Drivers and their problems

Hirsute wrote:

Satnav made me pay ulez fines https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/23776329.norwich-mans-transport-lon... I'm appealing these on the basis that it is a tax on the stupid which is against my human rights.

And of course they are all "ULEZ fines". One fleeting mention that he is in fact facing three separate fines, presumably only one of which is the ULEZ. (Would hazard a guess that one of the others is Congestion Charge, and the third no idea. LTN/bus lane infringement?)

And zero mention of the fact that that given he admits to having seen the signs and being aware he was entering the ULEZ, he could have simply paid the charge (£12.50) within three days of his journey, rather than ignoring it until getting hit with a fine.

I've friends who have been doing this for years. Not that new a hack. I've also shouted on some youngsters to do the same for me though I suppose I could have walked to the lights myself but that means trying to get back on the bike and then try and join live traffic once they turn green. 

David9694 wrote:

Fresh Exeter road blocks fury as angry locals slam hellish traffic

"What would have taken me a five minute journey to Heavitree now takes me 25 minutes through horrendous traffic"

Looks like it might be a 20 minute walk, save five minutes!

David9694 wrote:

just taking my Audi Q5 to B&M...

Driver says B&M car park is using fake space to fine drivers £100

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/driver-says-bm-car-park-27704...

The usual driver response on road noise issues is "don't live there then", so is there a corollary for drivers in 20 mph areas?
Anyway, scientists monitoring a bear breeding programme are recording "higher concentrations of droppings amongst the trees" reflecting the apparent success of the programme:

Noise experts say new 20mph speed limit in Wales will make streets 'more pleasant and more liveable'

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/noise-experts-say-new-20mph-...

That parking space charge does seem unfair. If they're going to insist that people only park in marked spaces, then the markings should be clear and unambiguous. If they don't want people parking in that space, then they need to just put yellow diagonal lines across it.

David9694 wrote:

mate.you.are.literally.driving.along.with.a.dog.on.your.lap

The dog (with big hands) said "it's just a novelty seat cushion, honest".

I'm not a dog expert, but that doesn't look like a labrador?

That would probably be one of those diesel N57 engine BMWs, they're well known for combusting

I don't believe the comments are going the way he was expecting.

The last para makes no sense

"Please be advised that, in order to access the Royal Mail car park, the route must be clear for you to drive straight in as waiting on either the road or pavement would place you in contravention of the restrictions."

This would equally apply to anyone wanting to drive over a dropped kerb to their house and waiting for peds to clear the way.

Are they seriously suggesting drivers should go up and down until there are no peds ?

I saw Welsh tories are calling it a war on motorists. Predictably.

Hirsute wrote:

"There are too many cars competing for too few spaces. It really is that simple." And yet Andy has no solution other than "I should be able to park on *my* road"

That's not fair.  He's asking for "common sense".  That's his solution.  He doesn't explain what that means in practice, but then if you call for "common sense" you don't need to.

chrisonatrike wrote:

The dog (with big hands) said "it's just a novelty seat cushion, honest".

I'm not a dog expert, but that doesn't look like a labrador?

If a dog self-identifies as a labrador, then who are we to argue?

Hirsute wrote:

The last para makes no sense

"Please be advised that, in order to access the Royal Mail car park, the route must be clear for you to drive straight in as waiting on either the road or pavement would place you in contravention of the restrictions."

This would equally apply to anyone wanting to drive over a dropped kerb to their house and waiting for peds to clear the way.

Are they seriously suggesting drivers should go up and down until there are no peds ?

They do seem to be

David9694 wrote:

And of course you can be booked for doing this, although it must be harder to prove  in court. I wonder what the "success" rate is - like how many flash recipients actually understand the message?  

Driver, 64, who flashed headlights to warn fellow motorists of speed trap hauled to court and fined for 'obstructing police'

Police defend fining drivers who warned of speed camera

As with many driving crimes, if the police don't see you doing it then it's difficult to prosecute. The driver could also claim in court to have been flashing their lights for some other reason, but I doubt that would be believed.

David9694 wrote:

If "insist" means it's part of the ts and cs displayed to drivers, then he hasn't complied.  He would plead in his defence that the space is unmarked.

I've no experience of what the courts are doing with cases like this - I suspect they're regarded as an unnecessary stream of activity. 

Not really wanting to go on the drivers' side, but companies shouldn't be allowed to profit from making things unclear. It's very common on websites where you have "dark patterns" that are designed to trick people into paying more or signing up for things they don't want. If the car park has a space that isn't for parking and drivers are genuinely confused over it, then I think the fines should be quashed until the car park owners mark it clearly as not being available for parking.

Just because something is in Terms and Conditions, doesn't necessarily make it enforceable - it has to be reasonable. They could put in a line about BMWs having to take up at least two spaces and then charge them if they don't, but ...... hold on, that example doesn't work.

Why do people make such a fuss, if it's good enough for Richard III...

To be fair to the broad church that is Christianity I think there has always been some variation in views on the subject.

However - the theology people subscribe to can be quite different from what people actually appear to believe (when you probe that more subtly).  If this topic is interesting I can recommend a book of Pascal Boyer's (at least - the first half which cleverly ties together lots of fascinating nuggets of anthropology, philosophy and cognitive science; it gets a bit theory-heavy latterly).

essexian wrote:

Anyone who flashes another drivers (careful now) to warn them of a speed camera should be fined too.  

I can't find chapter and verse on it, but I was under the impression that it already was an offence.  It's certainly a thing in the HC - rule 110:

HC wrote:

Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Why do people make such a fuss, if it's good enough for Richard III...

To be fair to the broad church that is Christianity I think there has always been some variation in views on the subject.

However - the theology people subscribe to can be quite different from what people actually appear to believe (when you probe that more subtly).  If this topic is interesting I can recommend a book of Pascal Boyer's (at least - the first half which cleverly ties together lots of fascinating nuggets of anthropology, philosophy and cognitive science; it gets a bit theory-heavy latterly).

I was hoping you were going to link to this Richard III clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivLZbPIqqe0

David9694 wrote:

... a lucky spaniel that is fortunate (so far) not to have gone through the windscreen on the next emergency stop.

For better impact absorption I'd go with something bigger. A yak's coat would make it a good choice but it probably doesn't pass fire safety regulations. Can you get flame-retardent wool?

Missed that!