Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
FightBack Forums _ The Flame Pit _ Oh dear, car drivers won’t like this!
Posted by: Richy320 Thu, 16 May 2019 - 07:41
Post #1485502
Motorists naughtier than cyclists? Surely not!
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/cyclists-actually-break-traffic-laws-far-less-drivers-184226919.html
Posted by: ManxRed Thu, 16 May 2019 - 08:30
Post #1485513
I'm Norravinthat.
Come to Brighton, and do your study there!
Posted by: southpaw82 Thu, 16 May 2019 - 09:57
Post #1485541
In Denmark.
Posted by: Tancred Thu, 16 May 2019 - 11:58
Post #1485570
And the UK as well:
https://youtu.be/DBP2LTQxqZ8?t=97
Not that it will in any way stop the usual anti-cycling nonsense about everything being the fault of cyclists because they don't respect the rules of the road.
Posted by: Fredd Thu, 16 May 2019 - 12:07
Post #1485574
And the UK as well:
https://youtu.be/DBP2LTQxqZ8?t=97
Not that it will in any way stop the usual anti-cycling nonsense about everything being the fault of cyclists because they don't respect the rules of the road.
So you're using a video from a clearly partisan Guardian journalist, that acknowledges that UK cyclists frequently break the law, as evidence that UK cyclists are as law-abiding as Danish ones, on the basis that they don't kill many people?
Posted by: southpaw82 Thu, 16 May 2019 - 14:24
Post #1485628
And the UK as well:
https://youtu.be/DBP2LTQxqZ8?t=97
Not that it will in any way stop the usual anti-cycling nonsense about everything being the fault of cyclists because they don't respect the rules of the road.
I’m sure A_F has a phrase for this...
Posted by: Charlie1010 Thu, 16 May 2019 - 15:44
Post #1485653
In my experience many cyclists believe red lights are optional.
I cycle and it’s embarrassing to see. Cities are the worst.
In my town there is a cyclist who does it regularly and has a helmet cam.
The pc who says it’s not dangerous hasn’t had a near miss.
Posted by: andy_foster Thu, 16 May 2019 - 19:25
Post #1485716
The copper was spouting the usual patronising and self-serving bollox - the offences that are easiest to detect/prove are apparently also the ones that cause most of the KSIs, rather than general bad driving.
Obviously cyclists flouting the law (and I have no idea how they managed to find a junction where only 16% of cyclists jumped the lights) poses less of a danger to other road users than similar offences committed by drivers of vehicles with far more momentum/kinetic energy, but since when have motoring offences been prosecuted on the basis of real danger caused on that occasion?
Posted by: seank Thu, 16 May 2019 - 22:26
Post #1485750
Where's notmeatloaf?
He always has a comment about cyclists.
Andy has had a few comments, too.
Usually very amusing, about reading the thread before posting, so as to not look completely stupid.
Shows me that Andy is first class and NML isn't.
Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 17 May 2019 - 05:47
Post #1485775
Im a cyclist and I don’t jump lights, lots of us don’t. I don’t ride on pavements either.
I hate red light jumping cyclists as much as any driver (also a driver of course) as we all get tarred with the same brush.
Posted by: Richy320 Fri, 17 May 2019 - 08:04
Post #1485790
There’s always this fascination with red lights as though, some how, they are sacrosanct. They’re not. In America they manage quite successfully to turn right on red, using them as more of a give way sign. Yes, I know the law, red means stop etc, etc, but sometimes, in the real world, it’s safer all round to treat them more as a give way.
Temporary traffic lights!
If I’m at the front of the queue and I wait until green, I end up with a very impatient queue of car drivers almost pushing me through the roadworks, often trying to squeeze past in a very dangerous manner. If I’m in the middle, the car drivers almost always try and squeeze by as they can’t possibly wait to the end of the restriction and create a gap to the car in front, they might get to where they’re going 5 seconds later and that would never do! If I’m at the end of the queue, by the time I get the the other end of the roadworks, the lights at the other end have gone green and I’m now faced with oncoming traffic accusing me of going through on red, I must have, because their light is green, which means go right, even though I am still clearly coming the other way! No, the road is not clear!
Cyclists are generally far more aware of their surroundings and away from cities it is often far safer to treat some red lights as caution areas, rather than stop signs. If car drivers were a little more considerate then maybe that wouldn’t be necessary but they’re not and it is!
And no, none of that in any way justifies the reckless disregard of red lights and pedestrians we’ve all seen in various YouTube videos!
Posted by: seank Fri, 17 May 2019 - 08:32
Post #1485797
Temporary traffic lights!
If I’m at the front of the queue and I wait until green, I end up with a very impatient queue of car drivers almost pushing me through the roadworks, often trying to squeeze past in a very dangerous manner. If I’m in the middle, the car drivers almost always try and squeeze by as they can’t possibly wait to the end of the restriction and create a gap to the car in front, they might get to where they’re going 5 seconds later and that would never do! If I’m at the end of the queue, by the time I get the the other end of the roadworks, the lights at the other end have gone green and I’m now faced with oncoming traffic accusing me of going through on red, I must have, because their light is green, which means go right, even though I am still clearly coming the other way! No, the road is not clear!
Cyclists are generally far more aware of their surroundings and away from cities it is often far safer to treat some red lights as caution areas, rather than stop signs. If car drivers were a little more considerate then maybe that wouldn’t be necessary but they’re not and it is!
And no, none of that in any way justifies the reckless disregard of red lights and pedestrians we’ve all seen in various YouTube videos!
I think you could do with some education. For a Pound or two, you could buy a Highway Code.
In America, the vast majority of red traffic lights mean stop, just like here. In exceptional cases, there's normally a sign saying it's OK to turn on red. In the UK we are clear:
1. An amber light and a red light mean stop. There is some leeway for amber.
2. Footpaths are for pedestrians.
3. One way streets are to travel only in the direction of the arrow.
4. No entry signs mean just that.
5. It's your choice to cycle and pay no road tax, no insurance, carry no number plates and benefit from advanced stop lines at junctions, but you have to obey the law.
6. If you take something from a shop, you have to pay for it. It's called adherence to the law.
7. If you go through a red light, you might meet someone like me coming through against you. I have a high tensile steel cage, seatbelts, airbags and crumple zones in a 2-tonne vehicle. You have Lycra. Do you imagine I won't squash you?
Posted by: Charlie1010 Fri, 17 May 2019 - 08:50
Post #1485804
The near miss was me crossing the road green man red lights etc and Larry Lycra shaved my rh sideburn.
Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 17 May 2019 - 08:55
Post #1485805
2. Well except for those which are changed to shared use (Presuming you actually mean footways?)
As for your rant, Richy wasn't advocating any of those, so why insult our intelligence by stating it as if he was?
Posted by: seank Fri, 17 May 2019 - 09:03
Post #1485806
I mean footpaths, as I'm sure you very well know.
