Tractor pushes parked cars out of the way

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil said:

JimSuperSix said:

Too bad certain posters here can't see this as it's so obvious.

It's good to see you coming round to our point of view.

oh dear

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVdEINfm7H4

[anonymous-user]

AW111 said:

Thesprucegoose said:

You can't argue with stupid.

There's 86 pages that says you're wrong.

Well I've already vanquished 2cvs , just a couple more to go.

[anonymous-user]

Mr2Mike said:

JimSuperSix said:

Well I've already vanquished 2cvs , just a couple more to go.

You have vanquished no one, not one single person, and it speaks volumes that you view it like this.

It wasn't a serious comment old chap

[anonymous-user]

timrud said:

So far you've just made yourself look an idiot with your total meltdown, but please continue, it's entertaining.

Total meltdown apparently I had a broken-nail-hissy-fit on another thread, but that poster couldn't provide any proof either.

[anonymous-user]

Hol said:

JimSuperSix said:

Hol said:

JimSuperSix said:

Well you have sadly,
]

No I have not.

You have just made something up as you always do in some vain attempt to validate your own point of view.

Let me put it in clear terms for you, as you clearly are incapable of a logical argument.

Ordinary people don't litter.
Ordinary people don't damage cars.
Ordinary people don't park selfishly.

You Re not an ordinary person.

I'll assume you are deliberately missing the point now, as its been explained so many times, but resorting to insults is a bit childish.

Then you ASSume wrongly. Your point around very clear. You just aren't very good at hiding it.

Perhaps if you took the time to read, rather than react, you might see the truth in that.

Not quite sure what you're trying to say in this post, but assuming I deciphered it correctly my point is indeed very clear and has been posted many (many) times, you just won't acknowledge it. The comparison was between the farmer's attitude and the general attitude of the british public today, yourself and any other pro-farmer posters included, that of liking to see people get their comeuppance for the most trivial "offence" , perceived or actual.

I love the "time to read not react" line , I've not seen that before, aside from every other thread where the person posting it can't justify their viewpoint.

[anonymous-user]

irocfan said:

JimSuperSix said:

Semantic waffle. You can legally park on roads where there no double yellows or other restrictions. As half of these people probably had. And the only people with the legal right to push them aside would be emergency services on a call or suchlike.

So answer this - do you think the cars that arrived first and parked neatly on one side leaving plenty of space deserved to have their cars damaged?

are you seriously suggesting that every single road where you should really park has yellow lines painted on them or signage every 1/2 mile for the terminally stupid?

note the words you conveniently missed - "or other restrictions"....

[anonymous-user]

tannhauser said:

JimSuperSix said:

irocfan said:

JimSuperSix said:

Semantic waffle. You can legally park on roads where there no double yellows or other restrictions. As half of these people probably had. And the only people with the legal right to push them aside would be emergency services on a call or suchlike.

So answer this - do you think the cars that arrived first and parked neatly on one side leaving plenty of space deserved to have their cars damaged?

are you seriously suggesting that every single road where you should really park has yellow lines painted on them or signage every 1/2 mile for the terminally stupid?

note the words you conveniently missed - "or other restrictions"....

Not if you're causing obstruction! In fact, parking anywhere on the highway where it isn't formally allowed, is technically obstruction!

"parking anywhere on the highway where it isn't formally allowed"

Well duh , you don't say.

However there's nothing to say 50% of the cars on that road were not legally allowed to park there, as they weren't causing an obstruction and there were no other restrictions. It was only the vehicles that parked on the other side that narrowed the gap enough that the tractor wouldn't fit. Check the pictures in the first post - cars like the Yeti were almost entirely off the road and parked perfectly sensibly assuming they arrived before the vehicles on the other side.

There's someone parked on the road outside my house and I doubt a large truck would get through the gap, but guess what that doesn't give truck drivers carte blanche to just smash into anything they want to force their vehicle through a gap. They have a responsibility too, it's not all one way.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 29th April 17:29

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil said:

JimSuperSix said:

However there's nothing to say 50% of the cars on that road were not legally allowed to park there, as they weren't causing an obstruction]

Nothing apart from the law, of course. And yes, as soon as they parked on the Queen's Highway, they were obstructing it.

I realise you have to continue ignoring that fact because as soon as you acknowledge it your whole argument crashes and burns.

How does the law state 50% of them were parked illegally? They were causing no obstruction , and there were no restrictions. I'm afraid it's your so-called argument thats full of holes as you continually ignore the fact that half of the cars were likely parked perfectly acceptably. Cars park on narrow roads all the time - if someone then parks opposite and narrows or blocks the carriageway then it's not the fault of the original parker. Perhaps you'd like to address this point instead of labouring the obstruction thing, which probably doesn't even apply to many of the damaged cars.

Besides , even if we say they were ALL causing an obstruction, you still can't legally hit and damage them to force a way through, so your entire "argument" is meaningless in this situation anyway.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 29th April 18:01

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil said:

Anyone else care to have a go? My head is getting tired now.

So no answer to my Q above huh? I'm staggered

[anonymous-user]

Flibble said:

I have a question for Jim. What makes you think that half of them turned up and parked neatly and were then inconvenienced by bad parking from others? I think it's more likely that they all turned up and parked like a bunch of chumps en masse rather than a few bad apples spoiling it as you seem to think.

Also, anyone who parks in the countryside should know you don't ps off the farmers.

Well we don't know for sure do we , but unless they all knew each other and came from the same place it's pretty unlikely they all arrived at the exact same time. You know how parking goes - once one car parks it sort of sets the standard, for bad or good, then others park following that example, so likely what happened was they all parked along one side until it was full then someone started parking on the other side and others followed suit because once one has done it others take it as a sort of allowable precedent. There's probably a scientific name to describe that sort of behavior , herd-mentality or conformism or something.

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil said:

JimSuperSix said:

singlecoil said:

Anyone else care to have a go? My head is getting tired now.

So no answer to my Q above huh? I'm staggered

I'm not here to answer your questions, I'm here to attempt to put you straight.

But I'm going to steel myself to another attempt to get you to see the light (I expect in reality you saw it a while back, but would prefer to avoid a humiliating climbdown). Anyway, here goes-

The biggest mistake you are making is assuming that the test of whether the Q's H is obstructed by someone parking on it (or half on it ) or not is dependent on whether a reasonably predictable large vehicle can get past it or not. The same would apply to all the other vehicles parked on the same side. But you are thinking in only one direction. Supposing two tractors needed to traverse that road, in opposite directions?

So then it's palpably bloody obvious that yes, those single sided parkers have indeed obstructed the Q's H. The obstruction doesn't depend on whether or not a legitimate road user is prevented from proceeding along the road, it happens as soon as the Q's H is parked on.

Well if any parked vehicle is classed as obstructing the highway then it's utterly irrelevant to the argument as it's not illegal so long as it doesn't fall foul of certain conditions (such as those about parking restrictions and rules in the highway code) and is also unavoidable for millions of people all over the country who legally and responsibly park their cars on the road every day.

The issue here is a) whether the tractor driver was wrong (legally or morally) to cause damage to the vehicles because he couldn't get through, and b)were all the cars' owners deserving of the damage their vehicles received. I happen to think that a) he was wrong and b) probably only half of them , and that even in light of my view on (b) that the tractor driver still went too far and should have been punished.

So unless you are saying that any parked vehicle on the highway can be legally damaged by anyone else, your point is irrelevant anyway. I assume you're not actually saying that?

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil said:

JimSuperSix said:

I assume you're not actually saying that?

If you want to know what I am saying all you need to do is to read it.

I'll let someone else take over now.

So either you ARE saying that, or you have no sensible way to counter my argument about the real issue. well done.

[anonymous-user]

Crackie said:

JimSuperSix said:

resorting to insults is a bit childish.

well done Jim...........if you can't beat 'em join 'em.

fk off

[anonymous-user]

Crackie said:

JimSuperSix said:

Well I've already vanquished 2cvs,

LOL at you Jim; the only thing you've managed to vanquish is your own credibility.

you missed the later post about that didn't you. Try reading further....

[anonymous-user]

People seem to be forgetting the following:

How would the farmer know who parked first or last, who was fair game to damage or not?

The police seem to think the farmer was in the right - yet some folk on here seem to have their own take on the law that differs to the official police view . . . . Go figure?!?

[anonymous-user]

Crackie said:

JimSuperSix said:

Crackie said:

JimSuperSix said:

Well I've already vanquished 2cvs,

LOL at you Jim; the only thing you've managed to vanquish is your own credibility.

you missed the later post about that didn't you. Try reading further....

Nope, I didn't miss the later post. I made a judgement based upon the various other posts you've made throughout the thread. Your later weasel words post was no surprise.

yeah you didn't take it seriously at all....

[anonymous-user]

Crackie said:

JimSuperSix said:

yeah you didn't take it seriously at all....

There was nothing in that post which suggested you weren't being serious. You can subsequently claim It wasn't a serious comment old chap if you wish.....

I already did, shame you didn't read it before posting and looking like a fool eh?

[anonymous-user]

TooMany2cvs said:

JimSuperSix said:

irocfan said:

JimSuperSix said:

Semantic waffle. You can legally park on roads where there no double yellows or other restrictions. As half of these people probably had. And the only people with the legal right to push them aside would be emergency services on a call or suchlike.

So answer this - do you think the cars that arrived first and parked neatly on one side leaving plenty of space deserved to have their cars damaged?

are you seriously suggesting that every single road where you should really park has yellow lines painted on them or signage every 1/2 mile for the terminally stupid?

note the words you conveniently missed - "or other restrictions"....

So - double yellows and regular signage apart - what restrictions would you suggest were appropriate for a road like this, far from atypical in the area in question - or, indeed, around here...?

Was that the narrowest country road pic you could find?
And seeing as that road doesn't resemble the one they parked on, it's irrelevant.

[anonymous-user]

Kuji said:

JimSuperSix said:

singlecoil said:

JimSuperSix said:

I assume you're not actually saying that?

If you want to know what I am saying all you need to do is to read it.

I'll let someone else take over now.

So either you ARE saying that, or you have no sensible way to counter my argument about the real issue. well done.

When are we going to see this mystical argument that needs countering then?

Honestly all I see if a whole lot of nonsense where you kept changing your mind or pretending you actually meant something else.

Just say what you mean and then go away so every other person on the planet can have a grown up conversation.

I stated it clearly on the previous page in reply to singlecoil , along with a question that he avoided answering yet again.

"So unless you are saying that any parked vehicle on the highway can be legally damaged by anyone else, your point is irrelevant anyway. I assume you're not actually saying that?"

This seems to be the crux of singlecoils so-called argument - it seems he thinks any vehicle parked on the road is obstucting it , and is therefore fair game to damage. Note that he still hasn't answered this, I wonder why....