another 'nothing to do with sat nav' story
why not call your post 'don't trust people who see a sign saying 'Not Suitable for Motor Vehicles' but choose to ignore it anyway' ?
|
|
|
'I was pottering along (thankfully not in the Skyline) the other day and following my sat-nav when it decided to direct me up a lane which was deemed "Not Suitable for Motor Vehicles" according to the road sign at it's entrance....I took this to be a challange (sic)'
What a complete and utter donkey. I hope Renault assist charge him for the recovery. His laugh cost all the people who would not have sensed a "challenge" and who would have turned around. I really do hope they stick him for it, as he was 100% to blame.
V
|
People seem to engage sat nav and disengage brain. My one got a real strop on the other day when I refused to turn down a farm track.
Joe
|
|
|
|
It too hope he picks up the cost. And since it was a hire vehicle then the cost might be passed onto the hire company and then onto him. To think this was funny too. All that wasted effort/time because he ignored a road sign. I'd take his license off him.
|
It says "Not suitable for motor vehicles", not "impassible for motor vehicles".
Haven't any of you tried negotiating "not suitable for motor vehicles" roads, just to see if you can? For a challenge? For something different? For fun?
|
What relevance is it whether we've tried it? Does our willingness to try it or not affect the fact that this bloke should pay for the recovery effort?
I don't particularly care about his trying it; I just don't think he should escape the consequences of his bravado.
To put it another way, should someone else pay for his recovery? Would you be happy to pay for it?
V
|
apologies for a wee thread hi-jack
absolutely nothing to do with sat-nav but if you want to include taking a car where it shouldn't go have a look at this:
uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OqjdIxoFClI
only 48 seconds so not too much of a waste of your time... :)
|
|
|
Vin{P}
Should he have to pay for the recovery of someone who also choose to ignore the sign? And someone else with an even more unwieldy vehicle who ignored the sign? And so adinfinitum?
It could be argued that the "recoverers" should have had enough experience to at least do a reconnaisance trip on foot, first.
|
"Should he have to pay for the recovery of someone who also choose to ignore the sign? And someone else with an even more unwieldy vehicle who ignored the sign? And so adinfinitum?"
No. That's exactly the point I'm making. If you choose to act stupidly, why should someone else pay for your recovery? (And all the people who use Renault Assist have now paid towards this idiot's recovery). In no way at all was what happened to him anyone's fault but his. He should pay for the consequences. As should anyone else who acts just as idiotically. The sequence of events was kicked off by him; no-one else. Please answer me this: Who should pay for the recovery? Would you pay for his recovery? If you wouldn't, why should the "pool" of Renault owners (or whoever subsequently foots the bill for Renault Assist)?
At the risk of sounding like a grumpy old man, no-one seems to want to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions these days. It's always someone else's problem.
V
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
