scoobynutta555

I don't know why you bother either. Who reported it as being 20k Einstein? As I said, smacks of spin by somebody to create further "uproar". You don't even know if the driver deliberately swerved to soak a pedestrian. He could be one of your despised chavs for all you know. But of course, you were there and you were in court so as usual you know ******* everything don't you. Moron.

scoobynutta555

From your sky news quote again. Each case is different and all facts to each case cannot be crammed into a small press release.

Scooby Doctor

This is just another instance of british law gone stupid.

Wouldnt it be better for the government to ban eveyone from just leaving there houses?
No more speeding, no more drink driving, no more anything, all problems sorted.

unclebuck

LOL - it's like dealing with a five year old dealing with you.

Tell you what - you carry on in your own confused little world trying to work out the bleedin' obvious, while I'll base my opinions on the facts as laid before us.

scoobynutta555

I wouldn't shout about that on here m8 you might get hung

But you patently are not basing things on the facts. The place where the facts were laid out was in court, the whole facts, not just 6 paragraphs of spiel from vested interests to spin a story. As I have stated unless you are a party to the full facts,which you are not, you're just bull5hitting.

Under the facts, in court, the bloke was found guilty. In the same sky news report, you glibly refer to, it states that someone else got found not guilty of a similar charge.

little-ginge

LOL, definately the responses!!!

paul-s

It is a joke though, how can the police be wasted on such crap. why not use people more expendable if necessary like traffic wardens with superpowers. Everyone will lose faith in this country soon, no-where else gets it this bad

scoobynutta555

Maybe an expendable (whatever that is in reference to) traffic warden wasn't on hand to see the "offence". If small laws aren't enforced why bother enforcing other laws? Where do you draw the line? There was a case, there was a hearing there was a verdict, what's the problem?

fatherpierre

7 month case? They last 15 minutes for this sort of pap.

The 7 months probably refers to the time from him being repoted for the deed and his day in court.

Iwan

Nope, highway code is guidelines. The road traffic act is the law, though there;s loads in the RTA which is also in the HC.

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

"Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for driving without reasonable consideration" under which the offence in question falls.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

I'm worried now , the clip that holds my near side washer jet in place has broken and it sometimes rotates round.

Well, today I used my windscreen washers whilst driving down a high street with a fair few people about...I didn't notice that the nozzle had turned round and was spraying water on people I passed

little-ginge

ahh yo should be ok until around May '06, when you may have to appear in court for gushing on a granny or 2...

I'd give you 20 years hard labour.

Dream Weaver

Plain stupidity

This bit from the courts makes me laugh - "If the driver had shown a little more care and a little less speed, he would not have found himself in court", but they then say he slowed to 10-15mph

StickyMicky

this country is fukcen awesome

DazW

iTrader: (1)

I know 'driving without reasonable consideration to other road users' is an offence ...but does soaking a workman really warrant wasting police & courts time at our expense? ...& 3 points? wtf! ...surely it could have been dealt with by the small claims court for dry cleaning costs ...after all, the workman had a bloody good independant witness!

...& wtf is a workman doing clearing drains without waterproofs anyways?

ozzy

"Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for driving without reasonable consideration"

The problem is arguing if slowing down to 10-15mph is actually "reasonable consideration". I'd argue it is, others may say not.

Everything is open to interpretation and does it really warrant a 7mth court case, £20K in fees and costs just to prosecute someone with £150 and 3-points ???

Other than getting a bit wet and throwing a hissy-fit, did the workman get injured at all?

I'm surprised Health and Safety actually allowed the workman to put put in mortal danger from a soaking

StickyMicky

if the bloke was going faster he would have created enough spray to block his numberplate and he might have been ok LOL

ozzy

LOL or fast enough to send the wave completely over the top of the workman instead of straight into the hole

Mind you, if he was a typical workman then a gallon of cold dirty water down the crack of yer @rse is gonna pi$$ you off

StickyMicky

any SIAP gen

baz69birds

Nearly as bad as MINE
£60 fine & 3 points

for stopping on the side of the road & taking a picture

Sunny day, No Flash, Not in any1's way, Hazzards where ON, i had stopped for about 8 minutes.
as i drove away, a copper saw me FOLLOWED me for 1 mile then NICKED ME

BAZ

Leslie

It is certainly particularly selfish to drive through puddles or floods so fast that you splash someone. It is surprisng how often you see people driving through floods unnecessarily fast causing splashing or a wake, Can't think what they are trying to prove!

The penalty for this case is seriously over the top though, 3 points and £150 is far too much for what he did.

Its is not so much the law that is the *** though, its the idiotic attitude of that particular magistrate who gave the sentence!

Les

unclebuck

Trying to prove how cool they are in their SUV.

They won't look so cool when they hydro lock and blow up their engine though. I'd encourage them to go faster.

paulr

I always drive through puddles ,its an environmentally freindly way of cleaning the inner wing.

ozzy

Driving through puddles is fun of course, soaking people is not big and not clever

Dream Weaver

Dont forget, we're not allowed to have "fun" any more though

Leslie, have you ever done anything remotely fun/outrageous/law bending? No offence, but you always seem to have a very moral stance on everything. I've soaked a few people near puddles before (mostly in my younger days). Its very funny watching what happens, and its hardly dangerous, they should also have seen the puddle and steered clear of it.

There is a bit near my house that develops a big puddle near the pavement, right on the line that the traffic takes. I sometimes forget and get soaked, but its funny and I laugh about it

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

You can't knock Leslie, his views are as much of a part to SN as the "Final Thought" is to Jerry Springer's talk(fight!?!) show.

MJW

The real issue seems to have been missed, in that the roads in the UK are so poorly maintained. Had the drains, levels and fall of the road been done correctly there shouldn't have been a large quantity of standing water. How the hell can the driver be responsible for the condition of the road ?

Leslie

Bet I have done worse than you in the past Dream Weaver, You should have been low flying with me at times! but I wouldn't deliberately soak someone, that would be unfair in my book. Like Paulr said though, puddles are very handy for washing the inner wings

Good one Ali-B

Les

fatherpierre

You must have stopped somowhere where it's pretty clear you're not meant to??