There was no rant from me, just a statement of facts.
I took exception to his first paragraph.
There’s always this fascination with red lights as though, some how, they are sacrosanct. They’re not.
Yes, I know the law, red means stop etc, etc, but sometimes, in the real world....
There is no real world, virtual world, imaginary world or any other. If a cyclist chooses to ignore the law and travels in front of me, I think I've made my position clear.
There is too much nonsense now. People seem to be innumerate, illiterate and generally know little. The UK is rated 36th place in the international Pisa comparison tables for student ability, yet I can't ever remember a completely useless teacher being sacked.
In my opinion (and everyone has one) I prefer the German system where people obey the rules and don't try to bend them to suit themselves.
Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 17 May 2019 - 09:08
Post #1485808
Cyclists are allowed on footpaths with the landowners permission.......
Posted by: seank Fri, 17 May 2019 - 09:26
Post #1485811
The footpaths are public property. The council are public servants, who work for me. I am the landowner.
Have a look at the Youtube "auditors" who stand on the public sidewalk and can photograph anything they like. They go into libraries, Plod shops and council offices, in the public areas.
I think we have a lot to learn in the UK and we generally follow the US after a decade or two.
I don't walk much but, if I did and some Lycra lout was pedalling into my space I think trouble might result. Just like those who deliberately ignore traffic signs.
If I ask them why they're not on the road, in the few cycle lanes, I'm told it's for safety. Their safety. They don't give a flying proverbial about mine.
Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 17 May 2019 - 09:42
Post #1485816
So you do mean footways not footpaths.
The bit next to a road is a footway.
If I ask them why they're not on the road, in the few cycle lanes, I'm told it's for safety. Their safety. They don't give a flying proverbial about mine.
Who on here has suggested its OK to ride on a footway that isn't shared use?
Ironically I don't use delineated shared use as pedestrians are always wandering around in them.
Posted by: Richy320 Fri, 17 May 2019 - 13:07
Post #1485888
Wow, you've got some issues!
Temporary traffic lights!
If I’m at the front of the queue and I wait until green, I end up with a very impatient queue of car drivers almost pushing me through the roadworks, often trying to squeeze past in a very dangerous manner. If I’m in the middle, the car drivers almost always try and squeeze by as they can’t possibly wait to the end of the restriction and create a gap to the car in front, they might get to where they’re going 5 seconds later and that would never do! If I’m at the end of the queue, by the time I get the the other end of the roadworks, the lights at the other end have gone green and I’m now faced with oncoming traffic accusing me of going through on red, I must have, because their light is green, which means go right, even though I am still clearly coming the other way! No, the road is not clear!
Cyclists are generally far more aware of their surroundings and away from cities it is often far safer to treat some red lights as caution areas, rather than stop signs. If car drivers were a little more considerate then maybe that wouldn’t be necessary but they’re not and it is!
And no, none of that in any way justifies the reckless disregard of red lights and pedestrians we’ve all seen in various YouTube videos!
I think you could do with some education. For a Pound or two, you could buy a Highway Code.
In America, the vast majority of red traffic lights mean stop, just like here. In exceptional cases, there's normally a sign saying it's OK to turn on red. In the UK we are clear: Wrong, turning right on red is allowed unless there is a sign prohibiting that
1. An amber light and a red light mean stop. There is some leeway for amber. As I described, not always the safest manoeuvre due to impatient cars trying to push past
2. Footpaths are for pedestrians. Unless they're not, see above
3. One way streets are to travel only in the direction of the arrow. no argument there
4. No entry signs mean just that. unless it says except cycles. A lot do in London
5. It's your choice to cycle and pay no road tax, neither do you - it was abolished in 1937 no insurance, not required by law carry no number plates again, not required by law. It's the same reason that you don't have a rotating orange beacon on your car because you're not a tractor! and benefit from advanced stop lines at junctions, not sure of your point herebut you have to obey the law.
6. If you take something from a shop, you have to pay for it. It's called adherence to the law. quite a jump equating cyclists with shoplifters
7. If you go through a red light, or a green light you might meet someone like me coming through against you. I have a high tensile steel cage, seatbelts, airbags and crumple zones in a 2-tonne vehicle. You have Lycra. Do you imagine I won't squash you? and that, dear reader, is what we are up against!
Posted by: Redivi Fri, 17 May 2019 - 14:49
Post #1485903
Technically Turn Right on Red is a Stop sign not Give Way
You have to come to a halt, however brief
Posted by: seank Fri, 17 May 2019 - 17:14
Post #1485933
The bit next to a road is a footway.
If I ask them why they're not on the road, in the few cycle lanes, I'm told it's for safety. Their safety. They don't give a flying proverbial about mine.
Who on here has suggested its OK to ride on a footway that isn't shared use?
Ironically I don't use delineated shared use as pedestrians are always wandering around in them.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/329
“footpath” means a highway over which the public have a right of way on foot only, not being a footway;
“footway” means a way comprised in a highway which also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only;
Posted by: Richy320 Fri, 17 May 2019 - 19:44
Post #1485961
No, they are not. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of property rights
I really don’t understand this pathological hatred some drivers seem to have for another group of road users.
Footpath/footway - Seank, it’s rarely a good idea to argue semantics with the good folk on here. It generally ends badly!
Posted by: Churchmouse Fri, 17 May 2019 - 21:04
Post #1485979
I don't really care about cyclists and red lights, but I can report that "right turn on red" is a state-by-state law in the US, so whether it is legal or not depends on which state you're in. In California, my ex-home state, it is allowed--after stopping--unless a sign prohibits it. Most drivers, however, treat those red lights the same way they treat stop signs, which is to say: like "give way" signs are here in the UK. There's even a term for it: to perform a "California stop". It's the easiest ticket a cop can write...
--Churchmouse
Posted by: DancingDad Fri, 17 May 2019 - 21:20
Post #1485985
True.
Footways are the things alongside a carriageway, commonly called pavements.
Footpaths are things that go through the countryside (usually) that people can walk along.
Cyclists should not be riding on either of them unless signed to allow it.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/public-footpaths-england-wales
Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 17 May 2019 - 21:24
Post #1485988
“footpath” means a highway over which the public have a right of way on foot only, not being a footway;
“footway” means a way comprised in a highway which also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only;
Yeah, that’s what I said when you were arguing the opposite, nice of you to catch up with me on that.
Not sure why you had to post all that instead of just ‘oops, you’re right, my bad’?
Posted by: andy_foster Fri, 17 May 2019 - 21:37
Post #1485991
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awD1gtpdWIA
Posted by: Charlie1010 Sat, 18 May 2019 - 06:12
Post #1486016
Some sort of know. But sort of.
This is the real story.
It helps when you know but for those who don’t believe anything without a link.
https://www.energy.gov/articles/right-turn-red
Posted by: seank Sat, 18 May 2019 - 07:04
Post #1486018
I have never used the term "footway" in my life.
