Your rants here.

itboffin

used car hunting :evil:

grant2307

MrSweary wrote:

I'm increasingly of the mind that if you are in a motor vehicle you can get away with more or less anything - certainly attempted murder on downwards. Tragically, more and more people seem to have worked this out.

Funny you should say that, albeit not funny.

My Dad was hit by a drink driver in March and died, he was walking home from his bus ride late at night.

The guy was 2 times over the limit and just outside of the speeding limit, think they are led to believe 45 in a 40 going by the way they worded evidence.

Turns out they believe the drink drive reacted quickly enough going by the visibility at the time of the incident (no street lights but headlights in use) and he only got a 3 1/2 year ban and a £640 fine.

Without going in to too much detail the evidence changed dramatically in the drivers favour for some reason CPS wouldn;t even take it too court.

Literally got away with murder so to speak, although it was not intentional he still made the decision to drive that night.

MrSweary

Grant2307 wrote:

MrSweary wrote:

I'm increasingly of the mind that if you are in a motor vehicle you can get away with more or less anything - certainly attempted murder on downwards. Tragically, more and more people seem to have worked this out.

Funny you should say that, albeit not funny.

My Dad was hit by a drink driver in March and died, he was walking home from his bus ride late at night.

The guy was 2 times over the limit and just outside of the speeding limit, think they are led to believe 45 in a 40 going by the way they worded evidence.

Turns out they believe the drink drive reacted quickly enough going by the visibility at the time of the incident (no street lights but headlights in use) and he only got a 3 1/2 year ban and a £640 fine.

Without going in to too much detail the evidence changed dramatically in the drivers favour for some reason CPS wouldn;t even take it too court.

Literally got away with murder so to speak, although it was not intentional he still made the decision to drive that night.

I'm so sorry to hear that.

rower63

Grant2307 wrote:

MrSweary wrote:

I'm increasingly of the mind that if you are in a motor vehicle you can get away with more or less anything - certainly attempted murder on downwards. Tragically, more and more people seem to have worked this out.

Funny you should say that, albeit not funny.

My Dad was hit by a drink driver in March and died, he was walking home from his bus ride late at night.

The guy was 2 times over the limit and just outside of the speeding limit, think they are led to believe 45 in a 40 going by the way they worded evidence.

Turns out they believe the drink drive reacted quickly enough going by the visibility at the time of the incident (no street lights but headlights in use) and he only got a 3 1/2 year ban and a £640 fine.

Without going in to too much detail the evidence changed dramatically in the drivers favour for some reason CPS wouldn;t even take it too court.

Literally got away with murder so to speak, although it was not intentional he still made the decision to drive that night.

God, terrible.

This was my argument against those who were suggesting not calling the Police. On this occasion she only dented some metal and caused me some hassle, but if this is a regular habit, sooner or later she's going to do something far worse.

martincroxall

After many years my Garmin 705 seems to be on the way out. It still works but doesn't seem to save half of the data when you've finished a ride. So no map, cadence, altitude but it does save speed, distance and time. Looks like I'll be having a look at the 520 but I really liked the solid, no nonsense feel of my 705.

meanredspider

martincroxall wrote:

After many years my Garmin 705 seems to be on the way out. It still works but doesn't seem to save half of the data when you've finished a ride. So no map, cadence, altitude but it does save speed, distance and time. Looks like I'll be having a look at the 520 but I really liked the solid, no nonsense feel of my 705.

Wahoo Elemnt Bolt

Ben6899

rower63 wrote:

Sitting watching TV with my wife around 2230 Friday evening and we heard a heavy bang/crunch very close by, immediately followed by a car alarm. “Is that ours?” Yes, it was. We emerged into the street to find my car 3 feet further back than it had been a few minutes earlier, front wing bashed in, front inside wheel pushed onto the pavement and also shunted into the car behind it (also ours). Still in the road, stopped, is the “culprit car”, a huge 4x4, with driver still at the wheel, a neighbour from a few doors down and TOTALLY DRUNK. By this time several other neighbours had emerged and a brief discussion ensued as to whether Police should be called. Some of these neighbours are, I think, friends of the “perp” and were suggesting that perhaps I should not call the Police. Meanwhile the offender drove off and parked around the corner, and on her way back to rejoin the conversations she fell over, that drunk. She immediately, in slurred tones, denied that she was driving, or even had a car. I did call the Police, but by the time they arrived she had gone home and was not answering the door, so they were sympathetic but could not therefore breathalyze her. She was drunker than I have seen anyone for years. Next day, as I was taking more photographs, a guy walking his dog came past and said “I saw her do that, not only that but she also hit a car 50m further back down the road just beforehand”. Grrrrr.

I'd take her to the cleaners and wouldn't stop until she's fully rinsed. You have your first witness in the guy walking his dog; he really ought to do the right thing and help you.

inbike

rower63 wrote:

Sitting watching TV with my wife around 2230 Friday evening and we heard a heavy bang/crunch very close by, immediately followed by a car alarm. “Is that ours?” Yes, it was. We emerged into the street to find my car 3 feet further back than it had been a few minutes earlier, front wing bashed in, front inside wheel pushed onto the pavement and also shunted into the car behind it (also ours). Still in the road, stopped, is the “culprit car”, a huge 4x4, with driver still at the wheel, a neighbour from a few doors down and TOTALLY DRUNK. By this time several other neighbours had emerged and a brief discussion ensued as to whether Police should be called. Some of these neighbours are, I think, friends of the “perp” and were suggesting that perhaps I should not call the Police. Meanwhile the offender drove off and parked around the corner, and on her way back to rejoin the conversations she fell over, that drunk. She immediately, in slurred tones, denied that she was driving, or even had a car. I did call the Police, but by the time they arrived she had gone home and was not answering the door, so they were sympathetic but could not therefore breathalyze her. She was drunker than I have seen anyone for years. Next day, as I was taking more photographs, a guy walking his dog came past and said “I saw her do that, not only that but she also hit a car 50m further back down the road just beforehand”. Grrrrr.

Isn't leaving the scene of an accident an offense in its own right?

joncomelately

inbike wrote:

Isn't leaving the scene of an accident an offense in its own right?

Not if you're the transport secretary.

itboffin

you have to report it in 24 or 48 hours i believe, your insurance company will want to pursue it unless you happen to both belong to the same company, either way no win no fee is the way forward

rower63

itboffin wrote:

you have to report it in 24 or 48 hours i believe, your insurance company will want to pursue it unless you happen to both belong to the same company, either way no win no fee is the way forward

Was actually reported and received a patrol car within 30 minutes. But current status is "no further action" owing to insufficient evidence of crime committed ie no breathalyzer, and witness statements to effect we all saw her drive off to park up while obviously drunk (to park up) is not enough. The PCs did admire my cats though.

Nellyspania

meanredspider wrote:

martincroxall wrote:

After many years my Garmin 705 seems to be on the way out. It still works but doesn't seem to save half of the data when you've finished a ride. So no map, cadence, altitude but it does save speed, distance and time. Looks like I'll be having a look at the 520 but I really liked the solid, no nonsense feel of my 705.

Wahoo Elemnt Bolt

These are really good; a riding buddy of mine has one and has waved goodbye to Garmin glitches.

slowbike

rower63 wrote:

Was actually reported and received a patrol car within 30 minutes. But current status is "no further action" owing to insufficient evidence of crime committed ie no breathalyzer, and witness statements to effect we all saw her drive off to park up while obviously drunk (to park up) is not enough. The PCs did admire my cats though.

Hmm - if drunk driving isn't a one off then you should see if there's a predicable point where you could tip the police off so they can catch her red handed - otherwise what are the options? Disable her car - but that puts whoever does that in the wrong...

rick_chasey

Keep putting pictures of an empty pint glass and the damage to your car through her letterbox every morning before you set off - for a month or so.

