Bad Drivers

doughnutmachine

people who just sit there when the traffic lights turn green do my nut in. imho you should be moving as soon as it turns green.

jimmyjones_2

People who get in the right hand lane heading towards a roundabout but want to go left and travel 1 and a quarter times round the roundabout to make the left turn.

Well done idiots, that is really clever - you are making a congested roundabout even worse as well as jumping the queue.

frugal_mike

The discussion on slow moving vehicles is missing the point. The guideline in question says do not hold up a queue of traffic, especially if you're in a slow moving vehicle.

It doesn't only apply to the set of vehicles that can only drive slowly.

Azari

George_Michael wrote: »

I can't qoute it for the simple reason I don't believe such a definition exists.
This is why I was asking Azari to show where the term "slow moving vehicle" is defined in law as he stated.
Azari is quick enough to pounce if someone posts something which is incorrect or can't be proven, so I thought it was only fair to give him the chance to back up his claims.

Except that you use the classic 'straw man argument' trick.

I merely mentioned the highway code definition of a slow moving vehicle.

You then started wittering on about statute law - something that I was not referring to and never mentioned.

It's this twisting the subject that, I presume, elicited the comment that you just want to argue for the sake of it.

stephen77

Azari wrote: »

.

The highway code is referring to vehicles that are inherently slow moving, such as milk floats, tractors, and vehicles carrying unusual load. A Ferrari driving between two rows of parked cars on a narrow street at 15mph does not fulfil the legal definition of a 'slow moving vehicle'.
.

No you do not bring up "legal definition" or in fact never mentioned it in the posts George was asking about.

Azari

stephen77 wrote: »

No you do not bring up "legal definition" or in fact never mentioned it in the posts George was asking about.

Someone else arguing about nothing.

If either you or GM want to prove you are not arguing just for the sheer hell of it, post a definition of 'slow moving vehicle' enshrined in statute law.

If you really believe that a Ferrari doing 15mph in the given circumstances fulfils some legal definition of a slow moving vehicle, prove it.

stephen77

We are asking for some one to post the legal definition of a slow moving vehicle as we do not think there is one.

We can argue about the Ferrari once some one has posted the legal definition of slow moving.

At the moment we only have a definition of my mate from the DVLA.

George_Michael

Azari wrote: »

Except that you use the classic 'straw man argument' trick.

I merely mentioned the highway code definition of a slow moving vehicle.

You then started wittering on about statute law - something that I was not referring to and never mentioned.

It's this twisting the subject that, I presume, elicited the comment that you just want to argue for the sake of it.

No you didn't.
And just to refresh your memory.

Azari wrote: »

A Ferrari driving between two rows of parked cars on a narrow street at 15mph does not fulfil the legal definition of a 'slow moving vehicle'

Legal definition, not highway code definition and you are now stating.

If something has a legal definition then this definition must be defined by statute law so why won't (can't) you show this?

How can something be a straw man argument if I am asking for proof of something that you yourself mentioned?

PLog86

George Michael and stephen77:

Some definitions used in the highway code are from statute law and some aren't. None of them are illegal and as the highway code can be used in a court of law as the basis for a prosecution for careless driving, even in cases where it does not directly reflect statue law it is perfectly reasonable to call its definitions 'legal'.

I'm not sure what exactly you two are trying to argue as AFAIKS no one is saying that they have provided a definition from statute law. You both seem to have your panties in a bunch because people have said that a definition in the Highway Code is 'legal', which, as I explain above, is wholly reasonable. In the circumstances your arguments seem to be little more than pointless pedantry.

Azari

George_Michael wrote: »

Legal definition, not highway code definition and you are now stating.

I said it was the Highway Code definition all along.

Your trying to equate an informal 'legal' with 'as defined in statute law' is what makes your argument classic straw man.

How can something be a straw man argument if I am asking for proof of something that you yourself mentioned?

Sigh.

Because you have picked a use of the term 'legal' which does not match the one I was using and are desperately trying to make an argument based on that change.


Edited to add

PLog86 wrote: »

Some definitions used in the highway code are from statute law and some aren't. None of them are illegal and as the highway code can be used in a court of law as the basis for a prosecution for careless driving, even in cases where it does not directly reflect statue law it is perfectly reasonable to call its definitions 'legal'.

Thank you PLog, that explains the situation perfectly.