John B wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>>John B wrote:
>>>JNugent wrote:
>>>>Since "driving along the pavement" is simply never seen (if, indeed, it
>>>>were possible), your "statistic" is self-evidently nonsense - isn't it?
>>>Oh FFS. You do like flogging a dead horse.
>>>Just this morning I witnessed a driver used the drop kerb of a zebra
>>>crossing to drive up onto the pavement then proceeded along it scattering
>>>Sunday strollers for 40m so he could reach the paper shop for his rag and
>>>fags.
>>Where?
> Half a mile from where I live.
That's not very precise. You didn't need to relate it to your home address
at all.
>>What time?
> 0850
Now we're getting somewhere.
>>What was the registration number? Marque? Model? Colour?
> D408 Dxx. Hatchback. curved back - no I don't know the make.
Did you get the full index? You had plenty of time.
>>Remember that motor vehicles are registered and licensed for a reason.
> You don't say.
>>What did the police say when you reported it?
> Police station closed.
> I am calling in tomorrow when I pass it to collect children from an activity.
Good. Keep us informed.
>>You DID report it, didn't you?
> Of course I will. Why not? We presently have a local campaign going because
> pavement driving and parking is causing so much danger to pedestrians and to
> children walking to school.
> The standard of driving is so low we even have to have a school crossing
> patrol on the zebra crossing as so many drivers ignore it.
Almost every school has one of those (but I accept that child pedestrian
safety is important).
>>What were the names of the other witnesses (the "Sunday strollers")? How
>>many of them were there?
> 2 names taken. About ten witnessed the moron.
Good. ll the more reason why we should eventually get the full details when
the case comes to court.
>>They must have been pretty shaken to have been
>>"scattered" over an alleged distance of 40m, so they will definitely have
>>been at least as determined to report the matter as a good conscientious
>>citizen like you will have been.
> Some signed the local campaign literature.
Before or after?
>>Which paper and what brand of "fags" did the alleged offender buy? I ask
>>that question because you clearly followed him into the shop in order to
>>know what he bought - and you seem very sure about it, don't you?
> Yes I entered the shop as my son works there.
> No I don't know what weeds he bought,
> He also paid his paper bill.
You have his identity available to you. Even more reason why we should
eventually hear rather more about the case when it gets to court.
>>>You live in a completely different world Nugent. That or you are so blind
>>>you shouldn't be a road user.
>>If I were ever to see what you claim you have seen above, I would be able
>>to answer (lore or less) every question above, including what the police
>>said when I reported it.
> As we have a local campaign underway, I know they will log the offence.
Good.
> Your state of denial is incredible.
> You are either blind or a troll if you've never seen anyone drive along a
> pavement.
I have never seen anyone drive along a footway (in the manner of a typical
cyclist). I doubt that many people have. OTOH, I drive across a footway
several times every day. That is perfectly legitimate, as you are aware.
Even parking on a footway (bad as it is) is nowhere near as dangerous as
cycling along it, as I know you will agree.
Please keep us informed about the progress of the court case, with rather
more precise details.