I hope you're not trying to justify the massive increase in speeding tickets as a road safety measure though. Or the complete abandonment of common sense that accompanied it.
And just because you repeat yourself over and over and over and over again doesn't make what you're saying correct.
Kataflam will reduce this... not.
You are talking a bit of sense, unlike the resident rectal-cranial inversion above...
This is a kiwi problem where the size of a "roundabout" is the same as a labour politician's brain. Bloody small!
The European roundabout's allow for people to enter, travel around a bit (approx 3 hours) and then exit at their leisure.
We have a lot to learn...
TOP QUOTE: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
The road code says to indicate if turning - not indicate only if someone is around.
It's usually the one you didn't see that gets you.
I was going to suggest to *actually* go and read the road code, but can see others have already mentioned this with you.The new roundabout indication rule, haha i recon that sucks ! Particularly straight through a 4 way
They must be yakking on the net. This must be the new bullshit line to feed coppers. One of my crew had one exactly the same here in the Naki, word for word!!!! Only difference was he added, "I didn't hit anyone, so whats your fucken problem?"
Just complaints about everything else....
QUOTE]
Orange light means slow & prepare to stop. If you are too close to do that then you can go through !!
How do you get that 'running' an orange is an offence & carries the same penalty ?[/QUOTE]
IF (note - big IF) you are too close, this is true. The ones we see all the time are the ones who can stop, could stop, but don't. They accellerate or hit the lines just as the lights go red... Those are the ones who get a $150 pinger...
[QUOTE=rastuscat;1689879]Correct me if I am wrong, Rastuscat.... over 50kmph zones, all taxi drivers, delivery, mechanics whatever and couriers must wear a belt?
Funny.... On here they would rather have the bush lawyers feed out crap and take it as gospel at times....
Porn is bad.... apparently...... sigh......
How many tickets did he get to be "grated"?????
Haven't times changed. That chivalry is long dead. When did anyone last see a cabbie get out and open a door for anyone?
No he can't! He must come up here! We only have 2 sets of traffic lights in our little town, but we have heaps of compulsary stops that many have trouble obeying. Here first please! Well done that man, red light runners should be disqualified!
My eldest daughter stands a mighty 5' tall and is a generally tiny female with long blonde hair. She was very motivated to get her freedom and had her full license as soon as she possibly could once she turned 15. She used to transport her less motivated mates about the place and get pulled over all the time for no reason at all! For shits and giggles she used to see how many times a night she could get pulled over, 4 was her record!
She is 21 now and still gets pulled over for no reason...LOL Oh and a few times for good reason, she has lead foot apparently
Actually, he has had 1 ticket over 2 years ago for doing 62 in a 50 and that was on his bike.
He was driving our family car (3.8L Holden Wagon), and was stopped. Rego, WOF and licence check..all good,
then "Is this your car?"
"No, it's my parents car"
"Do you have permission to be driving it?"
"Yep, sure do"
Then he got a lecture about how irresponsible it was of us, as parents, to let him drive such a big car...blah, blah, blah.
Zac responded, "Actually, that's their decision to make, not yours"
No ticket, he'd done nothing wrong...
Diarrhoea is hereditary - it runs in your jeans
If my nose was running money, I'd blow it all on you...
A girlfriend once asked " Why is it you seem to prefer to race, than spend time with me ?"
The answer was simple ! "I'll prolly get bored with racing too, once i've nailed it !"
Bowls can wait !
Yes, indeed, welcome!
Come, come Steve, you know no-one else can do it quite like you here!
Oh dear, the young fella got caught. Hopefully a hard lesson learnt well. His dad wouldn't be setting a bad example for him would he?(only kidding).
Yep, lots of perverts who like to flash on here.......
Am I the only one here with enough air between my ears to hear that echo??
Yup. Oh, btw, love the new avatar.
what gets me is the number of people who squeal loudly when they actually know they're in the wrong. Denial is an ugly thing.
Hey Patrick, the Cat is offline, so here goes. The taxi ops get a blanket exemption, not restricted to 50. Notably, this exemption is against the Road User Rule, not the law of physics. If they crash, this examption does not stop them goinmg through a windscreen.
Road User Rule 2004
7.10 Persons of or over 15 years must wear seat belt and keep
it fastened
A person of or over the age of 15 years who is in a motor
vehicle in motion on a road and who is occupying a seat that is
fitted with a seat belt (whether that seat belt is an approved
seat belt or not) must wear the seat belt and must ensure that it
is securely fastened.
7.11 Exceptions to application of requirements relating to use
of child restraints and seat belts
(1) The requirements of clauses 7.7 to 7.10 do not apply to a
driver (whether imposed in respect of himself or herself or any
child), or to a passenger in any motor vehicle, if the driver or
passenger produces to an enforcement officer, whenever
required to do so by that officer, a certificate from a registered
medical practitioner certifying that the restraining of the person
who would otherwise be required by those provisions to
be restrained by a child restraint or seat belt is impracticable
or undesirable for medical reasons.
(2) A driver or passenger who seeks to rely on subclause (1) must,
if so required by an enforcement officer, produce the certifi-
cate to an enforcement officer within 7 days after having been
so required.
(3) The requirements of clauses 7.7 to 7.10 do not apply to a
driver (whether imposed in respect of himself or herself or any
child), or to a passenger in any vehicle, if the person who
would otherwise be required by those provisions to be
restrained by a child restraint or seat belt—
(a) is the driver and, while complying with the requirements
of those clauses, could not reasonably operate
effectively any of the following items of equipment:
(i) footbrake or handbrake controls:
(ii) headlamp or foglamp:
(iii) direction-indicator control:
(iv) horn:
(v) windscreen-wiper control:
(vi) choke:
(vii) driver’s sun visor; or
(b) is the driver of a vehicle that is travelling in reverse, and
would not be able to reverse the vehicle in a safe manner
if the driver were to comply with the requirements
of those clauses; or
(c) is the driver of a taxi plying for hire; or
(d) is a person who—
(i) is engaged in the course of his or her employment
in the delivery or collection of mail or newspapers
or other goods, or the servicing of the
vehicle, or meter reading or other similar duties,
or spraying or other similar duties from the
vehicle; and
(ii) for that purpose is required to alight from and reenter
the vehicle at frequent intervals, so long as
the vehicle is travelling at a speed not exceeding
50 km per hour; or
(e) is an enforcement officer or prison officer travelling
with another person who is not an enforcement officer
or prison officer in circumstances in which it is impracticable
or undesirable to wear a seat belt.
(4) The requirements of clauses 7.7, 7.8, and 7.10 do not apply to
a driver (whether imposed in respect of himself or herself or
any child), or to a passenger in any vehicle, if the person who
would otherwise be required by those provisions to be
restrained by a child restraint or seat belt is the driver of a bus.
(5) The requirements of clause 7.6 do not apply to a driver
(whether imposed in respect of himself or herself or any
child), or to a passenger in any vehicle, if the driver—
(a) is driving a passenger service vehicle in which no
appropriate child restraints are available; or
(b) is driving a goods vehicle having an unladen weight
exceeding 2 000 kg in which no seat belts are available;
or
(c) is driving a motor vehicle first registered before 1 January
1955 in which no seat belts are available; or
(d) is driving a motorcycle; or
(e) is driving a motor vehicle that is being used by an
enforcement officer in the execution of the officer’s
duty.
A girlfriend once asked " Why is it you seem to prefer to race, than spend time with me ?"
The answer was simple ! "I'll prolly get bored with racing too, once i've nailed it !"
Bowls can wait !
Originally Posted by skidmark
Originally Posted by Phil Vincent
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks