PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

522 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

jobo
Posted on: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 - 22:16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521


The guy was charged with failing to provide a test. upon arrival at court the CPS dropped it as having no reasonable chance. the Guy is now suing and has filed a complaint

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/new...greater-6676499
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #923549 · Replies: 34 · Views: 3,459

jobo
Posted on: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 - 11:03


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521


are the points written on your DL?
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #901117 · Replies: 4 · Views: 653

jobo
Posted on: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 19:24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521


QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 18:05) *
QUOTE (jobo @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 17:33) *
QUOTE (jewels2009 @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 17:27) *
QUOTE (Michael Gibson @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 16:46) *
Can a learner/their supervisor be guilty of DWDCA whilst the learner is driving?

Can a supervisor be guilty of DUI if the driver is sober?

Can a supervisor be guilty of drunk in charge if the driver is sober with the keys in the ignition but the engine off?


1. No./ Yes
Y
2. Yes

3. Yes

IMO if dual control and pro



probably easier to look it up ? but my rational for saying dont thing so to q3 is that a supervisor only becomes such, when the learner is actually driving, as he doesnt need a DL or insurance for that matter to sit in a drivers seat with the engine off, my 6yo does it all the time, then the supervisor isnt a legal requirement and cant be prosecuted for something he isnt actually doing

I would tend to agree re Q3, but a point of law for debate is at what point the driver starts driving. In some offences driving commences as soon as you get behind the wheel on a road.


ive had this debate at great length on another forum, unfortunate too long ago to remember specifics

however from memory, driving requires either motion in one set of case law or the mean of motion in another ie engine running, hold of steering wheel,

One example was a guy steering a car from outside, whist is rolled downhill( a slight gradient i imagine) was found to be driving as the car was moving independently of his efforts, conversely if he had been pushing it on the level it would not have been driving.
Drunk driving only requires the engine to be running, whilst sat in the drivers seat. to count as driving. no engine DIC,. most RTA offenses are impossible( very difficult) to achieve unless the car is actually moving and insurance doesnt require a driver at all,


however there isnt any definition that allows no engine ,no movement to count as driving
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #900913 · Replies: 20 · Views: 1,702

jobo
Posted on: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 17:39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521


QUOTE (Jamieg1981 @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 17:33) *
Sounds like good advice from everyone, thanks. I'll plead guilty by post and hope for 6 points and a fine. Is there anything obvious to write on the guilty plea that helps with leniency?


very very sorry, moment of madness learn t lesson, wont do it again, padd it out abit though, but not that much they lose interest half way through
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #900868 · Replies: 11 · Views: 1,587

jobo
Posted on: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 17:33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521


QUOTE (jewels2009 @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 17:27) *
QUOTE (Michael Gibson @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 16:46) *
Can a learner/their supervisor be guilty of DWDCA whilst the learner is driving?

Can a supervisor be guilty of DUI if the driver is sober?

Can a supervisor be guilty of drunk in charge if the driver is sober with the keys in the ignition but the engine off?


1. No./ Yes
Y
2. Yes

3. Yes

IMO if dual control and pro



probably easier to look it up ? but my rational for saying dont thing so to q3 is that a supervisor only becomes such, when the learner is actually driving, as he doesnt need a DL or insurance for that matter to sit in a drivers seat with the engine off, my 6yo does it all the time, then the supervisor isnt a legal requirement and cant be prosecuted for something he isnt actually doing
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #900866 · Replies: 20 · Views: 1,702

jobo
Posted on: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 17:14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521


QUOTE (Michael Gibson @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 16:46) *
Can a learner/their supervisor be guilty of DWDCA whilst the learner is driving? NO

Can a supervisor be guilty of DUI if the driver is sober? yes

Can a supervisor be guilty of drunk in charge if the driver is sober with the keys in the ignition but the engine off? dont think so

  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #900849 · Replies: 20 · Views: 1,702

jobo
Posted on: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 16:28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521


QUOTE (StuartBu @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:43) *
QUOTE (jobo @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:33) *
QUOTE (StuartBu @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:28) *
QUOTE (DaineseMan @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:23) *
QUOTE (StuartBu @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:20) *
Doesn't help you but yet another case where keeping a log of times,dates and places would have avoided this situation.


I understand, but I'm not running a corporation. These trips were made in a private capacity and it's unreasonable to expect someone to keep a log book for these purposes.


I don't think you do understand !!!! Company or private ...you still require to know who was responsible for the alleged contravention . If you had what I suggested you wouldn't be in here asking for advice. What is unreasonable about it ?


NO your NOT




My NOT? OK how would you prefer I had worded it . :-) The fact still remains ..if folk sharing cars put their brains in to gear and kept a note of who was driving such a mess would not happen and they would save themselves a load of grief .. Instead we have the usual load of replies in here with respondents twisting ,turning and jumping through hoops to sort the situation .

Everyone knows there are cameras etc round every corner ready to bite them on the bum so be ready for the consequences with a bit of preparation. .


i would have preferred you word it in a way that was actually TRUE ?
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #900814 · Replies: 23 · Views: 2,939

jobo
Posted on: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 16:23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521


QUOTE (andy_foster @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:53) *
QUOTE (dp7 @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:41) *
QUOTE (jobo @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:12) *
your query only works if you have a different definition of ' 'a couple''to me, clearly ''to couple'' has a different meaning


Any sensible person would understand the phrase "which prevents hetro couples from having one" to mean preventing a 'hetero couple' from entering into a civil partnership with one another.


Even ignoring the context which would clearly indicate that "couples" was a noun not a verb, as a verb the sentence would make no sense (even ignoring the usual poor grammar and spelling).


?????? yes it was indeed a noun

1.
two people or things of the same sort considered together.
"a couple of girls were playing marbles"
synonyms: pair, duo, duology, twosome, set of two, match; More
doublets, twins;

there are other definitions but this is the one i meant

  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #900808 · Replies: 80 · Views: 5,225

jobo
Posted on: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521


QUOTE (RD400E @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 11:29) *
This isn't a particularly odd situation and probably happens a lot.

My daughter recently bought a new (second hand) car. The seller gave her the complete V5C. My daughter not realising his mistake took the document and returned home.
She visited me last night for advice and it seems the seller had never registered the car in his own name, instead his details were filled in in section 10. the new keepers details!

The RK is a motor trader and the doc ref date is 12/09/13
The seller completed the new keepers section on 09/11/13
My daughter purchased the car on 24/11/13

The final oddity is that there is a post office stamp (not a postage stamp) in black that has been printed on the new keepers section dated 11/11/13, the post office is in the same location as the seller.

I've enclosed a letter with the V5C to the DVLA explaining why the RK hasn't signed the declaration. We are keeping page 2 of the V5C until the new one arrives as this bears the PO stamp and the relevant keeper info and dates.

Now my concern is that if there were any possibility of another V5 knocking around could this come back to bite her? She hasn't acted fraudulently in any way but a motor trader selling a vehicle and not dealing with the V5 is peculiar, and the additional info above has got me wondering!

TIA


not that clkear cut, the trader could have sent it off, but the purchaser didnt, so it will be sort of registered to him

its common to fill the back in to tax it before sending it off, hence the stamp, he has demands for money on their way, but i dont see how it can effect you ?
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #900786 · Replies: 1 · Views: 605

jobo
Posted on: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521


QUOTE (StuartBu @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 14:55) *
QUOTE (Gan @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 14:24) *
This is prompted by a current thread involving two possible drivers who changed places close to the location

What happens if both drivers are named, making clear that it's not as alternatives but because they both exceeded the speed limit there and don't know which one was caught ?

So what you are saying they both knew they were over the limit before AND after the locus of the alleged offence.... But surely that still leaves the question of who was driving AT the locus and only the two drivers can decide that.


locus can run to several miles on Mways, so they both could be driving at the specified place
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #900782 · Replies: 13 · Views: 1,136

jobo
Posted on: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521


QUOTE (DaineseMan @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:25) *
QUOTE (StuartBu @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:20) *
Doesn't help you but yet another case where keeping a log of times,dates and places would have avoided this situation.


I understand, but I'm not running a corporation. These trips were made in a private capacity and it's unreasonable to expect someone to keep a log book for these purposes.

QUOTE (jobo @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:22) *
QUOTE (DaineseMan @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:10) *
Hi Guys,

I'm really sorry if this topic has been brought up before, but would really like specific advice for my circumstances.

I was given a courtesy car by an Audi dealership while my car was having warranty worked done to it. I had the car for three weeks and there was an additional names driver on the rental who was sharing the driving with me for the several trips we had to make between London and Manchester during that time.

As the main hirer of the vehicle, I received an NIP from Warwickshire Police which alleged that the hire car was travelling at 78mph past one of the variable speed limit cameras which was set at 60mph.

The NIP was received 26 days after the alleged offence, but the police claimed to have served the Audi dealership within the 14 day period.

There are many factors which have made it GENUINELY impossible for me to identify which one of us was driving at the time:

1) I received the NIP a long time after the alleged offence (26 days). The two of us regularly travel together from Manchester to London, and vice versa, and indeed made several trips like this during the rental period. We always share the driving in order to balance the driving burden between the two of us, and the time lag has made it even harder to be know who was driving at the time. The Police claim though to have served the NIP on the Audi dealership within 24 days of the alleged offence.

2) I have asked the police to provide photographs of the car to help identify the driver, but you can only see the rear and not who was driving.

3) That camera is literally at the half way mark between London and Manchester (where we usually swap seats), making it even harder to be sure exactly who was driving.

I have never received an NIP in my life. I volunteer for a motorcycle emergency blood delivery service, and it is therefore even more important that it remains that way. On the other hand, the second driver is also not able to remember who was driving either and is therefore unwilling to take responsibility for the NIP.

Warwickshire Police have ignored my appeal on these grounds and have informed me that the matter will be referred to the magistrates court.

Please help me guys!


Ok to clarify the 28 days are gone and your now awaiting a summons

have you reterned ANY writen explination to them on the circumstances

iof so EXACTLY what did you say


The vehicle referred to is owned by Audi, and was loaned to me by the dealer for two weeks while my car was having warranty work done to it. I was the main hirer of the vehicle, but there was also another named driver who used the car no less than me. The two of us regularly travel together from Manchester to London, and vice versa, and indeed made several trips like this during the rental period. We always share the driving in order to balance the driving burden between the two of us.



The NIP received - dated 05/11/2013, but only received today (11th November 2013, 26 days after alleged offence) - was clearly in relation to one of the above shared driving trips. I would be grateful if you could provide photographs of the alleged offence in order to help us establish which of the two of us was driving at the time of the alleged offence. Otherwise, it will genuinely be impossible for us to establish whom your NIP should be served upon.



The fact that I received the NIP so long after the alleged offence has made it even more difficult to establish who the driver was, but hopefully photographic evidence will help. However, once the driver’s identity is established, the confirmed driver may still require evidence that you met your statutory requirements to serve the notice within 14 calendar days of the alleged offence.



I certainly have no intention on claiming liability for an offence, which, at this point, I am far from certain to have committed. The second driver has told me that, although he may also have been the driver at the time of the alleged offence, he is far from certain of this too and would like to see evidence that it was him - and not me - that was driving at the time.



Please provide any relevant photographs that will help us establish who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence. Once established, the confirmed driver can then decide how they wish to deal with your intention to prosecute.


so following reciet of the pics, did you reply again

ideally you should have done so naming both possible drivers

it theoretically isnt to late to relise which one it was, if something triggered your memory even now, but it may take some to get the mags to accept you couldnt have done so within 28 days


QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:39) *
Subsection 2 of Section 172 RTA says:

QUOTE
the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police


But s4 says:

QUOTE
A person shall not be guilty of an offence if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.


There's no exact definition of 'reasonable diligence' but you will have to convince the Mags. Just asking for photo's alone is unlikely to cut it. (Mobile) Phone records are another possibility. You are probably already aware of the sentence imposed for a s172 offence?


yes but i dont thik he has replied at all
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #900727 · Replies: 23 · Views: 2,939

jobo
Posted on: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521


QUOTE (StuartBu @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:28) *
QUOTE (DaineseMan @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:23) *
QUOTE (StuartBu @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:20) *
Doesn't help you but yet another case where keeping a log of times,dates and places would have avoided this situation.


I understand, but I'm not running a corporation. These trips were made in a private capacity and it's unreasonable to expect someone to keep a log book for these purposes.


I don't think you do understand !!!! Company or private ...you still require to know who was responsible for the alleged contravention . If you had what I suggested you wouldn't be in here asking for advice. What is unreasonable about it ?


NO your NOT
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #900720 · Replies: 23 · Views: 2,939

jobo
Posted on: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521


QUOTE (DaineseMan @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:10) *
Hi Guys,

I'm really sorry if this topic has been brought up before, but would really like specific advice for my circumstances.

I was given a courtesy car by an Audi dealership while my car was having warranty worked done to it. I had the car for three weeks and there was an additional names driver on the rental who was sharing the driving with me for the several trips we had to make between London and Manchester during that time.

As the main hirer of the vehicle, I received an NIP from Warwickshire Police which alleged that the hire car was travelling at 78mph past one of the variable speed limit cameras which was set at 60mph.

The NIP was received 26 days after the alleged offence, but the police claimed to have served the Audi dealership within the 14 day period.

There are many factors which have made it GENUINELY impossible for me to identify which one of us was driving at the time:

1) I received the NIP a long time after the alleged offence (26 days). The two of us regularly travel together from Manchester to London, and vice versa, and indeed made several trips like this during the rental period. We always share the driving in order to balance the driving burden between the two of us, and the time lag has made it even harder to be know who was driving at the time. The Police claim though to have served the NIP on the Audi dealership within 24 days of the alleged offence.

2) I have asked the police to provide photographs of the car to help identify the driver, but you can only see the rear and not who was driving.

3) That camera is literally at the half way mark between London and Manchester (where we usually swap seats), making it even harder to be sure exactly who was driving.

I have never received an NIP in my life. I volunteer for a motorcycle emergency blood delivery service, and it is therefore even more important that it remains that way. On the other hand, the second driver is also not able to remember who was driving either and is therefore unwilling to take responsibility for the NIP.

Warwickshire Police have ignored my appeal on these grounds and have informed me that the matter will be referred to the magistrates court.

Please help me guys!


Ok to clarify the 28 days are gone and your now awaiting a summons

have you reterned ANY writen explination to them on the circumstances

iof so EXACTLY what did you say
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #900714 · Replies: 23 · Views: 2,939

jobo
Posted on: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 12:55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521


QUOTE (homeruk @ Tue, 26 Nov 2013 - 02:26) *
FLT's are easy to drive, if you can drive a car you can drive a FLT, you just need good hand to eye co-ordination when using the forks.



do you think so, ive never seen a car on its end coz someone pout to much weight in the boot

as someone who was once paid by DHL to spend a week stood there reviewing the standard of their load moving operations( following a guy being crushed to death) i can say with some certainty they are easy to drive badly, you can 4 wheel drift them round corners, hurtle along at speed with no view at all of whats in your way and with, Im sure considerable practice,. balance them on two wheels

If they are easy to drive well ? not sure its very seldom you see it its hard to say




  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #900703 · Replies: 14 · Views: 1,342

jobo
Posted on: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 12:34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521


QUOTE (dandyman @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 09:17) *
As someone who has been in a heterosexual relationship for many years I can say that (i) we feel discriminated against by being denied a civil partnership and (ii) we are sick of people who dismiss our gripe by saying "well just get married then".

You have put very succinctly the reasons why (i) we would want a civil partnership and (ii) we don't want to get married. Thank you.


Ok this point has been raised a few times. A quick perusal of the civil partnership law hasnt revealed a clause which prevents hetro couples from having one ?

have you actually been declined such to base you claim of discrimination on ? can you point out the law that you say discriminates against you ?
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #900694 · Replies: 80 · Views: 5,225

jobo
Posted on: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 12:14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521


QUOTE (dandyman @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 09:17) *
Going back to the original post, I sincerely hope that barring large single-sex groups does not turn out to be a breach of the Equality Act. In my experience such bans (e.g. at campsites) are there for a reason (which is to say I have been on campsites without such a ban and have seen first-hand why other campsites do impose such a ban; in one instance a large group of lads go so out-of-hand in the early hours that they were asked to leave, and when they refused the owner - a farmer - towed his muck-spreader to their camp and, to the applause of all the other "residents", threatened to fertilise them. They left, and the last time I was there the owner was sleeping in a caravan at the entrance to the site - despite having a perfectly good farmhouse - in order to deny entry to such groups showing up on spec).


the problem is, nearly all discriminators have a reason for their discrimination, either, women in the tap room puts the blokes off coz they cant use industrial terms, or having EMs at the tennis club '' lowers the tone'' and will effect membership or indeed that having people from the sub content living in the area will increase crime/lower property prices. back in early 70s they had a petition going round coz an Indian family had brought a house in our street

So to your point, is it fare to discriminate against a defined set of people just because a % of them behave irresponsibly ? is it even supportable that with objective criteria that a single sex group will be more leary than a mixed group of the same age bracket.

will a model train enthusiasts group made up of males be more of a handful than a tennis club outing made up of couples ? Will the woman institute Xmas outing be a nightmare compared to the rugby club xmas meal where they brought their partners ? it clearly nonsense ? to make a generlized statement on single sex groups. would your camp site owner stick to his guns if the bishop of york turned up with some work mates for a weekends camping, of course not

reconcile these two statements for me, we wont allow irish travelers in this hotel coz some of them are thieves. we wont allow a single sex football team in this hotel coz some of them will get drunk and smash the place up

both are clearly ''unfair'' just one is illegal and the other is current under dispute
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #900689 · Replies: 80 · Views: 5,225

jobo
Posted on: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 00:21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521


QUOTE (Jamieg1981 @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 00:14) *
Yes, I've got the option of guilty by post.
I know percentage-wise 53 in a 30 is high but I was informed at the time that 49 was the max speed to receive 3 points so I'm hoping a ban isn't coming my way. Guilty by post would be my preferred option if there isn't any penalties for doing this.


thet ''cant'' ban you if your not there, that leaves them two options, they either carry on and give you points or stop proceedings and require you to attend, when you can make your case for no/short ban

feelings are mixed on if its best in avoiding a ban, to front them from the start or go post and do it later

personally id send by post and pray a lot

nb i think your chances of getting less than 6 points are slight
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #900588 · Replies: 11 · Views: 1,587

jobo
Posted on: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 00:02


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521


does the summons pack give you the option of pleading guilty by post ?
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #900577 · Replies: 11 · Views: 1,587

jobo
Posted on: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 23:36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521


QUOTE (Lisa gray @ Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 23:23) *
No, I was doing 70 ish in a car on a nsl dual carriageway, the other vehicle was a large van


well he would trigger at 68 then
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #900567 · Replies: 11 · Views: 1,202

jobo
Posted on: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 23:20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521


QUOTE (Lisa gray @ Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 23:09) *
Thank you everyone for your advice.

Just one more question, would a van (I'm almost certain it was a larger merc sprinter type) trigger it if it was exceeding 60mph or 60mph+10%+2?

I should have been clearer earlier, it was a nsl dual carriageway

Lisa


so you were doing an indicated 70 in a 60 ?
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #900562 · Replies: 11 · Views: 1,202

jobo
Posted on: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 21:42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521


QUOTE (peterguk @ Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 21:36) *
QUOTE (Firstimer @ Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 19:32) *
I was already past the traffic light by the time it reached red...


The lights would have been amber for 3 seconds giving you ample time to stop if travelling at 30mph. I would not take the matter to court.

It is for the guy behind to worry about not hitting you, not you.


thats not really in a working definition of stop safely, which would seem to include avoiding getting hit up the back end ?


  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #900534 · Replies: 5 · Views: 1,246

jobo
Posted on: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 21:29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521


QUOTE (Lisa gray @ Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 21:17) *
Hi all,

Can anyone advise whether a gatso is activated when you pass by the actual camera or once you hit the white lines?

I ask as I was travelling on the a90 this evening in a 70mph zone, my speedo reading as I passed the camera was 70/71 at very most, I was on outside lane having just overtaken a van. About 2/3 seconds after I passed the camera there were 2 flashes (at this point I had accelerated to 75), it seemed like a long time and to be honest I didn't know that the lines were for measuring your speed so didn't notice where I was in relation to them. On the inside lane the van I had just overtaken had accelerated and though he passed the camera after me was almost back in line with my vehicle when the flashes happened.
I'm aware that my speedo was probably overestimating my speed but the paranoia has set in that it was me they were flashing!

I would really appreciate any answers people are able to give in relation to my question!

Lisa


ok the gatso catches you in radar, if something in the bean is traveling faster than its preset limit in this case just short of 80MPH. then it triggers two photos and two flashes. if there is more than one car in the picture, they use the photo to see which are going over the limit

it sound like your fine and the following one set it off
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #900529 · Replies: 11 · Views: 1,202

jobo
Posted on: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 21:14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521


QUOTE (psimmons200 @ Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 21:10) *
QUOTE (Wongsky @ Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 21:06) *
QUOTE (psimmons200 @ Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 20:14) *
[...]I agree that the current situation is weird, but I can't agree that it's discriminatory as I can't see how anyone is being treated less favourably. They get the same thing whether its called a Marriage or a Civil Partnership, a courgette or a zucchini.


So if there's no difference, then - why not standardise it all, and let them have marriage?

Whom does it truly harm?

And if it doesn't harm anybody, then why the hell shouldn't they be able to?


Why not indeed. We are not on different pages.

QUOTE (jobo @ Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 20:55) *
there are two stated position that could be so

1)not allowing gay marriage is discrimination
2) civil partnerships and marriage are exactly the same (so no discrimination)

both of these are a good reason to only have one sort of marriage

if every one accepts that is a either a) fairer or b) a sensible rationalization. then we are only differing one why we think its a good idea

does anyone here think its a bad idea ?


I actually quite like Civil Partnerships and would be sad to see them go. I think they should be open, along with marriage, to couples of any sexual persuasion.

A rather neat way of extending the rights and responsibilities of traditional 'marriage' to those people who want a legal way of recognising their commitment and enjoying the privileges and legal status, without the historic association with organised religion and female subordination.


i can live with that,( provided marriage is both ways as well) but then i dont think they are exactly the same, for reasons including the ones you given above
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #900523 · Replies: 80 · Views: 5,225

jobo
Posted on: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 21:04


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521


QUOTE (psimmons200 @ Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 21:00) *
QUOTE (jobo @ Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 20:43) *
QUOTE (psimmons200 @ Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 20:39) *
QUOTE (StuartBu @ Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 20:33) *
But if one is called MARRIAGE and the other is called CIVIL PARTNERSHIP then they are NOT the same ..They are unequal . See my reply to andy_foster


Show me a civil partnership that confers different legal status and different rights to a marriage, and I'll agree.






Ok with civil partnerships you didnt get the official title of husband and or wife

now all married person do( as appropriate)


Discrimination is about being treated differently. So, please tell me what treatment a 'husband' or 'wife' receives that a man/woman in a civil partnership doesn't.

Also what source do you have on 'husband' being an official title? I've never seen a marital partner referred to as anything but 'spouse' on tax returns, census questions, etc. And 'spouse' and 'civil partner' are, of course, synonyms.


you asked for a legal status civil partners didnt have and i gave you one

dont go moving the goal posts

nb if you want to see its legal status try getting divorved or read the ''gay''marrage act where these terms are clearly defined
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #900513 · Replies: 80 · Views: 5,225

jobo
Posted on: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 20:55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521


QUOTE (psimmons200 @ Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 20:39) *
Yes. I don't see how I was 'undermining my own point' when my two points were in fact entirely consistent and not mutually exclusive.

1. I think gay and straight couples should both have free access to either a Marriage or a Civil Partnership

2. I think the current system is perverse in that the State arbitrarily names one legal relationship "Marriage" and another legal relationship "Civil Partnership" based solely on the sex of the participants

3. I do not think the current system is discriminatory, as I have yet to be shown how someone is treated less favourably purely by different names applied to identical arrangements.


Please show me how someone is treated less favourably, show me how a gay man in a Civil Partnership is denied some legal right or privilege extended to a straight man in a Marriage, and I am more than happy to change my opinion on (3).


ok lets analyse

there are two stated position that could be so

1)not allowing gay marriage is discrimination
2) civil partnerships and marriage are exactly the same (so no discrimination)

both of these are a good reason to only have one sort of marriage

if every one accepts that is a either a) fairer or b) a sensible rationalization. then we are only differing one why we think its a good idea

does anyone here think its a bad idea ?
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #900509 · Replies: 80 · Views: 5,225

522 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: Thursday, 26th April 2018 - 19:46
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.