Drivers caught out by police on Botley Road

thisisoxfordshire: Thames Valley Police Thames Valley Police

Traffic police caught 13 drivers on their mobile phones and 17 not wearing seatbelts yesterday morning.

The operation in Botley Road also saw tickets handed out to a motorist who ran a red light and another who had no road tax.

Related links

Comments (42)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:04am Sat 5 Apr 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

Mildly useful but what is really needed is sustained action to get the 1 million plus uninsured cars off the road. These will frequently be carrying drugs, firearms, stolen property and fugitives, so stopping them has a real criminal impact. These cars don't usually move on main roads at rush hour. Why would they,? Their drivers are mostly professional non-workers. So, ANPR equipped plod cars going round the housing projects late evening and night time. Much nastier work for PC Bigears than giving tickets for mobile use in slow moving commuter traffic, albeit far more valuable. So I guess we're not going to see it happen any time soon......
Mildly useful but what is really needed is sustained action to get the 1 million plus uninsured cars off the road. These will frequently be carrying drugs, firearms, stolen property and fugitives, so stopping them has a real criminal impact. These cars don't usually move on main roads at rush hour. Why would they,? Their drivers are mostly professional non-workers. So, ANPR equipped plod cars going round the housing projects late evening and night time. Much nastier work for PC Bigears than giving tickets for mobile use in slow moving commuter traffic, albeit far more valuable. So I guess we're not going to see it happen any time soon...... Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: -13

9:25am Sat 5 Apr 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

Why did the driver get fined for going through a red light? Cyclists do it all the time and get away with it.
Why did the driver get fined for going through a red light? Cyclists do it all the time and get away with it. HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: -4

9:35am Sat 5 Apr 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Why did the driver get fined for going through a red light? Cyclists do it all the time and get away with it.
Because they're not identifiable by a registration mark and may give any ID they wish, so are not pursuable for unpaid fines. In any event there's no reason why a cyclist can't proceed safely through a red light. Our country is so poor and stupid that we neither have left filters where there should be nor a law like the States and Canada about proceeding through red lights when appropriate. Moreover a lot of pedestrian crossings have timings which would permit a quadruple amputee without wheelchair to cross the road and be 10 yards up the pavement before the lights changed to green.
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Why did the driver get fined for going through a red light? Cyclists do it all the time and get away with it.[/p][/quote]Because they're not identifiable by a registration mark and may give any ID they wish, so are not pursuable for unpaid fines. In any event there's no reason why a cyclist can't proceed safely through a red light. Our country is so poor and stupid that we neither have left filters where there should be nor a law like the States and Canada about proceeding through red lights when appropriate. Moreover a lot of pedestrian crossings have timings which would permit a quadruple amputee without wheelchair to cross the road and be 10 yards up the pavement before the lights changed to green. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: -16

11:39am Sat 5 Apr 14

the wizard says...

Excuse me Palmerstone, BUT, drivers on phones cause accidents and put people in hospital often with life changing consequences and get away with very little penalty. After being rear ended by a phone user I lost the use of my legs until a well decent surgeon was able to perform an operation. I was off work for months, lost a massive amount of earnings, and with a less reputable building society could have lost pour home. Compensation for these events comes many months after the deed has taken place and is often far too inadequate for the victim, who may just become that person you so disgustingly described . If arrogance was a virtue then you have just abused it big time. Apologies are in order, if you are man enough.
Excuse me Palmerstone, BUT, drivers on phones cause accidents and put people in hospital often with life changing consequences and get away with very little penalty. After being rear ended by a phone user I lost the use of my legs until a well decent surgeon was able to perform an operation. I was off work for months, lost a massive amount of earnings, and with a less reputable building society could have lost pour home. Compensation for these events comes many months after the deed has taken place and is often far too inadequate for the victim, who may just become that person you so disgustingly described . If arrogance was a virtue then you have just abused it big time. Apologies are in order, if you are man enough. the wizard
  • Score: 30

11:42am Sat 5 Apr 14

grandconjuration says...

Dear Oxford Mail,

There is no such thing as Road Tax. Roads are funded from general taxation. The driver in this report was caught without Vehicle Excise Duty. Please keep news reports factual.
Dear Oxford Mail, There is no such thing as Road Tax. Roads are funded from general taxation. The driver in this report was caught without Vehicle Excise Duty. Please keep news reports factual. grandconjuration
  • Score: 15

11:51am Sat 5 Apr 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

the wizard wrote:
Excuse me Palmerstone, BUT, drivers on phones cause accidents and put people in hospital often with life changing consequences and get away with very little penalty. After being rear ended by a phone user I lost the use of my legs until a well decent surgeon was able to perform an operation. I was off work for months, lost a massive amount of earnings, and with a less reputable building society could have lost pour home. Compensation for these events comes many months after the deed has taken place and is often far too inadequate for the victim, who may just become that person you so disgustingly described . If arrogance was a virtue then you have just abused it big time. Apologies are in order, if you are man enough.
Indeed they do, as do impatient and forgetful and unfit drivers. But criminals use uninsured cars and the police force is a finite resource. You'd probably have preferred to have a collision with a retard using a phone than an uninsured driver carrying £100,000 worth of skunk for sale, wouldn't you? And it is certainly sad that you are so thin skinned that a passing reference by me has given you a dose of PTSD.
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: Excuse me Palmerstone, BUT, drivers on phones cause accidents and put people in hospital often with life changing consequences and get away with very little penalty. After being rear ended by a phone user I lost the use of my legs until a well decent surgeon was able to perform an operation. I was off work for months, lost a massive amount of earnings, and with a less reputable building society could have lost pour home. Compensation for these events comes many months after the deed has taken place and is often far too inadequate for the victim, who may just become that person you so disgustingly described . If arrogance was a virtue then you have just abused it big time. Apologies are in order, if you are man enough.[/p][/quote]Indeed they do, as do impatient and forgetful and unfit drivers. But criminals use uninsured cars and the police force is a finite resource. You'd probably have preferred to have a collision with a retard using a phone than an uninsured driver carrying £100,000 worth of skunk for sale, wouldn't you? And it is certainly sad that you are so thin skinned that a passing reference by me has given you a dose of PTSD. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: -18

2:08pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

I hope they next visit the Cowley (Tesco) Roundabout. I'd love to see it monitored from time to time.

In particular the drivers who ignore the lane markings...
I hope they next visit the Cowley (Tesco) Roundabout. I'd love to see it monitored from time to time. In particular the drivers who ignore the lane markings... Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: -5

4:51pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Floflo says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Why did the driver get fined for going through a red light? Cyclists do it all the time and get away with it.
That's because drivers are clearly persecuted. Almost driven to extension. If it wasn't for your diligence in telling us how it is in these comments we'd barely notice the threat to our very survival.

Fancy getting a fined for running a red light! This is just the thin edge of the wedge I tell you. It's outrageous that the freedom of motorists is curtailed by police officers enforcing the law in this way. Who needs any more proof that the state conspires against the you and me, the hard done by motorist!
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Why did the driver get fined for going through a red light? Cyclists do it all the time and get away with it.[/p][/quote]That's because drivers are clearly persecuted. Almost driven to extension. If it wasn't for your diligence in telling us how it is in these comments we'd barely notice the threat to our very survival. Fancy getting a fined for running a red light! This is just the thin edge of the wedge I tell you. It's outrageous that the freedom of motorists is curtailed by police officers enforcing the law in this way. Who needs any more proof that the state conspires against the you and me, the hard done by motorist! Floflo
  • Score: 5

5:17pm Sat 5 Apr 14

krispii says...

Come on Oxford Mail, they were CAUGHT - not CAUGHT OUT.

And as for the drivers concerned? All of the offences were unnecessary - why not just wear your sealtbelt, not use your mobile phone whilst driving (endangering others as well as yourself), obey the traffic lights and pay your Vehicle Excise.

It's not hard !!
Come on Oxford Mail, they were CAUGHT - not CAUGHT OUT. And as for the drivers concerned? All of the offences were unnecessary - why not just wear your sealtbelt, not use your mobile phone whilst driving (endangering others as well as yourself), obey the traffic lights and pay your Vehicle Excise. It's not hard !! krispii
  • Score: 30

6:22pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Furyan says...

Their at it everyday. Use a spotter (under cover officer) beige jacket, baseball cap. Usually morning traffic, major routes coming into Oxford are their favourite hang-outs. Crawling / stationery drivers are easy targets, cha ching! £££££

Before you quote my comments while spitting out your cheap chateaux de crapo, I'm all for NOT using mobile phones whilst driving. But come on, go out on to the motor ways and dual carriage ways where this kind of behaviour is really dangerous! Rather then hiding in bushes and bus stops and preying on bored to poo drivers stuck in our crappy dysfunctional roads every morning.
Their at it everyday. Use a spotter (under cover officer) beige jacket, baseball cap. Usually morning traffic, major routes coming into Oxford are their favourite hang-outs. Crawling / stationery drivers are easy targets, cha ching! £££££ Before you quote my comments while spitting out your cheap chateaux de crapo, I'm all for NOT using mobile phones whilst driving. But come on, go out on to the motor ways and dual carriage ways where this kind of behaviour is really dangerous! Rather then hiding in bushes and bus stops and preying on bored to poo drivers stuck in our crappy dysfunctional roads every morning. Furyan
  • Score: -1

10:09pm Sat 5 Apr 14

the wizard says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
the wizard wrote:
Excuse me Palmerstone, BUT, drivers on phones cause accidents and put people in hospital often with life changing consequences and get away with very little penalty. After being rear ended by a phone user I lost the use of my legs until a well decent surgeon was able to perform an operation. I was off work for months, lost a massive amount of earnings, and with a less reputable building society could have lost pour home. Compensation for these events comes many months after the deed has taken place and is often far too inadequate for the victim, who may just become that person you so disgustingly described . If arrogance was a virtue then you have just abused it big time. Apologies are in order, if you are man enough.
Indeed they do, as do impatient and forgetful and unfit drivers. But criminals use uninsured cars and the police force is a finite resource. You'd probably have preferred to have a collision with a retard using a phone than an uninsured driver carrying £100,000 worth of skunk for sale, wouldn't you? And it is certainly sad that you are so thin skinned that a passing reference by me has given you a dose of PTSD.
Your arrogance is beyond belief, but I conclude that your detailed knowledge of the criminal classes leads us to believe that is the back ground from which you have come from or indeed involved with right now.

I do hope that you too get a dose of something, an acute case of low blood pressure would suit you well, very, very low blood pressure or perhaps just sobriety, for a change.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: Excuse me Palmerstone, BUT, drivers on phones cause accidents and put people in hospital often with life changing consequences and get away with very little penalty. After being rear ended by a phone user I lost the use of my legs until a well decent surgeon was able to perform an operation. I was off work for months, lost a massive amount of earnings, and with a less reputable building society could have lost pour home. Compensation for these events comes many months after the deed has taken place and is often far too inadequate for the victim, who may just become that person you so disgustingly described . If arrogance was a virtue then you have just abused it big time. Apologies are in order, if you are man enough.[/p][/quote]Indeed they do, as do impatient and forgetful and unfit drivers. But criminals use uninsured cars and the police force is a finite resource. You'd probably have preferred to have a collision with a retard using a phone than an uninsured driver carrying £100,000 worth of skunk for sale, wouldn't you? And it is certainly sad that you are so thin skinned that a passing reference by me has given you a dose of PTSD.[/p][/quote]Your arrogance is beyond belief, but I conclude that your detailed knowledge of the criminal classes leads us to believe that is the back ground from which you have come from or indeed involved with right now. I do hope that you too get a dose of something, an acute case of low blood pressure would suit you well, very, very low blood pressure or perhaps just sobriety, for a change. the wizard
  • Score: 9

12:20am Sun 6 Apr 14

mx5 says...

How many times does this have to be said......Don't break the law and you won't get fined. Jesus Christ, how much more simple can it be? It's all part of living in a democracy you ****!
How many times does this have to be said......Don't break the law and you won't get fined. Jesus Christ, how much more simple can it be? It's all part of living in a democracy you ****! mx5
  • Score: 21

1:19am Sun 6 Apr 14

The New Private Eye says...

mx5 wrote:
How many times does this have to be said......Don't break the law and you won't get fined. Jesus Christ, how much more simple can it be? It's all part of living in a democracy you ****!
The point that some of the above has made is that one set of road users are targeted, whilst another harder to target set due to lack of identification are ignored. That is NOT democracy.
[quote][p][bold]mx5[/bold] wrote: How many times does this have to be said......Don't break the law and you won't get fined. Jesus Christ, how much more simple can it be? It's all part of living in a democracy you ****![/p][/quote]The point that some of the above has made is that one set of road users are targeted, whilst another harder to target set due to lack of identification are ignored. That is NOT democracy. The New Private Eye
  • Score: -6

1:20am Sun 6 Apr 14

The New Private Eye says...

Or is it a case of "all pigs are equal, but some are more equal than others"?
Or is it a case of "all pigs are equal, but some are more equal than others"? The New Private Eye
  • Score: -9

8:23am Sun 6 Apr 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

the wizard wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
the wizard wrote:
Excuse me Palmerstone, BUT, drivers on phones cause accidents and put people in hospital often with life changing consequences and get away with very little penalty. After being rear ended by a phone user I lost the use of my legs until a well decent surgeon was able to perform an operation. I was off work for months, lost a massive amount of earnings, and with a less reputable building society could have lost pour home. Compensation for these events comes many months after the deed has taken place and is often far too inadequate for the victim, who may just become that person you so disgustingly described . If arrogance was a virtue then you have just abused it big time. Apologies are in order, if you are man enough.
Indeed they do, as do impatient and forgetful and unfit drivers. But criminals use uninsured cars and the police force is a finite resource. You'd probably have preferred to have a collision with a retard using a phone than an uninsured driver carrying £100,000 worth of skunk for sale, wouldn't you? And it is certainly sad that you are so thin skinned that a passing reference by me has given you a dose of PTSD.
Your arrogance is beyond belief, but I conclude that your detailed knowledge of the criminal classes leads us to believe that is the back ground from which you have come from or indeed involved with right now.

I do hope that you too get a dose of something, an acute case of low blood pressure would suit you well, very, very low blood pressure or perhaps just sobriety, for a change.
And yah boo sucks to you. If you have a point-make it!
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: Excuse me Palmerstone, BUT, drivers on phones cause accidents and put people in hospital often with life changing consequences and get away with very little penalty. After being rear ended by a phone user I lost the use of my legs until a well decent surgeon was able to perform an operation. I was off work for months, lost a massive amount of earnings, and with a less reputable building society could have lost pour home. Compensation for these events comes many months after the deed has taken place and is often far too inadequate for the victim, who may just become that person you so disgustingly described . If arrogance was a virtue then you have just abused it big time. Apologies are in order, if you are man enough.[/p][/quote]Indeed they do, as do impatient and forgetful and unfit drivers. But criminals use uninsured cars and the police force is a finite resource. You'd probably have preferred to have a collision with a retard using a phone than an uninsured driver carrying £100,000 worth of skunk for sale, wouldn't you? And it is certainly sad that you are so thin skinned that a passing reference by me has given you a dose of PTSD.[/p][/quote]Your arrogance is beyond belief, but I conclude that your detailed knowledge of the criminal classes leads us to believe that is the back ground from which you have come from or indeed involved with right now. I do hope that you too get a dose of something, an acute case of low blood pressure would suit you well, very, very low blood pressure or perhaps just sobriety, for a change.[/p][/quote]And yah boo sucks to you. If you have a point-make it! Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: -10

8:36am Sun 6 Apr 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

The New Private Eye wrote:
mx5 wrote:
How many times does this have to be said......Don't break the law and you won't get fined. Jesus Christ, how much more simple can it be? It's all part of living in a democracy you ****!
The point that some of the above has made is that one set of road users are targeted, whilst another harder to target set due to lack of identification are ignored. That is NOT democracy.
Policing is not about "democracy". There's nothing "democratic " about the fact that some South London housing projects are no go areas.It's just the natural reluctance of senior officers to face the grieving parents of their more junior officers week after week as those officers shared the fate of PC Blakelock. However when the bad guys leave the projects for an awayday in Bicester Village they're in 2's or 3's and usually an uninsured motor. That's my point.
Forcing cyclists to carry ID so you could summons them would not be particularly liberal, would it? And anyway I'm more danger in my 1 1/2 ton, 140mph box than pottling around on 2 wheels. Aren't you?
[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mx5[/bold] wrote: How many times does this have to be said......Don't break the law and you won't get fined. Jesus Christ, how much more simple can it be? It's all part of living in a democracy you ****![/p][/quote]The point that some of the above has made is that one set of road users are targeted, whilst another harder to target set due to lack of identification are ignored. That is NOT democracy.[/p][/quote]Policing is not about "democracy". There's nothing "democratic " about the fact that some South London housing projects are no go areas.It's just the natural reluctance of senior officers to face the grieving parents of their more junior officers week after week as those officers shared the fate of PC Blakelock. However when the bad guys leave the projects for an awayday in Bicester Village they're in 2's or 3's and usually an uninsured motor. That's my point. Forcing cyclists to carry ID so you could summons them would not be particularly liberal, would it? And anyway I'm more danger in my 1 1/2 ton, 140mph box than pottling around on 2 wheels. Aren't you? Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

9:28am Sun 6 Apr 14

Wanchai says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Why did the driver get fined for going through a red light? Cyclists do it all the time and get away with it.
Don't be silly if we allow motorists to jump red lights they'll immediately crash into each other. They just don't have the road sense - unless they happen to be cyclists too.
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Why did the driver get fined for going through a red light? Cyclists do it all the time and get away with it.[/p][/quote]Don't be silly if we allow motorists to jump red lights they'll immediately crash into each other. They just don't have the road sense - unless they happen to be cyclists too. Wanchai
  • Score: 6

11:52am Sun 6 Apr 14

Greenie27 says...

I get very irate with people on their mobiles whilst driving. I just wish we could submit our own proof of people on the phones and send it to the police. Or to make it compulsory for all cars to have forward / rearward and driver facing cameras that are linked to insurers. That way people will do as they are supposed to do. and if they don't - well they are idiots !
I get very irate with people on their mobiles whilst driving. I just wish we could submit our own proof of people on the phones and send it to the police. Or to make it compulsory for all cars to have forward / rearward and driver facing cameras that are linked to insurers. That way people will do as they are supposed to do. and if they don't - well they are idiots ! Greenie27
  • Score: 11

4:27pm Sun 6 Apr 14

The New Private Eye says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
mx5 wrote:
How many times does this have to be said......Don't break the law and you won't get fined. Jesus Christ, how much more simple can it be? It's all part of living in a democracy you ****!
The point that some of the above has made is that one set of road users are targeted, whilst another harder to target set due to lack of identification are ignored. That is NOT democracy.
Policing is not about "democracy". There's nothing "democratic " about the fact that some South London housing projects are no go areas.It's just the natural reluctance of senior officers to face the grieving parents of their more junior officers week after week as those officers shared the fate of PC Blakelock. However when the bad guys leave the projects for an awayday in Bicester Village they're in 2's or 3's and usually an uninsured motor. That's my point.
Forcing cyclists to carry ID so you could summons them would not be particularly liberal, would it? And anyway I'm more danger in my 1 1/2 ton, 140mph box than pottling around on 2 wheels. Aren't you?
Last wednesday morning 8.55 coming into Oxford West Way/Botley Road I am sat at the traffic lights by McD's behind a little old lady in a relatively new small hatchback, a cyclist comes inbetween the traffic quite quickly wearing big headphones and obviously enjoying his music. For some reason he swerves and his the rear lights of the hatchback totally smashing the rear light cluster (£200 bill at least) The result of the accident, little old lady sat bemused as to what has happened, the cyclist pauses for a few seconds looks at the damage, and races across the raod into McD's car park and off down North Hinksey Lane to get away from his responsibilities. Now had there been a way of identifying the cyclist then justice could have been done. And all this only a 100 yards away from the police check a couple of days later. Policing our roads is not about catching real idiots on our roads such as the cyclist, but about raising money from easy targets, end of.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mx5[/bold] wrote: How many times does this have to be said......Don't break the law and you won't get fined. Jesus Christ, how much more simple can it be? It's all part of living in a democracy you ****![/p][/quote]The point that some of the above has made is that one set of road users are targeted, whilst another harder to target set due to lack of identification are ignored. That is NOT democracy.[/p][/quote]Policing is not about "democracy". There's nothing "democratic " about the fact that some South London housing projects are no go areas.It's just the natural reluctance of senior officers to face the grieving parents of their more junior officers week after week as those officers shared the fate of PC Blakelock. However when the bad guys leave the projects for an awayday in Bicester Village they're in 2's or 3's and usually an uninsured motor. That's my point. Forcing cyclists to carry ID so you could summons them would not be particularly liberal, would it? And anyway I'm more danger in my 1 1/2 ton, 140mph box than pottling around on 2 wheels. Aren't you?[/p][/quote]Last wednesday morning 8.55 coming into Oxford West Way/Botley Road I am sat at the traffic lights by McD's behind a little old lady in a relatively new small hatchback, a cyclist comes inbetween the traffic quite quickly wearing big headphones and obviously enjoying his music. For some reason he swerves and his the rear lights of the hatchback totally smashing the rear light cluster (£200 bill at least) The result of the accident, little old lady sat bemused as to what has happened, the cyclist pauses for a few seconds looks at the damage, and races across the raod into McD's car park and off down North Hinksey Lane to get away from his responsibilities. Now had there been a way of identifying the cyclist then justice could have been done. And all this only a 100 yards away from the police check a couple of days later. Policing our roads is not about catching real idiots on our roads such as the cyclist, but about raising money from easy targets, end of. The New Private Eye
  • Score: -1

5:33pm Sun 6 Apr 14

Floflo says...

The New Private Eye wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
mx5 wrote:
How many times does this have to be said......Don't break the law and you won't get fined. Jesus Christ, how much more simple can it be? It's all part of living in a democracy you ****!
The point that some of the above has made is that one set of road users are targeted, whilst another harder to target set due to lack of identification are ignored. That is NOT democracy.
Policing is not about "democracy". There's nothing "democratic " about the fact that some South London housing projects are no go areas.It's just the natural reluctance of senior officers to face the grieving parents of their more junior officers week after week as those officers shared the fate of PC Blakelock. However when the bad guys leave the projects for an awayday in Bicester Village they're in 2's or 3's and usually an uninsured motor. That's my point.
Forcing cyclists to carry ID so you could summons them would not be particularly liberal, would it? And anyway I'm more danger in my 1 1/2 ton, 140mph box than pottling around on 2 wheels. Aren't you?
Last wednesday morning 8.55 coming into Oxford West Way/Botley Road I am sat at the traffic lights by McD's behind a little old lady in a relatively new small hatchback, a cyclist comes inbetween the traffic quite quickly wearing big headphones and obviously enjoying his music. For some reason he swerves and his the rear lights of the hatchback totally smashing the rear light cluster (£200 bill at least) The result of the accident, little old lady sat bemused as to what has happened, the cyclist pauses for a few seconds looks at the damage, and races across the raod into McD's car park and off down North Hinksey Lane to get away from his responsibilities. Now had there been a way of identifying the cyclist then justice could have been done. And all this only a 100 yards away from the police check a couple of days later. Policing our roads is not about catching real idiots on our roads such as the cyclist, but about raising money from easy targets, end of.
'End of' generally means that there's little point engaging, however think about the assaults which are routinely reported in this paper.

Now if only there was some way of identifying the perpetrator in these cases? If you support cyclists wearing identifying marks then why not pedestrians - infant anyone who leaves their house should surely wear clearly visible identification?

You are not a a target, not even an easy target if you stick to the rules of the road by the way.
[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mx5[/bold] wrote: How many times does this have to be said......Don't break the law and you won't get fined. Jesus Christ, how much more simple can it be? It's all part of living in a democracy you ****![/p][/quote]The point that some of the above has made is that one set of road users are targeted, whilst another harder to target set due to lack of identification are ignored. That is NOT democracy.[/p][/quote]Policing is not about "democracy". There's nothing "democratic " about the fact that some South London housing projects are no go areas.It's just the natural reluctance of senior officers to face the grieving parents of their more junior officers week after week as those officers shared the fate of PC Blakelock. However when the bad guys leave the projects for an awayday in Bicester Village they're in 2's or 3's and usually an uninsured motor. That's my point. Forcing cyclists to carry ID so you could summons them would not be particularly liberal, would it? And anyway I'm more danger in my 1 1/2 ton, 140mph box than pottling around on 2 wheels. Aren't you?[/p][/quote]Last wednesday morning 8.55 coming into Oxford West Way/Botley Road I am sat at the traffic lights by McD's behind a little old lady in a relatively new small hatchback, a cyclist comes inbetween the traffic quite quickly wearing big headphones and obviously enjoying his music. For some reason he swerves and his the rear lights of the hatchback totally smashing the rear light cluster (£200 bill at least) The result of the accident, little old lady sat bemused as to what has happened, the cyclist pauses for a few seconds looks at the damage, and races across the raod into McD's car park and off down North Hinksey Lane to get away from his responsibilities. Now had there been a way of identifying the cyclist then justice could have been done. And all this only a 100 yards away from the police check a couple of days later. Policing our roads is not about catching real idiots on our roads such as the cyclist, but about raising money from easy targets, end of.[/p][/quote]'End of' generally means that there's little point engaging, however think about the assaults which are routinely reported in this paper. Now if only there was some way of identifying the perpetrator in these cases? If you support cyclists wearing identifying marks then why not pedestrians - infant anyone who leaves their house should surely wear clearly visible identification? You are not a a target, not even an easy target if you stick to the rules of the road by the way. Floflo
  • Score: 9

5:42pm Sun 6 Apr 14

The New Private Eye says...

Floflo wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
mx5 wrote:
How many times does this have to be said......Don't break the law and you won't get fined. Jesus Christ, how much more simple can it be? It's all part of living in a democracy you ****!
The point that some of the above has made is that one set of road users are targeted, whilst another harder to target set due to lack of identification are ignored. That is NOT democracy.
Policing is not about "democracy". There's nothing "democratic " about the fact that some South London housing projects are no go areas.It's just the natural reluctance of senior officers to face the grieving parents of their more junior officers week after week as those officers shared the fate of PC Blakelock. However when the bad guys leave the projects for an awayday in Bicester Village they're in 2's or 3's and usually an uninsured motor. That's my point.
Forcing cyclists to carry ID so you could summons them would not be particularly liberal, would it? And anyway I'm more danger in my 1 1/2 ton, 140mph box than pottling around on 2 wheels. Aren't you?
Last wednesday morning 8.55 coming into Oxford West Way/Botley Road I am sat at the traffic lights by McD's behind a little old lady in a relatively new small hatchback, a cyclist comes inbetween the traffic quite quickly wearing big headphones and obviously enjoying his music. For some reason he swerves and his the rear lights of the hatchback totally smashing the rear light cluster (£200 bill at least) The result of the accident, little old lady sat bemused as to what has happened, the cyclist pauses for a few seconds looks at the damage, and races across the raod into McD's car park and off down North Hinksey Lane to get away from his responsibilities. Now had there been a way of identifying the cyclist then justice could have been done. And all this only a 100 yards away from the police check a couple of days later. Policing our roads is not about catching real idiots on our roads such as the cyclist, but about raising money from easy targets, end of.
'End of' generally means that there's little point engaging, however think about the assaults which are routinely reported in this paper.

Now if only there was some way of identifying the perpetrator in these cases? If you support cyclists wearing identifying marks then why not pedestrians - infant anyone who leaves their house should surely wear clearly visible identification?

You are not a a target, not even an easy target if you stick to the rules of the road by the way.
That is a ridiculous statement FLO. We are talking road users, motor vehicles must have identification, pevement users do not (for now until the Stasi introduce ID cards) Please stick to the topic, and not let your blind hatred of the internal combustion engine cloud every post that you put on here. What do you think of the cyclist that raced away from the little old lady after causing probably a months income worth of damage for her?
[quote][p][bold]Floflo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mx5[/bold] wrote: How many times does this have to be said......Don't break the law and you won't get fined. Jesus Christ, how much more simple can it be? It's all part of living in a democracy you ****![/p][/quote]The point that some of the above has made is that one set of road users are targeted, whilst another harder to target set due to lack of identification are ignored. That is NOT democracy.[/p][/quote]Policing is not about "democracy". There's nothing "democratic " about the fact that some South London housing projects are no go areas.It's just the natural reluctance of senior officers to face the grieving parents of their more junior officers week after week as those officers shared the fate of PC Blakelock. However when the bad guys leave the projects for an awayday in Bicester Village they're in 2's or 3's and usually an uninsured motor. That's my point. Forcing cyclists to carry ID so you could summons them would not be particularly liberal, would it? And anyway I'm more danger in my 1 1/2 ton, 140mph box than pottling around on 2 wheels. Aren't you?[/p][/quote]Last wednesday morning 8.55 coming into Oxford West Way/Botley Road I am sat at the traffic lights by McD's behind a little old lady in a relatively new small hatchback, a cyclist comes inbetween the traffic quite quickly wearing big headphones and obviously enjoying his music. For some reason he swerves and his the rear lights of the hatchback totally smashing the rear light cluster (£200 bill at least) The result of the accident, little old lady sat bemused as to what has happened, the cyclist pauses for a few seconds looks at the damage, and races across the raod into McD's car park and off down North Hinksey Lane to get away from his responsibilities. Now had there been a way of identifying the cyclist then justice could have been done. And all this only a 100 yards away from the police check a couple of days later. Policing our roads is not about catching real idiots on our roads such as the cyclist, but about raising money from easy targets, end of.[/p][/quote]'End of' generally means that there's little point engaging, however think about the assaults which are routinely reported in this paper. Now if only there was some way of identifying the perpetrator in these cases? If you support cyclists wearing identifying marks then why not pedestrians - infant anyone who leaves their house should surely wear clearly visible identification? You are not a a target, not even an easy target if you stick to the rules of the road by the way.[/p][/quote]That is a ridiculous statement FLO. We are talking road users, motor vehicles must have identification, pevement users do not (for now until the Stasi introduce ID cards) Please stick to the topic, and not let your blind hatred of the internal combustion engine cloud every post that you put on here. What do you think of the cyclist that raced away from the little old lady after causing probably a months income worth of damage for her? The New Private Eye
  • Score: -6

6:47pm Sun 6 Apr 14

grandconjuration says...

What a surprise. An article about law-breaking motorists and the "I saw a cyclist..." anecdotes have started.

Motor vehicles have identification because they are dangerous. Bicycles are not.
What a surprise. An article about law-breaking motorists and the "I saw a cyclist..." anecdotes have started. Motor vehicles have identification because they are dangerous. Bicycles are not. grandconjuration
  • Score: 16

6:47pm Sun 6 Apr 14

Madi50n says...

Ha ha, NPE, what a hypocrite! "Stick to the topic", when the topic is about motorists breaking the law & you're banging on about some fictitious cyclist.

I'm willing to bet you comment on stories about crackdowns on cyclists without lights saying how dangerous they are & never mention motorists at all.

Pathetic!
Ha ha, NPE, what a hypocrite! "Stick to the topic", when the topic is about motorists breaking the law & you're banging on about some fictitious cyclist. I'm willing to bet you comment on stories about crackdowns on cyclists without lights saying how dangerous they are & never mention motorists at all. Pathetic! Madi50n
  • Score: 14

7:59pm Sun 6 Apr 14

the wizard says...

THIS IS THE REALITY OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU USE A PHONE WHEN DRIVING,


https://www.facebook
.com/photo.php?v=101
51878226233513

The thing is, this was a re enactment of a true event.
THIS IS THE REALITY OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU USE A PHONE WHEN DRIVING, https://www.facebook .com/photo.php?v=101 51878226233513 The thing is, this was a re enactment of a true event. the wizard
  • Score: 7

8:41pm Sun 6 Apr 14

the wizard says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
the wizard wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
the wizard wrote:
Excuse me Palmerstone, BUT, drivers on phones cause accidents and put people in hospital often with life changing consequences and get away with very little penalty. After being rear ended by a phone user I lost the use of my legs until a well decent surgeon was able to perform an operation. I was off work for months, lost a massive amount of earnings, and with a less reputable building society could have lost pour home. Compensation for these events comes many months after the deed has taken place and is often far too inadequate for the victim, who may just become that person you so disgustingly described . If arrogance was a virtue then you have just abused it big time. Apologies are in order, if you are man enough.
Indeed they do, as do impatient and forgetful and unfit drivers. But criminals use uninsured cars and the police force is a finite resource. You'd probably have preferred to have a collision with a retard using a phone than an uninsured driver carrying £100,000 worth of skunk for sale, wouldn't you? And it is certainly sad that you are so thin skinned that a passing reference by me has given you a dose of PTSD.
Your arrogance is beyond belief, but I conclude that your detailed knowledge of the criminal classes leads us to believe that is the back ground from which you have come from or indeed involved with right now.

I do hope that you too get a dose of something, an acute case of low blood pressure would suit you well, very, very low blood pressure or perhaps just sobriety, for a change.
And yah boo sucks to you. If you have a point-make it!
I always thought you were a typical old school above everyone else Tory type ar5ewipe, and your post just proved it.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: Excuse me Palmerstone, BUT, drivers on phones cause accidents and put people in hospital often with life changing consequences and get away with very little penalty. After being rear ended by a phone user I lost the use of my legs until a well decent surgeon was able to perform an operation. I was off work for months, lost a massive amount of earnings, and with a less reputable building society could have lost pour home. Compensation for these events comes many months after the deed has taken place and is often far too inadequate for the victim, who may just become that person you so disgustingly described . If arrogance was a virtue then you have just abused it big time. Apologies are in order, if you are man enough.[/p][/quote]Indeed they do, as do impatient and forgetful and unfit drivers. But criminals use uninsured cars and the police force is a finite resource. You'd probably have preferred to have a collision with a retard using a phone than an uninsured driver carrying £100,000 worth of skunk for sale, wouldn't you? And it is certainly sad that you are so thin skinned that a passing reference by me has given you a dose of PTSD.[/p][/quote]Your arrogance is beyond belief, but I conclude that your detailed knowledge of the criminal classes leads us to believe that is the back ground from which you have come from or indeed involved with right now. I do hope that you too get a dose of something, an acute case of low blood pressure would suit you well, very, very low blood pressure or perhaps just sobriety, for a change.[/p][/quote]And yah boo sucks to you. If you have a point-make it![/p][/quote]I always thought you were a typical old school above everyone else Tory type ar5ewipe, and your post just proved it. the wizard
  • Score: 6

7:16am Mon 7 Apr 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

the wizard wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
the wizard wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
the wizard wrote:
Excuse me Palmerstone, BUT, drivers on phones cause accidents and put people in hospital often with life changing consequences and get away with very little penalty. After being rear ended by a phone user I lost the use of my legs until a well decent surgeon was able to perform an operation. I was off work for months, lost a massive amount of earnings, and with a less reputable building society could have lost pour home. Compensation for these events comes many months after the deed has taken place and is often far too inadequate for the victim, who may just become that person you so disgustingly described . If arrogance was a virtue then you have just abused it big time. Apologies are in order, if you are man enough.
Indeed they do, as do impatient and forgetful and unfit drivers. But criminals use uninsured cars and the police force is a finite resource. You'd probably have preferred to have a collision with a retard using a phone than an uninsured driver carrying £100,000 worth of skunk for sale, wouldn't you? And it is certainly sad that you are so thin skinned that a passing reference by me has given you a dose of PTSD.
Your arrogance is beyond belief, but I conclude that your detailed knowledge of the criminal classes leads us to believe that is the back ground from which you have come from or indeed involved with right now.

I do hope that you too get a dose of something, an acute case of low blood pressure would suit you well, very, very low blood pressure or perhaps just sobriety, for a change.
And yah boo sucks to you. If you have a point-make it!
I always thought you were a typical old school above everyone else Tory type ar5ewipe, and your post just proved it.
What on earth is the point of repeated silly abuse? That's just chav nonsense. Grow up.
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: Excuse me Palmerstone, BUT, drivers on phones cause accidents and put people in hospital often with life changing consequences and get away with very little penalty. After being rear ended by a phone user I lost the use of my legs until a well decent surgeon was able to perform an operation. I was off work for months, lost a massive amount of earnings, and with a less reputable building society could have lost pour home. Compensation for these events comes many months after the deed has taken place and is often far too inadequate for the victim, who may just become that person you so disgustingly described . If arrogance was a virtue then you have just abused it big time. Apologies are in order, if you are man enough.[/p][/quote]Indeed they do, as do impatient and forgetful and unfit drivers. But criminals use uninsured cars and the police force is a finite resource. You'd probably have preferred to have a collision with a retard using a phone than an uninsured driver carrying £100,000 worth of skunk for sale, wouldn't you? And it is certainly sad that you are so thin skinned that a passing reference by me has given you a dose of PTSD.[/p][/quote]Your arrogance is beyond belief, but I conclude that your detailed knowledge of the criminal classes leads us to believe that is the back ground from which you have come from or indeed involved with right now. I do hope that you too get a dose of something, an acute case of low blood pressure would suit you well, very, very low blood pressure or perhaps just sobriety, for a change.[/p][/quote]And yah boo sucks to you. If you have a point-make it![/p][/quote]I always thought you were a typical old school above everyone else Tory type ar5ewipe, and your post just proved it.[/p][/quote]What on earth is the point of repeated silly abuse? That's just chav nonsense. Grow up. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: -10

8:25am Mon 7 Apr 14

Floflo says...

The New Private Eye wrote:
Floflo wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
mx5 wrote:
How many times does this have to be said......Don't break the law and you won't get fined. Jesus Christ, how much more simple can it be? It's all part of living in a democracy you ****!
The point that some of the above has made is that one set of road users are targeted, whilst another harder to target set due to lack of identification are ignored. That is NOT democracy.
Policing is not about "democracy". There's nothing "democratic " about the fact that some South London housing projects are no go areas.It's just the natural reluctance of senior officers to face the grieving parents of their more junior officers week after week as those officers shared the fate of PC Blakelock. However when the bad guys leave the projects for an awayday in Bicester Village they're in 2's or 3's and usually an uninsured motor. That's my point.
Forcing cyclists to carry ID so you could summons them would not be particularly liberal, would it? And anyway I'm more danger in my 1 1/2 ton, 140mph box than pottling around on 2 wheels. Aren't you?
Last wednesday morning 8.55 coming into Oxford West Way/Botley Road I am sat at the traffic lights by McD's behind a little old lady in a relatively new small hatchback, a cyclist comes inbetween the traffic quite quickly wearing big headphones and obviously enjoying his music. For some reason he swerves and his the rear lights of the hatchback totally smashing the rear light cluster (£200 bill at least) The result of the accident, little old lady sat bemused as to what has happened, the cyclist pauses for a few seconds looks at the damage, and races across the raod into McD's car park and off down North Hinksey Lane to get away from his responsibilities. Now had there been a way of identifying the cyclist then justice could have been done. And all this only a 100 yards away from the police check a couple of days later. Policing our roads is not about catching real idiots on our roads such as the cyclist, but about raising money from easy targets, end of.
'End of' generally means that there's little point engaging, however think about the assaults which are routinely reported in this paper.

Now if only there was some way of identifying the perpetrator in these cases? If you support cyclists wearing identifying marks then why not pedestrians - infant anyone who leaves their house should surely wear clearly visible identification?

You are not a a target, not even an easy target if you stick to the rules of the road by the way.
That is a ridiculous statement FLO. We are talking road users, motor vehicles must have identification, pevement users do not (for now until the Stasi introduce ID cards) Please stick to the topic, and not let your blind hatred of the internal combustion engine cloud every post that you put on here. What do you think of the cyclist that raced away from the little old lady after causing probably a months income worth of damage for her?
You raised the subject of identification. I replied to you so I don't understand what you mean by sticking to the topic.

Your assumption that I have 'blind hatred' of the internal combustion engine is way off the mark. I enjoy driving in moderation, and the engine is a marvellous invention.

I don't think you understood my earlier reply so let me try again. In the hands of a human it also kills thousands of people so it's entirely appropriate that its use is licensed, regulated and drivers and identifiable. .
In terms of risk other road users, walkers, horse riders, cyclists, invalid carriage users etc are in a different league. Yet you single out cyclists for outward identification - presumable due to misunderstanding of relative risks.
[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Floflo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mx5[/bold] wrote: How many times does this have to be said......Don't break the law and you won't get fined. Jesus Christ, how much more simple can it be? It's all part of living in a democracy you ****![/p][/quote]The point that some of the above has made is that one set of road users are targeted, whilst another harder to target set due to lack of identification are ignored. That is NOT democracy.[/p][/quote]Policing is not about "democracy". There's nothing "democratic " about the fact that some South London housing projects are no go areas.It's just the natural reluctance of senior officers to face the grieving parents of their more junior officers week after week as those officers shared the fate of PC Blakelock. However when the bad guys leave the projects for an awayday in Bicester Village they're in 2's or 3's and usually an uninsured motor. That's my point. Forcing cyclists to carry ID so you could summons them would not be particularly liberal, would it? And anyway I'm more danger in my 1 1/2 ton, 140mph box than pottling around on 2 wheels. Aren't you?[/p][/quote]Last wednesday morning 8.55 coming into Oxford West Way/Botley Road I am sat at the traffic lights by McD's behind a little old lady in a relatively new small hatchback, a cyclist comes inbetween the traffic quite quickly wearing big headphones and obviously enjoying his music. For some reason he swerves and his the rear lights of the hatchback totally smashing the rear light cluster (£200 bill at least) The result of the accident, little old lady sat bemused as to what has happened, the cyclist pauses for a few seconds looks at the damage, and races across the raod into McD's car park and off down North Hinksey Lane to get away from his responsibilities. Now had there been a way of identifying the cyclist then justice could have been done. And all this only a 100 yards away from the police check a couple of days later. Policing our roads is not about catching real idiots on our roads such as the cyclist, but about raising money from easy targets, end of.[/p][/quote]'End of' generally means that there's little point engaging, however think about the assaults which are routinely reported in this paper. Now if only there was some way of identifying the perpetrator in these cases? If you support cyclists wearing identifying marks then why not pedestrians - infant anyone who leaves their house should surely wear clearly visible identification? You are not a a target, not even an easy target if you stick to the rules of the road by the way.[/p][/quote]That is a ridiculous statement FLO. We are talking road users, motor vehicles must have identification, pevement users do not (for now until the Stasi introduce ID cards) Please stick to the topic, and not let your blind hatred of the internal combustion engine cloud every post that you put on here. What do you think of the cyclist that raced away from the little old lady after causing probably a months income worth of damage for her?[/p][/quote]You raised the subject of identification. I replied to you so I don't understand what you mean by sticking to the topic. Your assumption that I have 'blind hatred' of the internal combustion engine is way off the mark. I enjoy driving in moderation, and the engine is a marvellous invention. I don't think you understood my earlier reply so let me try again. In the hands of a human it also kills thousands of people so it's entirely appropriate that its use is licensed, regulated and drivers and identifiable. . In terms of risk other road users, walkers, horse riders, cyclists, invalid carriage users etc are in a different league. Yet you single out cyclists for outward identification - presumable due to misunderstanding of relative risks. Floflo
  • Score: 10

9:16am Mon 7 Apr 14

the wizard says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
the wizard wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
the wizard wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
the wizard wrote:
Excuse me Palmerstone, BUT, drivers on phones cause accidents and put people in hospital often with life changing consequences and get away with very little penalty. After being rear ended by a phone user I lost the use of my legs until a well decent surgeon was able to perform an operation. I was off work for months, lost a massive amount of earnings, and with a less reputable building society could have lost pour home. Compensation for these events comes many months after the deed has taken place and is often far too inadequate for the victim, who may just become that person you so disgustingly described . If arrogance was a virtue then you have just abused it big time. Apologies are in order, if you are man enough.
Indeed they do, as do impatient and forgetful and unfit drivers. But criminals use uninsured cars and the police force is a finite resource. You'd probably have preferred to have a collision with a retard using a phone than an uninsured driver carrying £100,000 worth of skunk for sale, wouldn't you? And it is certainly sad that you are so thin skinned that a passing reference by me has given you a dose of PTSD.
Your arrogance is beyond belief, but I conclude that your detailed knowledge of the criminal classes leads us to believe that is the back ground from which you have come from or indeed involved with right now.

I do hope that you too get a dose of something, an acute case of low blood pressure would suit you well, very, very low blood pressure or perhaps just sobriety, for a change.
And yah boo sucks to you. If you have a point-make it!
I always thought you were a typical old school above everyone else Tory type ar5ewipe, and your post just proved it.
What on earth is the point of repeated silly abuse? That's just chav nonsense. Grow up.
It is you that meters out abuse to all comers that don't fit your criteria, and it is you that type cast people as drug users and cast wild aspersions about,

quote,
Mildly useful but what is really needed is sustained action to get the 1 million plus uninsured cars off the road. These will frequently be carrying drugs, firearms, stolen property and fugitives, so stopping them has a real criminal impact. These cars don't usually move on main roads at rush hour. Why would they,? Their drivers are mostly professional non-workers.

Really ? I'd love to see the official stats that prove that, so I trust you will be rolling them out sometime soon.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: Excuse me Palmerstone, BUT, drivers on phones cause accidents and put people in hospital often with life changing consequences and get away with very little penalty. After being rear ended by a phone user I lost the use of my legs until a well decent surgeon was able to perform an operation. I was off work for months, lost a massive amount of earnings, and with a less reputable building society could have lost pour home. Compensation for these events comes many months after the deed has taken place and is often far too inadequate for the victim, who may just become that person you so disgustingly described . If arrogance was a virtue then you have just abused it big time. Apologies are in order, if you are man enough.[/p][/quote]Indeed they do, as do impatient and forgetful and unfit drivers. But criminals use uninsured cars and the police force is a finite resource. You'd probably have preferred to have a collision with a retard using a phone than an uninsured driver carrying £100,000 worth of skunk for sale, wouldn't you? And it is certainly sad that you are so thin skinned that a passing reference by me has given you a dose of PTSD.[/p][/quote]Your arrogance is beyond belief, but I conclude that your detailed knowledge of the criminal classes leads us to believe that is the back ground from which you have come from or indeed involved with right now. I do hope that you too get a dose of something, an acute case of low blood pressure would suit you well, very, very low blood pressure or perhaps just sobriety, for a change.[/p][/quote]And yah boo sucks to you. If you have a point-make it![/p][/quote]I always thought you were a typical old school above everyone else Tory type ar5ewipe, and your post just proved it.[/p][/quote]What on earth is the point of repeated silly abuse? That's just chav nonsense. Grow up.[/p][/quote]It is you that meters out abuse to all comers that don't fit your criteria, and it is you that type cast people as drug users and cast wild aspersions about, quote, Mildly useful but what is really needed is sustained action to get the 1 million plus uninsured cars off the road. These will frequently be carrying drugs, firearms, stolen property and fugitives, so stopping them has a real criminal impact. These cars don't usually move on main roads at rush hour. Why would they,? Their drivers are mostly professional non-workers. Really ? I'd love to see the official stats that prove that, so I trust you will be rolling them out sometime soon. the wizard
  • Score: 6

10:31am Mon 7 Apr 14

icba1957 says...

grandconjuration wrote:
What a surprise. An article about law-breaking motorists and the "I saw a cyclist..." anecdotes have started.

Motor vehicles have identification because they are dangerous. Bicycles are not.
Tell that to the student who got knocked down on george Street by a cyclist jumping the lights ...
T*sser!
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: What a surprise. An article about law-breaking motorists and the "I saw a cyclist..." anecdotes have started. Motor vehicles have identification because they are dangerous. Bicycles are not.[/p][/quote]Tell that to the student who got knocked down on george Street by a cyclist jumping the lights ... T*sser! icba1957
  • Score: -12

10:41am Mon 7 Apr 14

Madi50n says...

icba1957 wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
What a surprise. An article about law-breaking motorists and the "I saw a cyclist..." anecdotes have started.

Motor vehicles have identification because they are dangerous. Bicycles are not.
Tell that to the student who got knocked down on george Street by a cyclist jumping the lights ...
T*sser!
Yeah, bloomin' cyclists, so dangerous! There's a story every single day about them killing people and running 'em over, and putting 'em in hospital, they're a law unto themselves, oh when will the madness end! We poor motorists wot never 'urt no-one, every one picks on us, we never break the law, nor cause accidents or kill people. But them cyclists, they just kill people and cycle off like its nuffink,. AND, and and they cause so many traffic jams, you see 'em, all lining up in front us drivers, if it wasn't for flippin cyclists cars would never get stuck in traffic jams. Gor it makes my blood boil.
[quote][p][bold]icba1957[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: What a surprise. An article about law-breaking motorists and the "I saw a cyclist..." anecdotes have started. Motor vehicles have identification because they are dangerous. Bicycles are not.[/p][/quote]Tell that to the student who got knocked down on george Street by a cyclist jumping the lights ... T*sser![/p][/quote]Yeah, bloomin' cyclists, so dangerous! There's a story every single day about them killing people and running 'em over, and putting 'em in hospital, they're a law unto themselves, oh when will the madness end! We poor motorists wot never 'urt no-one, every one picks on us, we never break the law, nor cause accidents or kill people. But them cyclists, they just kill people and cycle off like its nuffink,. AND, and and they cause so many traffic jams, you see 'em, all lining up in front us drivers, if it wasn't for flippin cyclists cars would never get stuck in traffic jams. Gor it makes my blood boil. Madi50n
  • Score: 14

11:10am Mon 7 Apr 14

grandconjuration says...

icba1957 wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
What a surprise. An article about law-breaking motorists and the "I saw a cyclist..." anecdotes have started.

Motor vehicles have identification because they are dangerous. Bicycles are not.
Tell that to the student who got knocked down on george Street by a cyclist jumping the lights ...
T*sser!
You prove my point by being able to recall one single rare event.

Can you now name everyone who has been injured or killed by a motorist in the time since this incident?

Why has a thread about law-breaking drivers been turned into an anti-cycling thread?
[quote][p][bold]icba1957[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: What a surprise. An article about law-breaking motorists and the "I saw a cyclist..." anecdotes have started. Motor vehicles have identification because they are dangerous. Bicycles are not.[/p][/quote]Tell that to the student who got knocked down on george Street by a cyclist jumping the lights ... T*sser![/p][/quote]You prove my point by being able to recall one single rare event. Can you now name everyone who has been injured or killed by a motorist in the time since this incident? Why has a thread about law-breaking drivers been turned into an anti-cycling thread? grandconjuration
  • Score: 13

11:44am Mon 7 Apr 14

Madi50n says...

Quite a number of drivers have massive entitlement issues, they think the roads were built for them (obviously the Romans were unbelievably good at predicting the future) and that the teeny tiny amount of money they pay in VED pays for all roads in the UK and that it entitles them to exclusive use of them.

They think the driving test is a hurdle to be overcome and forget its purpose is to prove to the authorities that they are capable of driving a machine that can easily kill others, responsibly and safely.

The rules of the road, seat belts, speed limits, mobile use, driving after a drink, driving whilst distracted are all designed to inconvenience them, and can be ignored at some point depending on the circumstances (got to get home quick, been waiting for that phone call, I'm only popping to the shops, my child needs me to pick up that toy they have dropped).

They absolutely hate the fact that cyclists make them accountable; they could do all of the above, and more, if there were no cyclists, in built up areas because at worst they would cause a crash, dent a car a bit and bump up insurance payments. But do any of that with cyclists on the road and they might end up killing someone, losing their precious licence and possibly ending up in jail, and it would be their fault, and their fault alone, and they absolutely hate it.

So some of them vent their spleens on these stories because screaming at cyclists from behind their steering wheels isn't letting enough people know just how stupid they are.
Quite a number of drivers have massive entitlement issues, they think the roads were built for them (obviously the Romans were unbelievably good at predicting the future) and that the teeny tiny amount of money they pay in VED pays for all roads in the UK and that it entitles them to exclusive use of them. They think the driving test is a hurdle to be overcome and forget its purpose is to prove to the authorities that they are capable of driving a machine that can easily kill others, responsibly and safely. The rules of the road, seat belts, speed limits, mobile use, driving after a drink, driving whilst distracted are all designed to inconvenience them, and can be ignored at some point depending on the circumstances (got to get home quick, been waiting for that phone call, I'm only popping to the shops, my child needs me to pick up that toy they have dropped). They absolutely hate the fact that cyclists make them accountable; they could do all of the above, and more, if there were no cyclists, in built up areas because at worst they would cause a crash, dent a car a bit and bump up insurance payments. But do any of that with cyclists on the road and they might end up killing someone, losing their precious licence and possibly ending up in jail, and it would be their fault, and their fault alone, and they absolutely hate it. So some of them vent their spleens on these stories because screaming at cyclists from behind their steering wheels isn't letting enough people know just how stupid they are. Madi50n
  • Score: 16

2:17pm Mon 7 Apr 14

the wizard says...

I've said for years, and will continue to do so, if cyclists and van/car users sat in the cab of a truck and watched what really goes on then their minds would change and their driving habits as well.
Bikes weave in and out of cars in queues, they also damage pedestrians as well as vehicles. many car drivers are arrogant, and some van drivers on unrealistic schedules set by their employers are at times possessed by a devil within.
While bus and truck drivers are usually more accountable due to the size and weight of their vehicle. and driving time restrictions. I don't think anyone is perfect but, the cycling body does little at times to further its cause. We all know many don't have lights or good brakes, or riders that really care, with their attitude and ear phones, no insurance etc. Then again there are other road users who also don't follow the rules. The trouble is, we don't have Traffic Police like we used to, who on a regular basis pulled people for little reason and went through their vehicles with a fine tooth comb. Funny how France and Germany two of our nearest neighbours do, and the public shy away from them at every chance as their menace does it job. If we had the same here, this debate would not have probably happened as the offences would not be taking place to the level they are. Time for us all to do that reality check, are we all as good as we would like to think, probably not. Just think of the awareness check if everybody had to do a retest every ten years.
I've said for years, and will continue to do so, if cyclists and van/car users sat in the cab of a truck and watched what really goes on then their minds would change and their driving habits as well. Bikes weave in and out of cars in queues, they also damage pedestrians as well as vehicles. many car drivers are arrogant, and some van drivers on unrealistic schedules set by their employers are at times possessed by a devil within. While bus and truck drivers are usually more accountable due to the size and weight of their vehicle. and driving time restrictions. I don't think anyone is perfect but, the cycling body does little at times to further its cause. We all know many don't have lights or good brakes, or riders that really care, with their attitude and ear phones, no insurance etc. Then again there are other road users who also don't follow the rules. The trouble is, we don't have Traffic Police like we used to, who on a regular basis pulled people for little reason and went through their vehicles with a fine tooth comb. Funny how France and Germany two of our nearest neighbours do, and the public shy away from them at every chance as their menace does it job. If we had the same here, this debate would not have probably happened as the offences would not be taking place to the level they are. Time for us all to do that reality check, are we all as good as we would like to think, probably not. Just think of the awareness check if everybody had to do a retest every ten years. the wizard
  • Score: 9

2:57pm Mon 7 Apr 14

The New Private Eye says...

Floflo wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
Floflo wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
mx5 wrote:
How many times does this have to be said......Don't break the law and you won't get fined. Jesus Christ, how much more simple can it be? It's all part of living in a democracy you ****!
The point that some of the above has made is that one set of road users are targeted, whilst another harder to target set due to lack of identification are ignored. That is NOT democracy.
Policing is not about "democracy". There's nothing "democratic " about the fact that some South London housing projects are no go areas.It's just the natural reluctance of senior officers to face the grieving parents of their more junior officers week after week as those officers shared the fate of PC Blakelock. However when the bad guys leave the projects for an awayday in Bicester Village they're in 2's or 3's and usually an uninsured motor. That's my point.
Forcing cyclists to carry ID so you could summons them would not be particularly liberal, would it? And anyway I'm more danger in my 1 1/2 ton, 140mph box than pottling around on 2 wheels. Aren't you?
Last wednesday morning 8.55 coming into Oxford West Way/Botley Road I am sat at the traffic lights by McD's behind a little old lady in a relatively new small hatchback, a cyclist comes inbetween the traffic quite quickly wearing big headphones and obviously enjoying his music. For some reason he swerves and his the rear lights of the hatchback totally smashing the rear light cluster (£200 bill at least) The result of the accident, little old lady sat bemused as to what has happened, the cyclist pauses for a few seconds looks at the damage, and races across the raod into McD's car park and off down North Hinksey Lane to get away from his responsibilities. Now had there been a way of identifying the cyclist then justice could have been done. And all this only a 100 yards away from the police check a couple of days later. Policing our roads is not about catching real idiots on our roads such as the cyclist, but about raising money from easy targets, end of.
'End of' generally means that there's little point engaging, however think about the assaults which are routinely reported in this paper.

Now if only there was some way of identifying the perpetrator in these cases? If you support cyclists wearing identifying marks then why not pedestrians - infant anyone who leaves their house should surely wear clearly visible identification?

You are not a a target, not even an easy target if you stick to the rules of the road by the way.
That is a ridiculous statement FLO. We are talking road users, motor vehicles must have identification, pevement users do not (for now until the Stasi introduce ID cards) Please stick to the topic, and not let your blind hatred of the internal combustion engine cloud every post that you put on here. What do you think of the cyclist that raced away from the little old lady after causing probably a months income worth of damage for her?
You raised the subject of identification. I replied to you so I don't understand what you mean by sticking to the topic.

Your assumption that I have 'blind hatred' of the internal combustion engine is way off the mark. I enjoy driving in moderation, and the engine is a marvellous invention.

I don't think you understood my earlier reply so let me try again. In the hands of a human it also kills thousands of people so it's entirely appropriate that its use is licensed, regulated and drivers and identifiable. .
In terms of risk other road users, walkers, horse riders, cyclists, invalid carriage users etc are in a different league. Yet you single out cyclists for outward identification - presumable due to misunderstanding of relative risks.
Cyclists do no damage? Tell that to the little old lady who has just lost at least a months pension. or the little old lady run down crossing a green man on High Street, or tell that to me who had my nearside wing mirror smashed etc.
[quote][p][bold]Floflo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Floflo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mx5[/bold] wrote: How many times does this have to be said......Don't break the law and you won't get fined. Jesus Christ, how much more simple can it be? It's all part of living in a democracy you ****![/p][/quote]The point that some of the above has made is that one set of road users are targeted, whilst another harder to target set due to lack of identification are ignored. That is NOT democracy.[/p][/quote]Policing is not about "democracy". There's nothing "democratic " about the fact that some South London housing projects are no go areas.It's just the natural reluctance of senior officers to face the grieving parents of their more junior officers week after week as those officers shared the fate of PC Blakelock. However when the bad guys leave the projects for an awayday in Bicester Village they're in 2's or 3's and usually an uninsured motor. That's my point. Forcing cyclists to carry ID so you could summons them would not be particularly liberal, would it? And anyway I'm more danger in my 1 1/2 ton, 140mph box than pottling around on 2 wheels. Aren't you?[/p][/quote]Last wednesday morning 8.55 coming into Oxford West Way/Botley Road I am sat at the traffic lights by McD's behind a little old lady in a relatively new small hatchback, a cyclist comes inbetween the traffic quite quickly wearing big headphones and obviously enjoying his music. For some reason he swerves and his the rear lights of the hatchback totally smashing the rear light cluster (£200 bill at least) The result of the accident, little old lady sat bemused as to what has happened, the cyclist pauses for a few seconds looks at the damage, and races across the raod into McD's car park and off down North Hinksey Lane to get away from his responsibilities. Now had there been a way of identifying the cyclist then justice could have been done. And all this only a 100 yards away from the police check a couple of days later. Policing our roads is not about catching real idiots on our roads such as the cyclist, but about raising money from easy targets, end of.[/p][/quote]'End of' generally means that there's little point engaging, however think about the assaults which are routinely reported in this paper. Now if only there was some way of identifying the perpetrator in these cases? If you support cyclists wearing identifying marks then why not pedestrians - infant anyone who leaves their house should surely wear clearly visible identification? You are not a a target, not even an easy target if you stick to the rules of the road by the way.[/p][/quote]That is a ridiculous statement FLO. We are talking road users, motor vehicles must have identification, pevement users do not (for now until the Stasi introduce ID cards) Please stick to the topic, and not let your blind hatred of the internal combustion engine cloud every post that you put on here. What do you think of the cyclist that raced away from the little old lady after causing probably a months income worth of damage for her?[/p][/quote]You raised the subject of identification. I replied to you so I don't understand what you mean by sticking to the topic. Your assumption that I have 'blind hatred' of the internal combustion engine is way off the mark. I enjoy driving in moderation, and the engine is a marvellous invention. I don't think you understood my earlier reply so let me try again. In the hands of a human it also kills thousands of people so it's entirely appropriate that its use is licensed, regulated and drivers and identifiable. . In terms of risk other road users, walkers, horse riders, cyclists, invalid carriage users etc are in a different league. Yet you single out cyclists for outward identification - presumable due to misunderstanding of relative risks.[/p][/quote]Cyclists do no damage? Tell that to the little old lady who has just lost at least a months pension. or the little old lady run down crossing a green man on High Street, or tell that to me who had my nearside wing mirror smashed etc. The New Private Eye
  • Score: -9

7:20pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Floflo says...

The New Private Eye wrote:
Floflo wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
Floflo wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
mx5 wrote:
How many times does this have to be said......Don't break the law and you won't get fined. Jesus Christ, how much more simple can it be? It's all part of living in a democracy you ****!
The point that some of the above has made is that one set of road users are targeted, whilst another harder to target set due to lack of identification are ignored. That is NOT democracy.
Policing is not about "democracy". There's nothing "democratic " about the fact that some South London housing projects are no go areas.It's just the natural reluctance of senior officers to face the grieving parents of their more junior officers week after week as those officers shared the fate of PC Blakelock. However when the bad guys leave the projects for an awayday in Bicester Village they're in 2's or 3's and usually an uninsured motor. That's my point.
Forcing cyclists to carry ID so you could summons them would not be particularly liberal, would it? And anyway I'm more danger in my 1 1/2 ton, 140mph box than pottling around on 2 wheels. Aren't you?
Last wednesday morning 8.55 coming into Oxford West Way/Botley Road I am sat at the traffic lights by McD's behind a little old lady in a relatively new small hatchback, a cyclist comes inbetween the traffic quite quickly wearing big headphones and obviously enjoying his music. For some reason he swerves and his the rear lights of the hatchback totally smashing the rear light cluster (£200 bill at least) The result of the accident, little old lady sat bemused as to what has happened, the cyclist pauses for a few seconds looks at the damage, and races across the raod into McD's car park and off down North Hinksey Lane to get away from his responsibilities. Now had there been a way of identifying the cyclist then justice could have been done. And all this only a 100 yards away from the police check a couple of days later. Policing our roads is not about catching real idiots on our roads such as the cyclist, but about raising money from easy targets, end of.
'End of' generally means that there's little point engaging, however think about the assaults which are routinely reported in this paper.

Now if only there was some way of identifying the perpetrator in these cases? If you support cyclists wearing identifying marks then why not pedestrians - infant anyone who leaves their house should surely wear clearly visible identification?

You are not a a target, not even an easy target if you stick to the rules of the road by the way.
That is a ridiculous statement FLO. We are talking road users, motor vehicles must have identification, pevement users do not (for now until the Stasi introduce ID cards) Please stick to the topic, and not let your blind hatred of the internal combustion engine cloud every post that you put on here. What do you think of the cyclist that raced away from the little old lady after causing probably a months income worth of damage for her?
You raised the subject of identification. I replied to you so I don't understand what you mean by sticking to the topic.

Your assumption that I have 'blind hatred' of the internal combustion engine is way off the mark. I enjoy driving in moderation, and the engine is a marvellous invention.

I don't think you understood my earlier reply so let me try again. In the hands of a human it also kills thousands of people so it's entirely appropriate that its use is licensed, regulated and drivers and identifiable. .
In terms of risk other road users, walkers, horse riders, cyclists, invalid carriage users etc are in a different league. Yet you single out cyclists for outward identification - presumable due to misunderstanding of relative risks.
Cyclists do no damage? Tell that to the little old lady who has just lost at least a months pension. or the little old lady run down crossing a green man on High Street, or tell that to me who had my nearside wing mirror smashed etc.
Where did I say cyclists do no damage?
[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Floflo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Floflo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mx5[/bold] wrote: How many times does this have to be said......Don't break the law and you won't get fined. Jesus Christ, how much more simple can it be? It's all part of living in a democracy you ****![/p][/quote]The point that some of the above has made is that one set of road users are targeted, whilst another harder to target set due to lack of identification are ignored. That is NOT democracy.[/p][/quote]Policing is not about "democracy". There's nothing "democratic " about the fact that some South London housing projects are no go areas.It's just the natural reluctance of senior officers to face the grieving parents of their more junior officers week after week as those officers shared the fate of PC Blakelock. However when the bad guys leave the projects for an awayday in Bicester Village they're in 2's or 3's and usually an uninsured motor. That's my point. Forcing cyclists to carry ID so you could summons them would not be particularly liberal, would it? And anyway I'm more danger in my 1 1/2 ton, 140mph box than pottling around on 2 wheels. Aren't you?[/p][/quote]Last wednesday morning 8.55 coming into Oxford West Way/Botley Road I am sat at the traffic lights by McD's behind a little old lady in a relatively new small hatchback, a cyclist comes inbetween the traffic quite quickly wearing big headphones and obviously enjoying his music. For some reason he swerves and his the rear lights of the hatchback totally smashing the rear light cluster (£200 bill at least) The result of the accident, little old lady sat bemused as to what has happened, the cyclist pauses for a few seconds looks at the damage, and races across the raod into McD's car park and off down North Hinksey Lane to get away from his responsibilities. Now had there been a way of identifying the cyclist then justice could have been done. And all this only a 100 yards away from the police check a couple of days later. Policing our roads is not about catching real idiots on our roads such as the cyclist, but about raising money from easy targets, end of.[/p][/quote]'End of' generally means that there's little point engaging, however think about the assaults which are routinely reported in this paper. Now if only there was some way of identifying the perpetrator in these cases? If you support cyclists wearing identifying marks then why not pedestrians - infant anyone who leaves their house should surely wear clearly visible identification? You are not a a target, not even an easy target if you stick to the rules of the road by the way.[/p][/quote]That is a ridiculous statement FLO. We are talking road users, motor vehicles must have identification, pevement users do not (for now until the Stasi introduce ID cards) Please stick to the topic, and not let your blind hatred of the internal combustion engine cloud every post that you put on here. What do you think of the cyclist that raced away from the little old lady after causing probably a months income worth of damage for her?[/p][/quote]You raised the subject of identification. I replied to you so I don't understand what you mean by sticking to the topic. Your assumption that I have 'blind hatred' of the internal combustion engine is way off the mark. I enjoy driving in moderation, and the engine is a marvellous invention. I don't think you understood my earlier reply so let me try again. In the hands of a human it also kills thousands of people so it's entirely appropriate that its use is licensed, regulated and drivers and identifiable. . In terms of risk other road users, walkers, horse riders, cyclists, invalid carriage users etc are in a different league. Yet you single out cyclists for outward identification - presumable due to misunderstanding of relative risks.[/p][/quote]Cyclists do no damage? Tell that to the little old lady who has just lost at least a months pension. or the little old lady run down crossing a green man on High Street, or tell that to me who had my nearside wing mirror smashed etc.[/p][/quote]Where did I say cyclists do no damage? Floflo
  • Score: 3

8:15am Tue 8 Apr 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

the wizard wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
the wizard wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
the wizard wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
the wizard wrote:
Excuse me Palmerstone, BUT, drivers on phones cause accidents and put people in hospital often with life changing consequences and get away with very little penalty. After being rear ended by a phone user I lost the use of my legs until a well decent surgeon was able to perform an operation. I was off work for months, lost a massive amount of earnings, and with a less reputable building society could have lost pour home. Compensation for these events comes many months after the deed has taken place and is often far too inadequate for the victim, who may just become that person you so disgustingly described . If arrogance was a virtue then you have just abused it big time. Apologies are in order, if you are man enough.
Indeed they do, as do impatient and forgetful and unfit drivers. But criminals use uninsured cars and the police force is a finite resource. You'd probably have preferred to have a collision with a retard using a phone than an uninsured driver carrying £100,000 worth of skunk for sale, wouldn't you? And it is certainly sad that you are so thin skinned that a passing reference by me has given you a dose of PTSD.
Your arrogance is beyond belief, but I conclude that your detailed knowledge of the criminal classes leads us to believe that is the back ground from which you have come from or indeed involved with right now.

I do hope that you too get a dose of something, an acute case of low blood pressure would suit you well, very, very low blood pressure or perhaps just sobriety, for a change.
And yah boo sucks to you. If you have a point-make it!
I always thought you were a typical old school above everyone else Tory type ar5ewipe, and your post just proved it.
What on earth is the point of repeated silly abuse? That's just chav nonsense. Grow up.
It is you that meters out abuse to all comers that don't fit your criteria, and it is you that type cast people as drug users and cast wild aspersions about,

quote,
Mildly useful but what is really needed is sustained action to get the 1 million plus uninsured cars off the road. These will frequently be carrying drugs, firearms, stolen property and fugitives, so stopping them has a real criminal impact. These cars don't usually move on main roads at rush hour. Why would they,? Their drivers are mostly professional non-workers.

Really ? I'd love to see the official stats that prove that, so I trust you will be rolling them out sometime soon.
No, you're absolutely right. The average driver of an uninsured car is a middle aged man paying higher rate tax driving a BMW with an engine of over 3 litres less than 6 months old. It is purely Tory lies that it is a 19 year old in an R-Reg Astra with a couple of wraps under the front passenger seat and a foil lined carrier bag. Can we stop now, as I'm exhausted with this nonsense?
You can look at the Stats-www.http_The average driver of an uninsured car is a middle aged man paying higher rate tax driving a BMW with an engine of over 3 litres less than 6 months old/homeoffice/gov/o
rg
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: Excuse me Palmerstone, BUT, drivers on phones cause accidents and put people in hospital often with life changing consequences and get away with very little penalty. After being rear ended by a phone user I lost the use of my legs until a well decent surgeon was able to perform an operation. I was off work for months, lost a massive amount of earnings, and with a less reputable building society could have lost pour home. Compensation for these events comes many months after the deed has taken place and is often far too inadequate for the victim, who may just become that person you so disgustingly described . If arrogance was a virtue then you have just abused it big time. Apologies are in order, if you are man enough.[/p][/quote]Indeed they do, as do impatient and forgetful and unfit drivers. But criminals use uninsured cars and the police force is a finite resource. You'd probably have preferred to have a collision with a retard using a phone than an uninsured driver carrying £100,000 worth of skunk for sale, wouldn't you? And it is certainly sad that you are so thin skinned that a passing reference by me has given you a dose of PTSD.[/p][/quote]Your arrogance is beyond belief, but I conclude that your detailed knowledge of the criminal classes leads us to believe that is the back ground from which you have come from or indeed involved with right now. I do hope that you too get a dose of something, an acute case of low blood pressure would suit you well, very, very low blood pressure or perhaps just sobriety, for a change.[/p][/quote]And yah boo sucks to you. If you have a point-make it![/p][/quote]I always thought you were a typical old school above everyone else Tory type ar5ewipe, and your post just proved it.[/p][/quote]What on earth is the point of repeated silly abuse? That's just chav nonsense. Grow up.[/p][/quote]It is you that meters out abuse to all comers that don't fit your criteria, and it is you that type cast people as drug users and cast wild aspersions about, quote, Mildly useful but what is really needed is sustained action to get the 1 million plus uninsured cars off the road. These will frequently be carrying drugs, firearms, stolen property and fugitives, so stopping them has a real criminal impact. These cars don't usually move on main roads at rush hour. Why would they,? Their drivers are mostly professional non-workers. Really ? I'd love to see the official stats that prove that, so I trust you will be rolling them out sometime soon.[/p][/quote]No, you're absolutely right. The average driver of an uninsured car is a middle aged man paying higher rate tax driving a BMW with an engine of over 3 litres less than 6 months old. It is purely Tory lies that it is a 19 year old in an R-Reg Astra with a couple of wraps under the front passenger seat and a foil lined carrier bag. Can we stop now, as I'm exhausted with this nonsense? You can look at the Stats-www.http_The average driver of an uninsured car is a middle aged man paying higher rate tax driving a BMW with an engine of over 3 litres less than 6 months old/homeoffice/gov/o rg Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: -5

10:33am Tue 8 Apr 14

locodogz says...

Madi50n wrote:
icba1957 wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
What a surprise. An article about law-breaking motorists and the "I saw a cyclist..." anecdotes have started.

Motor vehicles have identification because they are dangerous. Bicycles are not.
Tell that to the student who got knocked down on george Street by a cyclist jumping the lights ...
T*sser!
Yeah, bloomin' cyclists, so dangerous! There's a story every single day about them killing people and running 'em over, and putting 'em in hospital, they're a law unto themselves, oh when will the madness end! We poor motorists wot never 'urt no-one, every one picks on us, we never break the law, nor cause accidents or kill people. But them cyclists, they just kill people and cycle off like its nuffink,. AND, and and they cause so many traffic jams, you see 'em, all lining up in front us drivers, if it wasn't for flippin cyclists cars would never get stuck in traffic jams. Gor it makes my blood boil.
Love the faux Dickensian language! Really funny, really - and so serves to emphasise the comment you make.
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]icba1957[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: What a surprise. An article about law-breaking motorists and the "I saw a cyclist..." anecdotes have started. Motor vehicles have identification because they are dangerous. Bicycles are not.[/p][/quote]Tell that to the student who got knocked down on george Street by a cyclist jumping the lights ... T*sser![/p][/quote]Yeah, bloomin' cyclists, so dangerous! There's a story every single day about them killing people and running 'em over, and putting 'em in hospital, they're a law unto themselves, oh when will the madness end! We poor motorists wot never 'urt no-one, every one picks on us, we never break the law, nor cause accidents or kill people. But them cyclists, they just kill people and cycle off like its nuffink,. AND, and and they cause so many traffic jams, you see 'em, all lining up in front us drivers, if it wasn't for flippin cyclists cars would never get stuck in traffic jams. Gor it makes my blood boil.[/p][/quote]Love the faux Dickensian language! Really funny, really - and so serves to emphasise the comment you make. locodogz
  • Score: 8

7:35am Thu 10 Apr 14

livid99 says...

Madi50n wrote:
icba1957 wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
What a surprise. An article about law-breaking motorists and the "I saw a cyclist..." anecdotes have started.

Motor vehicles have identification because they are dangerous. Bicycles are not.
Tell that to the student who got knocked down on george Street by a cyclist jumping the lights ...
T*sser!
Yeah, bloomin' cyclists, so dangerous! There's a story every single day about them killing people and running 'em over, and putting 'em in hospital, they're a law unto themselves, oh when will the madness end! We poor motorists wot never 'urt no-one, every one picks on us, we never break the law, nor cause accidents or kill people. But them cyclists, they just kill people and cycle off like its nuffink,. AND, and and they cause so many traffic jams, you see 'em, all lining up in front us drivers, if it wasn't for flippin cyclists cars would never get stuck in traffic jams. Gor it makes my blood boil.
Oh dear......what a ****
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]icba1957[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: What a surprise. An article about law-breaking motorists and the "I saw a cyclist..." anecdotes have started. Motor vehicles have identification because they are dangerous. Bicycles are not.[/p][/quote]Tell that to the student who got knocked down on george Street by a cyclist jumping the lights ... T*sser![/p][/quote]Yeah, bloomin' cyclists, so dangerous! There's a story every single day about them killing people and running 'em over, and putting 'em in hospital, they're a law unto themselves, oh when will the madness end! We poor motorists wot never 'urt no-one, every one picks on us, we never break the law, nor cause accidents or kill people. But them cyclists, they just kill people and cycle off like its nuffink,. AND, and and they cause so many traffic jams, you see 'em, all lining up in front us drivers, if it wasn't for flippin cyclists cars would never get stuck in traffic jams. Gor it makes my blood boil.[/p][/quote]Oh dear......what a **** livid99
  • Score: -4

7:52am Thu 10 Apr 14

livid99 says...

Madi50n wrote:
Quite a number of drivers have massive entitlement issues, they think the roads were built for them (obviously the Romans were unbelievably good at predicting the future) and that the teeny tiny amount of money they pay in VED pays for all roads in the UK and that it entitles them to exclusive use of them.

They think the driving test is a hurdle to be overcome and forget its purpose is to prove to the authorities that they are capable of driving a machine that can easily kill others, responsibly and safely.

The rules of the road, seat belts, speed limits, mobile use, driving after a drink, driving whilst distracted are all designed to inconvenience them, and can be ignored at some point depending on the circumstances (got to get home quick, been waiting for that phone call, I'm only popping to the shops, my child needs me to pick up that toy they have dropped).

They absolutely hate the fact that cyclists make them accountable; they could do all of the above, and more, if there were no cyclists, in built up areas because at worst they would cause a crash, dent a car a bit and bump up insurance payments. But do any of that with cyclists on the road and they might end up killing someone, losing their precious licence and possibly ending up in jail, and it would be their fault, and their fault alone, and they absolutely hate it.

So some of them vent their spleens on these stories because screaming at cyclists from behind their steering wheels isn't letting enough people know just how stupid they are.
Wrong I'm afraid. Wrong last time you posted this too. Don't try to look smart by trying to psychoanalyse people.
Read this: https://www.gov.uk/r
ules-for-cyclists-59
-to-82, and see how much of this is followed in Oxford.
You are just trying to defend the indefensible again and deflect justified criticism.
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: Quite a number of drivers have massive entitlement issues, they think the roads were built for them (obviously the Romans were unbelievably good at predicting the future) and that the teeny tiny amount of money they pay in VED pays for all roads in the UK and that it entitles them to exclusive use of them. They think the driving test is a hurdle to be overcome and forget its purpose is to prove to the authorities that they are capable of driving a machine that can easily kill others, responsibly and safely. The rules of the road, seat belts, speed limits, mobile use, driving after a drink, driving whilst distracted are all designed to inconvenience them, and can be ignored at some point depending on the circumstances (got to get home quick, been waiting for that phone call, I'm only popping to the shops, my child needs me to pick up that toy they have dropped). They absolutely hate the fact that cyclists make them accountable; they could do all of the above, and more, if there were no cyclists, in built up areas because at worst they would cause a crash, dent a car a bit and bump up insurance payments. But do any of that with cyclists on the road and they might end up killing someone, losing their precious licence and possibly ending up in jail, and it would be their fault, and their fault alone, and they absolutely hate it. So some of them vent their spleens on these stories because screaming at cyclists from behind their steering wheels isn't letting enough people know just how stupid they are.[/p][/quote]Wrong I'm afraid. Wrong last time you posted this too. Don't try to look smart by trying to psychoanalyse people. Read this: https://www.gov.uk/r ules-for-cyclists-59 -to-82, and see how much of this is followed in Oxford. You are just trying to defend the indefensible again and deflect justified criticism. livid99
  • Score: -5

10:00am Thu 10 Apr 14

Madi50n says...

What was it you said on another anti-cycling comments thread?

"Not that I really care or take much notice of your opinion."

And yet, here you are, taking notice? Yet another inaccurate comment, you are funny.
What was it you said on another anti-cycling comments thread? "Not that I really care or take much notice of your opinion." And yet, here you are, taking notice? Yet another inaccurate comment, you are funny. Madi50n
  • Score: 5

10:02am Thu 10 Apr 14

Madi50n says...

livid99 wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
icba1957 wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
What a surprise. An article about law-breaking motorists and the "I saw a cyclist..." anecdotes have started.

Motor vehicles have identification because they are dangerous. Bicycles are not.
Tell that to the student who got knocked down on george Street by a cyclist jumping the lights ...
T*sser!
Yeah, bloomin' cyclists, so dangerous! There's a story every single day about them killing people and running 'em over, and putting 'em in hospital, they're a law unto themselves, oh when will the madness end! We poor motorists wot never 'urt no-one, every one picks on us, we never break the law, nor cause accidents or kill people. But them cyclists, they just kill people and cycle off like its nuffink,. AND, and and they cause so many traffic jams, you see 'em, all lining up in front us drivers, if it wasn't for flippin cyclists cars would never get stuck in traffic jams. Gor it makes my blood boil.
Oh dear......what a ****
I thought you said you didn't care about my opinion?

I also seem to remember you complaining about me insulting you.

Oh dear, did you run out of happy pills this morning?
[quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]icba1957[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: What a surprise. An article about law-breaking motorists and the "I saw a cyclist..." anecdotes have started. Motor vehicles have identification because they are dangerous. Bicycles are not.[/p][/quote]Tell that to the student who got knocked down on george Street by a cyclist jumping the lights ... T*sser![/p][/quote]Yeah, bloomin' cyclists, so dangerous! There's a story every single day about them killing people and running 'em over, and putting 'em in hospital, they're a law unto themselves, oh when will the madness end! We poor motorists wot never 'urt no-one, every one picks on us, we never break the law, nor cause accidents or kill people. But them cyclists, they just kill people and cycle off like its nuffink,. AND, and and they cause so many traffic jams, you see 'em, all lining up in front us drivers, if it wasn't for flippin cyclists cars would never get stuck in traffic jams. Gor it makes my blood boil.[/p][/quote]Oh dear......what a ****[/p][/quote]I thought you said you didn't care about my opinion? I also seem to remember you complaining about me insulting you. Oh dear, did you run out of happy pills this morning? Madi50n
  • Score: 5

1:06pm Thu 10 Apr 14

livid99 says...

Pointing out your replicated and lazy post does not mean I care about what you say, and firing an insult at you is just giving one back.
I really can't be bothered responding to your sanctimonious and arrogant drivel any more Madi50n. You've become even more boring than me.
Pointing out your replicated and lazy post does not mean I care about what you say, and firing an insult at you is just giving one back. I really can't be bothered responding to your sanctimonious and arrogant drivel any more Madi50n. You've become even more boring than me. livid99
  • Score: -3

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree