|
BTW a "vigilante" is a self appointed person who protects public order ie a member of a vigilance committee.
|
Davmal
with respect, i'm fully aware of the definition of the the word 'vigilante' and the most popular/accurate is as i have stated and to clarify;
A vigilante is man/woman who illegally punishes someone for perceived offence and often the vigilante will follow a different definition of criminal than the local law. Therefore, please stand corrected.
i would never wittingly break the law!
|
|
I suppose it's about time I threw my dictionary away and looked everything up on Wikipedia>:(
|
|
|
|
So you are a sneak or nark. Bad cess to you.
You know nothing about these people except that they are technically illegal.
|
So you are a sneak or nark. Bad cess to you. You know nothing about these people except that they are technically illegal.
A lot of people who flout the law, do so on the expectation that people will not report them because of some apparently unwritten moral code. That is how they get away with it.
The same problem when criminals terrorise neighbourhoods without interventaion because there is a culture of not grassing to the police.
I don't buy into that mentality, Paul is not in Wormwood Scrubs and grassing to the screws, he is talking about reporting uninsured drivers and other miscreants.
Years ago my dad reported a neighbour for drink driving (after seeing him literally staggering out of the house and into his car), the cops picked and he was banned for a year. Got a very dangerous guy off the roads for a year, a job well done.
No, Paul doesn't know the details but the police and the other bodies involved can be responsible for gathering the actual evidence and managing mitigation. To not pass on information on an uninsured driver because we might not know the full story doesn't seem justified to me.
Just my two cents.
|
Sorry, I too would have no qualms about reporting someone who I knew to be driving with no insurance. Don't give me the rubbish about single-mum-needs-car-to-take-kids-to-school, if you can't afford the insurance you don't drive.
Chances are with no insurance they'll have no license either and I promise you that everyone here who thinks it's acceptable would change their mind when a close family member is struck down by one of these loonies.
Could you genuinely say after going to a funeral where someone came up to you and said "I knew they were drink-driving but didn't think it right to report them" that you'd have the same viewpoint?
|
|
Yet another 'controversial' topic from paul2007, how many more of these can we expect?
|
|
A few no doubt but most trolls eventually get bored and move on.
|
|
He's been here for two and a half years!
|
Hello David Horn and Bathtub
BT, thank you for pointing out the obvious. I've always felt strongly about a lot of motoring matters and had some time on my hands to post. I find the debate/s interesting and comforting when i read posts from other like minded people.
David, many thanks for your response. TBH, I avoid the poster for some items he posted against me, which were subsequently removed by the mod/s here. I purposely avoided his question and hoped that some one else would respond appropriately and you did, thanks!
for all here, i leave the running of the forums to the people that regulated them and did not and have not reported anyone here. I have been impersonated just because i may have mad comments that he/she/they disagreed with.
I find the HJ site v interesting and do not often post but read a lot more often.
i regualrly check out the 'car by car' - 'news' sections on a regualr basis as well as reading the BR, and tech info and have requested help many times and received good help. i try to contribute in a manner that would not disrupt the good flow of the forum and try to avoid people that are insulting or inflaming the debate.
I'm only too aware that i'm not perfect, or even come close to that. However, i do try to be polite as this costs nothing other than common sense and be helpful where i can. i have made mistakes in my life and in relation to motoring, when i was a lot younger, i may have driven over the limit in built up areas which is wrong. i have also driven after drinking alcohol which is wrong imo. I don't feel i was over the limit and 25 years ago it was more readily accepted but not the case now, hence my zero drink driving limit. the law states people can drink and drive and i have no problem with that as long as you stay within the law.
some of my other pet hates re motoring are;
people that abuse the Blue Badge system.
Park on pavements.
hog the top lane whilst driving slowly
change lanes without indicating or change lane and indicate.
Allow kids and animals to stick their heads out of car windows/sunroofs.
drive with roadworthy vehicles.
bully other drivers and pedestrians.
park inconsiderately on the highway and car parks.
fling open their doors as you drive up and causing you to brake or swerve or accident.
abuse traffic wardens for being appropriately ticketed.
drive vehicles with offensive reg plates
so as most will see i have many concerns re motoring but do keep a tab on my posts/threads.
i've been here for a while and feel i have the right to post my conce3nrs as long as the hosts allow me to.
if i've unwittingly offended anyone, then i apologise.
to make the place where you live/work/travel, you may have to help the police. Many times it's just 2/3 individuals that cause 90% of the upset on the local roads and the sooner this lot is put away, the better imo.
unregistered cars are often used in very serios crime and that is a fact.
Edited by paul2007 on 03/01/2010 at 14:39
|
I think it's a pity someone has to justify his stance of believing in law and order.
If Paul wants to report suspected motoring crime, then good luck to him.
It remains for the police to decide what is done with the information and up to the CPS if anyone is prosecuted.
I've reported the odd motoring incident over the years, and I've ignored plenty more.
|
Two things puzzle me.
How is the OP going to know who's insured and who isn't?
And secondly, as a good few of his other pet hates are subjective views of any given situation, how does he propose gathering both sides of the story?
I've lost friends in road accidents, and spent time in A&E myself due to the carelessness of other road users, but I wouldn't dream of spending my own time trying to enforce road laws.
I pay taxes in order to have a police force do this for me.
|
I wouldn't dream of spending my own time trying to enforce road laws.
Neither would I, but if I did know someone was doing it I'd have no qualms about reporting them, they make the roads more dangerous for the rest of us so why should I?
Paul, I agree with most if not all of your list, but I have no intention of going out there to do the Police's job, as Birdie says thats what we pay our taxes for, however I have no objection if you want to... but I'd rather you concentrate on the illegal drivers (banned, drinkdrive, untaxed, uninsured) rather than the rubbish drivers (opening doors without looking, etc), the latter can be educated, the others are a different kettle of fish and shouldn't be there in the first place.
Edited by b308 on 03/01/2010 at 15:20
|
b308
i respect your views and you make a very valid point about 'educating' and people that throw their doors open endangering other road users.
for some of the others here, i can spot an uninsured driver by the fact they do not have a valid road tax, unroadworthy vehicle as this makes their insure invalid. However, like most i work FT and do not have time to catch people out and report.
A few wedding i attended in 2009, saw several get behind the wheel that had drand more than a few drinks and showing some signs of wear and tear by the way the walked, spoke, drove. Did not report them as they had other people in the car that could have stopped them and if i did decide to do that, by the time the cops arrived they would have gone. importantly, i was not certain enough that they were over the limit.
it is a police matter, but it is our duty to help them and help keep all safe on the roads if we can.
|
|
paul, you must be real fun at parties!
|
for some of the others here i can spot an uninsured driver by the fact they do not have a valid road tax unroadworthy vehicle as this makes their insure invalid.
Paul,
Before you go taking the law into your own hands you need to understand the law a little better. Your statement above is wrong. Lack of VED and unroadworthy vehicle does NOT invalidate insurance - the third party aspect (the legal minimum) will still be valid.
No VED and unroadworthy vehicles are seperate offences.
With all due respect, given your lack of knowledge, maybe you would do better to leave policing to, well, the police? After all, they are trained to do the job and have a better understanding of traffic law.
Regards,
Andy
|
...given your lack of knowledge, maybe you would do better to leave policing to, well, the police?...
That's all Paul, or any of us, can do.
Provide information and it's then up to the police what they do with it.
So it matters not if Paul's info is off-beam, apart from the time wasted by the policeman - I mean civvy desk worker - who notes it down.
|
Raving double standards.
This alone shows your unsuitability for your self appointed task.
|
SFAIK, if you have paid an insurance premium, you have insurance on your car even if you have no Road Tax. If your cover is comprehensive it may be reduced to TPFT or even "Act Only" but I think there will be some cover in force. Standing by for correction and possible chastisement!
|
drive with roadworthy vehicles.
This one stood out as a strange pet hate, but I think I know what you meant!
|
|
paul can you visit me within a week or two, i want you to take a paasing glance at my car to see if its up to the MOT thats due soon...save me forking out £50
|
hello ZK
save yourself the 50 odd quid by taking your car to a mot site that re-checks for free. I used to do that years ago when i had cars that were older than 3 years - they even allowed me to drive off site and bring back for one free re-check. I made sure that the car went in 2 weeks before the mot was due and usually a minor fault like bush worn of on sports suspension type car - never got a serious prob, otherwise i would have it repaired on site. I'm sure there will be one near you.
otherwise, you can help yourself toan extent.
www.ukmot.com/mot_check.asp
Even without me looking at your car, help yourselve by checking that tyres good, lights working, horn operational, seat belts in good repair/working, wipers good/etc/etc.
Regards
paul
|
I may well report a banned or uninsured driver, but I don't think I'd pontificate about the fact.
|
......pontificate..........
I fear that your point may be lost on the OP - given his level of punctuation, spelling..........
Edited by pmh3 on 03/01/2010 at 17:40
|
Paul, if you plan to continue your crusade make sure you and your family have private health care and dental insurance as I fear you'll need it.
|
|
They probably all wear full face crash helmets in the car anyway :-)
|
How is the OP going to know who's insured and who isn't? <<
www.askmid.com
Although you have to tick a box stating it is your vehicle, you are not breaching data protection rules if you have a genuine enquiry about a possible crime taking place (eg. uninsured vehicle).
I've used this site once or twice when I've seen cars being driven erratically or in obviously poor state of repair (eg. the old 'only the high level brakelight working' or 'tyres like Jean-Luc Picard's head' styles).
I'm not advocating that anyone else uses the site, simply showing it exists.
Considering the DVLA sell your data to private individuals so they can send unlawful parking charges, I can't see anyone caring who uses askmid.
(Link made live by HJ because www.askmid.com contains the same information the police access at an ANPR check, so if your car is not on the MID you will get stopped.)
Edited by Honestjohn on 04/01/2010 at 02:25
|
|
Nice to know all mine are on!
|
''i have made mistakes in my life and in relation to motoring, when i was a lot younger, i may have driven over the limit in built up areas which is wrong. i have also driven after drinking alcohol which is wrong imo. I don't feel i was over the limit and 25 years ago it was more readily accepted but not the case now''
Paul - I fear you rather positively ask for criticism with comments like this. You seem to suggest it was alright when you were young but isn't OK for anyone now that you're older. And give me a penny for the number of times I've heard someone say: 'I didn't think I was over the limit'. 25 years ago was 1985 and it was no more acceptable (or legal) to drink and drive.
I haven't bothered looking up 'vigilante' but this is definitely called 'sanctimony'!!
|
Paul 2007 writes above >>i may have mad comments<<
Quite.
|
I am sure Paul would have been at home under the Stasi..:-)
|
Rarely has anybody been so thoroughly flamed! Is it my imagination, or are even regulars becoming less tolerant? ( I also hold my hands up!)
Comeback Mr X.
|
|
@ Madf - He's working on a screenplay for a film to be called "The Drives of Others"
Edited by Nsar on 04/01/2010 at 11:41
|
I'm not getting suckered in to responding to the issues raised in this thread, but I do have some observations.
Why does someone whose avowed aim, as a private citizen, is to uphold law and order by reporting illegal and dangerous behaviour, but who must realise his aspirations and justifications are going to raise people's hackles, wish to trumpet his views on a forum such as this?
I can think of only two possible answers: one, that the individual concerned wishes to bolster his ego; two, that he wishes to wind people up and enjoy the reactions he gets. (The second answer is probably the same as the first, in essence.)
I suggest most people who have a sense of public duty just get on with whatever it is they feel they should do, without such self-regard.
|
I can think of only two possible answers: one that the individual concerned wishes to bolster his ego; two that he wishes to wind people up and enjoy the reactions he gets. (The second answer is probably the same as the first in essence.) I suggest most people who have a sense of public duty just get on with whatever it is they feel they should do without such self-regard.
Good analysis - I notice that the OP has also made references to be full time employed and suggests that he can afford expensive cars. I wonder what the reality is? Is signing on counted as being FTE? Old luxobarges can also be picked up very cheap at auction :)
If someone in my street was driving without tax/insurance/licence and where doing it regular enough for me to notice, well then yes, I think it would be my (or anyones) duty to let the boys in blue know about it.
Going out with a camcorder trying to catch people is something else.
|
On the subject of MID, there are still flaws with this.
1 - The MID database is not 100% accurate, and never will be. Some insurers are very slow to update details. I believe they are allowed 7 days currently to update. Thats a week where you could show up as un-insured.
2 - The car may not be insured, but the driver could be. DOC cover or trade policies.
3 - The car may have insurance, but the driver may not be insured. In some parts of the country its quite common for a family to share a car, but not for all drivers to be listed on the policy.
Also, under cirtain circumstances its legal to drive with no MOT or VED - driving to a pre-booked MOT test.
|
Andy ( Love the 'great' bit!!, might have to change mine now...)
''2 - The car may not be insured, but the driver could be. DOC cover or trade policies.
3 - The car may have insurance, but the driver may not be insured. In some parts of the country its quite common for a family to share a car, but not for all drivers to be listed on the policy.''
2) Up to the driver to prove it - the offence is committed at the time. Officers have the discretion to issue ye olde fashioned producer if they wish, but if none is produced, the offence is committed at the time of the stop. ( If there is doubt as to the accuracy of the database, or officers think the driver is perhaps truthful then a producer should be issued. Seizure is not automatic on the say so of the database).
3) If the car is insured and the driver isn't, then he/she simply isn't and the offence is complete. In the UK, insurance looks at the person, and whether they are insured to drive the car they're in. It's irrelevant whether the car is insured (and indeed for what?)
|
WoodsterTheGreat,
Not really sure what the point is you are making, as you are agreeing with what I said.
But it does stress the point that Pauls mission is flawed, because its not just a simple case of looking on MID or checking VED/MOT - this is exactly why the police are best placed to deal with this.
AndyTheGreat
|
|
Behold - a Viz character made manifest :-)
|
|
|
when criminals terrorise neighbourhoods without interventaion because there is a culture of not grassing to the police.
I don't buy into that mentality
I don't suppose anyone here does really. But that's very different from fussing around reporting drivers who you imagine to be technically illegal.
If someone is driving in a murderously dangerous way it's one thing. If their VEL disc has fallen off the inside of their windscreen it's something else entirely.
Nor do I accept the line that people short of money shouldn't drive. They are often forced to do so by circumstances. Having their lives messed up by egregious sneak characters is just what struggling single mothers need, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
