For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
#1498249
It seems that unless someone records a sale of, or makes a SORN declaration and throws away the keys, someone could be deemed responsible for being; drunk in charge of, no insurance, no tax or mot, driving offence etc. even if the vehicle is stationary off road or has been stolen or subject to having the no’ plate cloned?

On this assumption; anyone could be charged as being drunk in charge of a vehicle, even when in their bed at home after a good night and without any intention of using a vehicle?

Add to this the Double Bubble Tax scenario, for a whole month, when buying/selling a vehicle and….. At what point is a vehicle clear of responsibility when sold – a micro second at midnight?

Also; after selling anything for cash, the explanation asked for by the bank when cash is deposited! :(

Whooh! We're all trapped and doomed with privacy eroded to near nil? :evil:
#1498292
avtur3 wrote:
Paultheparaglider wrote:As a cyclist, this causes extra trouble. Most drivers are sensible, and simply cross the lines and give you lots of room. However, some insist on staying on the correct side of the lines and pass within inches. This is really dangerous.


Sadly this demonstrates that many drivers simply don't understand the rules ... highway code 129 states that you can cross double white lines to pass a cyclist.


Sadly, very few drivers know this, but also the Code restricts this to cyclists travelling at 10mph or less. I'm knocking on a bus pass, and even then I'm only going that slow up a reasonable incline. :wink:
#1498308
"Viewed in the direction of travel, if the line closest to you
is continuous, you must not cross or straddle it (except to turn
into or out of a side road or property, avoid a stationary vehicle
blocking the lane, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road works
vehicle moving at not more than 10 mph). "

I read that as 10mph applying only to a roadworks vehicle (ie they have to be actually working the road). But it was an exception new to me. I'm sure that it wasn't there when I did my test in 1980!

In all seriousness, a revisions list (by year) to the Highway Code would be very useful.
#1498332
ZOGman wrote:It seems that unless someone records a sale of, or makes a SORN declaration and throws away the keys, someone could be deemed responsible for ....
...
At what point is a vehicle clear of responsibility when sold – a micro second at midnight?

This is why it is important to write a date and time of sale on the signed sales paperwork that both parties have a copy of. Also take a time-stamped photo of it straight away.
When selling a vehicle that is all the seller has to support their case that any misdemeanor involving the vehicle is not their responsibility until the DVLA write a letter to the seller to officially tell the seller they no longer have responsibility to tax/SORN/insure the vehicle etc etc.

Don't lose that letter in case the DVLA computer messes up later! Consider taking a timestamped photo of it when you get it.

Under the old system and many years ago I did sell a car for a small amount of cash to someone that knocked on the door having noticed that car had not been used for ages. The police were in contact about its use a few days later. I quoted date and time I sold the vehicle and gave the buyer name/address and that was that.
I later looked at the address ona map and the door number looked a bit on the high side for the length of road on the map, so maybe the buyer had plans for the car and gave me a fake name/address when I sold it.

ZOGman wrote:Also; after selling anything for cash, the explanation asked for by the bank when cash is deposited! :(

I think the banks are required to do that for sums above a certain figure as part of anti-money laundering legislation?
ZOGman wrote:Whooh! We're all trapped and doomed with privacy eroded to near nil? :evil:
Yep! Keep that paperwork for when the IT systems have a failure or operating system upgrade or software bug or get hacked or ... !
</paranoid-mode>
#1498335
matthew_w100 wrote:"Viewed in the direction of travel, if the line closest to you
is continuous, you must not cross or straddle it (except to turn
into or out of a side road or property, avoid a stationary vehicle
blocking the lane, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road works
vehicle moving at not more than 10 mph). "

I read that as 10mph applying only to a roadworks vehicle (ie they have to be actually working the road). But it was an exception new to me. I'm sure that it wasn't there when I did my test in 1980!

In all seriousness, a revisions list (by year) to the Highway Code would be very useful.


yes, fair enough that is the law, but is it right that a non-law enforcement individual should be "grassing up" another individual who overtook a cyclist and where no harm or risk was caused to any other person?

What next? Dashcam that has GPS and records speed, will we than have footage submitted the the comment "my GPS said I was doing 70mph and this individual passed me in the outside lane. As I was on the speed limit he must have been speeding".

Where would it end.
#1498337
matthew_w100 wrote:
FlarePath wrote:What would the law say in the UK if well over the top in a lay-by in a camper van for the night?


That you were drunk in charge, and you would be banned and fined. Assuming the layby was part of the public highway.


Chapter and verse:-

5

Driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit.
.

(1)

If a person—
.

(a)

drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, or
.

(b)

is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place,
.
after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit he is guilty of an offence.

(2)

It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b) above to prove that at the time he is alleged to have committed the offence the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle whilst the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine remained likely to exceed the prescribed limit.
.

(3)

The court may, in determining whether there was such a likelihood as is mentioned in subsection (2) above, disregard any injury to him and any damage to the vehicle.


So mildly bladdered while tucked up in your camper van bunk is ok, sitting bemused and befuddled in your smashed motor is not.

Bill H
#1518850
ZOGman wrote:Mobile Phone use whilst driving!

Firstly; I absolutely agree with this action becoming an offence, particularly after the news video showing the truck driver hitting and killing a family.

In the West Country the police have started a purge on mobile phone use whilst driving.

They are using unmarked cars and even an unmarked truck to give them higher aspect views.

However, they are also requesting that the public report others driving whilst using mobiles. :roll:

Are we entering into ‘allegation territory’ again?


I saw this van driver watching a film on his screen mounted iPhone today. He was doing ~70mph along the Kent / Surrey section of the M25. He continued to watch it for the several miles that we were adjacent to him, but needless to say was oblivious to me taking photos of him. I have his UK registration on another photo.

Quelle tw_@t ...

Image