Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I based it on this link
I did say ‘cloned’.
I based it on this link
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/feb/27/number-plate-cloning-drivers-fraud
”Baxter was able to prove she wasn’t guilty as her office car park had CCTV.”You cannot remember whether or not you were at work more than 2 weeks ago?
The 200 miles away thing is over the top, but you might, say, not remember whether you drove or took the train one day two weeks ago.You cannot remember whether or not you were at work more than 2 weeks ago?” At that time I was 200 miles away in Staffordshire, fast asleep, with my car parked outside.”
Or a more simple example of one parent dropping off at the youth club and one picking up. Afer 28 days how are they going to remember which way round it was ?
I don’t see any need for the
I don’t see any need for the 14 days to be changed given the level of technology.
Data is transferred daily to a central point, the dvla database is queried and a letter is sent out the next day.
You have to allow people a reasonable defence and to work out where they were on a given date and who was driving. Say a plate was cloned, if it were 28 days, less opportunity to get cctv that you were at work that day 200 miles away.
I have used one of these
I have used one of these packed out with some spare plastic spacers from older lights (or you could use an old inner tube).
https://www.rosebikes.co.uk/cateye-sp12-replacement-bracket-for-tl-ld611g-787960
Can also use cable ties depending on the diameter of the light.
Basically you are stuffed as you won’t have a way to prove it was late.Good to see Mr Arsehole…sorry, Loophole, is making the roads safer for us cyclists (that he obviously despises), pedestrians and law abiding motorists.There’s a special place in Hell for you Mr Freeman, probably getting your namesake Old Nick off with something (why does the image of Saddam Hussein and Satan from the South Park Movie come to mind…)
Hypothetically speaking, if you were to get flashed by a speed camera on 1 June and, knowing that the ticket if issued would have to arrive by 15 June to be valid, a ticket arrived on 16 June… what would you do. Accept the fine and points anyway, or object?
Obviously if you have never sped (can’t write speeded even though it feels more “correct”) or broken any other driving law, then this is N/A…
Otherwise you apply the NZ trick
Don’t you find it unlikely that out of the 1000s upon 1000s of penalty notices that get delivery correctly, this one doesn’t?It’s not a black and white as that because the NIP is deemed to have been received:
A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) above to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service addressed to him at his last known address, notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received by him.
The requirement of subsection (1) above shall in every case be deemed to have been complied with unless and until the contrary is proved.
I suspect a number of people do receive one late, however a claim of “it was one day late” is pretty unlikely to be accepted.
In this case, there was third party evidence that the NIP was late.
It does seem a bit perverse that the NIP is deemed to have been received but I guess that is simply cost cutting to avoid special delivery costs.
Not a loophole though. The
Not a loophole though. The NIP has to arrive in 14 days if not, then it isn’t valid. This applies to anyone.
I think it was simply to avoid leaving people with no defense if they got one 6 months after the event whereby they could not remember where they were or who was driving.
I can’t see the firm making stuff up, what benefit would there be and wouldn’t they record incoming items such as this as a matter of course ?
Doing 59 in a 40 is ridiculous though.
I love Phishing !
I love Phishing !
Elsewhere the Manchester
Elsewhere the Manchester evening news has
The judge told Benbow: ”You are fortunate indeed that I have faced these facilities myself recently.
“Whilst I am 100pc against your behaviour and losing self control, I am 100pc against the airport behaving in this manner against people who have no or little choice at dropping their families at the airport in this way.
Although I have read some argue this did not affect the judgment.
I made a blunder of reading some DM comments as well.
Elsewhere:
“Sorry your honour, but I had to glass him as I felt the price of a pint was too high and it made me very angry”.
Pitbull Steelers wrote:
The problem is that if the driver decides to go to court and pleads not guilty how do the prosecution prove that the pass was closer than the prescribe limit, whatever that maybe when the law comes into effect ?
Most video footage is from the front or rear and no one can measure the passing distance from footage such as this. It then falls on the onus of the cyclist to say that he / she thought the driver was closer than the limit but i can guarantee that no jury will ever find the driver guilty on a presumed passing distance.
I think you could have an attempt using google maps.
You can measure the width of the road on google maps
You can find out the width of the vehicle from it’s spec.
You can see where the cyclist is.
So then you can work out how far from the cyclist the vehicle should be and compare that with the footage.
So if the offside wheels are barely over the central line, then that should be sufficient in most cases.
Obviously there will be marginal cases that are not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.Sorry, I didn’t fully check
Sorry, I didn’t fully check the link, I assumed (in error) the first part would be the main page the images were on
John Smith wrote:
Automatics creep forward when in drive, so you’d have to be pretty useless to roll back.or a modem automatic, which do roll back a few inches.I have to use the handbrake on mine even on small hills to stop moving forward.
hawkinspeter wrote:
In my view it’s not about having perfect clutch control, but being safe. If you can’t control a car well enough to prevent it rolling backwards whilst performing a standard, common manoeuvre, then you are not safe enough to be on the roads. Would you be able to pass a driving test if you were unable to pull away without rolling backwards?I’d be mortified if I rolled backwards; just shows poor control
He’s one view in the test I found
Do you mean electronic hand brake operated by a button? Otherwise how do you do a hill start ?The driver clearly wasn’t driving with due care and attention, but regarding the handbrake comment, many cars now days comewithout a hand brake. They just have a foot operated park brake. No excuse for the young lady to not hold the vehicle with the brake pedal to make sure it doesn’t roll back into other road users.I notice a lot of drivers
I notice a lot of drivers rollback these days, even on a gentle incline.
I think it’s because they just use the brake, then swap to the accelerator.
The last one rolled back a couple of feet, and I banged on her side panel, as I thought she was going to hit the car behind (I was tucked away in a hatched area out of harm’s way).
And to John Smith, you might want to check the driving test examination about rolling back.
“A Newcastle-based firm of
“A Newcastle-based firm of solicitors, Browell Smith and Co, said there were “fewer restrictions on e-bike use on UK roads than motorbikes yet they do pose an increased risk of danger on the roads”. “
[citation required]
Motorcylists can’t use cycle lanes but can use motorways, so what does the ‘fewer’ refer to?
Increased risk compared to what exactly?
“however, users of e-bikes should be made aware of any potential differences, such as the bike’s weight,”
Let’s ban lardy riders too due to their increased mass.
Let’s see 1500kg vehicle with 70kg person going at 50 kph
v
Ebike 25kg with 70 kg person going at 25 kph
Yep it’s ebike all the way.