In Yorkshire, all the pavements are called footpaths.
In America they're called sidewalks.
Who cares?
The reality is that my meaning was very clear throughout my posts here. If I am brought into proximity with a Lycra lout executing what I consider to be illegal behaviour, there may well be trouble ahead.
A Lycra lout deliberately riding through a red light is asking for trouble. One day, he'll surely meet someone like me coming the other way.
As Clint Eastwood said, "Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?"
Lycra versus a 2 tonne vehicle. Do ya feel lucky, punk?
Posted by: The Rookie Sat, 18 May 2019 - 07:36
Post #1486021
The point is if your making legal arguments you have to use the right term, a footway is different legally to a footpath, hence why you need to care, as what you were saying was wrong with respect to footpaths as you meant a footway.
Suggesting you’ll commit a criminal offence in a public forum isn’t very bright I think. As for feeling lucky, no I know many drivers are total bell ends around cyclists and ride appropriately. As I don’t jump red lights or ride on footways and everyone else posting as a cyclist on here says the same then again I don’t understand why you’re ranting AT ALL.
Anyway as no-one here has advocated riding on footway (other than designated shared use) I’m not sure why you’re ranting, and the irony is that the so called Lycra Louts are the least likely cyclists to be on the footway, it’s more usually kids or teens in jeans, Deliveroo or old ladies!
Posted by: samthecat Sat, 18 May 2019 - 08:03
Post #1486025
A Lycra lout deliberately riding through a red light is asking for trouble. One day, he'll surely meet someone like me coming the other way.
Lycra versus a 2 tonne vehicle. Do ya feel lucky, punk?
What you consider illegal behaviour is irrelevant, I hope you don't genuinely think that if someone rides their bike past a red light you would be justified in driving I to them?
Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 18 May 2019 - 08:54
Post #1486031
What about the cyclist who nominally has "right of way" on green but seems deaf and blind to a fire engine ?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6998625/Cyclist-narrowly-avoids-crushed-blue-lighted-fire-engine-making-quick-turn.html
Posted by: seank Sat, 18 May 2019 - 09:29
Post #1486033
Suggesting you’ll commit a criminal offence in a public forum isn’t very bright I think. As for feeling lucky, no I know many drivers are total bell ends around cyclists and ride appropriately. As I don’t jump red lights or ride on footways and everyone else posting as a cyclist on here says the same then again I don’t understand why you’re ranting AT ALL.
Anyway as no-one here has advocated riding on footway (other than designated shared use) I’m not sure why you’re ranting, and the irony is that the so called Lycra Louts are the least likely cyclists to be on the footway, it’s more usually kids or teens in jeans, Deliveroo or old ladies!
I am not likely to change my terminology just because you prefer a different word for footpaths.
Whichever term is used, I object to cyclists using them, when I believe they should be on the road.
In terms of ranting, I sit here calmly, in my home surroundings.
You appear to be so agitated that your typing has gone to pot. Either that, or I refer you to my comments earlier about education.
Nowhere have I suggested that I'd commit a criminal offence. I'd be more than happy to explain to a court that I drove a vehicle across a junction when my light was green, only to come across a cyclist who had mysteriously ignored his red light. It was unfortunate that he was crushed to death, but I was certainly not expecting his illegal ignorance.
This isn't a public forum. It's a private forum to which the public has access. Fredd kindly makes it available to us. What you consider bright isn't my issue. It's clearly yours, or you'd have a life, which would prevent you mega-posting on here all the time.
We plainly have different views and have clashed before. Unpleasant for others to read and rather pointless.
Posted by: Starworshipper12 Sat, 18 May 2019 - 10:19
Post #1486042
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6998625/Cyclist-narrowly-avoids-crushed-blue-lighted-fire-engine-making-quick-turn.html
Absolutely shocking. I do hope the fire engine wasn’t needed somewhere else urgently, and I do hope the cyclist has some kind of charge brought against them.
Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 18 May 2019 - 10:45
Post #1486048
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6998625/Cyclist-narrowly-avoids-crushed-blue-lighted-fire-engine-making-quick-turn.html
Absolutely shocking. I do hope the fire engine wasn’t needed somewhere else urgently, and I do hope the cyclist has some kind of charge brought against them.
With Blues nd Twos going, I suspect the fire engine was already needed somewhere urgent
There will IMO be no chance of any charge against the cyclist.
Within the scheme of things, the fire engine has no right of way nor is there any mandatory requirement to give way to them.
End of the day, the pirrock on the bike could end up with a compensation payout while the engine driver could face careless or dangerous driving charges.
To me the cyclist is a good example of those who do wind up many drivers..."my right of way, I'm coming through and you must avoid me!"
To be fair, many car/van/lorry drivers seem to have the same attitude, it is not all one way.
Posted by: Richy320 Sat, 18 May 2019 - 14:10
Post #1486082
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6998625/Cyclist-narrowly-avoids-crushed-blue-lighted-fire-engine-making-quick-turn.html
Absolutely shocking. I do hope the fire engine wasn’t needed somewhere else urgently, and I do hope the cyclist has some kind of charge brought against them.
Ok, as a cyclist, I’m going to bite here!
At the start of the video, the fire engine is alongside the cyclist and not indicating. The lights turn green and both move forwards. The fire engine starts to indicate left but moves to the right and at no point does the fire engine get beyond the cyclist where he could see the indicator, there don’t appear to be indicators on the side of the fire engine. The cyclist, having seen the fire engine move wide to the right is, therefore, expecting the fire engine to be going either straight on or right but is certainly not expecting to be ‘left-hooked’ by the fire engine.
I agree that there are examples all over the internet of cyclists riding in an appalling manner. This is not one of them.
Unfortunately we don’t see enough of the video to see who was where and at what point but this is certainly a very good example of why cyclists should not go up the inside of large vehicles. The fire engine driver was clearly not using his mirrors.
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 18 May 2019 - 14:26
Post #1486092
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6998625/Cyclist-narrowly-avoids-crushed-blue-lighted-fire-engine-making-quick-turn.html
Absolutely shocking. I do hope the fire engine wasn’t needed somewhere else urgently, and I do hope the cyclist has some kind of charge brought against them.
Ok, as a cyclist, I’m going to bite here!
At the start of the video, the fire engine is alongside the cyclist and not indicating. The lights turn green and both move forwards. The fire engine starts to indicate left but moves to the right and at no point does the fire engine get beyond the cyclist where he could see the indicator, there don’t appear to be indicators on the side of the fire engine. The cyclist, having seen the fire engine move wide to the right is, therefore, expecting the fire engine to be going either straight on or right but is certainly not expecting to be ‘left-hooked’ by the fire engine.
I agree that there are examples all over the internet of cyclists riding in an appalling manner. This is not one of them.
Unfortunately we don’t see enough of the video to see who was where and at what point but this is certainly a very good example of why cyclists should not go up the inside of large vehicles. The fire engine driver was clearly not using his mirrors.
No fire engine was side on ant the pleb rode right into him. Should look where your going not at the front wheel
Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 18 May 2019 - 14:33
Post #1486095
The lights turn green and both move forwards. The fire engine starts to indicate left but moves to the right and at no point does the fire engine get beyond the cyclist where he could see the indicator, there don’t appear to be indicators on the side of the fire engine. The cyclist, having seen the fire engine move wide to the right is, therefore, expecting the fire engine to be going either straight on or right but is certainly not expecting to be ‘left-hooked’ by the fire engine.
I agree that there are examples all over the internet of cyclists riding in an appalling manner. This is not one of them.
Unfortunately we don’t see enough of the video to see who was where and at what point but this is certainly a very good example of why cyclists should not go up the inside of large vehicles. The fire engine driver was clearly not using his mirrors.
No, at the start the cyclist is stationary and the fire engine is overtaking.
Before the cyclist moves off, the engine is ahead with two ruddy great indicators going.
In full view of the cyclist had they looked.... check out start to 4-5 seconds of the video.
The cyclist simply got his head down and pedalled like the clappers with no regard to siren, blue lights, indicators or that they were undertaking a fire engine.
Fully agree that the driver cut across the cyclist and that makes it his "fault"
But that does not excuse the cyclist from using a little common sense, patience and looking at the big red machine making the funny noises.
They put themselves in the position to be wiped out, quite possibly in the driver's blind spot.
How often do cyclists need to be told not to go up the inside of large vehicles at junctions ?
Posted by: Starworshipper12 Sat, 18 May 2019 - 14:37
Post #1486097
Perhaps he was riding one of those fancy cycles that don’t have brakes, so he needed to just keep going...
https://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/crime-court/old-street-cycle-death-rider-says-he-didn-t-know-having-no-brakes-was-illegal-and-denies-being-thrillseeker-1-5153536
Posted by: Richy320 Sat, 18 May 2019 - 15:05
Post #1486103
Yep, you're right, Cyclist was a pillock!
Posted by: seank Sat, 18 May 2019 - 16:13
Post #1486113
Except that the fire engine illegally turned left when there are 2 prominent no left turn signs immediately before the junction.
The cyclist was riding quite correctly and should not have expected the engine to illegally turn left across his path.
Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 18 May 2019 - 16:28
Post #1486117
The cyclist was riding quite correctly and should not have expected the engine to illegally turn left across his path.
Most if not all traffic orders include an exemption for emergency vehicles on a call out.
Those No Left turn signs are S36 signs and carry the exemption within TSRGD.
So not an illegal left turn for the fire engine.
The cyclist (and any driver/rider) should expect the unexpected.
And cannot be said to be riding quite correctly when they ignore (or did not see) the indicators in front of them.
I would have more sympathy had the engine gone past a moving cyclist but they didn't, they passed a stationary one.
Posted by: seank Sat, 18 May 2019 - 19:06
Post #1486171
The exemption requires that emergency vehicle drivers give way, as required, so as to avoid "accidents" like this.
The engine is lit up like a Christmas tree and has sirens wailing, but the cyclist was quite correctly riding his bike and the situation arose because the engine driver failed to give way to him.
The cyclist couldn't have seen the front indicators, not having a mirror on the bike, and there seems to be no side repeaters on the engine. He seems to have his head down and pedalling hard, but that's no excuse for the driver, who should have seen him before cutting across his path.
I'm sure you would say the situation was different if it was a normal heavy goods vehicle and there were no left turn prohibition signs there.
If so, I accuse you of dual standards, just because it's a fire engine.
Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 18 May 2019 - 19:30
Post #1486175
The engine is lit up like a Christmas tree and has sirens wailing, but the cyclist was quite correctly riding his bike and the situation arose because the engine driver failed to give way to him.
The cyclist couldn't have seen the front indicators, not having a mirror on the bike, and there seems to be no side repeaters on the engine. He seems to have his head down and pedalling hard, but that's no excuse for the driver, who should have seen him before cutting across his path.
I'm sure you would say the situation was different if it was a normal heavy goods vehicle and there were no left turn prohibition signs there.
If so, I accuse you of dual standards, just because it's a fire engine.
An exemption is an exemption.
There is no requirement to give way except as would normally be required in the course of driving.
And little if any to give way to traffic behind you that was static.
Yes, you give way if the pirrock is sneaking up the inside, if you see them.
I would also ask you to go back to the start of the video before you accuse me of double standards.
The cyclist was static, the engine overtook.
The cyclist was right behind the engine with a pair of ruddy great indicators flashing in his face.
And still accelerated to try to undertake.
WTF did he think the fire engine was going to do?
Or did he think at all?
Had it been a heavy good vehicle making a (legal) left turn and a cyclist snuck up the inside despite the goods vehicle indicating left, I would be equally as critical of that cyclist.
And equally open to the fact that the lorry driver (or fireman in this instance) was not as aware of what was inside as they should have been.
Posted by: seank Sun, 19 May 2019 - 07:16
Post #1486204
There is no such blanket exemption and the actions of the engine driver were illegal.
I haven't found anything which says the driver could ignore a no-entry ie no left turn sign. Quite the opposite.
Almost every instructional website for emergency vehicle drivers clearly says that what this driver did was not allowed.
Here's an example:
https://drivetribe.com/p/can-emergency-vehicles-break-the-ca-6_ONORZe-9AYB7IkiDw?iid=Hf9PUJesRJCFuaE3IaA7TQ
LAWS WHICH EMERGENCY VEHICLE DRIVERS CAN NOT IGNORE
Emergency vehicle drivers, however, are meant to avoid doing the following, even in an emergency:
· Ignore ‘stop’ or ‘give way’ signs.
· Ignore ‘no entry’ signs.
· Drive through a one-way street in the wrong direction.
· Ignore flashing signs at level crossings or fire stations.
· Cross a solid white line down the middle of the road. That is unless, like for other road users, it is done to pass a stationary vehicle, slow moving cyclist or horse, or a road maintenance vehicle.
Drivers of emergency vehicles may need to ignore other kinds of road signs and regulations, but this depends on the professional judgement of the driver.
Posted by: DancingDad Sun, 19 May 2019 - 09:35
Post #1486219
"Are meant to avoid..." are the telling words, emergency vehicles do all sorts of weird and wonderful things when on a call out and within reason, nobody gives a toss.
Even if it wasn't a fire engine, wasn't an emergency and there was no argument that the turn was totally 100% illegal and should not have been made, why did the cyclist ignore the clear indications that the vehicle was about to turn ???
That another driver is acting illegally doesn't give anyone else the right to drive (ride) into them.
Posted by: seank Sun, 19 May 2019 - 10:18
Post #1486227
The whole business of legislation is as clear as mud in this area.
I wouldn't want to be an emergency service vehicle driver because nothing seems to be defined.
What is very clear is the hypocrisy because it was a fire engine making an illegal turn, whatever exemption may or may not have applied.
Had it been a private HGV driver, most people would have taken the opposite view.
The cyclist didn't seem to be the sharpest tool in the box. Maybe, if he were, he could have afforded a car.
Equally, the fire engine driver failed to see the cyclist before adopting his illegal left turn.
Most "accidents" are caused by multiple factors. Had the cyclist been more aware, had the engine driver checked before his turn..etc.
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 19 May 2019 - 10:40
Post #1486232
A long, long time ago I was working as an HGV driver, pulling wide right to make a sharp left turn. slowed to a crawl checking mirrors all the time. suddenly a motor bike speeds past on the inside. I stopped cursed a fair bit that the idiot could have killed himself. Re check mirrors, but the angle of the vehicle did not give me a good view so had to lean right forward and twist to see behind me through the nearside rear quarter panel. All clear I set of again. Then, a bump and the rear wheel raises up. I think the worst but cant just stop with a 23 tonne truck parked on some one so had to move forward to get the wheel on the ground. I did this then jumped out and ran to the rear to find a teenager getting to his feet trying to drag his mangled motorbike with him. I was so relieved I . I got his reg and asked for name address etc, he said no need it was my fault no need to call the police I am not hurt. then he set off pushing his mangled wreck. I was not having that, but in those distant days before mobile phones I was a bit stuck. Luckily the police station was only about half a mile away so I walked there and reported what had happened.
about 2 months or so later a recieved a letter from the police, the had investigated what had happened, I was exonerated of any blame and the biker was prosecuted.
The cyclist here did exactly the same thing as that biker and was as lucky. Dont blame the driver because all that he could do was not enough blame the cyclist who rode into the side of a fire engine whilst not looking
Posted by: DancingDad Sun, 19 May 2019 - 11:07
Post #1486236
Had it been a private HGV driver, most people would have taken the opposite view...……..
I wouldn't.
That it was an emergency vehicle with blues and twos going makes it more likely (to me) that they may make an unexpected manoeuvre....my attitude is let them get clear, not race them.
But even if it had been an normal HGV or bus or white van, the cyclist ignored clearly visible indicators and still tried to scoot up the inside.
I called them a pillock and I stand by that, they put themselves into the danger zone.
Posted by: southpaw82 Sun, 19 May 2019 - 11:14
Post #1486238
I haven't found anything which says the driver could ignore a no-entry ie no left turn sign. Quite the opposite.
Almost every instructional website for emergency vehicle drivers clearly says that what this driver did was not allowed.
Here's an example:
https://drivetribe.com/p/can-emergency-vehicles-break-the-ca-6_ONORZe-9AYB7IkiDw?iid=Hf9PUJesRJCFuaE3IaA7TQ
LAWS WHICH EMERGENCY VEHICLE DRIVERS CAN NOT IGNORE
Emergency vehicle drivers, however, are meant to avoid doing the following, even in an emergency:
· Ignore ‘stop’ or ‘give way’ signs.
· Ignore ‘no entry’ signs.
· Drive through a one-way street in the wrong direction.
· Ignore flashing signs at level crossings or fire stations.
· Cross a solid white line down the middle of the road. That is unless, like for other road users, it is done to pass a stationary vehicle, slow moving cyclist or horse, or a road maintenance vehicle.
Drivers of emergency vehicles may need to ignore other kinds of road signs and regulations, but this depends on the professional judgement of the driver.
If memory serves, it was a no left turn sign, not a no entry sign. A no left turn sign can only be placed to give effect to a traffic order. Without reading that order you can’t say whether the driver of the fire engine contravened the order as you don’t know what exemptions were in place.
Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 19 May 2019 - 20:56
Post #1486384
Except that there is: CPS guidance is that it will never normally be in the public interest to prosecute an authorised blue light driver who is responding to an emergency and is acting in good faith.
It's a bit like the special police powers that allow them to arrest people arbitrarily: sure if a copper arrests you or detains you without the proper grounds or powers he might commit assault, kidnapping and false imprisonment, but if he was acting in good faith and in accordance with what his superiors told him, the CPS will never allow a prosecution. Take this case for example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/6174801.stm how many of the officers involved have been charged with kidnapping the protesters? Well obviously none.
So sure, emergency workers might be accountable under the law just like everyone else, but they're not really.
Posted by: seank Mon, 20 May 2019 - 08:07
Post #1486437
So sure, emergency workers might be accountable under the law just like everyone else, but they're not really.
Vast numbers of cases support that, but several don't.
I was intrigued by:
Davis v Lisle: CA 1936
February 14, 2017 dls Off Police, Torts - Other,
References: [1936] 2 KB 434, [1936] 2 All ER 213
Coram: Lord Hewart CJ, Goddard J
Ratio: Two police officers, one in plain clothes and the other in uniform, passed by a lorry causing an obstruction in the highway outside a garage. Two men were repairing it. Some minutes later they returned and saw that the lorry had been moved into the garage. They entered the garage to enquire as to the person responsible for the obstruction. The appellant then entered the garage from the street, pushing past PC Rose and saying: ‘What’s this? What do you want here?’; to which P.C. Rose replied: ‘My colleague is a police constable. May we see the person in charge of this vehicle?’ The appellant then in abusive and obscene language said: ‘Get outside – you can’t come here without a search warrant.’ The respondent was in the act of producing his warrant card when the appellant rushed at him and struck him. He was convicted of assaulting and obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty.
Held: Both convictions were quashed. A permission given to enter private property may be revoked, making the visitor a trespasser who is under a duty to leave. The act of producing his warrant card was an assertion by the officer of a right to remain on the premises, which right he did not have. Therefore he could not be acting in the execution of his duty, having hesitated and not leaving promptly when told to leave.
Goddard J held that although the officers, in entering the premises, were not trespassers, they became so as soon as they were told to leave and claimed a right to stay. From that time they were acting other than in the execution of their duty.
Lord Hewart CJ held that by the act of producing his warrant card, the respondent was asserting a right to remain on the premises, which right he did not have.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
• Cited – Wayne Fullard, Ryan Roalfe, Regina (on the Application Of) v Woking Magistrates’ Court Admn (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 2922 (Admin))
The defendants challenged convictions for assaulting police officers acting in the course of their duty. They said the officers were not so acting. The first defendant had been stopped in a vehicle which had left the scene of an accident. At the . .
• Cited – Blench v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2004] EWHC 2717 (Admin))
The defendant appealed against his conviction for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty under section 89. He had argued that he had no case to answer.
Posted by: DancingDad Mon, 20 May 2019 - 08:24
Post #1486441
What's that got to do with the price of chips Sean ?
All it does is confirm what I am sure many know, that police officers have no general right to enter private property without a warrant.
Posted by: seank Mon, 20 May 2019 - 09:45
Post #1486459
It shows that emergency service operators may think they have carte blanche to act as they think fit, but the higher courts don't side with them.
