Drivers and their problems

David9694 wrote:

Car park "scam" is AI health nudge 

There have been a number of reports of innocent drivers being signed up to gym memberships and sent veg box deliveries.  One driver claims that a bike was delivered to his home a week after he visited a car park 400 yards away from home.

In fact, this is a cheeky health promotion initiative by NHS Healthly West of England.  A spokesman told us, "in areas where we know diet and obesity are major mortality factors, we are using AI to help point people to more healthy alternatives.  

"In the car park initiative, drivers arriving to pick up a takeaway, a bottle of Johnnie Walker, cigarettes and a scratchcard, which is to say most of them, are assessed for their BMI and appropriate interventions are signposted through the parking app."

Car park user billed for gym membership in 'scam'

Warnings about dodgy QR codes being used by fraudsters

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/car-park-user...

I hate QR codes due to how easy it is to just use a sticker to mislead people. The problem is with it not being human readable - they should include the text version of the URL and a checksum so a phone won't accept a QR code that doesn't match the URL. Of course, that would involve entirely changing the QR spec, so the best solution is to never, ever use a QR code - just type in the URL instead.

You'd think that someone who decides to encourage helmet wearing might at least attemp to wear the thing properly.

HoldingOn wrote:

£1billion for ten miles of new road

No mention of any active travel. Plenty of Save the Driver nonsense though.

They've got a mention of cars moving to Net Zero for tailpipe emissions. Yeah, don't worry about the incredibly harmful and poisonous particulate matter that's generated from tyres and brakes - that'll just get rained off the roads into our rivers and waterways.

David9694 wrote:

Shirley Road driver admits pleasuring himself near woman

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/23985010.southampton-man-21-admits-carr...

I haven't been able to access this story in full as I'm too cheap to subscribe, so grateful if anyone can. 

A driver has admitted pleasuring himself as he drove slowly along a busy Southampton street near a young woman.

Harrison Carter, 21, admitted a charge of outraging public decency at Southampton Magistrates' Court on Tuesday.

It follows an incident on April 30 this year when he was spotted in a car on Shirley Road, Southampton. 

The court heard that the car was moving slowly at the time and that there was a "young female" close by to him.

Prosecutor, Laura Jenking-Rees said Carter also has ongoing court matters "of a similar nature" in Portsmouth. 

Sentencing was adjourned to be linked up with the other cases. 

He previously admitted stalking, exposure and outraging public decency in Portsmouth. 

Carter also admitted causing criminal damage to a window in Southampton on September 2 this year. 

Magistrates remanded him in custody as they said there were "substantial grounds to believe you would commit further offences". 

Carter, of Bath Road, Southsea, Portsmouth, will next appear at Portsmouth Crown Court on December 21.

It'll disturb the sleeping policement...

Maybe they're onto something though?  Like bronze-age chieftains or Viking leaders perhaps we should return to burying the elite (motorists) with their transport as a sign of their status?

In nine years of driving illegally (and dangerously, given he can't see) the Lancashire Police didn't pick up on him

Even a reasonably effective force would not necessarily detect such cases, but the determinedly ineffective forces are a different matter (I only know about traffic offences personally). I suspect no significant action has ever been taken over any of the offences I have reported since December 2018. Initially, years ago, I was told that warning letters had been sent, but I now suspect they were lying about many of those and they no longer respond to any reports. The complaint to 'Professional Standards' over the refusal to act over this offence resulted in a statement that they had to have confirmatory video from the alleged offending vehicle, and because there wasn't any they'couldn't do anything'.

https://upride.cc/incident/md68fwc_apcovernight_whitelinecross/

Over a year after these offences, they backed out (blaming, of course, the CPS) of the prosecution of these (same driver, same vehicle, same offences, same place, 2 days apart) because of a law they had made up where you have to have rear view video to show them actually crossing the unbroken white line from left to right- the obvious conclusion being that it's legal to speed down the right side of the road and pass the start of the UWL in Lancashire :

https://upride.cc/incident/j111kdw_bmwgrancoupe_uwlcross/

https://upride.cc/incident/j111kdw_bmwgrancoupe_closepassuwlcross/

They are going to extraordinary lengths to refuse to disclose the actual penalty for this (nearly all of you have seen these, of course), after declaring they would be taking action from a provided list which included 'no action at all'. There is no doubt that they can tell me what action was taken, because there are numerous instances provided by such as Cycling Mikey- they just don't want to admit that it was indeed 'no action at all', and even LC are wary about lying in writing to a court. This quite an important case, because if all this 'we can't tell you because of GDPR, even though police forces are doing it all the time' (courtesy of HoarseMann) dodge was removed, we would all know how little they're doing

https://upride.cc/incident/4148vz_travellerschoicecoach_closepass/

Finally, WU59 UMH, as I have shown too often recently, is still frequently seen around Garstang (last sighting by me 2 days ago) despite several reports, a Facebook page, a recent failed MOT for dangerous defects, and over 6 years of happy MOT, insurance and VED free motoring. So, even if they had been told about this 'Death by Dangerous Driving' offender above, they would just lie about it and cover it up

How come he's riding a bicycle from his 1950s future?

David9694 wrote:

So you're saying size does matter?

100%!

brooksby wrote:

Remind me - why can't the GP or optometrist report someone to the DVLA?

Because they work in health, not law enforcement and the wider effect of getting health officials to report to the DVLA would be that some people wouldn't seek medical advice for fear of being banned.

I think that the police should be responsible for ensuring that drivers are safe on the roads and it should be fairly obvious to spot a driver that can't even see properly. We should focus on getting the police to do their job correctly before looking to outsource it to medical professionals.

I would suggest that if police see an erratic driver, they should pull them over and give them a quick eyetest (e.g. read that number plate over there) and determine whether they need to be stopped from driving.

HoldingOn wrote:

People can't even have a wee without Mr Loophole getting involved

Man 45 mins into a two hour car journey fined

But will he change his view when he finds out that cyclists often wee?

I'm guessing it's the size of the 'P' that was in question as the actual sign looks a lot bigger than 20cm.

HoldingOn wrote:

£1billion for ten miles of new road

No mention of any active travel. Plenty of Save the Driver nonsense though.

 

Auto  Shenanigans take on the whole matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_LeifEQawc&t=9s

He isn't a great fan of the plans as they don't look like resolving the issues. 

And I'm with him... they better look after the Cat or I'll also have a word!

David9694 wrote:

Shirley Road driver admits pleasuring himself near woman

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/23985010.southampton-man-21-admits-carr...

I haven't been able to access this story in full as I'm too cheap to subscribe, so grateful if anyone can. 

They don't call it The Mutant Mile for nothing!

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mutant%20Mile

David9694 wrote:

Deputy mayor of Christchurch Cllr Paul Hilliard urges cyclists to wear helmets after he was involved in a collision at Fountain Roundabout

another crash victim turned helmet evangelist - the sea that you can get in is right there. 

https://www.advertiserandtimes.co.uk/news/deputy-mayor-issues-cycling-sa...

Cyclists urge Cllr Paul Hilliard to at least wear it properly.

IMO that argument is weak.

Doctors already have a legal duty to report notifciable diseases.

Since such potential killer drivers are a hazard to public safety, I don't see much difference.

One further issue is that there is currently no serious enforcement on drivers who do *not* report certain conditions etc, as per their legal responsibility.

mattw wrote:

IMO that argument is weak.

Doctors already have a legal duty to report notifciable diseases.

Since such potential killer drivers are a hazard to public safety, I don't see much difference.

One further issue is that there is currently no serious enforcement on drivers who do *not* report certain conditions etc, as per their legal responsibility.

While somewhat sympathetic currently I'd agree with HP.  Here I think the cases are not quite the same.  For one I don't think there are (currently...) any notifiable conditions where if you show up at the doctors they put you down.  (You can get yourself sectioned of course which is disagreeable to most.   But by that point you probably aren't thinking it all through).

I'm aware that this sometimes gets brought up as somewhere legislation *might* soften the principle of confidentiality (e.g. in the much more salient cases like plane crashes).  I don't know if this has changed (following a fairly recent review?) but guidance does seem to say a doctor *should* notify in the case of medical conditions of interest and UK firearms licence holders*.

Although the law is also very clear having a firearms licence "is a priveledge not a right" (which is very much not how we currently view driving).

In the driving case I imagine for some conditions people may a) have some idea they have a problem and b) be aware that this could affect their driving competently and safely.  I would definitely not favour anything that gets in the way of them getting their condition assessed and hopefully addressed.  I strongly suspect that there would be an impact on people's willingness to consult health services if they knew there was feedback - which on balance might lead to worse issues (for the individual and - via their driving - on everyone else).

* See fairly recent legislation and guidance for medical professionals) - in the latter it says:

Where there is a reasonable belief that an individual holding a firearms licence may represent a danger to themselves or others, doctors should ask them to give up their licence. ... If the applicant refuses, a doctor should inform the police authorities firearms licensing department as a matter of urgency." and "...If there is a public safety concern, or if the GP believes that the patient has not or will not inform the police, then the GP should contact the local police firearms branch themselves (or telephone 101) to report the new diagnosis. They should inform the patient that they (the GP) will be doing this.

David9694 wrote:

You mean to say one more lane might not fix it??

Of course one more lane will fix it.... that has worked countless times previously hasn't it......