What C124PPY personalised plates have you seen recently?
Discussion
A little story:
M13 SJO
Young lady driver was not happy that I had photographed her car. Seems she was (unnoticed by me!) parked in a 'Disabled Only' slot and did not have a Blue Badge. "I am only waiting for someone! What's it got to do with you?" she cried.
Indeed! Nowt!
She later got her own back! She got her mate to photograph MY (perfectly parked, properly number-plated, obviously!) car! That really showed me!!!
Yes! I DO appear to have a lot of time on my hands this week!!!
M13 SJO
Young lady driver was not happy that I had photographed her car. Seems she was (unnoticed by me!) parked in a 'Disabled Only' slot and did not have a Blue Badge. "I am only waiting for someone! What's it got to do with you?" she cried.
Indeed! Nowt!
She later got her own back! She got her mate to photograph MY (perfectly parked, properly number-plated, obviously!) car! That really showed me!!!
Yes! I DO appear to have a lot of time on my hands this week!!!
Cliftonite said:
A little story:
M13 SJO
Young lady driver was not happy that I had photographed her car. Seems she was (unnoticed by me!) parked in a 'Disabled Only' slot and did not have a Blue Badge. "I am only waiting for someone! What's it got to do with you?" she cried.
Indeed! Nowt!
She later got her own back! She got her mate to photograph MY (perfectly parked, properly number-plated, obviously!) car! That really showed me!!!
Yes! I DO appear to have a lot of time on my hands this week!!!
It did indeed. Properly told you that did. M13 SJO
Young lady driver was not happy that I had photographed her car. Seems she was (unnoticed by me!) parked in a 'Disabled Only' slot and did not have a Blue Badge. "I am only waiting for someone! What's it got to do with you?" she cried.
Indeed! Nowt!
She later got her own back! She got her mate to photograph MY (perfectly parked, properly number-plated, obviously!) car! That really showed me!!!
Yes! I DO appear to have a lot of time on my hands this week!!!
Where else but the disabled bay would you expect to find a Mercedes with a Chavplate driven by a perfectly able bodied person parked then?
Again no pics as I was driving but:
OOO SNAP on an Audi A6 Avant. Appeared to be OO05 NAP before the spacing and a bit of reshaping on the S.
M4L PU / M4 LPU on a Range Rover. Cazana says the car's previous plate was BU11 DDG with the second D reshaped into an "O" in an attempt to read BULL DOG
J 500 DG on a Merc C Class. It must be J50 ODG before the spacing.
OOO SNAP on an Audi A6 Avant. Appeared to be OO05 NAP before the spacing and a bit of reshaping on the S.
M4L PU / M4 LPU on a Range Rover. Cazana says the car's previous plate was BU11 DDG with the second D reshaped into an "O" in an attempt to read BULL DOG
J 500 DG on a Merc C Class. It must be J50 ODG before the spacing.
Edited by AlexRS2782 on Friday 15th September 19:47
Jonmx said:
nonsequitur said:
jshell said:
Jonmx said:
Photo taken at traffic lights with car in neutral and handbrake applied for those of you who like that kind of thing
After 5 minutes of waiting I felt it fine, I'm pretty sure an officer would apply the NDM and use common sense. Possibly the 'gardener' in the white tipper truck behind me yabbering away on his phone might have garnered more attention anyhow.
Edit to include a more obvious smiley in case people think I'm being arsey.
Edited by Jonmx on Wednesday 13th September 19:22
where is says;
Regulation 110.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using—
(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).
And describes the ‘mobile device’ as
(4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.
Expands on being ‘hand held’
(6) For the purposes of this regulation—
(a)a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function;
And that
6(c)“interactive communication function” includes the following:
(i)sending or receiving oral or written messages;
(ii)sending or receiving facsimile documents;
(iii)sending or receiving still or moving images; and
(iv)providing access to the internet;
So, provided he didn't as he sat there upload the photo and post to PH, but rather, did it later at home maybe, I’d say jonmx, if I understand it correctly, you’re in the clear and can sleep soundly. If you were moving along of course they may consider an alternate regulation.
the tribester said:
Jonmx said:
nonsequitur said:
jshell said:
Jonmx said:
Photo taken at traffic lights with car in neutral and handbrake applied for those of you who like that kind of thing
After 5 minutes of waiting I felt it fine, I'm pretty sure an officer would apply the NDM and use common sense. Possibly the 'gardener' in the white tipper truck behind me yabbering away on his phone might have garnered more attention anyhow.
Edit to include a more obvious smiley in case people think I'm being arsey.
Edited by Jonmx on Wednesday 13th September 19:22
where is says;
Regulation 110.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using—
(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).
And describes the ‘mobile device’ as
(4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.
Expands on being ‘hand held’
(6) For the purposes of this regulation—
(a)a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function;
And that
6(c)“interactive communication function” includes the following:
(i)sending or receiving oral or written messages;
(ii)sending or receiving facsimile documents;
(iii)sending or receiving still or moving images; and
(iv)providing access to the internet;
So, provided he didn't as he sat there upload the photo and post to PH, but rather, did it later at home maybe, I’d say jonmx, if I understand it correctly, you’re in the clear and can sleep soundly. If you were moving along of course they may consider an alternate regulation.
the tribester said:
Jonmx said:
nonsequitur said:
jshell said:
Jonmx said:
Photo taken at traffic lights with car in neutral and handbrake applied for those of you who like that kind of thing
After 5 minutes of waiting I felt it fine, I'm pretty sure an officer would apply the NDM and use common sense. Possibly the 'gardener' in the white tipper truck behind me yabbering away on his phone might have garnered more attention anyhow.
Edit to include a more obvious smiley in case people think I'm being arsey.
Edited by Jonmx on Wednesday 13th September 19:22
where is says;
Regulation 110.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using—
(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).
And describes the ‘mobile device’ as
(4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.
Expands on being ‘hand held’
(6) For the purposes of this regulation—
(a)a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function;
And that
6(c)“interactive communication function” includes the following:
(i)sending or receiving oral or written messages;
(ii)sending or receiving facsimile documents;
(iii)sending or receiving still or moving images; and
(iv)providing access to the internet;
So, provided he didn't as he sat there upload the photo and post to PH, but rather, did it later at home maybe, I’d say jonmx, if I understand it correctly, you’re in the clear and can sleep soundly. If you were moving along of course they may consider an alternate regulation.
When she leaves for work, she goes to her car which is parked on the road. She gets in said car and starts the engine. She then ensures her phone is connected to the speakers, picks some music, presses play, puts the phone on the seat next to her and drives off.
I've been telling her that if the engine is on what she is doing is illegal and she could get points. She says it isn't.
Who's correct?
I also assume that if the car is turned off wether parked on the road or in traffic you are free to use your phone any which way you like as the car isn't running.
The flaw in the above arguments is that the lawyers define 'driving' differently from the rest of the population.
I believe that the wife setting up her music and anyone in a traffic jam - even with the engine off - is 'driving'
I seem to remember (and apologies to him if I am wrong) that it was vonhosen who pointed out that you can, in certain circumstances, be 'driving' even when sat on a wall beside your car!!!
My feeling is that this nonsense all came about with case law surrounding drink driving, which makes sense in that respect. But not so much with mobile phone legislation as 'sobering up' is pretty much instant when putting the phone down and then getting on with 'driving' as we all understand it!
(IANAL - perhaps it shows!)
I believe that the wife setting up her music and anyone in a traffic jam - even with the engine off - is 'driving'
I seem to remember (and apologies to him if I am wrong) that it was vonhosen who pointed out that you can, in certain circumstances, be 'driving' even when sat on a wall beside your car!!!
My feeling is that this nonsense all came about with case law surrounding drink driving, which makes sense in that respect. But not so much with mobile phone legislation as 'sobering up' is pretty much instant when putting the phone down and then getting on with 'driving' as we all understand it!
(IANAL - perhaps it shows!)
CanAm said:
A colleague was convicted of using his mobile phone while 'parked' in a lay-by, unfortunately with his engine still running.
This illustrates my point (above) re drink driving (when a conviction would be appropriate) and mobile phone use, (when a conviction is usually just plain daft, or vindictive).Additionally, does one not have to be "on a road" (i.e. not safely parked in a lay-by) to be convicted of mobile phone use?
Or is "road"another word where lawyers and normal people have differing definitions?!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff