Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
You have missed the point!
You have missed the point! ‘Supported Trump’ = a majority of people in the vicinity have voted directly for Trump, or for a politician who supports Trump. That means a high proportion of nutters around on the roads, which means ‘not a good place to be a cyclist’, independent of whether there’s a showcase cycle lane somewhere in the city, or whether some local leader seems reasonable. If that local leader supported Trump that, as I wrote, tells us all we need to know. It’s not quite possible to make the same type of judgements about Tory areas here.
Fair enough, but the article
Fair enough, but the article itself and related articles are dated 2019. The important point is whether this exemplar for cycling infrastructure has supported Trump since then and is likely to support him in the near future. That would tell us all we need to know.
Mercedes abandoned in flooded
Mercedes abandoned in flooded Welney Wash Road in Norfolk
Schadenfreude overload alert!
Exeter Cowick Street crash
Exeter Cowick Street crash with bumper ripped off Audi as it smashes into Mercedes
Not all bad then! 2 guilty cars off the road for a while at least.
For those who don’t know what
For those who don’t know what this is about, it’s PJ07 XHF which is an MOT testing centre van which has no MOT- expired 9.2.23. The discussion was whether they can have an exemption for their own vans, which I doubt. The fact that Lancashire police has done nothing about the report doesn’t help as they never do anything about reports of traffic offences anyway, and have essentially legalised not only ‘not bothering with an MOT’, but ‘not bothering with MOT after you’ve failed MOT for 4 major defects’: DS13 ATX. So in Lancashire, offending drivers can expect to carry on without any problems
male-to-female athletes might
male-to-female athletes might need to be separated from female-to-male athletes
Are there any of the latter?
However, that doesn’t seem to
However, that doesn’t seem to be what most trans athletes desire – as I understand it they wish to be treated the same as if they had been assigned their chosen gender at birth
I’m sure they do, but that’s not what most XX female athletes want as I understand it, or what the World Athletics Council has wisely decided
No, that’s a misunderstanding
No, that’s a misunderstanding. This is a legal method for companies with lots of vehicles, and maybe it’s only HGVs, PSVs…, to set up their own testing centre to arrange MOTs at their own convenience. Travellers previously had them done at an HGV testing centre nearby run by a company for its own convenience. It appears that this procedure does not result in a formal MOT that is logged at DVSA when it’s your OWN testing centre, but there is a formal pass when it’s another company’s OWN testing centre. I can’t see that this system could apply to a small MOT garage, and I don’t know if they’re allowed to test their own vehicles or they have to take them to another testing centre
Pretty sure you don’t need an
Pretty sure you don’t need an MOT if you are just driving to and from a test centre. Maybe they are making use of this exemption
Good point!, but I think PJ07 XHF would have to demonstrate a booking for an MOT on each day! Joking apart, this one does seem very odd, and I did consider whether they have some sort of exemption for their own vehicles just like Travellers Choice coaches of Carnforth has recently acquired. What they have done is set up their own testing station, which I gather is then staffed by public testing employees, rather than Travellers employees marking their own homework. I can’t see how this could apply to a small garage. The perplexing feature is that this ‘testing station at home’ doesn’t then issue an official MOT pass logged by DVSA. My attention was drawn to this feature by Lancashire Constabulary doing their own MOTs and by this bus’s MOT expiring on 19.1.23. It seemed improbable that a school bus would take a risk like this, so I looked into it.
In Lancashire, even the MOT
In Lancashire, even the MOT testing garages(link is external) can’t afford MOTs!
Saw it again this morning- still no MOT since 9th February
An utterly stupid dodge since
An utterly stupid dodge since vehicle registration is not PII
Although it makes this a bulky post, I will reiterate what I have written before, now including the Lancashire Constabulary Internal Review, soon to be on its way to the Information Commissioner- an organisation itself so paralysed by backlogs that it has had to apply to the Information Tribunal for extra time to deal with many, many appeals. Anyway, that’s another story. The FOIA is knackered at the moment! However, you have to keep going or the b******s always win!
FoI request to LC, resulting from this offence, and the later letter to me from LC claiming they would be ‘taking action’. Soon after, they ceased to respond to any reports on OpSnap Lancs
https://upride.cc/incident/4148vz_travellerschoicecoach_closepass/
FoI request to LC: This FoI request is for the information held about the action actually taken over this offence against the driver of what was then registered as 4148 VZ, using the information above to identify the offence
Naturally, Lancashire Constabulary refused to even admit that they held any information about what action Lancashire Constabulary had taken against the driver who committed this offence.
The Internal Review confirms this:
Lancashire Constabulary can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any information
relevant to this request as the duty in Section1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemption:
Section 40(5) Personal InformationYour Internal Review has now been considered and I can confirm that the information you are seeking cannot be provided at this time. Having reviewed the exemptions applied I agree that the use of s.40 has been applied correctly. I deem that “information held about the action actually taken over this offence against the driver” is classed as third party information and as such is not accessible to yourself via the FOI process. If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision
Anna Cawley 11044
Information Compliance & Data Protection Advisor
Lancashire Constabulary Data Protection OfficeYou may think this is not relevant to you, but if one bent force gets away with it, it will become the routine response from all the rest of them, from the Ultra-Bent Met emanating outwards. It will end up at the Information Tribunal, because the Commissioner sees it as his role to aid public bodies in evading the intent of the FOIA.
So if there’s a car accident,
So if there’s a car accident, and I have dash cam footage showing it happening, and the police ask for any available evidence to be presented, they can’t have it because I didn’t have a sticker on my car saying I’m recording video?
Not quite. You can send it to them, but they will only accept the report if you agree that your bike, car or legs did display such a notification. They can then later invalidate your report unless you can prove you were actually displaying the notification- I have not yet seen any such notification and I insert in my reports a statement that I wasn’t!
Where is a cyclist meant to
Where is a cyclist meant to display such a notice to say they are recording?!?!? Would a GOPRO sticker on your helmet suffice? Crazy.
Clearly you have no experience of Lancashire Constabulary! You’re supposed to display ‘notification that you’re recording’ on your legs if you’re walking or standing! In fact, these are just police dodges so they can claim that people who report offences were lying when agreeing to the statement forced on them by Lancashire Constabulary that they were displaying ‘notifications’. I have still never seen such a notification on a vehicle or cycle around here. I repeat yet again: what would be the consequence if this was a truthful interpretation of GDPR which is touted by LC? Lawyers claiming that they couldn’t see the notification as they zoomed past at 50mph, so therefore the video was inadmissible?! It’s very difficult to conceive of much which is stupider than this
It’s a permanent police
It’s a permanent police excuse, as in the case of the callous killing of the treasured horse, that they’re busy on other calls. Works every time!Sounds like a good case for
Sounds like a good case for increasing the level of punishment that the courts can impose
Agreed, and I’m sure you are aware that the real problems are that the courts don’t impose the punishments they can impose
