Appealing a fine & points?

Mercdriver wrote: »

Just because we have had our differences, doesn't mean you have to carry them into every interaction

On the case of removing the "01" DVLA should be able to tell your friend, but it may require an eyesight test at an opticians first to verify.

Well first off i'm used to everyone else bringing it in to every interaction so it's just an auto-reaction. So on that note, apologies. It's never anything personal but the sheer number of people looking to pick any little hole has me on the defensiveoffensive every time. I can't say it wont happen again but nothing is meant by it really.


Regards the eyesight test - genuine question here, but another one? Bearing in mind he had one yesterday and has the 'results' card as proof?

Tarambor wrote: »

When he did the HGV medical he will have been asked prior to the eye test portion of the examination whether he wore glasses or not. He would have then taken the eye test. That would have been entered on the HGV medical form and whether he needed to wear them to pass the test or not.

I was never there so obviously can't comment but let's say you only need them in my case - for being on the PC at home but don't need them for anything else.


This would then get marked on your licence as needing them to drive??


Seems a bit silly and very wrong. If you can pass any 'can you read that number plate over there' test or any other eyesight test they do then why should wearing glasses at night time when reading impact on your driving?

robatwork wrote: »

I need glasses or contact lenses for driving. If I didn't wear them I would be more than dangerous.

So from the police point of view they can't see on a licence if a) I am very short sighted b) just a tiny bit short sighted c) admin error and I don't in fact need any correction.

So your "fish for any little thing" is asking the police to guess that Bob was b) or c)

Are you really saying it's a jobsworth thing to stop someone driving who needs glasses but isn't wearing them?

I knew someone would take exception to the jobsworth comment.


The copper was basically being an A-hole, end of.



He had 2 options. Option 1...


Right this is why we've stopped you. Can you prove you're insured?

Yes
Ok thanks. We're just going to test for alcohol & drugs.
That's fine.
Right now can i just have a look at your licence?
Yes
Ah you weren't wearing glasses. Here's a fine.


No problem there.



However he took the unnecessary idiot approach...


Throwing Bob's phone back at him, snorting that the email with the pay reference for the road tax payment was 'no good to me'. Then once the insurance had been proven & was asked what about the tax now it 'doesn't matter' ... yet it mattered 10 seconds ago. Make your mind up!!? If the photo of the email wasn't 'good enough' then surely he should satisfy himself until he has something that IS good enough.



Grilling him on the drugs & alcohol test. You've got something to hide haven't you. You're sweating (he wasn't) you're panicking (he wasn't - on account of not having drank for god knows how long and doesn't do drugs).







If he had passed the licence 'test' i've no doubt that moron copper would've then got out of the car and pulled Bob's car to bits looking for any little thing that he could have him on, but as he'd done this on test number 3 he had satisfied himself so didn't need to go to that stage.


His attitude was totally unnecessary. If Bob had been an A-hole to begin with and given the attitude then i could understand, but Bob knew it was in his interest to play the yes sir no sir game.