Disable-Adblock.png

We have detected that your browser is using AdBlock

Police Community is a not for profit organisation and advertising revenue is key to our continued viability.

Please disable your AdBlocker on our site in order to continue using it.
This message will disappear once AdBlock has been disabled.

Thank you for your support - we appreciate it !

If you feel you are getting this message in error please email support@policecommunity.co.uk


2wheelerbee

Member (Bronze)
  • Content count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 2wheelerbee

  1. I noticed today that Lidl is about to sell a cordless angle grinder for £29.99. No doubt Aldi will follow soon. It is well known that this is a tool of choice by criminal gangs who use them to cut through locks and cables and steal property like valuable motorcycles, cut into cars etc... Apart from the distress caused society ends up paying huge sums through our insurance premiums and consuming Police resources. Vendors should show some responsibility in what they sell just to make a profit. There should be regulations as to who/ where these can be purchased from eg. a tradesman form a trades supplier not a supermarket which will attract the very people you don't want to enable access to such equipment.
  2. 2wheelerbee

    Portable cordless angle grinders and crime

    Hi, thanks for your comments. I never said it was a police matter, other than when someone's vehicle is stolen then it's a headache for all concerned and the associated costs involved. I agree that trading standards or just (naively) sensible practices by vendors who are selling discount diy products like these which are known to be a favorite tool for motorcycle theft and which are unmatched by attachments to cordless drills in performance and weight, perhaps you have data to support your counter arguments.
  3. 2wheelerbee

    Portable cordless angle grinders and crime

    My issue is regarding battery operated grinders which you surely agree does more damage than a torch when breaking into security devices and a lot of motorcycle are being stolen this way . I'm not talking about mains operated ones or discs or clothing or the pop rivet or google maps or CO2 lazers or technology you can't undo. That we restrict guns doesn't stop criminals obtaining them, but fortunately they are not ubiquitous due to regulation. Selling them (cordless grinders) in discount supermarkets makes them readily available to a wider public. I'm arguing it would help your arguing why bother.
  4. 2wheelerbee

    Portable cordless angle grinders and crime

    These angle grinders can easily defeat common security measures like disc locks, chains, cables and padlocks. It doesn't require great skill so it's useful to quickly get access to eg a motorcycle. Someone with the ability to pick a lock won't be deterred but there is no guarantee they can do this and quickly. So by restricting the availability of the above you will reduce the number in circulation in the wrong hands and reduce crime by this method. It won't stop a determined thief/thieves but you shouldn't make it easy for them.
  5. Having looked at this again, I realise something I overlooked. Section 24.2 The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997 (now incorporated in 2016 TSRGD), clarifies the meaning of any vehicle in Section 24.1 above: 24.(2) In paragraph (1)— (a) the reference to a motor vehicle in sub-paragraph (a) is, in a case where more than one motor vehicle is proceeding in the same direction as the approaching vehicle in a controlled area, a reference to the motor vehicle nearest to the crossing; and (b) the reference to a stationary vehicle is, in a case where more than one vehicle is stationary in a controlled area for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26, a reference to the stationary vehicle nearest the crossing. I interpret this as meaning the lead vehicle, so you can overtake vehicles behind the lead vehicle moving towards the crossing (a), and, in (b) you can pass vehicles up to but not the lead vehicle if they are stationery to comply with the crossing, contrary to what I suggested above. This would be consistent with the HighWay Code book we all use so I apologise and take a slice of humble pie for any confusion caused.
  6. Regarding the controlled zig zag zone on the approach to a crossing: 1,Highway code rule 191 and 165 state you must not over take the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the nearest one which has stopped to let pedestrians cross. This suggests not overtaking the lead moving vehicle or a lead stationery vehicle letting pedestrians cross. My first question is, if on say a dual carriageway and slower moving vehicle(s) on the nearside lane and the lights are green are you none compliant if traveling in faster moving traffic on the outside lane and overtake a slower vehicle in the controlled zone on the approach? 2. 1997 No. 2400 ROAD TRAFFIC The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997 (now incorporated in 2016 TSRGD) Sec24 24.—(1) Whilst any motor vehicle (in this regulation called “the approaching vehicle”) or any part of it is within the limits of a controlled area and is proceeding towards the crossing, the driver of the vehicle shall not cause it or any part of it— 1. (a) to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or 2. (b) to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26. 24 1a seems to refer to any not just the lead vehicle in the controlled zone as in the highway code. It also implies you can't overtake a moving vehicle on the approach but could overtake the stationery vehicle at the lights if the lights were green or amber with no one on the crossing (anyone on the crossing irrespective of light status in practice). 3. Consider the situation where traffic has backed up through a crossing and the lights are green. Can you filter forwards or as above in Sec 24.1 the implication is not. Can a traffic police officer/ solicitor give their views on this please.
  7. 2wheelerbee

    Half Yellow box rules

    These quite common road features are not covered/ mentioned in the Highway Code, which is a poor show as I often see drivers not obeying full box rules suggesting the subject isn’t dealt with well. My question is can you lawfully stop inside a half yellow box to turn right but prevented from doing so by on coming traffic (in this case from your left and the road is clear to the right)? The case have in mind is a T junction with the box at the end of the minor road stretching out half way into the major road. It is aimed at improving flow without traffic lights so that main road traffic doesn’t block access to and from the minor road when Busy…ie traffic should not enter unless the exit is clear. As far as I can find, The traffic signs gen directions 2002, now 2016, Section 7.2 (2002) treat half yellow boxes and full yellow boxes the same by virtue of diagrams 1043/44 (now amalgamated as 1043 in 2016 regs!) So, if joining the main road from the minor, can I sit in the box, if, the exit road (to my right is clear), but I am prevented by approaching traffic from the left, thus causing me to block main road traffic from my right. Technically, I think I should be allowed to do so, but practically it might be risky to sit in the box as drivers from the right on the main road may not give you right of way. Comments welcome
  8. 2wheelerbee

    NSL leeway of 1mph

    I was disappointed to hear the comments by a senior police officer wanting to remove any leeway on exceeding NSL. I'm no advocate of speeding, however his solution would not make roads safer but more dangerous as drivers would be pre-occupied with looking at a speedometer than observing and planning to manage hazards. Officers should be allowed to use some discretion as they are best placed to judge how dangerous someone is in context. Cameras don't discriminate and lack the AI to make judgements. There are better ways to improve road safety: Through education (a rolling programme), catching those who tailgate/intimidate use an mob or are intoxicated. The introduction of 'smart' motorways where the former hard shoulder no longer exists has made motorway driving a more risky activity...God help you if you can't get to a refuge area and an HGV missed or passed the previous gantry before a lane was shut down. To look at submitted video footage of dangerous / illegal drivers/ riders. Offering significant insurance incentives to go and do the IAM/ RoSPA courses and/or require a 5yr refresher lesson with a driving instructor who signs you off as competent or that you need further practice. Drivers who cause fatalities through dangerous driving should not be allowed to get their licence back. Filter out psychopaths as part of the licensing process. Great drivers as most patrol officers are, I wander how consistently they can drive to within 1mph when not pursuing someone and they have advanced training.
  9. That's fine. I wasn't looking for legal advise, but wanted a view from someone with in depth knowledge about the highway code. No one has replied so feel free to remove it if you wish.

    Maurice

  10. Slight correction to my original posting: Point 3. Where traffic has backed up and encroaching on the crossing. Filtering should be possible as so long as the lights (if present) are green or flashing amber with no pedestrian crossing as here the traffic is halted due to backing up and not because of compliance with the crossing...at that moment in time. PS. I don't mind responses from anyone but would like to hear from experts too.