Re: charity calendar - update

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
GbH wrote:

> I think the law such as it is requires the lead vehicle to pull over and come to a
> stop. Staitionary at traffic lights complies. The emergency vehicles have a let to
> go wrong way around the lights, unlike this regular motorist.

Much easier said than done at some traffic lights - I'm always really
pleased when a reasonably aware motorist moves through a red light to
let us carry on to a call-out.


--
EMB
 
In news:[email protected],
EMB <[email protected]> blithered:
> GbH wrote:
>
>> I think the law such as it is requires the lead vehicle to pull over
>> and come to a stop. Staitionary at traffic lights complies. The
>> emergency vehicles have a let to go wrong way around the lights,
>> unlike this regular motorist.
>
> Much easier said than done at some traffic lights - I'm always really
> pleased when a reasonably aware motorist moves through a red light to
> let us carry on to a call-out.

Pretty darn sure I'd pull out of the way if at all possible but such a move is
illegal also, I think, for the emergency services, which is why I said 'let'.

--
"She who says it cannot be done should not interrupt him doing it."

If at first you don't succeed,
maybe skydiving's not for you!


 
Dave Liquorice wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2005 00:08:52 +0100, Dave H wrote:
>
>
>>>a) How many of the great unwashed know what a flashing green light
>>> means?
>>
>>How many know not to panic when they see blues.
>
>
> Or even know what a blue light means. I've witnessed several times a
> car stopped at traffic lights, with an ambulance or fire engine right
> behind it with B&T's going, did the car move nope. It sat there until
> the lights changed... OK techincally the car would have jumped the red
> light but proceeding with caution and getting out of the way of the
> ambulance or WHY has, IMHO, a rather higher priority than traffic law.
>
>
Interesting you should use that example, I got failed on a driving test
for doing just that, in fact only just crossing the line not the
junction itself to sit in front of the car alongside. Ambulance behind
was making its merry din, if he had turned his siren off I would have
waited but since he left it running I pulled forward out of the way and
let him jump the junction. Two minutes later I pulled into the test
centre and got failed!!
<comment about driving examiners and common sense...>
:)


>>But a MR Landrover Ambulance or a car with magnetic sign driven
>>badly once ruins all the work you, may, have put in to get those
>>lights or sign. Drive under normal road conditions, turn up safe and
>>turn up to do the job in hand.
>
> Very good points.

That is indeed generally the considered opinion, "if you asked me when
I'd just been stuck behind a bus for 3 miles I'd say yes, but in the
cold light of day I wouldn't want the people on the team who would join
to use the light."

Alistair
--
200Tdi Defender 90, 1990
 
Once upon a time i would have made the move, provided it was safe to do so,
without a second thought.

However, having witnessed the petty 'nab the motorist' attitude that seems
to apply to the police these days it is up to them to get round me, I will
not be provoked into giving them any chance to book me!

MW
"GbH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In news:[email protected],
> EMB <[email protected]> blithered:
>> GbH wrote:
>>
>>> I think the law such as it is requires the lead vehicle to pull over
>>> and come to a stop. Staitionary at traffic lights complies. The
>>> emergency vehicles have a let to go wrong way around the lights,
>>> unlike this regular motorist.
>>
>> Much easier said than done at some traffic lights - I'm always really
>> pleased when a reasonably aware motorist moves through a red light to
>> let us carry on to a call-out.
>
> Pretty darn sure I'd pull out of the way if at all possible but such a
> move is illegal also, I think, for the emergency services, which is why I
> said 'let'.
>
> --
> "She who says it cannot be done should not interrupt him doing it."
>
> If at first you don't succeed,
> maybe skydiving's not for you!
>
>


 
Mark Williamson wrote:

> However, having witnessed the petty 'nab the motorist' attitude that seems
> to apply to the police these days it is up to them to get round me, I will
> not be provoked into giving them any chance to book me!

Absolutely my thoughts too. One false move and Wham ! Nice easy nick.
F'eck'em.

Steve
 
On Tue, 10 May 2005 19:50:27 +0100, Alistair Bell wrote:

> Interesting you should use that example, I got failed on a driving
> test for doing just that, in fact only just crossing the line not
> the junction itself to sit in front of the car alongside.

Technically you did go through a red light, hence the examiner had to
fail you. I know blooming stupid but you'll also fail if you break the
speed limit, well you would have 27 years ago when I took my test.
B-)

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail



 
On Tue, 10 May 2005 12:39:54 +0100, GbH wrote:

> I think the law such as it is requires the lead vehicle to pull over
> and come to a stop. Staitionary at traffic lights complies.

I'd argue it doesn't as the vechicle has "pulled over", it has only
stopped and is obstructing the highway.

With two lanes of ordinary traffic if the left line pulls tight into
the left side and the right line to the right there is normally an
ample gap created for the emergency vehicle to get through. Mind you
that relies on people knowing where the edges of their vechicle are, a
goodly number appear not to know and <shock horror> using full
steering lock.

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail



 
On Tue, 10 May 2005 21:08:32 +0000 (UTC), Mark Williamson wrote:

> However, having witnessed the petty 'nab the motorist' attitude that
> seems to apply to the police these days it is up to them to get
> round me,

Who mentioned the Police? I only refered to Ambulances and Fire
Engines...

> I will not be provoked into giving them any chance to book me!

Don't worry they'll note your number a get you later, or if you
hesitate for 2nS when the lights change, have you for obstruction.
B-)

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail



 
In message <[email protected]>, Alistair Bell
<[email protected]> writes
>Dave Liquorice wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 May 2005 00:08:52 +0100, Dave H wrote:
>>
>>>>a) How many of the great unwashed know what a flashing green light
>>>> means?
>>>
>>>How many know not to panic when they see blues.
>> Or even know what a blue light means. I've witnessed several times
>>a car stopped at traffic lights, with an ambulance or fire engine
>>right behind it with B&T's going, did the car move nope. It sat there
>>until the lights changed... OK techincally the car would have jumped
>>the red light but proceeding with caution and getting out of the way
>>of the ambulance or WHY has, IMHO, a rather higher priority than traffic law.
>>
>>
>Interesting you should use that example, I got failed on a driving test
>for doing just that, in fact only just crossing the line not the
>junction itself to sit in front of the car alongside. Ambulance behind
>was making its merry din, if he had turned his siren off I would have
>waited but since he left it running I pulled forward out of the way and
>let him jump the junction. Two minutes later I pulled into the test
>centre and got failed!!
><comment about driving examiners and common sense...>
>:)
>
>
>>>But a MR Landrover Ambulance or a car with magnetic sign driven badly
>>>once ruins all the work you, may, have put in to get those lights or
>>>sign. Drive under normal road conditions, turn up safe and turn up to
>>>do the job in hand.
>> Very good points.
>
>That is indeed generally the considered opinion, "if you asked me when
>I'd just been stuck behind a bus for 3 miles I'd say yes, but in the
>cold light of day I wouldn't want the people on the team who would join
>to use the light."
>
>Alistair
That's the danger - an outburst of muppetry. Quiet professionalism is
what we want. Most of the time there would be no need for lights. The
one occasion when they might be useful is when trying to get to the
front of a queue of traffic stuck on icy roads, but as someone has
already said how many of the great unwashed would actually recognise
them and let you through. Leave the flashing lights to the emergency
services.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
 
Mark Williamson wrote:

> Once upon a time i would have made the move, provided it was safe to do so,
> without a second thought.
>
> However, having witnessed the petty 'nab the motorist' attitude that seems
> to apply to the police these days it is up to them to get round me, I will
> not be provoked into giving them any chance to book me!
>
> MW

How true! I'll move for the fire and ambulance but the police can wait
their turn - and if they want to pass they'll have do it as an ordinary
manoeuvre without my active assistance.
 
Dougal wrote:

> How true! I'll move for the fire and ambulance but the police can wait
> their turn - and if they want to pass they'll have do it as an ordinary
> manoeuvre without my active assistance.

But the fear has to be that the police will observe someone helping an
ambulance or fire engine, and still nick you. Nothing would suprise me
about the police anymore. Utterly useless.

Steve
 
In message <[email protected]>, Lizzy Taylor
<[email protected]> writes
>Dougal wrote:
>
>> How true! I'll move for the fire and ambulance but the police can
>>wait their turn - and if they want to pass they'll have do it as an
>>ordinary manoeuvre without my active assistance.
>
>But the fear has to be that the police will observe someone helping an
>ambulance or fire engine, and still nick you. Nothing would suprise me
>about the police anymore. Utterly useless.
>
>Steve
What is your evidence for this. How many motorists have been nicked in
these circumstances in say the last 12 months? I'm sure the daily Mail
etc. would have mad it front page news.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
 
hugh wrote:

> In message <[email protected]>, Lizzy Taylor
> <[email protected]> writes
>>Dougal wrote:
>>
>>> How true! I'll move for the fire and ambulance but the police can
>>>wait their turn - and if they want to pass they'll have do it as an
>>>ordinary manoeuvre without my active assistance.
>>
>>But the fear has to be that the police will observe someone helping an
>>ambulance or fire engine, and still nick you. Nothing would suprise me
>>about the police anymore. Utterly useless.
>>
>>Steve
> What is your evidence for this. How many motorists have been nicked in
> these circumstances in say the last 12 months? I'm sure the daily Mail
> etc. would have mad it front page news.

I think what's being pointed at here is that the police seem to go overboard
on "easy nicks" rather than on actual detection.

Cue the speed camera rant (revenue cameras), cue beat coppers walking up and
down an industrial street looking for non-compliant vehicles to lay
producers and prohibition notices on (detected crime, innit), Likewise for
tax disc out of dates.

I suspect that as long as there are targets on increasing "detected crimes"
or however they phrase it the motorist is going to take it in the shorts
because there are lots and lots more ways to become a criminal in a car
than there are in any other area.

Clip the kerb - driving without due care
Doing 75 in a 70 - you 'orrible little speeder you
Nudging past a red light to let an emergency vehicle through - you're a
criminal
Eating an apple/drinking a drink at the wheel - driving without due care

Lots of behaviour that while victimless is still considered to be criminal.

Says something that half of the county mounties I know intensely dislike
their colleagues in the Traffic group due to their being ignorant bastards
who'd book their own grannie for drinking a water while riding her invalid
buggy.

P.
--
1992 200 TDI Disco - heavily modified
1982 V8 Range Rover - heavily corroded
2000 Rover 75 - heavily driven
1993 Lexus LS400 - just plain heavy on fuel
 
In message <[email protected]>, Paul S. Brown
<[email protected]> writes
>hugh wrote:
>
>> In message <[email protected]>, Lizzy Taylor
>> <[email protected]> writes
>>>Dougal wrote:
>>>
>>>> How true! I'll move for the fire and ambulance but the police can
>>>>wait their turn - and if they want to pass they'll have do it as an
>>>>ordinary manoeuvre without my active assistance.
>>>
>>>But the fear has to be that the police will observe someone helping an
>>>ambulance or fire engine, and still nick you. Nothing would suprise me
>>>about the police anymore. Utterly useless.
>>>
>>>Steve
>> What is your evidence for this. How many motorists have been nicked in
>> these circumstances in say the last 12 months? I'm sure the daily Mail
>> etc. would have mad it front page news.
>
>I think what's being pointed at here is that the police seem to go overboard
>on "easy nicks" rather than on actual detection.
>
>Cue the speed camera rant (revenue cameras), cue beat coppers walking up and
>down an industrial street looking for non-compliant vehicles to lay
>producers and prohibition notices on (detected crime, innit), Likewise for
>tax disc out of dates.
>
>I suspect that as long as there are targets on increasing "detected crimes"
>or however they phrase it the motorist is going to take it in the shorts
>because there are lots and lots more ways to become a criminal in a car
>than there are in any other area.
>
>Clip the kerb - driving without due care
An innocent elderly couple near us walking along the pavement were
squashed like flies by a truck which did little more than that. The
driver got off scot free..
>Doing 75 in a 70 - you 'orrible little speeder you
Speeding increases the impact of any accident whether at 70 or 30 mph
>Nudging past a red light to let an emergency vehicle through - you're a
>criminal
Like I said where's the evidence? Highway Code "Consider the route of
the emergency vehicle and take appropriate action to let it pass"
Sufficiently vague to challenge in court I would have thought, but IANAL

>Eating an apple/drinking a drink at the wheel - driving without due care
>
OK so they thought it was a mobile phone.
>Lots of behaviour that while victimless is still considered to be criminal.
>
It's the potential to create victims that matters. Why should we wait
until some poor innocent's life is ruined before taking action.
>Says something that half of the county mounties I know intensely dislike
>their colleagues in the Traffic group due to their being ignorant bastards
>who'd book their own grannie for drinking a water while riding her invalid
>buggy.
>
>P.
As a council tax payer who campaigns on behalf of pensioners for its
abolition I am all in favour of a bit of revenue raising from cameras.
Personally I think they should all be hidden as cunningly as possible.
All the alternatives involve more expense which falls on the council tax
payer rather than the offender. The innocent become the (financial)
victims.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
 
hugh wrote:


>>P.
> As a council tax payer who campaigns on behalf of pensioners for its
> abolition I am all in favour of a bit of revenue raising from cameras.
> Personally I think they should all be hidden as cunningly as possible.
> All the alternatives involve more expense which falls on the council tax
> payer rather than the offender. The innocent become the (financial)
> victims.

OK.

Let's take this to its extreme.

CCTV to enforce littering - £60 fine for every occurrence - can you honestly
say you never litter, even unintentionally?

Oh yes - spitting is also illegal you know - £60 fine for every instance.

Using Profanity over fixed or wireless communications media is an offence -
£60 fine for every instance you commit - can you say for sure you never use
the world "Damn" or "Bugger" while talking on the phone?

There are lots and lots of easy to prosecute crimes that would just take a
bit of technology to enforce. Your mindset appears to want them to be taken
to their extreme.

I really, really hope you enjoy having the butt plug installed to monitor
your methane emissions and surcharge you on them.

You, sir, appear to be the brand of ****wit exemplified as "Major W.H.
Moaner of Greater Whinging".

*PLONK*

P.
--
1992 200 TDI Disco - heavily modified
1982 V8 Range Rover - heavily corroded
2000 Rover 75 - heavily driven
1993 Lexus LS400 - just plain heavy on fuel
 
hugh wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, Paul S. Brown
> <[email protected]> writes
>
>> hugh wrote:
>>
>>> In message <[email protected]>, Lizzy Taylor
>>> <[email protected]> writes
>>>
>>>> Dougal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How true! I'll move for the fire and ambulance but the police can
>>>>> wait their turn - and if they want to pass they'll have do it as an
>>>>> ordinary manoeuvre without my active assistance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But the fear has to be that the police will observe someone helping an
>>>> ambulance or fire engine, and still nick you. Nothing would suprise me
>>>> about the police anymore. Utterly useless.
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>
>>> What is your evidence for this. How many motorists have been nicked in
>>> these circumstances in say the last 12 months? I'm sure the daily Mail
>>> etc. would have mad it front page news.
>>
>>
>> I think what's being pointed at here is that the police seem to go
>> overboard
>> on "easy nicks" rather than on actual detection.
>>
>> Cue the speed camera rant (revenue cameras), cue beat coppers walking
>> up and
>> down an industrial street looking for non-compliant vehicles to lay
>> producers and prohibition notices on (detected crime, innit), Likewise
>> for
>> tax disc out of dates.
>>
>> I suspect that as long as there are targets on increasing "detected
>> crimes"
>> or however they phrase it the motorist is going to take it in the shorts
>> because there are lots and lots more ways to become a criminal in a car
>> than there are in any other area.
>>
>> Clip the kerb - driving without due care
>
> An innocent elderly couple near us walking along the pavement were
> squashed like flies by a truck which did little more than that. The
> driver got off scot free..
>
>> Doing 75 in a 70 - you 'orrible little speeder you
>
> Speeding increases the impact of any accident whether at 70 or 30 mph
>
>> Nudging past a red light to let an emergency vehicle through - you're a
>> criminal
>
> Like I said where's the evidence? Highway Code "Consider the route of
> the emergency vehicle and take appropriate action to let it pass"
> Sufficiently vague to challenge in court I would have thought, but IANAL
>
>> Eating an apple/drinking a drink at the wheel - driving without due care
>>
> OK so they thought it was a mobile phone.
>
>> Lots of behaviour that while victimless is still considered to be
>> criminal.
>>
> It's the potential to create victims that matters. Why should we wait
> until some poor innocent's life is ruined before taking action.
>
>> Says something that half of the county mounties I know intensely dislike
>> their colleagues in the Traffic group due to their being ignorant
>> bastards
>> who'd book their own grannie for drinking a water while riding her
>> invalid
>> buggy.
>>
>> P.
>
> As a council tax payer who campaigns on behalf of pensioners for its
> abolition I am all in favour of a bit of revenue raising from cameras.
> Personally I think they should all be hidden as cunningly as possible.
> All the alternatives involve more expense which falls on the council tax
> payer rather than the offender. The innocent become the (financial)
> victims.

Er, so, you want to charge motorists for pensioners rateable value?? On
what possible grounds can you justify such a statement? Your positing
the idea that there should be no connection between what you get, and
what you pay for. If we were to expand this idea, we could be in a
situation wher I'm doing 75 up the A1, at 3am in the morning, get
stopped, and fined 60GBP.That 60 GBP then gets allocated to the local
gay liberation fund (Labour gov't) or the old binmens memorial cleaning
fund! (this is an extreme example). This is far worse than the present
system. Admittedly it's not perfect, but making statements like yours is
just displaying a complete lack of coherent thouoght on how to address
the problems, and that's definately not it.
You seem to be saying that you'd rather raise revenue by catching
speeding motorists, than by people actually paying for the services they
receive? I personally don't mind camera's, providaing they are actually
in a place in which their use provides increased safety, rather than
just gaining cash.
Oh well, sorry about the rant, but badly thought out politics is why
we've got a bloke that I wouldn't buy a car from, let alone allow to
govern my fellow countrymen. I'm off to the beheading now.......

:0)

`Mark

 
in article [email protected], Mark at
[email protected] wrote on 11/5/05 1:16 pm:
> the old binmens memorial cleaning
> fund!
> `Mark
>

As an ex binman i wish too know more about this fund like will it by me that
rather pretty Srs2 Ambulance that I have a longing for?

 
hugh wrote:

>> Clip the kerb - driving without due care
>
> An innocent elderly couple near us walking along the pavement were
> squashed like flies by a truck which did little more than that. The
> driver got off scot free..

Maybe it was an accident. They do happen. People were run over and
killed by horse and carts.


>> Doing 75 in a 70 - you 'orrible little speeder you
>
> Speeding increases the impact of any accident whether at 70 or 30 mph
What's your point ? What are the chances of having an accident at 75mph
Have they increased 10 fold from 70 mph ? If the road conditions allow,
75 is a perfectly acceptable speed,it doesn't increase the chances of
having an accident.

When the speed you drive is not appropriate - like the pillocks who tear
down the straight road by my sons'school at 40mph - they're usually mums
by the way, then sure, charge people.



>> Eating an apple/drinking a drink at the wheel - driving without due care
>>
> OK so they thought it was a mobile phone.

....no,they knew it was an apple I believe.


>
>> Lots of behaviour that while victimless is still considered to be
>> criminal.
>>
> It's the potential to create victims that matters. Why should we wait
> until some poor innocent's life is ruined before taking action.

EVERYthing has the potential to "create victims"- your driving a 4X4
potentially does so. Your argument is a classic argument for sitting on
your arse while wrapped in cotton wool.

> As a council tax payer who campaigns on behalf of pensioners for its
> abolition I am all in favour of a bit of revenue raising from cameras.
> Personally I think they should all be hidden as cunningly as possible.
> All the alternatives involve more expense which falls on the council tax
> payer rather than the offender. The innocent become the (financial)
> victims.

Why not work to getting the councils to cut themselves back to something
we can all afford, then we can perhaps slip the pensioners a bung ?

Why not have a flat rate charge for anyone receiving council services ?
Like the "flat tax " schemes working so well in Eastern Europe, a "flat
council tax" scheme would work too.

Steve
 
On 2005-05-11, Rory Manton <[email protected]> wrote:

> As an ex binman i wish too know more about this fund like will it by me that
> rather pretty Srs2 Ambulance that I have a longing for?

Hello Rory, as it's a memorial fund I suspect you might have to die
first before you can get access to any loot, do you really want that
series 2 that much? ;-)

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert
 
>
>Why not work to getting the councils to cut themselves back to something
>we can all afford, then we can perhaps slip the pensioners a bung ?
>
>Why not have a flat rate charge for anyone receiving council services ?
>Like the "flat tax " schemes working so well in Eastern Europe, a "flat
>council tax" scheme would work too.
>
>Steve

Here's a radical thought (the first thing I would do if "in power").

Positively outlaw giving discounts to pensioners, students, the
disabled etc etc. If you get on a bus it costs x. If you watch TV,
the licence costs y. The cost of transporting a pensioner 10 miles on
a bus is exactly the same as transporting me 10 miles.

At the same time, calculate what people need to live on and pay it to
them via the benefits system. Now people have what they need and can
decide what to spend it on. We don't need heaps of bureaucracy to
support exemptions from this, council tax rebates, winter fuel
payments. Just give people a decent income and let them buy what they
need or want at the true cost.

Tax can be equally straightforward. VAT on what you buy and income
tax on a sliding scale related to earnings. Council tax at a flat
rate, no exemptions, single-persons allowances etc.

I'd also like to see councils stripped right back to the bone - at
present they are a breeding ground for people with no real idea of
what they are doing but plenty of time on their hands to do it. A few
regional bodies could simply award contracts to run whole towns, or
large chunks of services such as waste or traffic, to professional
enterprises with proper performance measures.


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Re: charity calendar - update
Replies
3
Views
566
Austin Shackles
A
&
Re: charity calendar - update
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
[email protected]
W
P
Re: charity calendar - update
Replies
9
Views
750
hugh
H
P
Re: charity calendar - update
Replies
1
Views
527
Richard Brookman
R
G
Re: charity calendar - update
Replies
15
Views
1K
Andy.Smalley
A
Back
Top