many points?

Instead of posting like an idiot, why not find out a bit of background
first ?

What that Grimly is a pratt, that is evident from *his* post and now it
is evident from yours too.

I was referring to the original story - which you seem very ready to
pass judgement on without actually knowing the details


And you aren't?
At least I did state *if* unlike you!

Lets look

I have seen the photo taken by NCP showing the position they claim the car
was in when they clamped it

I've seen a video which shows it being in the same place, (but
conveniently nudged back into place) which is on the pavement, off the
road,

I've read a perfectly feasible explanation as to why it was parked there

You on the other hand seem to prefer avoiding letting your arguments get
polluted by facts or evidence

Do you want to stop digging that hole now ?

Why you have dug one quite deep enough for you to never get out.
You really are stupid.

Adrian C wrote:

Dave wrote:

On another subject, when did pelican crossings have their sounds for
the blind, telling that it was safe to cross, get removed. They have
the knobbly flag stones but no way to let them know it is safe to cross.


That's why the residential speed limits were introduced. So that
emergency stops can be performed at the point of someone crossing the
road unware of the potential collision heading their way.

Though at higher speeds there are no problems of this nature in other
countries. In Cairo in Egypt, to cross the road on a busy road you just
cross. The drivers will expertly drive about ye and Him above will look
after ye. We have some catching up to do - chicken/dodgems on the M25
anyone?

:-)

Smiley noted, but this/these crossings are on the A6, the town bypass.
The train station is on the wrong side of the road for the visually
impaired.

Dave

geoff wrote:

In message , Dave
writes

Probably not a good point to jump in here, but a couple weeks ago, I
went to buy my morning paper and couldn't park in the lay-by that I
normally use. Turned out to be a good thing really.

NCP (now where have I seen that before) were booking cars in the
lay-by. The yellow lines were all but non existent, had no deliminator
bars at the end of the lines, had traffic calming bult into one end,
thus deleting the end deliminator bar. I went over to talk to him. He
was one of the most ignorant men that I have ever come across. He
wouldn't open up a dialogue, let alone speak to me. I went away in
disgust.

Later in the day, I asked our son, who is a police officer in the
Manchester force about it and he more or less said that if there was
any evidence that there had been any yellow lines there, they could
issue a ticket. Now my understanding of the law is that both sides
have to play by the rules. Yellow lines have to be there, be
continuous, be marked at the end of the no parking zone with a
deliminator and be of the defined colour. As I wrote above, the lines
have almost been obliterated over the years. I must take a look in the
morning to see if the local scroats have left the no parking signs up.

Am I wrong, or could Mr. Loop Hole get me off on this?

There is a definition of what yellow lines are

look it up, if they are not continuous, etc, then they can't be legally
binding IMO

That is what I thought.

See if you can download the first episode of "Dom Joly's complainers"
(which is on CH5 on monday at 10pm), they had someone that who went into
the legalities in sufficient detail to give you an idea

Will do, but I have to stress, it wasn't my car that got a ticket.

plus, watching a clamper get clamped was also worth a watch

Orgasm tv :-) I love that.

I once paid a visit to Preston's Maplin and got a ticket because I was
not in the store when they called my number plate out. I was outside the
store looking at the shop window display, wondering if I should buy the
helicopter that they had on display. Hence, no cash comes out of my
pocket into that store again.

Dave

In message , Dave
writes
geoff wrote:

In message , Dave
writes

Probably not a good point to jump in here, but a couple weeks ago, I
went to buy my morning paper and couldn't park in the lay-by that I
normally use. Turned out to be a good thing really.

NCP (now where have I seen that before) were booking cars in the
lay-by. The yellow lines were all but non existent, had no
deliminator bars at the end of the lines, had traffic calming bult
into one end, thus deleting the end deliminator bar. I went over to
talk to him. He was one of the most ignorant men that I have ever
come across. He wouldn't open up a dialogue, let alone speak to me. I
went away in disgust.