The engine driver may escape prosecution because of the cosy relationship between the CPS and the police, fire service and ambulance crews but it doesn't prevent a sense of injustice and wouldn't stop an aggrieved individual taking a private prosecution.
There is no blanket exemption for them, despite what people might imagine.
What intrigued me about the case I listed was that the magistrates' upheld the charge against the garage, even though plod had no legal right to be in there. The appeal then brought justice.
Posted by: DancingDad Mon, 20 May 2019 - 10:52
Post #1486480
The engine driver may escape prosecution because of the cosy relationship between the CPS and the police, fire service and ambulance crews but it doesn't prevent a sense of injustice and wouldn't stop an aggrieved individual taking a private prosecution.
There is no blanket exemption for them, despite what people might imagine.
What intrigued me about the case I listed was that the magistrates' upheld the charge against the garage, even though plod had no legal right to be in there. The appeal then brought justice.
Any private claim against the driver would IMO fail the moment the cyclist is asked why they ignored the indicators that were right in front of them.
While indicating does not confer any right to manoeuvre, they are there for a purpose, were being used, were easily visible and were ignored.
Even if the cyclist won, contributory negligence would play a huge part in any claim IMO.
On the case, doesn't surprise me that magistrates decided an assault had happened, on the face of it, it did.
Where it was won on appeal was that the second leg, in the performance of their duty, was accepted to have failed.
To me that is a case of the CPS being too greedy and trying for a higher charge, had they stuck with simple assault it may well have won.
Someone comes into my house uninvited and I give them a slapping, I am open to an assault conviction.
If I usher them out with minimum force, unlikely to be upheld.
Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 20 May 2019 - 11:32
Post #1486496
The engine driver may escape prosecution because of the cosy relationship between the CPS and the police, fire service and ambulance crews but it doesn't prevent a sense of injustice and wouldn't stop an aggrieved individual taking a private prosecution.
There is no blanket exemption for them, despite what people might imagine.
I'll bet you £50 that the CPS would take over and discontinue any such prosecution, on the basis that it would not be in the public interest to allow a prosecution to take place. A sense of injustice is all you're left with.
Last time I checked mens rea was an element of assault. I very much doubt the driver intended to assault the cyclist, this is very much why traffic offences are strict liability.
Posted by: seank Mon, 20 May 2019 - 11:53
Post #1486503
The engine driver may escape prosecution because of the cosy relationship between the CPS and the police, fire service and ambulance crews but it doesn't prevent a sense of injustice and wouldn't stop an aggrieved individual taking a private prosecution.
There is no blanket exemption for them, despite what people might imagine.
What intrigued me about the case I listed was that the magistrates' upheld the charge against the garage, even though plod had no legal right to be in there. The appeal then brought justice.
Any private claim against the driver would IMO fail the moment the cyclist is asked why they ignored the indicators that were right in front of them.
While indicating does not confer any right to manoeuvre, they are there for a purpose, were being used, were easily visible and were ignored.
Even if the cyclist won, contributory negligence would play a huge part in any claim IMO.
On the case, doesn't surprise me that magistrates decided an assault had happened, on the face of it, it did.
Where it was won on appeal was that the second leg, in the performance of their duty, was accepted to have failed.
To me that is a case of the CPS being too greedy and trying for a higher charge, had they stuck with simple assault it may well have won.
Someone comes into my house uninvited and I give them a slapping, I am open to an assault conviction.
If I usher them out with minimum force, unlikely to be upheld.
Are you feeling sleepy this morning, DD?
I'd ask you to read the comments I've already written, in answer to your first point.
In my opinion, this "accident" could have been avoided if the engine had been fitted with side repeaters. There are none.
I have already written other factors that could have prevented it, earlier in the thread.
The cyclist was looking forward, with his head canted down and did not look at the rear of the engine in the milliseconds he had before it cut across his path. I'm looking at the DM footage on a Dell Ultrasharp 34" monitor, but if you can see differently, please tell me.
In terms of your second point, the charge was one of:
"assaulting and obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty."
You have to read and understand the whole sentence. There was no second leg. The charge was charged and the higher court found as they did.
Someone comes into your house uninvited and you tell them to leave; if they refuse, they're fair game for "reasonable" force, just as here.
The engine driver may escape prosecution because of the cosy relationship between the CPS and the police, fire service and ambulance crews but it doesn't prevent a sense of injustice and wouldn't stop an aggrieved individual taking a private prosecution.
There is no blanket exemption for them, despite what people might imagine.
I'll bet you £50 that the CPS would take over and discontinue any such prosecution, on the basis that it would not be in the public interest to allow a prosecution to take place. A sense of injustice is all you're left with.
Last time I checked mens rea was an element of assault. I very much doubt the driver intended to assault the cyclist, this is very much why traffic offences are strict liability.
Too much ale this weekend, cp8759?
DD is referring to the Plod assault, not the fire engine.
Do, try and keep up.
Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 20 May 2019 - 15:46
Post #1486585
DD is referring to the Plod assault, not the fire engine.
Do, try and keep up.
I knew skim reading was a bad idea
Posted by: DancingDad Mon, 20 May 2019 - 16:35
Post #1486597
……….
I'm glad you could see that.
I must get myself a super duper mega large monitor so I can see the obvious as well
One has to ask:-
Why wasn't the cyclist looking where they were going?
And considering that they weren't, what difference would side indicators have made ?
BTW, I make your milliseconds more like 4-5 seconds.
From the time that the fire engine goes past the static cyclist to when it starts to make the turn.
Cyclist is oblivious to the engine, indicators or whatever the fire engine was doing.
(On my rather old 19" monitor BTW
)
Posted by: seank Mon, 20 May 2019 - 20:17
Post #1486640
I would say that we are seeing the "accident" from different points of view. Giving a subjective assessment rather than an objective one.
I have already said the cyclist doesn't seem to be the sharpest tool in the box. He appears to be focussing on the two cones at the left of the junction, giving the initial appearance that the street is closed off.
There are 2 other cyclists, on the footpath at the crossing, ready to ride across the main road. They seem to have blocked the available space so the "victim" waited in the cones before them. They also look to have blocked his line of sight into the junction.
I would have expected the engine driver to be more alert or to have received comments from his 4 or 5 passengers, sitting there doing nothing.
He might have been tired, since most firemen have at least 2 proper jobs as they do so little in this one. Who knows?
The road layout looks a complete mess. Traffic furniture and signs everywhere but not looking safe for cyclists or pedestrians. This seems to be standard for London, where several cyclists get knocked over or killed in these situations.
Posted by: Charlie1010 Tue, 21 May 2019 - 04:47
Post #1486673
‘I would have expected the engine driver to be more alert or to have received comments from his 4 or 5 passengers, sitting there doing nothing.
He might have been tired, since most firemen have at least 2 proper jobs as they do so little in this one. Who knows?’
Let’s hope it isn’t your house on fire next time.
I’m sorry but this kind of criticism is unwarranted.
‘Doing nothing’ They are on their way to an emergency.
‘They do so little in this one’ Arrogant comment.
Posted by: seank Tue, 21 May 2019 - 06:37
Post #1486674
He might have been tired, since most firemen have at least 2 proper jobs as they do so little in this one. Who knows?’
Let’s hope it isn’t your house on fire next time.
I’m sorry but this kind of criticism is unwarranted.
‘Doing nothing’ They are on their way to an emergency.
‘They do so little in this one’ Arrogant comment.
I don't know where you live, but here in the UK the fire service is next to redundant. They almost all have day jobs, working for themselves. Haven't you seen all their vans in the fire station car park?
The crew in the vehicle were sitting there, doing nothing. You don't know what they'd be doing upon arrival.
The average fireman "works" 13 hour shifts on nights. The station has lots of settees to sleep on, pool tables, tv sets, DVD players and all the things to keep unemployed people happy.
I know. I've visited several stations.
Posted by: Charlie1010 Tue, 21 May 2019 - 08:52
Post #1486697
I don’t know where you live either.
Airline pilots sit on their backside for hours doing nothing.
Teachers have seemingly long holidays.
Does that mean they are all worthless?
PS being on call for an emergency is not time off. 🤬
Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 21 May 2019 - 11:01
Post #1486733
The crew in the vehicle were sitting there, doing nothing. You don't know what they'd be doing upon arrival.
The average fireman "works" 13 hour shifts on nights. The station has lots of settees to sleep on, pool tables, tv sets, DVD players and all the things to keep unemployed people happy.
I know. I've visited several stations.
You seem to not understand we have two different types of station, manned and unmanned.
The manned stations use permanent employees, the unmanned use retained employees who of course have other jobs.
This will help you not make a buffoon of yourself next time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retained_firefighter
Posted by: DancingDad Tue, 21 May 2019 - 13:33
Post #1486790
Personally I don't give a flying F if firemen sit around all day doing nuffink.
As long as when they have to do something they are available to do it.
That is when they earn their money and are worth every penny.
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 21 May 2019 - 14:27
Post #1486806
Firemen have had their pensions decimated, their wages stagnated and their terms of employment destroyed. Some have second jobs because they have to. They have to enter buildings and recover bodies of babies welded to their mothers through the heat of a fire, face the tragedy that was Grenfell and them be vilified for not doing enough in an attempt to deflect the blame from politicians
the go into buildings filled with smoke searching for people that are not there, because the have taped used syringes to the baloneys and then started the fire to watch
so when someone comes out with the crap about what they do I say. Open your F**king eyes The cyclist road into the fire engine because he was not looking And close your f**king mouth because you know not what you talk about
Posted by: seank Tue, 21 May 2019 - 15:32
Post #1486833
The crew in the vehicle were sitting there, doing nothing. You don't know what they'd be doing upon arrival.
The average fireman "works" 13 hour shifts on nights. The station has lots of settees to sleep on, pool tables, tv sets, DVD players and all the things to keep unemployed people happy.
I know. I've visited several stations.
You seem to not understand we have two different types of station, manned and unmanned.
The manned stations use permanent employees, the unmanned use retained employees who of course have other jobs.
This will help you not make a buffoon of yourself next time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retained_firefighter
Now, I've seen it all.
A chap with no life apart from mega-posting throughout the day and night choosing to call someone a buffoon.
From your previous posts, I'm pleased that your spelling is at least up to the mark. This time.
Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 21 May 2019 - 16:20
Post #1486851
From your previous posts, I'm pleased that your spelling is at least up to the mark. This time.
Ad hominems don’t really help you.
Posted by: seank Tue, 21 May 2019 - 17:22
Post #1486867
From your previous posts, I'm pleased that your spelling is at least up to the mark. This time.
Ad hominems don’t really help you.
I'm not looking for help, thanks.
I have to pay council tax on all my UK properties and the amount going to the fire service is remarkable.
Have you ever asked firemen how many fires they actually extinguish every month?
The answer is negligible as most houses are properly wired, chip-pans are no longer sold and many houses don't have gas appliances. Those that do have flame failure devices incorporated into their appliances.
Large businesses have their own fire crews and equipment.
Most firemen in the public sector sleep all night, on a fully-paid 13 hour shift, then get up and conduct their own private businesses.
It's just a last bastion of British unionism, in need of reform.
Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 21 May 2019 - 17:35
Post #1486872
But when you do have a fire you don’t want them to be 25 minutes from the station.
‘Chip pans aren’t sold any more’, the old chip pan fires were in large regular sauce pans, pretty sure you can still by a sauce pan!
Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 21 May 2019 - 18:43
Post #1486901
seank I think you are to the fire service what sovereign citizens are to the police.
Posted by: seank Tue, 21 May 2019 - 19:13
Post #1486912
‘Chip pans aren’t sold any more’, the old chip pan fires were in large regular sauce pans, pretty sure you can still by a sauce pan!
Back to the same old spelling, or just your education isn't up to scratch.
You could, almost, be a fireman.
Kindly, differentiate "yore, yaw, your, you're and yore", please.
All these dross posts.
When I have a fire, I'd quite like a fire engine stationed exactly outside my houses, engine running.
Perfectly possible, but at what cost to council tax payers?
Full crew, of course.
Can't afford that?
Just station an engine at the end of every single street, then. Waiting, just in case.
Can't afford that? Just station a load of blokes in a public building and ask them to respond once, every month or two. We can always send the whole crew out, in a massive vehicle, to look at hydrants in the street.
English efficiency, oh yeah.
Why is everything in the UK closing down, I wonder?
UK Steel today. Greybull Capital with 0.2% of the world steel market. Or Tata, selling 0.4% of the steel sold across the world, from the world's most dangerous plant.
How many more need to die at Port Talbot? They nearly set the whole plant on fire last week.
The whole UK steel "industry" supplies 0.6% of the world market. Quality an abject failure, compared to Germany.
Price, an abject failure compared to China.
Let's look at Jamie Oliver.
Tefal frying pans rebranded, at double the price.
Little England.
Look at the value of the Pound.
Posted by: Fredd Tue, 21 May 2019 - 19:19
Post #1486913
:
:
I see the nation hasn't completely gone to pot, that's a masterclass in world-class trolling there.
Posted by: seank Tue, 21 May 2019 - 19:23
Post #1486914
:
:
I see the nation hasn't completely gone to pot, that's a masterclass in world-class trolling there.
Well no, actually.
I well remember cp's advice to one Barry Beavis, the chip-shop owner.
Do you recall his fight against Parking Eye?
Do you recall the Supreme Court's verdict?
How did that compare with cp's?
No trolling here, just a correct statement of the facts.
I have seen what a proper solicitor can do. I was present at the trial of David Beckham, and watched the public sector liars ripped to shred by Nick Freeman. (Maybe they were mistaken). It has given me a complete new outlook. I cannot un-see what I saw with my own eyes.
Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 21 May 2019 - 19:33
Post #1486919
I don't, I have no idea what you're on about.
Posted by: seank Tue, 21 May 2019 - 19:41
Post #1486922
I don't, I have no idea what you're on about.
http://www.pepipoo.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t98505.html
Posted by: baggins1234 Tue, 21 May 2019 - 19:51
Post #1486925
Unfortunately nor can we when we read some of the crap you post...
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 21 May 2019 - 19:55
Post #1486930
I've looked and looked and cannot find a post by CP in that thread. And Freeman only used a precedent that was made after Peterguk (where is he by the way) to his case to the appeal court. Before my time on here but IIUC with a lot of help from people here
Bevis was doomed to fail as was Herron and IMO so would any attempt to prosecute the driver of the fire engine for the same over riding reason.
Posted by: seank Tue, 21 May 2019 - 20:00
Post #1486934
Unfortunately nor can we when we read some of the crap you post...
Please explain.
Almost every post on those threads was wrong.
People advising Barry Beavis to take his case all the way to the Supreme court.
He'd win.
He didn't.
People adopting the standard approach to a NIP delivered outside of 14 days to the registered keeper.
Utter nonsense. Nick Freeman showed the forum experts exactly how expert they were, ie not experts at all.
cp makes an awful lot of posts, yet, when you show the idiocy, he claims to be "skim-reading". Oh, yeah.
Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 21 May 2019 - 20:07
Post #1486936
I don't, I have no idea what you're on about.
http://www.pepipoo.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t98505.html
Nothing to do with me?
Yes, it the flame pit I occasionally do, because let's be honest it's just a bit of banter. I'm sure DancingDad won't hold it against me. Most of what goes on in the flame pit, including this exchange with you, is somewhat inconsequential.
Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 21 May 2019 - 20:07
Post #1486937
Which standard approach are you referring to?
I don’t believe anyone on here advised David Beckham, did they? That aside, there are indeed some experts here regardless of your opinion.
Posted by: Starworshipper12 Tue, 21 May 2019 - 20:11
Post #1486939
I’m sorry Sean but I came here for help with a PCN (as lots do). It turned out there was an error on said PCN, and the extremely knowledgeable guys on here helped me to get it cancelled, at no cost to me.
There are many like me, who appreciate this forum and it’s members, who give their time to help others. If you don’t like it then perhaps you can leave us alone and go to Mr Freeman for advice - how much does he charge again??
Posted by: baggins1234 Tue, 21 May 2019 - 20:21
Post #1486942
Unfortunately nor can we when we read some of the crap you post...
Please explain.
The list is long.......
I think your finest hour was the post about the West Mids police video where you made massive assumptions about what had happened when you had no knowledge of the facts.
Having been shot down in flames your absence was conspicuous
Posted by: Starworshipper12 Tue, 21 May 2019 - 20:48
Post #1486950
My favourite parts are the strange vilification of our fire brigades. God forbid one of Sean’s (many) properties catch fire and he gets caught upstairs powdering his nose... fast forward to his screaming out the window ‘I’m sorry firemen! I take it all back!! Heeeeelp!!’
Posted by: baggins1234 Tue, 21 May 2019 - 20:52
Post #1486951
Maybe his mate Nick Freeman can help?
Posted by: TonyS Wed, 22 May 2019 - 11:34
Post #1487083
The answer is negligible as most houses are properly wired, chip-pans are no longer sold and many houses don't have gas appliances. Those that do have flame failure devices incorporated into their appliances.
Statistics are readily available, for example ..
Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 22 May 2019 - 11:47
Post #1487087
To add perspective SFRS has circa 7,800 staff of which just 46.5% (about 3,600) are full time. Circa 6,700 are firefighters (permanent, retained and volunteer unpaid), the rest support staff.
356 stations, so an average of 76.5 fires per station over the year, although its inevitable that the full time manned stations (21% or 75 stations) will have attended more than their fair share, that's why they are the manned stations!
Posted by: Charlie1010 Wed, 22 May 2019 - 12:29
Post #1487099
‘gone to pot’. 😂
Posted by: Tartarus Wed, 22 May 2019 - 16:00
Post #1487163
UK wide stats for 2018...
In the year ending December 2018:
•576,586 incidents were attended by FRSs. This was a two per cent increase compared with the previous year (565,777). This was driven by an increase in the number of fires attended, and in particular, in secondary fires. (Source: FIRE0102)
•FRSs attended 231,122 fire false alarms. This was a three per cent increase compared with the previous year (224,034). Fire false alarms ‘due to apparatus’ accounted for twothirds (66%) of fire false alarms. (Source: FIRE0104)
•Of all incidents attended by FRSs, fires accounted for 31 per cent, fire false alarms 40 per cent and non-fire incidents 29 per cent. (Source: FIRE0102)
Posted by: nigelbb Wed, 22 May 2019 - 18:26
Post #1487195
Public policy on building regulations, flame proof upholstery, smoke alarms etc has been responsible for saving an awful lot of lives over my lifetime but I wonder whether the invention of oven chips might have saved even more?
Posted by: Starworshipper12 Wed, 22 May 2019 - 18:35
Post #1487198
Ah yes, but don’t oven chips need to be stored frozen? I seem to recall a block of flats catching fire due to a malfunctioning fridge freezer. The chip pan fire has been replaced by the frozen food storage fire.
Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 22 May 2019 - 20:14
Post #1487215
Don’t forget the washing machine fires as well.
Posted by: Richy320 Wed, 22 May 2019 - 21:31
Post #1487240
I have to say this is one of the best thread creeps I’ve seen for a while. It was originally just a gentle tease of motorists which ended up at oven chips via the fire brigade! Brilliant!
Posted by: southpaw82 Wed, 22 May 2019 - 22:25
Post #1487250
This thread didn’t creep; it took billy big steps in a completely random direction.
Posted by: thisisntme Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 10:24
Post #1489196
You'd be wrong. In the US, the signs only state when turning right is NOT allowed. There are cities where turning right on red is not allowed at all - NYC being one of them.
Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 23:57
Post #1489312
Surely any conversation about "the US" is pointless as these things are a matter for state law anyway?
Posted by: southpaw82 Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 00:29
Post #1489314
Indeed but IIRC all 50 states have adopted such laws (including DC). IIRC as well, they were prompted by federal law mandating such laws in order to receive certain federal grants (an interesting issue re states’ rights).
Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 13:17
Post #1489365
Indeed but IIRC all 50 states have adopted such laws (including DC). IIRC as well, they were prompted by federal law mandating such laws in order to receive certain federal grants (an interesting issue re states’ rights).
Maybe so but the suggestion above that there is no right turn on red in NYC indicates there is scope for local variations.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)