This one really did have me checking the calender -- is it Aptil 1st!
www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13455865,00.h...l
As you can't link direct & to save anyone looking it's about the 'dastardly road menace' who dared drive through a puddle and splashed the jeans of a poor road worker. There's really not much to say about this is there. I wonder if anyone has possibly seen anything worse than this on the roads which may have gone unpunished! Please forgive the cynicism but just watch out next time in rains.
|
|
I suppose it all depends on whether they did it deliberately or not.
|
Even if they did, was it worth 20 grand punishing him?
|
|
|
|
how did driving through 2inches of water at just 10MPH soak a worker at the roadside ?
I've some sympathy with both parties here - I don't think drivers pay enough attention to pedestrians in wet weather - but getting points for this is just taking it too far.
What was the motorist supposed to do ?
I guess that getting out and offering to pay any cleaning bills might be a start - even just apologising. But then we all know that he would be penalised for stopping and holding up the traffic.
|
This is an offence that has been around for many, many years along with more than 2,000 others that the average motorist doesn't have a clue about.
As a journalist I used to cover the magistrates' courts in the 1960s and you would be amazed at how many such seemingly trivial cases came up - other regulars included reversing an unreasonable distance.
But motorists were more law abiding in those days and it seemed to me that most people noticed such cases being reported and made a note not to commit such offences themselves.
What did used to annoy me was the (no change here) imbalance between motoring offences and more serious criminal activities - for instance a little old lady being fined £15 and her licence endorsed for a very slight bump into the car in front whilst a housebreaker usually got fined just £5.
Those were quite considerable sums in those days.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
|
|
Beyond rational thought!! But then he should have sued the council/govenment for the state of the roads to cause a puddle on them in the first place!
|
I thought that council workmen were issued with wet weather gear. So why was he not wearing it?
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
|
|
|
Of course if the roads were properly repaired and maintained we would not have pot holes that filled up with water.
"It's a fair cop guv but society is to blame"
"That's OK we'll charge them later..."
|
I've no reason at all to doubt the driver's good faith. But....
... might there be another side to this story?
|
|
Watch out for the new "Wetso puddle enforcement cam" !
|
Oh, come on, what's with all the indignation? If he had used a bit of common sense, he could have
a) swerved out into oncoming traffic and avoided the puddle, or
b) stopped and waited for the puddle to drain away.
And while they were about it, why didn't the police do him for causing an obstruction - he was only doing 10-15 mph , far too slow.
Phil
|
Judging by the fact that many, many other vehicles had clearly managed to avoid dousing the workmen, there's clearly more to this one as previously stated.
Sounds to me (and others)like he thought he would be a giggle in his nice warm, dry car to deliberately soak the guys doing some some work under miserable conditions. Downright antisocial yobbish antics that deserved to be brough before a court.
Note his plea of guilty, so his defence solitors clearly thuoght there was little point in fighting it given the evidence (which presumably included statements from the poor souls on the recieving end of this childish stunt).
|
|
I was absolutely drenched in the middle of winter last year by some clown who thought it funny to swerve for a puddle, so I've no sympathy for this character. There is no right to drive without regard for those around you, and it's time people took responsibility for their actions, he did it, he knows he did it, and he's been punished for it, time to move on and not whinge about it being unfair. The cost of the case is of no interest, it's meant as a deterent to others.
|
|
|
"Downright antisocial yobbish antics that deserved to be brought before a court"
Yeah that's why he chose such a deep puddle (2 inches) and drove through it at such high speed (10-15mph) for maximum impact.
If you consider this to be "antisocial yobbish antics" I suggest you go into any town or village on any evening of the year and see what really goes on.
Phil
|
|
|
Like rhino I don't buy the cries of innocence here, driving through 2 inches of water at 10-15mph doesn't produce the reported soaking. The offence is inconsiderate driving, would have cost him nothing to slow down.
I've been the victim of a similar stunt, while waiting at a give way on the folding bike. Nissan through 4-5 inches at 25+ produced a mini tsunami of filthy water over me and nearby pedestrians. Soaked to the skin. If I'd have caught him he'd have got the contents of my water bottle in his lap.
|
"Like rhino I don't buy the cries of innocence here, driving through 2 inches of water at 10-15mph doesn't produce the reported soaking. The offence is inconsiderate driving, would have cost him nothing to slow down."
Except the article says he was "spotted by police", so presumeably he was doing 10-15mph.
"The incident was seen by a police patrol officer. Evans, of Yeovil - who said he drove 40,000 miles a year and had a clean licence" Daily Mirror
Phil
|
|
|
|
It was not clever and it was not funny though I am with Phil W on this, there are far more deserving victims than the guy who was soaked, this was a waste of judicial resources, a verbal from the policeman in the patrol car would have sufficed, also 3 points is draconian for such an "offence".
|
We've heard one detailed side of the argument in the press (from the driver), and a more succinct reply from the CPS who have stated that it was, on the evidence, worthy of prosecution.
I daresay the views of the victims were taken into account along with all the other evidence that didn't get reported. I don't think they would have been at all happy with a 'verbal' from the officers, nor would I.
3 points? Use a car like an idiot and take the consequences.
|
Hit a puddle at 15mph and quite a lot of water will be sprayed sideways.
But, as some have observed, there's probably more to this than meets the eye.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
If the bloke had been soaked by a plod car going more than 10mph without and blues and twos, would plod be liable to such a ridiculous waste of time and money?
How many times have you slowed down when you see a biggish puddle, and then realised it was quite a bit deeper than you thought - mainly due to the pothole that is hiding there!
|
|
|
|
|
