Chat & Social > The Bar - General Chat
Fail to stop...
RCRockCrawler:
--- Quote from: "wrecker" ---i agree with the chap whos says about these people who have shiney bmw x5,volvo and so on who think they can get thro,what we can with moded 4x4s
i had it friday,went down this road that was flooded, started to drive in then noticed the x5 was also going for it,
it came up over my bonnet a few times but have made my zuki so it can go that deep and more and when i looked the x5 had stooped,
so i turned round,went back thro and towed him out,got a cheer from the work men over the road too :D
mark
--- End quote ---
It's because these Urban Offroaders think that their 4x4 will just keep going at any speed through the water, so they drown.
If the X5 is rompin' along through a flood, and the Polo is keeping a good bow wave up, who's gonna survive? :lol:
Bob696:
I find the use of a section 59 in this very dubious.
As was said doing him for failing to stop was "a bit iffy" so a section 59 was issued. In what manner did he cause distress to the public? It was said that everyone had a good laugh at his expense, how does this constitute 'distress'?
It does seem to me that section 59's are being used for "annoying a police officer who can't actual get a prosicution because you havn't actualy done anything that is illigal"
Whilst I think that a catchall antisocail behavour charge is a good idea I cant help but feel that leaving it completly in the hands of individuals is a very bad step.
Very worrying.
Highlander1:
Were the signs road closed rectangular or round co's rectangular are advisory and not mandatory so people can drive tround them at their own risk without committing an offence.
Only round road closed signs must be complied with.
Lord Shagg-Pyle:
Bear in mind folks, that if someone drives through a puddle and the spray drenches a pedestrian, that has been held in court to be 'driving without due care and attention'.
So I would say Boggert does have a point.
Also in this modern day and age, if a sign was not put up, and a driver goes round it, floods his car and blows the engine, then I'm sure that a smart alec lawyer would have a crack at sueing the Police, Highways Authority and Council for neglect over failing to warn of a possible danger.
In relation to Section 59, yes, it may seem draconian and I wonder how long it will be before some rambler comes across a 4x4 on a byway, that the rambler considers is being used in an anti-social manner, and the 4x4 gets a notice.
Swings and roundabouts, I'm afraid
Highlander1:
--- Quote from: "Lord Shagg-Pyle" ---Bear in mind folks, that if someone drives through a puddle and the spray drenches a pedestrian, that has been held in court to be 'driving without due care and attention'.
So I would say Boggert does have a point.
Also in this modern day and age, if a sign was not put up, and a driver goes round it, floods his car and blows the engine, then I'm sure that a smart alec lawyer would have a crack at sueing the Police, Highways Authority and Council for neglect over failing to warn of a possible danger.
In relation to Section 59, yes, it may seem draconian and I wonder how long it will be before some rambler comes across a 4x4 on a byway, that the rambler considers is being used in an anti-social manner, and the 4x4 gets a notice.
Swings and roundabouts, I'm afraid
--- End quote ---
By the sounds of it LSP no one was swimming in the pool so no one got splashed :lol:
Trouble with booking everyone for the slightest wee thing is it trivialises the offence so they tend to get watered down by the courts. :lol: :D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version