Daggle

Friggin ell, this takes me back!!

Yeh Mark and the boy lard were quality, remember the Shirehorses!!

you must be right I would hope so, otherwise im gonna look a right royal tit in the witness box in about 8 months time

pros, you get to sleep and get paid for it, then you can get a 2nd job for during the day, plus you get to be called a Water Fairy!!

If the vehicle is owned by the company, then the offences of use, cause and permit could be applied to the owner of the company, Yesterday I stopped a van owned by a Hire Company, the vehicle was unroadworthy, so the driver was reported for the offences, the company will also be reported even though the vehicle is on a long term lease and has not been seen by the company for over 6 weeks

Kinda right, you have to prove that the driver was not in proper control, so the way I see it, is that you have to have 2 things in order to commit the offence, 1, the driver doing something that stops them being in proper control, ie: hand off the wheel, smoking, drinking something like that, BUT ALSO do something that shows you were not in proper control, swerve across the road, hit a kerb. That shows the court that the driver was not in proper control. The best one I saw was a guy eating a full chinese meal, with knife and fork of a plate on the M20 at 70mph, resting the plate on the steering wheel , he still didn't see the problem with it, even after I spoke to him about it

The owner of a company vehicle CAN be summonsed for the offence of permitting the use of a vehicle with a defective tyre. Check out offences in relation to Use, Cause and Permit an offence. So it is down to the driver and the owner of the vehicle to ensure that the vehicle is in a roadworthy condition.

do you listen to pop master at 10.30 Ditto, plus I play popmaster on Retards Club

Bloody hell, that is going back a bit, is it just me or is the lead character, Kate a bit hot , that brings back memories from my youth, love the announcer at the beginning, proper british accent,

It all depends really, it has been running for about 2 months so far, and I have seen 3 that have been given out, the times they were given out weren't fatals or serious injury accidents, but things like the car has rolled over a couple of times and the kids were in the vehicle that rolled, bit scary for a little 'un and the bears worked wonders calming them down! Thats the initiative behind the idea, having youngsters myself, I would hate to see them upset, so I thought about getting this going in Kent, it all worked really well, the company that donated them were brill, gave me over a £1000 worth of there stock, the bears normally sell in Harrods for around £10-15 each, so they aren't crap toys. Should keep me going for at least a couple of years and the company have said as long as I don't take the pee, then they are happy to top us up

Yep that is me, as for getting nicked, never gonna happen, gotta catch me first

Only when Im driving

Finally a good news story about the old bill...... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... dents.html Not my idea entirely, but picked it up and did all the leg work, have already issued 3 in the last 2 months

on the vid the car is round the other way dude, the front end of the car is the side that we would expect to be the driver's side. i'm sure the press will release the details when they're available. Maybe the car was pulling into lane 1 from the slip road, if it's a brit truck then it wouldn't be easy to see, otherwise I haven't a clue

Video has been removed so I haven't seen it, but from the comments, is it a LHD drive truck, on british road or vice versa, then I deal with them quite regular. Brits sit in the trucks blind spot, just in front of the offside mirror, truck pulls out to overtake and catches the rear end of the car, spins it into the front of the truck and then normally spits it out again. All to common down here in Kent im afraid Whoops my bad, just read the 2nd page But yes, this is quite common nowadays, the goverment should be made to bring in a law that means that all foreign HGV's should carry extra mirrors to cover the blind spot, not really the truck drivers fault entirely!! Clio driver should have just waited until there was enough room to overtake and then gone all the way past the HGV, not sat in the blind spot down underneath it....

Go for it mate, I would send them a copy of those photos as well, see what they have to see about it!

BRILLIANT!!! Nice one Fred, have a pint on me , or a glass of wine

Jelly Mould Leone!

Sorry to hijack your thread, however I was looking through the petitions on there and there are some that are a bit more worthwhile then yours, like the one below http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/notompmedals/ From the site itself, it says the following which sums it up nicely, I didn't even know they got a medal!! MP's do not deserve medals for just visiting Afghan or Iraq. If they want a medal they should do at least 6 months frontline service - just like all the brave soldiers out there. Start making medals for the families who have lost their loved ones, the people who have served their country and are no longer able to be in active service. These medals you are handing out are a disgrace and it makes a mockery of the boys & girls who still await their medals months after their tours. As for your petition, my opinion is that it is a bit of a naff idea, maybe if you think outside the confines of your own narrow ideas, then you might see the benefits of having a number plate on the front

Can just see my arse and leg as I am walking into my house

1st point....Big difference is that when cornering the vehicle behind will not be directly behind the vehicle that is cornering, Soooo it won't get smothered in crap that is being thrown up, unless you are right up its chuff!! 2nd point.... Only the fronts will be sticking out, hopefully the rears won't be sticking out from the arches, coz if they do you have got some major axle movement there!!

No need to issue a NIP as the offence of No Insurance does not fall into that catogory required for a NIP. NIP is used for only a select few offences (speeding being one, wheich you will all probably be aware of) Just a straightforward reporting at the side of the road is enough. Yes, the 6 month thing is valid, however, you should be notified of the proceeding being taken against you within that time scale, not be seen at court. Im afraid you are gonna have to take this one on the chin, maybe try and get some mitigation about it, but in reality I can't see the court doing anything less then 6 points and a £200 fine, if you get less then that, then you have had a result

TBH I don't know, I have had a look in the book and I can't see a defence for them, I think that they just play the dumb card and hope not to get a tug , after all I think you have to be a bit of a traffic nerd to know this stuff

Errr no, I wouldn't. It don't matter if it's raining or not. Also think if it catches a stone and flicks that up to the car behind, I personally would be pissed if the car in front of me did that and it had wide wheels on it

Just seen this and read the PM, Steve has this spot on, not allowed to have the tread sticking out from the edge of the wing, so if you look from above, you can see the sidewall and rim but not the tread. The offence would be having no wings! It's a bit like running a HGV without mudguards, check out Regulation 63 of the Road Vehicles Construction and Use Regulations 1986. It basically states that all motorcars should be fitted with wings or similar fittings to catch so fas as practicable mud or water thrown up by the rotation of the wheels. If the tyres stick out further then the wing then it would fall into that catogary