Later in the day, I asked our son, who is a police officer in the
Manchester force about it and he more or less said that if there was
any evidence that there had been any yellow lines there, they could
issue a ticket. Now my understanding of the law is that both sides
have to play by the rules. Yellow lines have to be there, be
continuous, be marked at the end of the no parking zone with a
deliminator and be of the defined colour. As I wrote above, the lines
have almost been obliterated over the years. I must take a look in
the morning to see if the local scroats have left the no parking signs up.

Am I wrong, or could Mr. Loop Hole get me off on this?

There is a definition of what yellow lines are
look it up, if they are not continuous, etc, then they can't be
legally binding IMO

That is what I thought.

See if you can download the first episode of "Dom Joly's complainers"
(which is on CH5 on monday at 10pm), they had someone that who went
into the legalities in sufficient detail to give you an idea

Will do, but I have to stress, it wasn't my car that got a ticket.

plus, watching a clamper get clamped was also worth a watch

Orgasm tv :-) I love that.

I once paid a visit to Preston's Maplin


Surely, in Preston, one goes to CPC rather than Maplin



--
geoff

geoff wrote:

In message , Dave
writes

geoff wrote:

In message , Dave
writes

Probably not a good point to jump in here, but a couple weeks ago, I
went to buy my morning paper and couldn't park in the lay-by that I
normally use. Turned out to be a good thing really.

NCP (now where have I seen that before) were booking cars in the
lay-by. The yellow lines were all but non existent, had no
deliminator bars at the end of the lines, had traffic calming bult
into one end, thus deleting the end deliminator bar. I went over to
talk to him. He was one of the most ignorant men that I have ever
come across. He wouldn't open up a dialogue, let alone speak to me.
I went away in disgust.

Later in the day, I asked our son, who is a police officer in the
Manchester force about it and he more or less said that if there was
any evidence that there had been any yellow lines there, they could
issue a ticket. Now my understanding of the law is that both sides
have to play by the rules. Yellow lines have to be there, be
continuous, be marked at the end of the no parking zone with a
deliminator and be of the defined colour. As I wrote above, the
lines have almost been obliterated over the years. I must take a
look in the morning to see if the local scroats have left the no
parking signs up.

Am I wrong, or could Mr. Loop Hole get me off on this?

There is a definition of what yellow lines are
look it up, if they are not continuous, etc, then they can't be
legally binding IMO


That is what I thought.

See if you can download the first episode of "Dom Joly's complainers"
(which is on CH5 on monday at 10pm), they had someone that who went
into the legalities in sufficient detail to give you an idea


Will do, but I have to stress, it wasn't my car that got a ticket.

plus, watching a clamper get clamped was also worth a watch


Orgasm tv :-) I love that.

I once paid a visit to Preston's Maplin



Surely, in Preston, one goes to CPC rather than Maplin

I do now :-)

Dave

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Mark wrote:
If the car was parked on his drive, with a little of the car on the
pavement, why were the NCP involved at all?

The owner had declared SORN -(statuary off road notice) to avoid paying
the VED. But the car was not off road.

Yes it was. It was in a bay off the road ... with the nearside wheel
outside the box

So it wasn't off road.

Look eejit

Watch the video

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/g...re/7395452.stm

look and learn - it's on the pavement, you can see the kerb 'n all

just get a clue

Isn't it amazing how its always stupid
people like you that accuse others of being stupid.

How dare you call Maxie stupid! He is a fabulist and plays in a Paddy band!
Maxie knows things that no one else knows. No one else would want to know
what he knows, but that has got nothing to do with it. Maxie also lives In
Watford.

geoff wrote in


In message , PeterMcC
writes
Mark wrote in


snip

I wish they would fine drivers around where I live for parking on
the pavement. I'm fed up with having to walk my small children on
the road when taking them to school.

And it makes it so dangerous for the cyclists.

What cyclists ?

They all ride on the pavement around here

Sorry - I did use an ironic typeface when I wrote it but Usenet just shows
up in plain text

Cars parking on the pavement make it dangerous for the cyclists - geddit?

I'll get me coat...

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Tony Bryer wrote:

On Tue, 13 May 2008 05:14:03 -0700 (PDT) Man at B&Q wrote :

Why should there be any latitude? If people know it's safe to do a few
mph over the limit then they will, making the limit ineffective. We
might just as awell say the limit is 34mph with no latitude.


As speed limits are set in 10mph increments, there's a 50% chance that
34mph is a safe speed.

There is also a 50% chance that your speedo is reading high. The last 3
cars I have bought, all read high at every speed from 30 to 70 MPH
according to a GPS and the police's own speed check trailers (no cameras,
just a speed detector.)

One by as much as 4 MPH at 30.

Probably an illegal car to drive as it has a faulty speedo (the limits -0
+10% at 30 mph).
You can finish the journey but not start a new one until its fixed.


At an indicated 85 MPH, I doubt that any traffic cop would have stopped me
and issued a ticket.

They might on mine, it reads 73 at 70.


Dave

On Wed, 14 May 2008 07:53:10 UTC, "PeterMcC"
wrote:

Sorry - I did use an ironic typeface when I wrote it but Usenet just shows
up in plain text

Cars parking on the pavement make it dangerous for the cyclists - geddit?

Personally, anything that makes pavements dangerous for cyclists is fine
by me! I do all I can.... :-)

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...


On another subject, when did pelican crossings have their sounds for the
blind, telling that it was safe to cross, get removed. They have the
knobbly flag stones but no way to let them know it is safe to cross.

On many controls there's a switch underneat so that the blind can switch on
the audible signals.

Mary


Dave

On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:40:37 +0100, Dave
wrote:

geoff wrote:

In message , PeterMcC
writes

Mark wrote in


snip


I wish they would fine drivers around where I live for parking on the
pavement. I'm fed up with having to walk my small children on the
road when taking them to school.


And it makes it so dangerous for the cyclists.

What cyclists ?

They all ride on the pavement around here

Our local council has put cycle lanes on some footpaths that were never
designed to have them. All the white lines were put down along with
pedestrian and cycle symbols, but guess who got the lampposts in the
middle of the path.

Sounds like a thread from urc!

On another subject, when did pelican crossings have their sounds for the
blind, telling that it was safe to cross, get removed. They have the
knobbly flag stones but no way to let them know it is safe to cross.

The noise upsets Mrs Sproggins' cat in No 25, so they switched it off.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Dave" wrote in message
...


On another subject, when did pelican crossings have their sounds for the
blind, telling that it was safe to cross, get removed. They have the
knobbly flag stones but no way to let them know it is safe to cross.

On many controls there's a switch underneat so that the blind can switch
on the audible signals.

It doesn't work like that.. its a tactile indication that its green, it
works for the deaf too.
The last one I looked at was a little rubber pip that rotates when the
lights are green.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:40:37 +0100, Dave
wrote:

geoff wrote:

In message , PeterMcC
writes

Mark wrote in


snip


I wish they would fine drivers around where I live for parking on the
pavement. I'm fed up with having to walk my small children on the
road when taking them to school.


And it makes it so dangerous for the cyclists.

What cyclists ?

They all ride on the pavement around here

Our local council has put cycle lanes on some footpaths that were never
designed to have them. All the white lines were put down along with
pedestrian and cycle symbols, but guess who got the lampposts in the
middle of the path.

Sounds like a thread from urc!

On another subject, when did pelican crossings have their sounds for the
blind, telling that it was safe to cross, get removed. They have the
knobbly flag stones but no way to let them know it is safe to cross.

The noise upsets Mrs Sproggins' cat in No 25, so they switched it off.

It doesn't work for the hard of hearing so they changed it.

On Wed, 14 May 2008 00:38:28 +0100, Dave
wrote:

[ snip ]

I once paid a visit to Preston's Maplin and got a ticket because I was
not in the store when they called my number plate out. I was outside the
store looking at the shop window display, wondering if I should buy the
helicopter that they had on display. Hence, no cash comes out of my
pocket into that store again.

Write to the manager of Maplins and tell him/her why you will not be
shopping there again. You never know, it might make a difference.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Dave" wrote in message
...


On another subject, when did pelican crossings have their sounds for the
blind, telling that it was safe to cross, get removed. They have the
knobbly flag stones but no way to let them know it is safe to cross.

On many controls there's a switch underneat so that the blind can switch
on the audible signals.

It doesn't work like that.. its a tactile indication that its green, it
works for the deaf too.
The last one I looked at was a little rubber pip that rotates when the
lights are green.

Sorry, I've been misinformed it seems.

My main point, that there is a way of overcoming difficulties for blind
people (and deaf people too!) stands.

Mary

Mark wrote:

On Wed, 14 May 2008 00:38:28 +0100, Dave
wrote:

[ snip ]


I once paid a visit to Preston's Maplin and got a ticket because I was
not in the store when they called my number plate out. I was outside the
store looking at the shop window display, wondering if I should buy the
helicopter that they had on display. Hence, no cash comes out of my
pocket into that store again.


Write to the manager of Maplins and tell him/her why you will not be
shopping there again. You never know, it might make a difference.

I spoke to him immediately after I got the ticket. He spoke a dialect of
bollockese that I did not understand.

Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Mark wrote:




Write to the manager of Maplins and tell him/her why you will not be
shopping there again. You never know, it might make a difference.

I spoke to him immediately after I got the ticket. He spoke a dialect of
bollockese that I did not understand.

A politician who's lost his seat perhaps ...

Mary

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
That's why the residential speed limits were introduced. So that
emergency stops can be performed at the point of someone crossing the
road unware of the potential collision heading their way.

When did the 30 mph limit come into force? Anyone know?

I *think* the '20s.

Reaction time is presumably the same, but stopping distance must have
halved.

I doubt the stopping distance from 30 has changed a great deal. From
higher speeds, yes. Of course you can ignore the HC distances - they have
always been very conservative.

Assuming a vehicle with brakes good enough to lock the wheels then the
stopping distance, at any speed, will be a function of the tyre grip. The
percentage difference with better modern rubber will be the same at any
speed. A 1g stop from 30 mph (about the best a modern car can do) is almost
exactly 30 feet. 50 years ago a 0.75g stop might have been more realistic
which would be 40 ft. Of course modern disc brakes are also less likely to
fade at high speed than drum brakes of yore.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines

Dave wrote:
geoff wrote:

In message , PeterMcC
writes

Mark wrote in


snip


I wish they would fine drivers around where I live for parking on
the pavement. I'm fed up with having to walk my small children on
the road when taking them to school.


And it makes it so dangerous for the cyclists.

What cyclists ?

They all ride on the pavement around here

Our local council has put cycle lanes on some footpaths that were
never designed to have them. All the white lines were put down along
with pedestrian and cycle symbols, but guess who got the lampposts in
the middle of the path.


We have the bloody things in two places that annoy me, one is going up
Watling St, an extremely steep hill leading to the M2, so no great surprise,
you never see a melon head using it - complete waste of money. The other is
in Dock Rd Chatham, which reduces the road from three lanes to two, thus
causing traffic chaos. When the dockyard was open & 10,000 working blokes
used a bike to travel to & from work, there wasn't a cycle lane in sight.

PC ********.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Adrian C wrote:
Dave wrote:
On another subject, when did pelican crossings have their sounds for
the blind, telling that it was safe to cross, get removed. They have
the knobbly flag stones but no way to let them know it is safe to
cross.

That's why the residential speed limits were introduced. So that
emergency stops can be performed at the point of someone crossing the
road unware of the potential collision heading their way.

When did the 30 mph limit come into force? Anyone know?

Reaction time is presumably the same, but stopping distance must have
halved.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2008 07:53:10 UTC, "PeterMcC"
wrote:

Sorry - I did use an ironic typeface when I wrote it but Usenet just
shows up in plain text

Cars parking on the pavement make it dangerous for the cyclists -
geddit?

Personally, anything that makes pavements dangerous for cyclists is
fine by me! I do all I can.... :-)

Death to the melon heads............


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk