PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

828 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

DancingDad
Posted on: Today, 15:18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,753
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


I would not worry about them digging their heels in, we have had at least one member who managed far more PCNs then you and won most if not all, often on flimsiest of reasons.
Each PCN must be considered on its own merits.
If a council uses previously cancelled as an excuse not to cancel this one they will lose.
You have challenged so we can only wait and see what comes back.

At the moment
You paid... plus mark, not trying to avoid.
You used the recommended app and relied on information that supplied.. evidence of that available... plus mark.
You know that the relevant payment machine allows Ringo payment... Photo evidence ??

I don't think that you are too badly off.
My only concern is if an adjudicator (we always look towards that criteria) decides that by not looking at the machine and double checking you were at fault.
I would be arguing that the recommended app should have shown the machine and that council must ensure that it reliably gives correct information, same as they are responsible for ensuring that correct payment details are on machines.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1473440 · Replies: 11 · Views: 108

DancingDad
Posted on: Today, 14:40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,753
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 13:45) *
But they still don't know who was driving.


At the moment they don't need to.
This is simply an invoice.
Says that the vehicle crossed the bridge and that an amount of toll is owing.
Plus an admin fee.
On it's own it is not enough to progress to court on any of the possibilities within the act.
But that doesn't mean it is not the opening salvo.
I cannot see how we can base advice against what court could do against an invoice.
Against the relevant act and what have been told, yes but not on an invoice unless someone can say, that is all they will send before a summons.

What we do not know is what is likely to happen next should OP ignore.
I think it is fair assumption that if they simply pay, it will all die.
I haven't been able to track down any reports that show the council habitually take people to court but that does not mean they do not.
I have found one where a guy was fraudulently using a SmartCard that they had found to cross without paying.... well over 300 times so that does not really give a good example.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1473435 · Replies: 39 · Views: 813

DancingDad
Posted on: Today, 13:00


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,753
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (Sic vis pacem para bellum @ Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 10:49) *
I should also add the tow truck driver was attempting to break in to my car with a metal thing pushed between the door and window .
This can’t be legal can it ?

Under the instruction/supervision of police cannot see why it would be unlawful.
Not needed with many removal trucks but releasing handbrake is better then damage to tyres/transmission by dragging it.

Under council rules, the charge for removal can only be applied if the vehicle has actually been lifted... with hoist type trucks, all four wheels off the ground.
If that has not happened when the driver returns, all must stop and no charge.
I think that stemmed from a High Court case but would need to research to confirm.

Right to remove stems from Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Regulation 99.
From what you say, there was ample right to remove.
But I believe that right is removed the moment the driver turns up and offers to move the vehicle (not spelt out in Act)
Right to charge for removals comes from RTRA1984 (102)
As far as I can see, that depends on actual removal, not simply turning up or that the tow truck had been called.

Just adding to this.
The actual right of a Constable to remove is within Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986 Regulation 3 and 4.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1473411 · Replies: 10 · Views: 379

DancingDad
Posted on: Today, 12:41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,753
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (baroudeur @ Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 12:20) *
......….Which poses the question - how could a flexible plastic sheet comply?


Can't answer on the bending but for arguments sake, if the sticker is applied to a 1/4" steel plate, it would pass with ease.
I cannot find a copy of BS AU145 (without paying for it) but is there anything in there that allows for a plate designed to be permanently fixed to a substrate to rely on the substrate?

Impact, makers say face is laminated to comply, whether true or not, I cannot say but cannot see why not?
Same with flexing, I would have thought a sticker would pass more easily then a heavier laminated plate.

TBH, I cannot see that magistrates would be interested beyond whether or not there was a credible BS AU mark.
It would be for police or CPS to show why the plate could not comply despite the mark.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1473403 · Replies: 20 · Views: 488

DancingDad
Posted on: Today, 12:21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,753
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (nigelbb @ Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 12:06) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 09:25) *
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 19:57) *
.
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 19:12) *
How is driving over the bridge (which requires a toll to be paid), getting to the toll booths and then driving away without payment not showing intent to avoid paying ?

Because he intended to pay but didn't realise he would not be able to....


That bit is fine, it is what happens next that counts.
Had driver got to the tolls, pressed the button for assistance, explained and then council had progressed it to a summons, I would be first to say prove intent.
But they seem to have made a U turn and deliberately driven away rather then pay.
I see that as little different to going into ASDA to buy something, realising I do not have my wallet and still walking out with my shopping.

Not quite. More like going into ASDA realising I do not have my wallet and still walking out with my shopping then returning with the shopping a little later.

It's clear from the OP that there was no intent not to pay they just were not able to. Why would anyone cross the Itchen bridge in order to do a U-turn & return the way they had come?



Ah well, if we are going to push the analogy, it is going into ASDA, realising no wallet, walking out with shopping anyway and then going back for an item you had forgotten and walking out without paying for that as well.

It is clear that there was no intent to cross the bridge without paying.
And it is what happened when the driver gets to the toll booth that is the issue.
Had they used the intercom and explained, I expect that they would simply have been told pay by phone with an explanation how to do so.
No foul, no crime.

But we are told that they U turned (crime in itself)
Drove away from the toll booths. That is a deliberate attempt to avoid payment.
And crossed the bridge again. Another toll is due and this time, drove over knowing that they could not pay.

OP hasn't said if there was any attempt to explain or not, inference without further input from OP is that there wasn't.

Joyriders BTW...your last question.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1473395 · Replies: 39 · Views: 813

DancingDad
Posted on: Today, 12:05


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,753
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (Audia32011 @ Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 11:33) *
https://www.onestopnumberplates.co.uk/produ...in-digits-only/

My number plate was bought off here they are fully legal plates and have the British standard number on


If you are convinced and have checked (as best you can) against legislation then you need to start thinking on what happens next.
To start that, confirm what you have from the police, I assume a Fixed Penalty Notice ???
It is not a fine that you have to pay though you can if you want to.
Which will (should) tell you what options you have.
ie Pay the penalty and it all goes away, don't pay and may result in a court summons.
Have a read, tell us if it doesn't or ask if anything you don't understand.
Double check if it says that you must do something and what that is.


I am no expert on this side of the forums but AFAIK, if you do not pay, next step will be a summons to court where you can argue your side.
You will need to prepare, it will not be enough to simply say "these comply"
Get a series of photographs with rule against font to show size, spacing etc.
Photos that clearly show the maker's name/details and BS AU mark
Print of regulation font to compare with yours.
Screenshots from maker's site.
Letter from them confirming that they comply to regs and BS AU standard.


It may not get there, when someone has to raise the paperwork for court, they may look again and decide they haven't a case or that it is not in public interest, only time will tell that.


First thing though, check what you have and what you must do with it, it will not be a fine so what is it ?
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1473390 · Replies: 20 · Views: 488

DancingDad
Posted on: Today, 09:41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,753
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (peterguk @ Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 21:15) *
QUOTE (Audia32011 @ Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 19:04) *
It does comply with dvla standards,


Your sticker will not have a BS AU 145d mark because it doesn't comply to BS AU 145d. Start with the bend test.

………..


That is slightly different to stickers are illegal and always have been.
You are likely right on OP's plate not being to BS AU145 or having the appropriate marking but that is not to say that stickers cannot.
A discussion here for the OP that lays out why it is unlikely.
https://www.motoringdeals.co.uk/stick-regis...on-plates-legal
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1473373 · Replies: 20 · Views: 488

DancingDad
Posted on: Today, 09:25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,753
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 19:57) *
.
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 19:12) *
How is driving over the bridge (which requires a toll to be paid), getting to the toll booths and then driving away without payment not showing intent to avoid paying ?

Because he intended to pay but didn't realise he would not be able to....