MrSweary

You could always try the patented LFGSS response. Take a dump on her bonnet. Or have you done this already?

dinyull

rower63 wrote:

itboffin wrote:

you have to report it in 24 or 48 hours i believe, your insurance company will want to pursue it unless you happen to both belong to the same company, either way no win no fee is the way forward

Was actually reported and received a patrol car within 30 minutes. But current status is "no further action" owing to insufficient evidence of crime committed ie no breathalyzer, and witness statements to effect we all saw her drive off to park up while obviously drunk (to park up) is not enough. The PCs did admire my cats though.

Is she refusing to play ball with you/your insurance?

Or is it just the police are refusing to follow it up?

thistle_

rower63 wrote:

Was actually reported and received a patrol car within 30 minutes. But current status is "no further action" owing to insufficient evidence of crime committed ie no breathalyzer, and witness statements to effect we all saw her drive off to park up while obviously drunk (to park up) is not enough. The PCs did admire my cats though.

Isn't it standard practice to brethalyse drivers and check eyesight after an accident? Or is that just when someone is killed/seriously injured?

DrLex

thistle (MBNW) wrote:

rower63 wrote:

Was actually reported and received a patrol car within 30 minutes. But current status is "no further action" owing to insufficient evidence of crime committed ie no breathalyzer, and witness statements to effect we all saw her drive off to park up while obviously drunk (to park up) is not enough. The PCs did admire my cats though.

Isn't it standard practice to brethalyse drivers and check eyesight after an accident? Or is that just when someone is killed/seriously injured?

The issue was more that the (alleged) driver was at home and so it becomes a right of entry matter:
Section 6E sub-section (1) of the RTA 1988 grants a Police Officer the power to enter any place (using reasonable force if necessary) in order to impose a requirement to provide a preliminary breath test IF AND ONLY IF:
there was a road traffic accident; and
the officer reasonably believed that a person had been driving, attempting to drive or in charge of a vehicle involved in the road traffic accident; and
the officer reasonably suspected that the road traffic accident resulted in the injury of any person(s) including the driver.

Seems like the lack of an injured party prevented the PO getting her tested.

(There's also Section 17 of PACE, which grants powers of entry to a PO, but a bit of a stretch to get it to apply here)

What are the cats?

rower63

DrLex wrote:

The issue was more that the (alleged) driver was at home and so it becomes a right of entry matter:
Section 6E sub-section (1) of the RTA 1988 ... ...

Yes, that's basically what they said. The attending officers said I should have called 999 instead of 101 (which is what I called) and that would have prompted a much more immediate dispatch. I'll know for next time

DrLex wrote:

What are the cats?

2 Savannahs and a white Bengal - one of the PCs had a Bengal.

DrLex

Very nice! I used to be allowed to share a house with two Russian Blues; now it's an unmatched pair of rescue cats. Puppy coming next month to upset the situation.
Now returning you to your regular rant service...

elbowloh

DrLex wrote:

Very nice! I used to be allowed to share a house with two Russian Blues; now it's an unmatched pair of rescue cats. Puppy coming next month to upset the situation.
Now returning you to your regular rant service...

Have 4 at home, all rescue moggies. The joys as having a vet for a wife.

itboffin

just putting this out there, non cat people know you have cats ...

awavey

DrLex wrote:

Section 6E sub-section (1) of the RTA 1988 grants a Police Officer the power to enter any place (using reasonable force if necessary) in order to impose a requirement to provide a preliminary breath test IF AND ONLY IF:
there was a road traffic accident; and
the officer reasonably believed that a person had been driving, attempting to drive or in charge of a vehicle involved in the road traffic accident; and
the officer reasonably suspected that the road traffic accident resulted in the injury of any person(s) including the driver.

Seems like the lack of an injured party prevented the PO getting her tested

But say they did get to test her,how could they then prove she was then drunk behind the wheel though? say she then claimed she had just downed a bottle a vodka for instance, or where's the proof she was driving, etc etc

Also I would add word of caution in that dealing with problematic near neighbours like this can become a living hell, ,and the police are generally even less interested in resolving those things

rjsterry

elbowloh wrote:

DrLex wrote:

Very nice! I used to be allowed to share a house with two Russian Blues; now it's an unmatched pair of rescue cats. Puppy coming next month to upset the situation.
Now returning you to your regular rant service...

Have 4 at home, all rescue moggies. The joys as having a vet for a wife.

Both parents were vets. Growing up, there were usually 4 and never less than 2 cats in the house. Although I like cats, I am allergic to cat hair. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions on the priorities in our house.

rower63

awavey wrote:

...Also I would add word of caution in that dealing with problematic near neighbours like this can become a living hell, and the police are generally even less interested in resolving those things

yes this is why I'm just going strictly by the book, and letting insurance company go through its process. The only reason I insisted the Police get involved was because there was actually a crime committed, it's my civic duty and a requirement of the terms of my insurance to report it, and there were plenty of witnesses. As it happens the Police were quite keen to help out here and frustrated that there wasn't anything they could do, but then they didn't know she lived 4 houses down.

awavey

rower63 wrote:

awavey wrote:

...Also I would add word of caution in that dealing with problematic near neighbours like this can become a living hell, and the police are generally even less interested in resolving those things

yes this is why I'm just going strictly by the book, and letting insurance company go through its process. The only reason I insisted the Police get involved was because there was actually a crime committed, it's my civic duty and a requirement of the terms of my insurance to report it, and there were plenty of witnesses. As it happens the Police were quite keen to help out here and frustrated that there wasn't anything they could do, but then they didn't know she lived 4 houses down.

absolutely agree and you did the right thing getting the police involved there for that, she cant complain too much about that aspect, what I mean is the police wont be interested in fixing neighbour relations if things then go downhill because she refuses to pay up/respond to you.

dinyull

Wife arrived back from the shops on Sat and as pulling into our house I hear a loud bang. Random bit of metal in the road punctured a tyre.

Fine I thought, tyre was due to be replaced anyway and it finally gives me a chance to test out the gunk they replace the spare wheel with. Only on inspection of the tyre there is a 2 or 3 inch gash so don't even bother trying with the gunk.

This means phone call to dad to ask him for a lift to tyre place....only I can't remove the f*cking wheel because I don't have a jack to lift the f*cking car or tool to remove bolts.

Luckily can use Dad's, but I'd have been f*cked if it had happened when away from home.

Then after booking the wheel in and having to pay extra for "express fitting" I arrive to find no other cars in the place and when asked the bloke says they've had hardly any cars in today.

rower63

Waiting at lights at Battersea Bridge last evening, I was the rear-most of a medium group of stationary cyclists ahead of a line of cars. I could sense a car behind me edging closer, so I shifted my rear wheel slightly to straighten up and make it clear I was in front of it. A few seconds later I feel his bumper gently touch my rear wheel, and then he pushes me forward about 5cm. Lights are still firmly red. Jaguar X-type. I turned around and looked at the driver, I couldn't think of anything suitable to say, but a motorbike close by asked "did he touch you?", got angry with him and a little later after the lights had changed had stopped alongside him and was arguing through the open window of the Jag. I left them to it, nothing useful was going to come of that.

Then, this morning, I was climbing Dark Hill about 3 bike-lengths behind another rider and a people carrier starts to overtake us. Obviously the vehicle is in the middle of the road, and alongside me when, of course, a car appears in the other direction, and its way is blocked. So, also of course, the people carrier simply drives back into the left lane, has to stop because the rider ahead hasn't conveniently evaporated, forcing me to a halt in the wedge between it and the verge. I think I said through the open window "you're a really bad driver".

meanredspider

Virgin forking Media. Came to properly repair the temporary phone line fix they did in March ( yes, March) today and managed instead to cut everything off - phone, internet, TV. Spectacular in their total incompetence and their totally crappy customer service.

itboffin

Had to put my hand up and wave back a car behind me today on the M4 this fuckwit was i kid you not 3ft from my boot doing 60 with cars ahead braking hard, fag in mouth weaving in and out of all three lanes without indicating and sticking to everyone's bumper