• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

One traffic law for us and a different traffic law for Gordon Brown

Not too sure about post 19. I've been on ride alongs with the MET police and seen plenty of wealthy people get tugged for no insurance. And they could obviously afford to replace and compensate most of the "ragamuffin" cars as one gentleman once said early one morning.

Then again I only got to see the front line. Most of the real policing tends to happen in the paperwork these days.
 
Section 144 of the Road Traffic Act would cover against having insurance

Exemption
(1) Section 143 of this Act does not apply to a vehicle owned by a person who has deposited and keeps deposited with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court the sum of £15,000, at a time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner’s control.
 
I thought the current rate was to lodge £250,000 with LLoyds if you want to self insure. (A lot of big companies do this for fleet vehicles)
 
Last edited:
No, there were news stories recently about how she *now* had to get a passport following some changs to the rules for (so-called) VIPs.

I presume she'll just cut down a tenner rather than nipping along to the photo machine in Woolies
 
I read a newspaper article taking peebles from Felixstowe beach is stealing from the Queen, everything belongs to the Queen.:doh:
 
Yup, including us, although I believe we were recently upgraded from "subjects" to "citizens". We're still serfs though.
 
Gridlock said:
Spend hundreds of pounds on driving lessons just so you can pay fuel tax and road excise duty? Prudence demands otherwise...
Click to expand...

Suspect it's more to do with his eyesight.

But it does rather demonstrate how he isn't best placed to judge how taxes such as VED and fuel tax affect the ordinary people of this country.
 
Gridlock said:
Yup, including us, although I believe we were recently upgraded from "subjects" to "citizens". We're still serfs though.
Click to expand...

Not that recent. Back in 1981.

The term subject still applies under special circumstances.
 
I hope Gordon can live with his green conscience after needlessly wasting so much more extra fuel just to arrive at his destination a few minutes earlier. I hope he drives(or gets driven) 5 miles less next week to compensate, as he implores the rest of us to do.

As an old fashioned socialist, his toes must curl when he's treated in such a bourgeois manner by his staff. What ever happened to the 'prudence' he used to bleat on about all the time? Someone put him out of his/our misery. Please!
 
Honey Bear said:
No. In the most basic terms... It's her land.
Click to expand...

In basic terms if the public have access to private land (suchas private roads) then insurance is required.
 
*** said:
I do get why the OP is angry, but gordy cloon being driven 10mph above the speed limit, its hardly crime of the century and if I were done for doing 60mph in a 50mph zone I'd feel a bit hard done by/can the police not do something better with their time.

There are many, much more valid, reasons to be angry and resent the cloon than this.

Afterall, if it was one of us here posting I got done for 60mph in a 50 I'd be saying how bad I think this is, etc.
Click to expand...
The 50 MPH limit is due to roadworks (although currently it's still a dual carriageway with no contraflow...) and is enforced by average speed cameras. The distance from Needham to Ipswich on the A14 is (at most!) about 7 miles. Travelling 10 miles an hour faster wouldn't even of saved a minute on the journey...

*everyone* on that road does 50 because there are 4 average speed cameras along the road doing both lanes - it takes the piss that (for no real reason) the PM is just ushered through... Same for the MP in the 110 MPH car on the Msomething.
 
Jakg said:
Travelling 10 miles an hour faster wouldn't even of saved a minute on the journey...
Click to expand...

It's worth remembering that security considerations may be involved.

One of the reasons security convoys often travel faster than other traffic is a practical one. A threat in the slower moving traffic may be more likely to make an identifiable transition in its behaviour to deal with the faster convoy.

Basically you travel fast enough to ensure any chasing vehicle will be behaving abnormally (ie. speeding). And that any vehicle attempting to block or intercede will have to move differently from the slower mass of traffic. You don't expose your convoy within the vicinity of any vehicle for longer than is practically necessary.

So there is a tradeoff here - a bit of extra speed - but not too much so much you introduce other risks.

It's about planning, control, and vigilance.
 
Jakg said:
Same for the MP in the 110 MPH car on the Msomething.
Click to expand...

Can't whinge about that either. I frequently used to do so when it was quiet, can see for a good distance and conditions allow drive at such speeds and fully endorse the same. Alas a roadside capture has reigned in my motorway antics (brum to Clydebank in 3 1/2hrs)

Quite frankly, we all speed, its not the MP speeding that narks me, its the relentless speed kills endoctorines etc that narks me and the anti car user policies of the government.

Perhaps if we had more MPs that drove fast, we might have a more sympathetic government towards car users. As we do not and they speed, I am fine with this as it exposes them as they hypocritical scumbags that they are.
 
Dryce said:
It's worth remembering that security considerations may be involved.

One of the reasons security convoys often travel faster than other traffic is a practical one. A threat in the slower moving traffic may be more likely to make an identifiable transition in its behaviour to deal with the faster convoy.

Basically you travel fast enough to ensure any chasing vehicle will be behaving abnormally (ie. speeding). And that any vehicle attempting to block or intercede will have to move differently from the slower mass of traffic. You don't expose your convoy within the vicinity of any vehicle for longer than is practically necessary.

So there is a tradeoff here - a bit of extra speed - but not too much so much you introduce other risks.

It's about planning, control, and vigilance.
Click to expand...
That makes sense - if there was an element of risk.

If this was the case, though, surely they would *always* be driving above the speed limit?
*** said:
Can't whinge about that either. I frequently used to do so when it was quiet, can see for a good distance and conditions allow drive at such speeds and fully endorse the same
Click to expand...
I must admit I have done the same - but if I was caught doing over 110 I would not have a license for a considerable period of time, but when an MP's driver is caught doing it, nothing ever comes of it.

Same for if I ran into a parked car while on the phone and drove off then, really... :rolleyes:
 
*** said:
Perhaps if we had more MPs that drove fast, we might have a more sympathetic government towards car users.
Click to expand...

Didn't Stephen Ladyman have 6 points as mentioned on Top Gear once? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

BandyAndy
Drivers across the UK slapped with hefty traffic fines
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
SpikyMikey
SpikyMikey
M
2011 (11) MERCEDES BENZ S350 CDI BLUETEC SALOON DIESEL AUTO BROWN
Replies
0
Views
489
Mercland
M
E
Hello All, Great Forum - First time MB owner with a query - Cam Sensors
Replies
0
Views
559
ESMF
E
Engadine
Why I sold my C63S Brabus, and my thoughts on W204 C63 vs W205 C63
Replies
14
Views
1K
Steve84N
Steve84N
V
New to Mercedes ownership - need a few questions answering
Replies
16
Views
2K
johncherokee
johncherokee
Back
Top Bottom