That bit is fine, it is what happens next that counts.
Had driver got to the tolls, pressed the button for assistance, explained and then council had progressed it to a summons, I would be first to say prove intent.
But they seem to have made a U turn and deliberately driven away rather then pay.
I see that as little different to going into ASDA to buy something, realising I do not have my wallet and still walking out with my shopping.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1473368 · Replies: 39 · Views: 813

DancingDad
Posted on: Today, 08:20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,753
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


Personally I would not mention putting the lad to bed.... phrase it as getting the lad into the house and in the care of your partner, hubby, wife, BFF (whatever applies).
Time allowed for assisting is however long is needed but not one second more.
Getting the lad safely into the house and laid on a sofa or left in pushchair with responsible supervision is what was needed.
Getting him into PJs, reading a bedtime story etc isn't.
Not saying that was what you did but unwelcome inferences can be made.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1473358 · Replies: 18 · Views: 152

DancingDad
Posted on: Today, 08:11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,753
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


It is not only the signs that specifically say On the Markings, it is the legislation that the signs reflects.
The adjudicator has a greater duty then any motorist to learn the rules and this one has failed to.
They have applied their own interpretation.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1473357 · Replies: 62 · Views: 1,148

DancingDad
Posted on: Yesterday, 19:12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,753
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 18:57) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 18:03) *
The Hampshire Act 1983 requires the RK to name the driver, an offence not to do so.
Wording regarding this is within the "invoice"
Turn up in court and state "I was not the driver" and I suspect that the alternative offence would soon be in play.

The legislation says he must provide the driver's details if asked and he commits an offence if he fails to do so (it virtually mirrors S172). But they haven't asked him for the driver's details. They only pointed out that if he was not the driver he must tell them who was. They cannot prosecute him for failing to comply with a request that they did not make. Of course it's still open to them to ask him and if they do he might reconsider his position.

If they took him to court on the basis of the letter they sent him they'd struggle as they have no evidence who was driving and, from its contents, he has no obligation to tell them who was, provided it was him. He doesn't have to say anything in court at all and at the end of the prosecution's case, if they have produced no evidence to show he was the driver, he can make a half time submission of "No Case to Answer"

I also concur with cp's assessment of the "intent" issue and I do not believe the council has all its ducks in a row (if indeed they have all their ducks present).


And we know that there is not another letter waiting in the wings for those who ignore the invoice ?

Maybe I am reading too much into it but I still maintain that for £16 I would not risk it escalating.


How is driving over the bridge (which requires a toll to be paid), getting to the toll booths and then driving away without payment not showing intent to avoid paying ?
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1473280 · Replies: 39 · Views: 813

DancingDad
Posted on: Yesterday, 18:51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,753
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (peterguk @ Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 18:07) *
Self-adhesive number plates have never been legal. ……...


Where does it say that Pete ??
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/561/contents/made

Were common on motors like E Types.... not vertical but that was about the only issue.

The regulations call for many things but do not specify plate material or how they must be fixed in any way that would automatically outlaw stickers.
Reflectivity, size, colour, font, maker's name and AU mark must comply but otherwise ???
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1473274 · Replies: 20 · Views: 488

DancingDad
Posted on: Yesterday, 18:03


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,753
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 17:55) *
In all this excitement haven't we rather lost sight of the fact that under the cited legislation it seems it is the driver who is supposedly responsible for paying the appropriate toll. The letter has been addressed to the OP as the Registered Keeper and takes the leap that he is responsible for payment. They don't know who was driving because they haven't troubled to find out and if they took the matter to the Magistrates' Court they would be required to prove who was.
The Hampshire Act 1983 requires the RK to name the driver, an offence not to do so.
Wording regarding this is within the "invoice"
Turn up in court and state "I was not the driver" and I suspect that the alternative offence would soon be in play.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1473265 · Replies: 39 · Views: 813

DancingDad
Posted on: Yesterday, 17:04


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,753
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


Cannot guarantee a win but worth a shot if you do not mind risking the full amount.

After all, if I see a No Waiting restriction from 8am to 6pm, I would not expect to get done at 6pm.
And many suspension signs we see do include times or wording such as "at all times"
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1473257 · Replies: 10 · Views: 88

DancingDad
Posted on: Yesterday, 16:44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,753
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 16:35) *
……. But at the moment the council has not even clocked the return trip, because they've only asked for £1.20 rather than £2.40.


???? Assuming a car, small van or small 4x4 £0.60 a trip, peak time.
https://www.southampton.gov.uk/roads-parkin...peak-times.aspx


From the previous page
https://www.southampton.gov.uk/roads-parkin.../itchen-bridge/
QUOTE
In the event of a deferred payment please ring the Itchen Bridge office on 023 8043 1040 and have your registration number available to identify the payment.

Given that it is very unlikely that the driver in this case was the first (or would be the last) to get to the barriers without means of payment, I have to suspect that there is a system in place. And that is what the deferred payment refers to.....
"Sorry mate, didn't realise you don't take credit cards"
"No problem, ring this number within 24 hours and pay with your card else we will do you"
Or summat like that?

  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1473252 · Replies: 39 · Views: 813

DancingDad
Posted on: Yesterday, 15:19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,753
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 14:12) *
.....So what would the lawful course of action be in these circumstances?
You've crossed the bridge, bummer you've got no change and didn't realise you couldn't pay by card, you've committed no offence...……..

Cannot agree that no offence has been committed.
The toll is for driving across the bridge.
It is payable at the toll booth on exit.
If it is not paid, there is the offence.
By turning around and driving away, the intent to avoid payment is complete.
All very well and good about going on about options but you have to include contacting the authority.
I think the booths are manned (may be wrong) and certainly can see big signs on the booths saying stay in vehicle, use intercom for assistance.

I see this as an easy win at magistrates, did the driver (who must be named else RK risks a trip to court for failing to supply) pay the toll?
Did the driver perform a U turn to drive away without payment? (The U turn bit is only relevant as it shows a deliberate act to avoid paying.)
Did they cross the bridge a second time?
Did they at any time attempt to contact someone in authority?

Fully accept it may not go there, cannot guarantee whether council will take action or not.
But they can.
Fully accept that £200 is unlikely as that is the max but even a 50 quid fine is likely to double with costs.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1473242 · Replies: 39 · Views: 813

DancingDad
Posted on: Yesterday, 13:14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,753
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 13:02) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 08:53) *
Easy to see the lack of intent on the first crossing but on the return trip?
U turn and drive back over seems a clear intention not to pay.
Only defence I see is if the driver took steps to inform the toll operators of their problem?

Firstly I doubt the return crossing would be seen as a "return trip", in light of the fact that the first trip was aborted due to the impossibility to effect payment so that it should be seen as one continuous crossing. However even if it is a separate trip, no way of paying whatsoever was on offer for the return trip as there are no toll booths in the other direction, a defence of duress of circumstances therefore arises: If (due to the lack of intent to avoid payment) the first crossing was lawful, and it isn't possible to proceed further without committing an offence (i.e. smashing through the barriers), it cannot be an offence to turn back over the bridge (because otherwise someone who's not committed any offence finds himself in a "trap" from which no lawful escape is possible without committing some offence or another, and the courts will not accept Parliament intended to create a "no fault" offence in the absence of explicit words to that effect).

That's quite aside from the fact that I doubt it would even occur to the council to lay a charge for the return trip.

I think this case quite clearly demonstrates why most road traffic offences are strict liability: Once you introduce a mental element, these sorts of technical regulations become very hard to enforce. To be honest I suspect if the legislation were enacted today, it would be strict liability.


Toll is payable both ways and is for crossing the bridge, not passing the Toll Booths.
Toll Booths are manned (or look it on GSV) plus you can guarantee there will be help phones.

To me that makes it one inadvertent trip over the bridge before realising they could not make payment then a deliberate return trip plus no attempt to pay for the unintentional..... which makes that intent to avoid payment.

Sorry CP, you know I have a lot of respect for your acumen but in this case, to suggest fighting is asking for a (possible) £200 fine in Maggie court against paying the actual tolls and a small admin fee.

No Brainer to me.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1473222 · Replies: 39 · Views: 813

DancingDad
Posted on: Yesterday, 08:53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,753
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


Easy to see the lack of intent on the first crossing but on the return trip?
U turn and drive back over seems a clear intention not to pay.
Only defence I see is if the driver took steps to inform the toll operators of their problem?

Remember that magistrates will likely also be shown signage at bridge entry...…
"correct money or smartcard only"
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.8987489,-...33;1b1!2i40
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1473166 · Replies: 39 · Views: 813

DancingDad
Posted on: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 17:37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,753
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE
But Ms Moloney said: "If two people from Cyncoed (an affluent Cardiff suburb) had an argument, would they have arrested a woman from Cyncoed in that manner?

Always love that sort of comparison.
If the woman from Cyncoed had started slagging off the police and caused them to believe that she would become violent, the answer can only be yes.
May have tasered her as well.

It's the age old attitude test isn't it, start resisting and what do they expect the police to do?
Otherwise, don't care if they are travellers or what, come quietly and it is a lot more likely that someone will be arrested with dignity... may have been allowed to get some clothes on.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1473089 · Replies: 10 · Views: 339

DancingDad
Posted on: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 17:28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,753
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (oldstoat @ Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 16:55) *
......….the whole point of boxing is to KO your opponent. If a KO was no longer required to win, then headblows would be forbidden



Many boxing matches won on points, KO not required.
Amateur boxing requires head guards, certainly reducing chances of a KO.

It may well be a case in the future that headguards are introduced into professional, probably after the next tragedy or two but I still cannot see an injury as a by product of the sport being seen as assault.
Biting off someone's ear or a deliberate headbutt, actions outside of the rules of the sport would IMO be assault and could not be seen as consented to anyway.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1473088 · Replies: 5 · Views: 283

DancingDad
Posted on: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 17:12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,753
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


If I may on Yellow Lines
Restricted parking zones cannot have yellow lines within the zone. Can have bay markings.
Permit parking zones can have yellow lines. But cannot have bay markings for permit holders.

Both inventions of the Devil IMO along with CPZs.

This case is a good example of the failure of signage to adequately convey the restriction.
OP is looking for somewhere to park, finds a road with no sign at the entrance or any overt parking restrictions except for some yellow lines.
Seems to have missed an entry sign someway before they may have even been looking for parking.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1473085 · Replies: 17 · Views: 163

DancingDad
Posted on: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 16:54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,753
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


That'll do nicely.
I often think that a polite request at informal stage can achieve a lot more then slagging them off.
Nice one.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1473079 · Replies: 18 · Views: 212

DancingDad
Posted on: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 14:22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,753
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (TouringMuso01 @ Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 14:15) *
........Ok! I presume it should be quite a brief explanation give the space they lay out for you


Reasons Attached or similar does not take up much room wink.gif
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1473023 · Replies: 197 · Views: 6,544

DancingDad
Posted on: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 13:28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,753
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


QUOTE (Richy320 @ Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 12:29) *
To be honest I’m not surprised that this particular law is widely ignored. It’s a nonsense!

The law was a politically driven, ill conceived attempt to rectify a statistically insignificant issue and was based around technology that was obsolete 10 years ago.

Time and again it has been proved that it matters not a jot whether the phone is held in the hand or held in an ‘approved’ cradle. The danger is the distraction.

Phones do so much more than was ever thought of when this law was first introduced. I can check my text messages on my wrist or on my car’s shiny information screen without ever touching my phone. I can check emails or Facebook/chatagram with the phone in a cradle.

The law talks about “using a hand held mobile telephone” yet has never defined “using”. We’ve seen countless examples of the police trying to enforce because they “thought” they saw somebody holding a phone, never mind using it!

This law is not fit for purpose.


Not exactly the sort of law that I see as politically driven.
I'll accept a knee jerk reaction to a developing situation.
Even ill conceived and needs updating to suit more modern phones and usage.

To be honest, even with the Jimmy Carr type defence, I feel that arguments around using are irrelevant.
The crux to me is holding.
And for the life of me cannot see why anyone needs to hold a phone when driving.
It is not as though the world will end if Twitface feeds are not checked for a short while.
Or if a text is not read.
Or that alternatives that allow some use are not available at a cheap cost.... Bluetooth and cradles.

Not much sympathy for anyone copped either, I prefer to be surrounded by drivers not mobile phone zombies.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1473005 · Replies: 21 · Views: 462

DancingDad
Posted on: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 13:16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,753
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559


If you decide not to pay, this will likely go forward to adjudication with the full amount at stake.
To win, you will need to persuade an adjudicator that the signage was inadequate or misleading.
TBH, I don't think you will.
No guarantees on that but certainly none on winning either.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1473003 · Replies: 24 · Views: 635

828 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 24th March 2019 - 16:15
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.