Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
my rear wheel had a slight
my rear wheel had a slight buckle caused by a spoke nipple being pulled out through the rim
Bloody modern rims!It’s a bumper offending day,
It’s a bumper offending day, even for Garstang High School chucking-out time- £30,000 Mercedes E-Class RK69 OLU, no VED for 7 months, no MOT for 2 months, no Lancashire Constabulary action ever
to see if you are on a police
to see if you are on a police block list!
I am on a police block list! Lancashire Constabulary views reporters of offences as the problem, not the offenders. Hence, the runaway MOT, insurance and VED evasion in Lancashire.
I note car behind is an older
I note car behind is an older Audi, so will probably also be without MOT and the driver of the van behind will have an 80% chance of being on the phone
Nope! Other Audi legit, and even Lancashire drivers aren’t often on the handheld phone on this road. However, to avoid disappointment I’ll present Range Rover Evoque LR67 UMH on the A6
What the Hell?- as they say
What the Hell?- as they say in Back to the Future. I might as well put another one in, to show what happens with a feeble ineffectual duff police force, even though it’s nothing do with cycling- remember Lancashire Constabulary never ever does anything about offences against cyclists, and operates an OpSnapLancs which is simply a bin for videos. HN60 UXW was reported for ‘no MOT’ 6 months ago, and here it is again at kicking out time, Garstang High School
I did laugh out loud at “so I
I did laugh out loud at “so I know the driver is bound to be guilty of something”
A bearded Audi driver with tattoos is 99% likely to be guilty of offences against other road users every day
Do you then report those
Do you then report those without MOT / VED? I believe ANPR only pings on registration numbers which have been entered as being of interest
Nothing is of interest to Lancashire Constabulary!- owing to the implementation of Lancashire Indolence Mode Policing and Lancashire Idleness Associated Response. I could have repeated a photo of MV57 GXO which is seen almost every day around Garstang and which was reported over 6 months ago- he could park that at Garstang Police Station and they wouldn’t stir themselves from the sofa
I do a short trip each day
I do a short trip each day where I check all the vehicles I can. The Audi tank did nothing other than being an Audi, so I know the driver is bound to be guilty of something. There are so many offences in Lancashire, where traffic policing has been completely abandoned…over 5 years of happy VED-free motoring!
continuous stream of police
continuous stream of police stops where they do the stop because there is an issue with the car, it turns out the driver hasn’t had a licence for years and normally unroadworthy, untaxed and uninsured
This is just the same post from me as usual, because it’s now so common: in Lancashire, they just don’t do any police stops because they haven’t worked out how to switch the ANPR cameras on, don’t catch anyone and refuse to do anything about it when somebody catches the villains for them- Lancashire is just a paradise for habitual road traffic offenders. This is 17 SAM (people with personalised plates are inherently suspect) an Audi Q7 Tiger Tank for ubermensch who are too busy intimidating people in smaller vehicles to bother about trivialities like MOT and insurance
one wonders how well CR’s are
one wonders how well CR’s are tracked
My guess is not at all. The police already do their best to ‘not notice’ any previous history of any offences against cyclists
Thanks for your efforts. SJSC
Thanks for your efforts. SJSC do have the Schwalbe 28-451 listed but not in stock. When they’re in stock at the same time as the SKS 20″ mudguards, I’ll get them. For dry roads, the original Vee Tyres 37-451 front tyre still appears normal and the tape reinforcing of the rear is holding with only a small bump discernible while riding. I might then get away with the Vee on the rear with the narrower Schwalbe on the front
“Ride it ’till the tyres wear
“Ride it ’till the tyres wear out”?!
Yes, that seems to be the idea
It has now reached it’s sad
It has now reached its sad and disappointing conclusion: Halfords wouldn’t respond so I had to go ahead with the money claim, which cost £35 initially. Halfords then offered 10% discount on the bike, claiming they couldn’t get hold of any 37-451 tyres, or any other -451 tyres. That would have amounted to £45 only! I refused, pointing out that in addition to the £35 court fee, it would cost about £50 for me to obtain two tyres (remember they advised me to change both when they gave me 2 replacements of the wrong size). I offered to end the complaint for £100. Halfords then offered £90, describing it as a 20% discount. I could see me losing in court if I refused, so I gave in.
There is one small postscript: I had previously offered to take the pair of new incorrectly sized tyres to Halfords Lancaster if they assigned an order number, because I go into Lancaster anyway. They never answered this, and as they went to the trouble of ‘beating me down by £10’, I’m just going to be bloody minded and keep them. They’re no use to me but at least Halfords won’t get them!Of course it’s a dodge! I don
Of course it’s a dodge! I don’t know why the police need to go to the trouble of inventing a new one, though, because there’s such a comprehensive list of non-penalty penalties available to them already. Having a word with’, a warning letter and the comedy course online are all worthless to the victim because there is no deterrent effect. One could argue that the victim does, at least, know what happens to the offender with the CR dodge; however, he also knows what happens when the police gives him a list of outcomes but declares that he won’t be told which one applies- that means the least of the outcomes on the list. In the case of Lancashire’s carefully worded list, that equals ‘no penalty at all’
wrap the bar with old inner
wrap the bar with old inner tube
Good info! I’ve been thinking about this
