Printable Version of Topic
FightBack Forums _ The Flame Pit _ Community Speed Watch "breaking the law"
Posted by: southpaw82 Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 17:50
Post #1353010
Pick the bones out of http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5339819/Bentley-driver-caught-speeding-community-volunteers.html
Posted by: Fredd Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 18:24
Post #1353017
I don't suppose he'd care to provide a statement under oath as to his speed, as part of his half-arsed entitled complaint, obviously?
DM Online continues to impress in challenging our notions of what constitutes the depths of journalism.
Posted by: southpaw82 Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 19:05
Post #1353023
I would like to be surprised but I’m not.
Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 19:06
Post #1353024
QUOTE (Fredd @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 19:24)
I don't suppose he'd care to provide a statement under oath as to his speed, as part of his half-arsed entitled complaint, obviously?
DM Online continues to impress in challenging our notions of what constitutes the depths of journalism.
Have you tried Breitbart?
He seems to not understand the difference bwteen breaking the law and not following guidelines. Seeing as how they weren5 trying to enforce anything the worst they did was not do as they had been told.
Posted by: southpaw82 Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 19:19
Post #1353030
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 19:06)
QUOTE (Fredd @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 19:24)
I don't suppose he'd care to provide a statement under oath as to his speed, as part of his half-arsed entitled complaint, obviously?
DM Online continues to impress in challenging our notions of what constitutes the depths of journalism.
Have you tried Breitbart?
He seems to not understand the difference bwteen breaking the law and not following guidelines. Seeing as how they weren5 trying to enforce anything the worst they did was not do as they had been told.
It appears the police don’t either.
Posted by: mickR Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 19:21
Post #1353031
Maybe plod is as ****** off with the jumped up nothing better to do wannabe police OAPs .
Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 19:22
Post #1353032
I see nothing there from the Police? Only the drivers version of what they said, send three and fourpence......
Posted by: The Slithy Tove Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 20:12
Post #1353047
It fails to say what law they allegedly broke. Oh, I know, it's the one that so many OP's on the speeding forum allege when the police "hide" behind the bushes with their speed gun. In other words, no law was broken.
Posted by: buttonpusher Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 21:23
Post #1353070
QUOTE (mickR @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 19:21)
Maybe plod is as ****** off with the jumped up nothing better to do wannabe police OAPs .
I don't think that's very fair, all they are trying to do is slow down drivers and help prevent accidents. If the plod are not able to slow the speeders down then its down to others to try.
Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 21:50
Post #1353081
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 17:50)
Pick the bones out of http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5339819/Bentley-driver-caught-speeding-community-volunteers.html
The best part is "
I drove back to ask them what they were doing and whether they had permission", last time I checked there's no need for anyone's permission to sit in a car holding a speed gun providing the car is legally parked and the keys are not in the ignition. Maybe someone should tell him that?
Posted by: 666 Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 08:50
Post #1353195
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 21:50)
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 17:50)
Pick the bones out of http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5339819/Bentley-driver-caught-speeding-community-volunteers.html
The best part is "
I drove back to ask them what they were doing and whether they had permission", last time I checked there's no need for anyone's permission to sit in a car holding a speed gun providing the car is legally parked and the keys are not in the ignition. Maybe someone should tell him that?
Why no keys?
Posted by: baggins1234 Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 09:08
Post #1353201
I’m really impessed by Mr Higgins for the following reasons.
He can walk at 20 mph....is he in the GB squad for the next Olympics? Or maybe WADA need to investigate?
He admits driving at over the speed limit towards where his children go to school....... what fantastic judgement he has....
What a tosser.......
Posted by: Fredd Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 09:43
Post #1353212
QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 09:08)
What a tosser.......
Doesn't the picture of him next to his car tell you that anyway?
Posted by: baggins1234 Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 09:44
Post #1353213
QUOTE (Fredd @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 09:43)
QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 09:08)
What a tosser.......
Doesn't the picture of him next to his car tell you that anyway?
Absolutely.... plus the fact he associates with the Daily Mail.....
Posted by: DancingDad Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 10:30
Post #1353226
Would that he has admitted rather publically breaking the speed limit, backed by records that the volunteers would have, mean that the police could prosecute?
It does sort off remind me of being pulled by Panda cars and the cop asking what speed was I doing.... Uhm.... rather not say
Posted by: baggins1234 Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 11:05
Post #1353243
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 10:30)
Would that he has admitted rather publically breaking the speed limit, backed by records that the volunteers would have, mean that the police could prosecute?
It does sort off remind me of being pulled by Panda cars and the cop asking what speed was I doing.... Uhm.... rather not say
Doubtful but not impossible.
His admission, although public, isn’t under caution.
The reading obtained by the CSW could be admissible but under cross examination by a defence solicitor their evidence may not stand up to scrutiny.
Posted by: Tartarus Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 11:45
Post #1353257
QUOTE (666 @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 08:50)
Why no keys?
Assuming because people have been prosecuted for using their mobile phone even with the engine off, but the keys have still been in the ignition. Stranger things have happened... such as the police being parked illegally and using a mobile camera device, which I have passed more than once... or basically if I was to park there, I'd get a ticket. So they may have permission, but who can tell?
Posted by: DancingDad Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 11:54
Post #1353260
QUOTE (Tartarus @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 11:45)
QUOTE (666 @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 08:50)
Why no keys?
Assuming because people have been prosecuted for using their mobile phone even with the engine off, ...............
What has mobile phone law got to do with a hand held speed gun ??
Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 11:55
Post #1353261
Most TRO's do not create a restriction on police vehicles parked for police purposes, so usually neither illegal or a contravention (as usually it won'y be illegal anyway as the area will be decrim parking)
Posted by: 666 Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 12:00
Post #1353262
QUOTE (Tartarus @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 11:45)
QUOTE (666 @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 08:50)
Why no keys?
Assuming because people have been prosecuted for using their mobile phone even with the engine off, but the keys have still been in the ignition. Stranger things have happened... such as the police being parked illegally and using a mobile camera device, which I have passed more than once... or basically if I was to park there, I'd get a ticket. So they may have permission, but who can tell?
But there's no suggestion anyone was using a mobile phone ....
Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 13:46
Post #1353305
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 11:55)
Most TRO's do not create a restriction on police vehicles parked for police purposes, so usually neither illegal or a contravention (as usually it won'y be illegal anyway as the area will be decrim parking)
Assuming it was a police vehicle or that community speed watch would be interpreted as a policing purpose.
QUOTE (666 @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 12:00)
QUOTE (Tartarus @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 11:45)
QUOTE (666 @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 08:50)
Why no keys?
Assuming because people have been prosecuted for using their mobile phone even with the engine off, but the keys have still been in the ignition. Stranger things have happened... such as the police being parked illegally and using a mobile camera device, which I have passed more than once... or basically if I was to park there, I'd get a ticket. So they may have permission, but who can tell?
But there's no suggestion anyone was using a mobile phone ....
IIRC, the article said the volunteers were using an app on their phone to measure speed (somehow).
Posted by: Fredd Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 15:21
Post #1353349
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 13:46)
IIRC, the article said the volunteers were using an app on their phone to measure speed (somehow).
There was someone on here a few years ago who was promoting some wonderful software they'd written to do this kind of thing - I remember it because I upset them by showing http://pepipoo.com/files/speedcheck.html. (Apps weren't really a thing then, which is why that demo just runs in a browser.)
Posted by: 666 Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 15:42
Post #1353358
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 13:46)
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 11:55)
Most TRO's do not create a restriction on police vehicles parked for police purposes, so usually neither illegal or a contravention (as usually it won'y be illegal anyway as the area will be decrim parking)
Assuming it was a police vehicle or that community speed watch would be interpreted as a policing purpose.
QUOTE (666 @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 12:00)
QUOTE (Tartarus @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 11:45)
QUOTE (666 @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 08:50)
Why no keys?
Assuming because people have been prosecuted for using their mobile phone even with the engine off, but the keys have still been in the ignition. Stranger things have happened... such as the police being parked illegally and using a mobile camera device, which I have passed more than once... or basically if I was to park there, I'd get a ticket. So they may have permission, but who can tell?
But there's no suggestion anyone was using a mobile phone ....
IIRC, the article said the volunteers were using an app on their phone to measure speed (somehow).
"... hand-held pocket radar kit provided by police ...", whatever that might be.
Posted by: mdann52 Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 17:27
Post #1353391
QUOTE (666 @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 15:42)
"... hand-held pocket radar kit provided by police ...", whatever that might be.
I'm guessing the LIDAR gun
Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 18:17
Post #1353400
Hmm, was reasonably sure it had mentioned a phone app when I saw it.
Posted by: DastardlyDick Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 21:30
Post #1353433
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 18:17)
Hmm, was reasonably sure it had mentioned a phone app when I saw it.
The picture provided - which purports to being taken on the day in question - does appear to show a mobile being used, but there's no mention of it in the report
Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 21:45
Post #1353441
QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 21:30)
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 18:17)
Hmm, was reasonably sure it had mentioned a phone app when I saw it.
The picture provided - which purports to being taken on the day in question - does appear to show a mobile being used, but there's no mention of it in the report
I must have remembered this and recalled the mention of iPhone.
QUOTE
Speedwatch volunteers use a hand held 'pocket radar' kit provided by police, which is about the size of an iPhone and provides an instant digital readout from 600 to 700 yards.
Posted by: notmeatloaf Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 23:04
Post #1353465
The ones for our local one wave the radar gun around as if they're trying to swat a fly. Maybe they're having a seizure. Either way it won't be an accurate reading.
Unfortunately their favourite place was ruined when the council raised it from 30mph to 50mph on account of it being in the middle of the countryside and having no sodding houses on it.
Posted by: mickR Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 10:33
Post #1353523
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 18:17)
Hmm, was reasonably sure it had mentioned a phone app when I saw it.
Yes SP I think it was a related article, I definitely read they used a mobile phone for some part of the operation. But I can't find it either.
Posted by: The Rookie Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 10:39
Post #1353525
Maybe for recording the pings.....
Anyone recall the docusoap they did with a real speed evangelist on speedwatch, the Police ‘sacked’ him as he refused to stop logging cars between 31 and 34 when told to only log those going 35 or more
Posted by: typefish Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 11:37
Post #1353541
A friend of mine has a "community speed watch wall" in his office, adorned with letters from numerous police forces.
The travelling businessman has got to have a some sort of hobby, right?
Posted by: Tartarus Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:02
Post #1353697
QUOTE (666 @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 12:00)
But there's no suggestion anyone was using a mobile phone ....IIRC, the article said the volunteers were using an app on their phone to measure speed (somehow).
Effectively my point was, if you can be prosecuted for using a mobile phone while sitting in a car, with the engine off but the keys still in the ignition, then surely it should also apply to any other device you may hold with one or two hands, as you are not in "full control" of the vehicle? Hence the repliers point that if the people making the speed measurements are sitting in their cars, then they'd better not have had the keys in the ignition, otherwise surely they are breaking the law too.
Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:16
Post #1353714
QUOTE (Tartarus @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:02)
QUOTE (666 @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 12:00)
But there's no suggestion anyone was using a mobile phone ....IIRC, the article said the volunteers were using an app on their phone to measure speed (somehow).
Effectively my point was, if you can be prosecuted for using a mobile phone while sitting in a car, with the engine off but the keys still in the ignition, then surely it should also apply to any other device you may hold with one or two hands, as you are not in "full control" of the vehicle? Hence the repliers point that if the people making the speed measurements are sitting in their cars, then they'd better not have had the keys in the ignition, otherwise surely they are breaking the law too.
Do what?
Static with keys in, presumably engine off and handbrake on is in about as much control as you can get.
And last time I looked is not an offence unless there is something like being over the limit involved.
And a harsh interpretation of mobile phone laws which I understood was using a mobile hand held while driving.
Using hands to peel an orange or set the sat nav while moving can be not being in full control and an offence.
Static, keys in or out, in a safe place and handbrake on.... doesn't really matter what you are doing. (Unless emulating Gillian T)
Posted by: notmeatloaf Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 10:41
Post #1353893
QUOTE (typefish @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 11:37)
A friend of mine has a "community speed watch wall" in his office, adorned with letters from numerous police forces.
The travelling businessman has got to have a some sort of hobby, right?
I found with my local (who patrolled the countryside before the village) if you went fast enough the old folk wouldn't get your speed or numberplate. For whatever reason they always set up on the far side of the road which you'd imagine would give a certain eccentricity to radar gun readings.
Posted by: Lodesman Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 11:45
Post #1353909
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 17:50)
Pick the bones out of http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5339819/Bentley-driver-caught-speeding-community-volunteers.html
From the photographs in SP's article it looks as though they were using this unit,
https://www.ebay.co.uk/i/141914253599?chn=ps&adgroupid=13585920426&rlsatarget=pla-142405554786&abcId=&adtype=pla&merchantid=9550144&poi=&googleloc=1006729&device=c&campaignid=207297426&crdt=0
Posted by: Tartarus Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 13:59
Post #1353951
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:16)
And a harsh interpretation of mobile phone laws which I understood was using a mobile hand held while driving.
Well, exactly, we agree on that. But if they are going to be that strict with the mobile phone laws, then surely it should also apply to any other device you hold in at least one hand? Otherwise, you are then saying mobile phones distract more than anything else, which I don’t think is true.
Posted by: DancingDad Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 14:32
Post #1353953
QUOTE (Tartarus @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 13:59)
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:16)
And a harsh interpretation of mobile phone laws which I understood was using a mobile hand held while driving.
Well, exactly, we agree on that. But if they are going to be that strict with the mobile phone laws, then surely it should also apply to any other device you hold in at least one hand? Otherwise, you are then saying mobile phones distract more than anything else, which I don’t think is true.
But they have decided, in their infinite wisdom (cough) that holding/using a mobile is a specific offence while driving, while on other items, left the possible offences to those like not being in proper control etc.
Far easier to leave out the actual object as this could limit what they can prosecute for.
Personally I reckon that calling up a play list on my iPod is as dangerous as checking a text on my mobile. But the law would deal with either in different ways.
If I was stopped waiting for lights to change, handbrake on, neutral etc, I reckon they would have a hard time prosecuting me for setting my iPod.
But would be an easy collar if it was my mobile in my hands.
(And I may have a hard time proving it was an iPod and not a mobile so I set playlist before I drive off)
Parked up and engine off is debatable in either case.
Posted by: 666 Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 14:33
Post #1353954
QUOTE (Tartarus @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 13:59)
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:16)
And a harsh interpretation of mobile phone laws which I understood was using a mobile hand held while driving.
Well, exactly, we agree on that. But if they are going to be that strict with the mobile phone laws, then surely it should also apply to any other device you hold in at least one hand? Otherwise, you are then saying mobile phones distract more than anything else, which I don’t think is true.
The mobile phone law refers specifically to mobile phones. "They" cannot apply it to other devices just because you think it makes sense.
Posted by: notmeatloaf Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 14:56
Post #1353960
Mobile phone laws are still policed by actual police who can exercise discretion though as are not in proper control and careless driving. I once got a "don't let me see you doing that" warning glance from a passing police van whilst stuck in absolutely gridlocked traffic due to a combination of a broken down lorry and Oxford's inept transport planners. Of course technically guilty as I was driving in a stationary fashion, but I think they recognised people would need to call people to let them know they will be late for work/an appointment/a bit on the side.
After all, where do you draw the line? If you're stuck behind an accident on the motorway and going no-where for the next few hours, do you need to leave your vehicle to make a phone call?
Of course if that had taken place in moving traffic it may be different.
Posted by: Fredd Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 15:06
Post #1353963
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 14:56)
but I think they recognised people would need to call people to let them know they will be late for work/an appointment/a bit on the side.
You don't "need" to phone anyone. Believe it or not, motorways, traffic jams and appointments predate mobile phones by many years, and the Earth rotated about its axis even then without people making phone calls from their cars.
Posted by: mickR Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 15:35
Post #1353969
QUOTE (Lodesman @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 11:45)
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 17:50)
Pick the bones out of http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5339819/Bentley-driver-caught-speeding-community-volunteers.html
From the photographs in SP's article it looks as though they were using this unit,
https://www.ebay.co.uk/i/141914253599?chn=ps&adgroupid=13585920426&rlsatarget=pla-142405554786&abcId=&adtype=pla&merchantid=9550144&poi=&googleloc=1006729&device=c&campaignid=207297426&crdt=0
Clearly not very accurate !.. or the hand was moving at over 90mph!!
Posted by: DancingDad Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 15:54
Post #1353977
QUOTE (Fredd @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 15:06)
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 14:56)
but I think they recognised people would need to call people to let them know they will be late for work/an appointment/a bit on the side.
You don't "need" to phone anyone. Believe it or not, motorways, traffic jams and appointments predate mobile phones by many years, and the Earth rotated about its axis even then without people making phone calls from their cars.
And Bluetooth exists for those who are addicted.
Dirt cheap as well for a simple interface or ear piece.
Or enabled radio.
Though I don't know why cheap is important to anyone willing to pay a small fortune for a phone or contract.
Posted by: notmeatloaf Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 16:21
Post #1353983
QUOTE (Fredd @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 15:06)
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 14:56)
but I think they recognised people would need to call people to let them know they will be late for work/an appointment/a bit on the side.
You don't "need" to phone anyone. Believe it or not, motorways, traffic jams and appointments predate mobile phones by many years, and the Earth rotated about its axis even then without people making phone calls from their cars.
Yes but before mobile phones you weren't expected to call when you were running late. Now despite NHS car driving policy being they will surgically remove your hands if you even think about a phone when driving (including hands free), everyone thinks you must be dead and starts stealing the good stationery from your desk if you don't call to say you'll be five minutes late.
Good stationery in this sense being anything not manufactured by the bastards at Qconnect.
Posted by: spanner345 Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 10:11
Post #1354177
QUOTE (Fredd @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 15:06)
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 14:56)
but I think they recognised people would need to call people to let them know they will be late for work/an appointment/a bit on the side.
You don't "need" to phone anyone. Believe it or not, motorways, traffic jams and appointments predate mobile phones by many years, and the Earth rotated about its axis even then without people making phone calls from their cars.
As a long term member of the Flat Earth Society, I could argue with that.
Posted by: Tartarus Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 20:08
Post #1354456
QUOTE (666 @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 14:33)
The mobile phone law refers specifically to mobile phones. "They" cannot apply it to other devices just because you think it makes sense.
Well, indeed. Point thus yes, I think it should also apply to other items...
Posted by: notmeatloaf Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 23:16
Post #1354547
QUOTE (Tartarus @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 20:08)
QUOTE (666 @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 14:33)
The mobile phone law refers specifically to mobile phones. "They" cannot apply it to other devices just because you think it makes sense.
Well, indeed. Point thus yes, I think it should also apply to other items...
No.
Posted by: mickR Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 09:43
Post #1354600
QUOTE (Tartarus @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 20:08)
QUOTE (666 @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 14:33)
The mobile phone law refers specifically to mobile phones. "They" cannot apply it to other devices just because you think it makes sense.
Well, indeed. Point thus yes, I think it should also apply to other items...
Such as?
Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 12:25
Post #1354655
QUOTE (spanner345 @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 11:11)
QUOTE (Fredd @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 15:06)
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 14:56)
but I think they recognised people would need to call people to let them know they will be late for work/an appointment/a bit on the side.
You don't "need" to phone anyone. Believe it or not, motorways, traffic jams and appointments predate mobile phones by many years, and the Earth rotated about its axis even then without people making phone calls from their cars.
As a long term member of the Flat Earth Society, I could argue with that.
Does a flat earth not rotate then?
Posted by: Tartarus Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 12:31
Post #1354659
QUOTE (mickR @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 09:43)
QUOTE (Tartarus @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 20:08)
QUOTE (666 @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 14:33)
The mobile phone law refers specifically to mobile phones. "They" cannot apply it to other devices just because you think it makes sense.
Well, indeed. Point thus yes, I think it should also apply to other items...
Such as?
Cigarettes, books, make up, large sandwiches... all I have seen people use while driving! If you can be prosecuted for having at least one hand off the wheel when using any of these, then why the specific mobile phone law? Because you are probably not looking at the road? I've seen people not look at the road when changing radio station and while using make up in their cars. My only thought is because mobile phones are so pervasive now, it's not necessarily about applying existing laws, it's about making one specific to phones (and having it labelled as such), that people might, possibly, pay attention to its existence.
Posted by: spanner345 Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 12:47
Post #1354675
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 12:25)
QUOTE (spanner345 @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 11:11)
QUOTE (Fredd @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 15:06)
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 14:56)
but I think they recognised people would need to call people to let them know they will be late for work/an appointment/a bit on the side.
You don't "need" to phone anyone. Believe it or not, motorways, traffic jams and appointments predate mobile phones by many years, and the Earth rotated about its axis even then without people making phone calls from their cars.
As a long term member of the Flat Earth Society, I could argue with that.
Does a flat earth not rotate then?
No, the universal accelerator is constantly accelerating the Earth upwards, giving the illusion of gravity.
Posted by: DancingDad Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 12:56
Post #1354682
QUOTE (Tartarus @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 12:31)
QUOTE (mickR @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 09:43)
QUOTE (Tartarus @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 20:08)
QUOTE (666 @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 14:33)
The mobile phone law refers specifically to mobile phones. "They" cannot apply it to other devices just because you think it makes sense.
Well, indeed. Point thus yes, I think it should also apply to other items...
Such as?
Cigarettes, books, make up, large sandwiches... all I have seen people use while driving! If you can be prosecuted for having at least one hand off the wheel when using any of these, then why the specific mobile phone law? Because you are probably not looking at the road? I've seen people not look at the road when changing radio station and while using make up in their cars. My only thought is because mobile phones are so pervasive now, it's not necessarily about applying existing laws, it's about making one specific to phones (and having it labelled as such), that people might, possibly, pay attention to its existence.
It's not a case of having one hand off the wheel with the myriad of items that a driver can hold or be distracted by, the being in control laws cover them.
But can be subjective so would normally require the cops to witness something like weaving or late braking in support.
Powers that be decided that holding/using a mobile created a specific danger so made that a specific.
There are many other examples.
Take the white lines in the middle of a road.
It is not illegal to cross lines with long, closely spaced white dashes. But may be used in support of dangerous driving.
It is illegal to cross solid white lines.
General versus specific, common.
Posted by: 666 Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 15:15
Post #1354734
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 12:56)
It is illegal to cross solid white lines.
Sometimes.
Posted by: DancingDad Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 15:21
Post #1354737
QUOTE (666 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 15:15)
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 12:56)
It is illegal to cross solid white lines.
Sometimes.
I'll stick with illegal unless an exemption applies
Posted by: BertB Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 12:10
Post #1355033
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 15:21)
QUOTE (666 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 15:15)
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 12:56)
It is illegal to cross solid white lines.
Sometimes.
I'll stick with illegal unless an exemption applies
How would you pass a stationary or broken down vehicle if there were solid white lines, would you just wait until they moved off/towed away? The old fella on the bike doing 2mph? The pig being chased down the road by angry wasps?
Posted by: progbloke Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 12:20
Post #1355038
Also, how would you enter/exit premises or a side road?
Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 12:25
Post #1355041
QUOTE (spanner345 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 13:47)
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 12:25)
QUOTE (spanner345 @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 11:11)
QUOTE (Fredd @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 15:06)
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 14:56)
but I think they recognised people would need to call people to let them know they will be late for work/an appointment/a bit on the side.
You don't "need" to phone anyone. Believe it or not, motorways, traffic jams and appointments predate mobile phones by many years, and the Earth rotated about its axis even then without people making phone calls from their cars.
As a long term member of the Flat Earth Society, I could argue with that.
Does a flat earth not rotate then?
No, the universal accelerator is constantly accelerating the Earth upwards, giving the illusion of gravity.
Gravity has nothing to do with spinning (in fact the spinning reduces the effect of gravity unless you are standing at the poles), so again do flat earthers believe the earth doesn't rotate? If it doesn't how do all the planets in the nigh sky go round us so fast?
Posted by: Fredd Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 12:36
Post #1355048
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 12:25)
so again do flat earthers believe the earth doesn't rotate? If it doesn't how do all the planets in the nigh sky go round us so fast?
One of the many strange things about the Flat Earthers (well, some of them at least - no doubt there are many competing factions) is that they accept that other planets are spherical, but not the Earth.
Posted by: BertB Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 12:40
Post #1355050
QUOTE (Fredd @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 12:36)
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 12:25)
so again do flat earthers believe the earth doesn't rotate? If it doesn't how do all the planets in the nigh sky go round us so fast?
One of the many strange things about the Flat Earthers (well, some of them at least - no doubt there are many competing factions) is that they accept that other planets are spherical, but not the Earth.
Do they still believe the Sun orbits the earth?
While we're at it, do they also still believe in Sea Monsters, Witches and list 'Jedi' as their religion?
Posted by: ManxRed Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 12:54
Post #1355057
QUOTE (spanner345 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 12:47)
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 12:25)
QUOTE (spanner345 @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 11:11)
QUOTE (Fredd @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 15:06)
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 14:56)
but I think they recognised people would need to call people to let them know they will be late for work/an appointment/a bit on the side.
You don't "need" to phone anyone. Believe it or not, motorways, traffic jams and appointments predate mobile phones by many years, and the Earth rotated about its axis even then without people making phone calls from their cars.
As a long term member of the Flat Earth Society, I could argue with that.
Does a flat earth not rotate then?
No, the universal accelerator is constantly accelerating the Earth upwards, giving the illusion of gravity.
How do helium filled balloons work then?
Posted by: 666 Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 12:59
Post #1355059
QUOTE (BertB @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 12:10)
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 15:21)
QUOTE (666 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 15:15)
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 12:56)
It is illegal to cross solid white lines.
Sometimes.
I'll stick with illegal unless an exemption applies
How would you pass a stationary or broken down vehicle if there were solid white lines, would you just wait until they moved off/towed away? The old fella on the bike doing 2mph? The pig being chased down the road by angry wasps?
Or pass a stop line (ever)? Or enter a bus lane?
Posted by: DancingDad Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 15:44
Post #1355131
QUOTE (BertB)
..........How would you pass a stationary or broken down vehicle if there were solid white lines, would you just wait until they moved off/towed away? The old fella on the bike doing 2mph? The pig being chased down the road by angry wasps?
QUOTE (666 @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 12:59)
Or pass a stop line (ever)? Or enter a bus lane?
QUOTE
unless an exemption applies
Thought I'd just highlight my earlier words for you, BertB and progbloke
All the examples except the pig are covered in exemptions
The pig being chased by angry wasps would I suppose be covered by "(d)in order to avoid an accident"
But no exemption if it is running away from you and no danger of an accident
Posted by: samthecat Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 16:09
Post #1355140
QUOTE
How would you pass a stationary or broken down vehicle if there were solid white lines, would you just wait until they moved off/towed away? The old fella on the bike doing 2mph? The pig being chased down the road by angry wasps?
Like this?
https://youtu.be/1oCMMF95EU0
Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 00:09
Post #1355339
QUOTE (666 @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 08:50)
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 21:50)
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 17:50)
Pick the bones out of http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5339819/Bentley-driver-caught-speeding-community-volunteers.html
The best part is "
I drove back to ask them what they were doing and whether they had permission", last time I checked there's no need for anyone's permission to sit in a car holding a speed gun providing the car is legally parked and the keys are not in the ignition. Maybe someone should tell him that?
Why no keys?
So no over-zealous copper can come and accuse you of "driving" while not in proper control etc...
Posted by: BertB Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 06:24
Post #1355363
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 15:44)
QUOTE (BertB)
..........How would you pass a stationary or broken down vehicle if there were solid white lines, would you just wait until they moved off/towed away? The old fella on the bike doing 2mph? The pig being chased down the road by angry wasps?
QUOTE (666 @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 12:59)
Or pass a stop line (ever)? Or enter a bus lane?
QUOTE
unless an exemption applies
Thought I'd just highlight my earlier words for you, BertB and progbloke
Fair enough
Although I did take the
unless an exemption applies comment as you casting some doubt on the "sometimes" reply.
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 15:44)
All the examples except the pig are covered in exemptions
The pig being chased by angry wasps would I suppose be covered by "(d)in order to avoid an accident"
But no exemption if it is running away from you and no danger of an accident
Pigs are unpredictable, like frogs. You have to assume danger in any scenario.
Not that I'm saying Frogs (amphibian) are dangerous, just unpredictable. Although neither believe the Earth is flat
Posted by: spanner345 Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 08:50
Post #1355386
QUOTE (Fredd @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 12:36)
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 12:25)
so again do flat earthers believe the earth doesn't rotate? If it doesn't how do all the planets in the nigh sky go round us so fast?
One of the many strange things about the Flat Earthers (well, some of them at least - no doubt there are many competing factions) is that they accept that other planets are spherical, but not the Earth.
As no one has ever been into space to gather the evidence, nobody really knows.
Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 10:50
Post #1355433
QUOTE (BertB @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 06:24)
............Pigs are unpredictable, like frogs. You have to assume danger in any scenario.
Not that I'm saying Frogs (amphibian) are dangerous, just unpredictable. Although neither believe the Earth is flat
Daft as a box of frogs is flat earthers.
Pigs.......
If they are coming towards you, you can assume danger and take avoiding action which may include crossing the central white line.
But if a pig is moving away from you, I cannot see anything that says you can overtake (crossing the line) and believe that the only legal course of action would be to hang back until such a time you can overtake safely.
Happy to be corrected.
And yes, the moment 666 unleased the pedant, I acknowledged that he was correct.
My initial comment was more of a black and white example and did not include the shades of grey that the law allows
Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 18:35
Post #1355656
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 10:50)
QUOTE (BertB @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 06:24)
............Pigs are unpredictable, like frogs. You have to assume danger in any scenario.
Not that I'm saying Frogs (amphibian) are dangerous, just unpredictable. Although neither believe the Earth is flat
Daft as a box of frogs is flat earthers.
Pigs.......
If they are coming towards you, you can assume danger and take avoiding action which may include crossing the central white line.
But if a pig is moving away from you, I cannot see anything that says you can overtake (crossing the line) and believe that the only legal course of action would be to hang back until such a time you can overtake safely.
Happy to be corrected.
And yes, the moment 666 unleased the pedant, I acknowledged that he was correct.
My initial comment was more of a black and white example and did not include the shades of grey that the law allows
Surely if the pig is moving at less than 10 mph, it would be lawful to overtake it providing it was otherwise safe?
Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 18:53
Post #1355666
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 18:35)
.........Surely if the pig is moving at less than 10 mph, it would be lawful to overtake it providing it was otherwise safe?
Honestly I can't see if it would be.
The only reference to livestock is a horse being ridden or led at less then 10mph.
A runaway pig is not a horse, nor being led or ridden.
Although there are exemptions that require the speed to be less then 10mph, they are specific, not general.
Could at a stretch be a circumstance beyond driver's control, ie the pig is not in their control
But choosing to cross the white line is.
On a pragmatic note, if I could see no cops and felt it was safe to do so, would be past the thing like a rat up a drainpipe.
Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 18:57
Post #1355668
Well DancingDad, the problem becomes, if you can't legally overtake a pig, what else can't you overtake? A fox? A dog? A cat? A mouse? A lizard? A worm? An ant? A tardigrade? Microbes? Where do you draw the line?
Posted by: 666 Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 19:07
Post #1355672
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 18:57)
Well DancingDad, the problem becomes, if you can't legally overtake a pig, what else can't you overtake? A fox? A dog? A cat? A mouse? A lizard? A worm? An ant? A tardigrade? Microbes? Where do you draw the line?
Running over a dog or pig is reportable. The others are fair game. [RTA1988 (170(8))].
Posted by: nigelbb Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 19:46
Post #1355696
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 18:53)
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 18:35)
.........Surely if the pig is moving at less than 10 mph, it would be lawful to overtake it providing it was otherwise safe?
Honestly I can't see if it would be.
The only reference to livestock is a horse being ridden or led at less then 10mph.
A runaway pig is not a horse, nor being led or ridden.
Although there are exemptions that require the speed to be less then 10mph, they are specific, not general.
A horse is generally not livestock although a pig is.
Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 22:34
Post #1355748
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 19:46)
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 18:53)
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 18:35)
.........Surely if the pig is moving at less than 10 mph, it would be lawful to overtake it providing it was otherwise safe?
Honestly I can't see if it would be.
The only reference to livestock is a horse being ridden or led at less then 10mph.
A runaway pig is not a horse, nor being led or ridden.
Although there are exemptions that require the speed to be less then 10mph, they are specific, not general.
A horse is generally not livestock although a pig is.
And the closest thing to livestock in exemptions to crossing a solid longitudinal line down the centre of the carriageway is a horse.
Whether or not a horse is livestock.
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 18:57)
Well DancingDad, the problem becomes, if you can't legally overtake a pig, what else can't you overtake? A fox? A dog? A cat? A mouse? A lizard? A worm? An ant? A tardigrade? Microbes? Where do you draw the line?
Nothing says you cannot overtake anything
Solid white line down the centre or not.
Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 22:54
Post #1355756
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 22:34)
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 18:57)
Well DancingDad, the problem becomes, if you can't legally overtake a pig, what else can't you overtake? A fox? A dog? A cat? A mouse? A lizard? A worm? An ant? A tardigrade? Microbes? Where do you draw the line?
Nothing says you cannot overtake anything
Solid white line down the centre or not.
Ok, let me reformulate. If you can't legally cross the solid white line down the centre in order to overtake a pig, what else can't you overtake if doing so requires crossing the solid white line? A fox? A dog? A cat? A mouse? A lizard? A worm? An ant? A tardigrade? Microbes? Where do you draw the line?
Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 23:35
Post #1355779
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 22:54)
........Ok, let me reformulate. If you can't legally cross the solid white line down the centre in order to overtake a pig, what else can't you overtake if doing so requires crossing the solid white line? A fox? A dog? A cat? A mouse? A lizard? A worm? An ant? A tardigrade? Microbes? Where do you draw the line?
Way I understand it is that crossing (or straddling) the solid white line in the centre (assuming on your side) is the offence.
With, as been discussed ad nauseam, exceptions which specify when it is allowable if it is safe to do so.
So doesn't really matter what you are overtaking or even if not overtaking, the basic is, ya canna cross the line.
But to play the game....
It really doesn't matter what example you cite to get a measuring point.
Or if you go the other way and include a cow or an elephant.
None are specifically cited as something you can lawfully overtake if the act means you have to cross or straddle the line.
Swerving to avoid comes into avoiding an accident so acceptable, may be stupid as can lead to loss of control but I'd rather avoid an elephant then hit one.
How do you see a microbe in the road ahead anyway?
Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 00:48
Post #1355797
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 23:35)
How do you see a microbe in the road ahead anyway?
I have very good eyesight.
Posted by: 666 Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 06:35
Post #1355807
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 22:54)
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 22:34)
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 18:57)
Well DancingDad, the problem becomes, if you can't legally overtake a pig, what else can't you overtake? A fox? A dog? A cat? A mouse? A lizard? A worm? An ant? A tardigrade? Microbes? Where do you draw the line?
Nothing says you cannot overtake anything
Solid white line down the centre or not.
Ok, let me reformulate. If you can't legally cross the solid white line down the centre in order to overtake a pig, what else can't you overtake if doing so requires crossing the solid white line? A fox? A dog? A cat? A mouse? A lizard? A worm? An ant? A tardigrade? Microbes? Where do you draw the line?
It's not up to you or me to draw the line.
The line is already drawn by the legislation, which is very clear and concerns a horse and no other form of animal life.
Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 06:50
Post #1355808
QUOTE (spanner345 @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 09:50)
QUOTE (Fredd @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 12:36)
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 12:25)
so again do flat earthers believe the earth doesn't rotate? If it doesn't how do all the planets in the nigh sky go round us so fast?
One of the many strange things about the Flat Earthers (well, some of them at least - no doubt there are many competing factions) is that they accept that other planets are spherical, but not the Earth.
As no one has ever been into space to gather the evidence, nobody really knows.
So how do the same celestial objects have different features if they are flat (not a rotating sphere)? So how come they all mysteriously face the flat side to us and we never see a flat edge, how come we miraculously accelerate the flat side up, why not an edge?
How fast must the earth be moving accelerating upwards at that rate for tens of thousands of years, why hasn’t the atmosphere fallen off the edge under the force of that acceleration for a fair few million years?
Posted by: ManxRed Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 11:17
Post #1355864
How come, when you're on a ferry, the cliffs of the place you've left, or the poles that those monstrous windmill things are mounted on eventually dip down below the horizon as you travel further away?
Posted by: I am Weasel Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 12:16
Post #1355896
Posted by: spanner345 Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 12:25
Post #1355898
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 06:50)
QUOTE (spanner345 @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 09:50)
QUOTE (Fredd @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 12:36)
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 12:25)
so again do flat earthers believe the earth doesn't rotate? If it doesn't how do all the planets in the nigh sky go round us so fast?
One of the many strange things about the Flat Earthers (well, some of them at least - no doubt there are many competing factions) is that they accept that other planets are spherical, but not the Earth.
As no one has ever been into space to gather the evidence, nobody really knows.
So how do the same celestial objects have different features if they are flat (not a rotating sphere)? So how come they all mysteriously face the flat side to us and we never see a flat edge, how come we miraculously accelerate the flat side up, why not an edge?
How fast must the earth be moving accelerating upwards at that rate for tens of thousands of years, why hasn’t the atmosphere fallen off the edge under the force of that acceleration for a fair few million years?
https://forum.tfes.org/ or https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/
Posted by: ManxRed Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 14:23
Post #1355950
QUOTE (I am Weasel @ Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 12:16)
Well, even I can see the flaws in that one.
The Sun is rotating around the earth, and the reason why it's daylight in some places and not in others at the same time is that the Sun is only a few thousand feet up in the sky, not 92,000,000 miles away.
This explains the angles that the sun's rays make when shining through the clouds. Go on, extrapolate the lines back.
(hint: forget everything you ever knew about 'perspective', otherwise this theory falls flat on its face).
Posted by: Lodesman Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 17:50
Post #1356022
Yep, works for me - comes out at 92,000,000 miles (give or take a few).
Posted by: notmeatloaf Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 22:12
Post #1356093
QUOTE (666 @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 19:07)
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 18:57)
Well DancingDad, the problem becomes, if you can't legally overtake a pig, what else can't you overtake? A fox? A dog? A cat? A mouse? A lizard? A worm? An ant? A tardigrade? Microbes? Where do you draw the line?
Running over a dog or pig is reportable. The others are fair game. [RTA1988 (170(8))].
I was lucky that I only ran over half a dog. Another few centimetres and it might have been reportable.
Posted by: JagDriver Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 09:30
Post #1356164
Odd that they felt the need to mention the cars manufacturer, and a provided a photo to show that it was an aging model worth less than most new cars.
Posted by: Fredd Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 10:43
Post #1356773
QUOTE (spanner345 @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 08:50)
QUOTE (Fredd @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 12:36)
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 12:25)
so again do flat earthers believe the earth doesn't rotate? If it doesn't how do all the planets in the nigh sky go round us so fast?
One of the many strange things about the Flat Earthers (well, some of them at least - no doubt there are many competing factions) is that they accept that other planets are spherical, but not the Earth.
As no one has ever been into space to gather the evidence, nobody really knows.
A problem shortly to be solved by a newly formed Flat Earth society, http://newsthump.com/2018/02/12/flat-earth-space-agency-to-launch-satellites-by-throwing-them-off-the-edge/.
Posted by: Jlc Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 10:55
Post #1356779
Flatearth Aeronautical Experimentation Colonisation And Exploration Society – or FAECES for short.
Posted by: ManxRed Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 13:00
Post #1356842
What happened to the bloke that keeps Elon Musk awake at night?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a15858887/flat-earth-rocket-man-will-take-to-the-sky-in-two-weeks/
Posted by: 666 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 13:07
Post #1356845
QUOTE (ManxRed @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 13:00)
What happened to the bloke that keeps Elon Musk awake at night?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a15858887/flat-earth-rocket-man-will-take-to-the-sky-in-two-weeks/
There's a clue in the name.
Posted by: ManxRed Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 13:26
Post #1356853
His facebook page is a right old laugh!
Posted by: Fredd Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 13:54
Post #1356873
People say he's "Mad" Mike, but obviously FAECES needs a low-altitude rocket to just lob the satellites over the ice wall around the rim. See, not so mad now, is he?
Posted by: spanner345 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 14:05
Post #1356882
QUOTE (Fredd @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 13:54)
People say he's "Mad" Mike, but obviously FAECES needs a low-altitude rocket to just lob the satellites over the ice wall around the rim. See, not so mad now, is he?
Sounds right to me!
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)