On 18/06/2023 07:13 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> When it rains, puddles collect in and near the gutter and in the hundreds of thousands of potholes that litter the UK’s roads. Sometimes it’s hard to avoid them. For pedestrians on the pavement they are at risk of being splashed if a vehicle drives through the puddle. Is it illegal, though?

What's it got to do with children playing with water pistols?

> Yes, splashing pedestrians is illegal

What? When done by a playful disabled child with a toy water pistol?

Are you really trying to claim that such a child commits an offence?

> and you can be prosecuted under Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act for careless, aggressive or inconsiderate behaviour on the road. You could be summoned to court, fined £150 and given three penalty points. The same applies to cyclists.

Chav-cyclists can be given penalty points?

When did that start?

Or are you just spouting your usual bilge?

> If you are convicted then you could see an increase in your insurance premiums..

Good luck prosecuting a disabled nine-year old for puncturing the
non-existent dignity of a chav on a bike.

The weather has undoubtedly turned in recent days and the rain has been pelting down across the North East.

But motorists should be careful when driving in wet weather, because if you soak a pedestrian, either purposefully or accidentally, you could get yourself in trouble with the law and get a fine.

As fun as it may seem to drive through a giant puddle on the edge of the road, take in your surroundings before you speed through.

Under section three of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is an offence to drive "without reasonable consideration for other persons", and this includes any instance of "driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed"..

This means that while it might seem like a harmless prank, soaking pedestrians with your car is illegal.

If the act was found to be purposeful, then you could also be slapped with a public order offence, which is intended to penalise the use of violence or intimidation.

According to British law, there's a maximum fine of £5,000 for drivers who drive through a puddle, causing pedestrians to be splashed.

How much you're fined depends on your intentions and how much they display what "amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness".

However, it's more likely that you'll be given a £100 fine and three points on your licence.

If you refuse to pay and end up in court, you could be facing the maximum £5,000 fine.

There have been recent cases of cyclists faking videos, so how long do you
think it will be before a cyclist gets someone to throw a bucket of water
over them and then claiming a driver soaked them by driving through a
puddle?

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> The weather has undoubtedly turned in recent days and the rain has been
> pelting down across the North East.
>
> But motorists should be careful when driving in wet weather, because if
> you soak a pedestrian, either purposefully or accidentally, you could get
> yourself in trouble with the law and get a fine.
>
> As fun as it may seem to drive through a giant puddle on the edge of the
> road, take in your surroundings before you speed through.
>
> Under section three of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is an offence to
> drive "without reasonable consideration for other persons", and this
> includes any instance of "driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed".
>
> This means that while it might seem like a harmless prank, soaking
> pedestrians with your car is illegal.
>
> If the act was found to be purposeful, then you could also be slapped
> with a public order offence, which is intended to penalise the use of
> violence or intimidation.
>
> According to British law, there's a maximum fine of £5,000 for drivers
> who drive through a puddle, causing pedestrians to be splashed.
>
> How much you're fined depends on your intentions and how much they
> display what "amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness,
> impatience or aggressiveness".
>
> However, it's more likely that you'll be given a £100 fine and three
> points on your licence.
>
> If you refuse to pay and end up in court, you could be facing the maximum £5,000 fine.
>

--
Spike

On 18/06/2023 04:43 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> The weather has undoubtedly turned in recent days and the rain has been pelting down across the North East.
>
<shrug>

> But motorists should be careful when driving in wet weather, because if you soak a pedestrian, either purposefully or accidentally, you could get yourself in trouble with the law and get a fine.
> As fun as it may seem to drive through a giant puddle on the edge of the road, take in your surroundings before you speed through.
> Under section three of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is an offence to drive "without reasonable consideration for other persons", and this includes any instance of "driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed".
> This means that while it might seem like a harmless prank, soaking pedestrians with your car is illegal.

The humourless chav-on-the-bike you mentioned in the thread title was
not wet by a puddle.

The culprit was a disabled small child with a toy water pistol.

Which section of the 1988 Road Traffic Act applies in such circumstances?

> If the act was found to be purposeful,

What?

The 1988 Act?

What does "purposeful" even mean?

> then you could also be slapped with a public order offence, which is intended to penalise the use of violence or intimidation.
> According to British law, there's a maximum fine of £5,000 for drivers who drive through a puddle, causing pedestrians to be splashed.

Please cite the law to which you refer.

> How much you're fined depends on your intentions and how much they display what "amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness".
> However, it's more likely that you'll be given a £100 fine and three points on your licence.
>
> If you refuse to pay and end up in court, you could be facing the maximum £5,000 fine.

A bit heavy for a small child with a water pistol, isn't it?

Are you mad?

[Don't answer that.]

Under section three of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is illegal to splash someone as it amounts to driving “without reasonable consideration for other persons.”

Those found guilty of deliberately driving through puddles and splashing pedestrians will likely be hit with a £100 fixed penalty notice and three penalty points if caught by police.

However, should motorists be deemed to be driving in a manner that “amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience, and aggressiveness” then the maximum punishment of a £5,000 fine could be levelled.

If drivers fail to pay the £100 fixed penalty or refuse the penalty notice they could also face the maximum £5,000 fine if the case is taken to court.

RAC road safety spokesman Pete Williams calls on motorists to show respect and care for other road users and pedestrians, to they don’t give out any unwanted soakings.

He said: "Anyone unfortunate enough to have suffered a drenching by an inconsiderate motorist splashing them when driving through a puddle would probably welcome a sizeable financial penalty for the driver.

"Since 2013 careless driving can be dealt with by a Fixed Penalty Notice with a £100 fine and three penalty points.

"If, however, they refuse [the notice] then they will face a magistrate who could impose a fine up to £5,000, although the maximum is very unlikely.”

Mr Williams said that the fine would then likely be appropriate to the level of distress caused, which would help send out a clear message to other drivers that this sort of behaviour is not acceptable.

This is the sixth post you’ve made in this thread, concerning vehicles
splashing people, concentrating on the punishments available in law, which
of course are the same in each post, the law not having changed since the
thread started.

Is there any particular reason for this amount of repetition, or has your
memory been damaged by medications or something ?

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Under section three of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is illegal to splash
> someone as it amounts to driving “without reasonable consideration for other persons.”
>
> Those found guilty of deliberately driving through puddles and splashing
> pedestrians will likely be hit with a £100 fixed penalty notice and three
> penalty points if caught by police.
>
> However, should motorists be deemed to be driving in a manner that
> “amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience, and
> aggressiveness” then the maximum punishment of a £5,000 fine could be levelled.
>
> If drivers fail to pay the £100 fixed penalty or refuse the penalty
> notice they could also face the maximum £5,000 fine if the case is taken to court.
>
> RAC road safety spokesman Pete Williams calls on motorists to show
> respect and care for other road users and pedestrians, to they don’t give
> out any unwanted soakings.
>
> He said: "Anyone unfortunate enough to have suffered a drenching by an
> inconsiderate motorist splashing them when driving through a puddle would
> probably welcome a sizeable financial penalty for the driver.
>
> "Since 2013 careless driving can be dealt with by a Fixed Penalty Notice
> with a £100 fine and three penalty points.
>
> "If, however, they refuse [the notice] then they will face a magistrate
> who could impose a fine up to £5,000, although the maximum is very unlikely.”
>
> Mr Williams said that the fine would then likely be appropriate to the
> level of distress caused, which would help send out a clear message to
> other drivers that this sort of behaviour is not acceptable.
>

--
Spike

What might seem like a harmless prank to motorists could see them be fined as much as £5,000.

Driving through puddles and splashing pedestrians may seem like a normal or unavoidable occurrence, but it is not just rude - it could be illegal.

Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is illegal to drive "without reasonable consideration for other persons". The law also bans "driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed".

While the £5,000 figure is one extreme, most people would be handed a fixed £100 penalty for the offence, Gloucestershire Live reports.

That would be imposed if the driver’s behaviour is found to be "an act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience, or aggressiveness".

However, as well as points, drivers are risking three and nine penalty points on their licence.
Will police really act?

Last year, in Cambridgeshire, an appeal was launched to find a motorist who soaked a mother after ploughing through a puddle.

The mother was with her two children, including one in a pram, when a car drove through the 20ft-long puddle and splashed all three.

A spokesman for Cambridgeshire Police said at the time: "On Thursday, January 4, around noon, a mother was with her two children, one in a pram and the other walking alongside her near the junction of Pig Lane and Greengarth in St Ives.

"Due to the poor weather, a very large puddle had built up due to a blocked drain near to the junction which was half way across the road. It was not raining and the puddle, some 20 feet in length, could easily be seen by motorists.
Is there anything you can do if you fall victim to the splash? (Image: Manchester Evening News)

"Unbelievably a motorist drove through the puddle causing the water to soak the three.

"The driver could well have waited to drive around the puddle or driven through it very slowly so as to not cause water to splash anyone on the footpath."

National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) guidance is that lower level careless driving offences are considered for a fixed penalty, while advice also states the offender should be offered driver education in most cases.

The CPS charging guidelines cites splashing pedestrians as an example of driving that should lead to a charge.
'Serious safety issue'

Confused.com motoring editor, Amanda Stretton, described the offence as "a serious safety issue for drivers".

She said: "Firstly, drivers have no way of knowing what the road surface is under the puddle, causing unpredictable driving conditions.

"Secondly, the water itself can cause the car to aquaplane – where the vehicle’s tyres fail to grip the road and cause the driver to lose control.

"If that isn’t enough, it’s also just incredibly rude and drivers can be penalised, quite rightly, with a huge £5,000 fine.

"Puddle rage really can lead to big fines. To avoid this cost and to ensure their safety, we advise motorists to look out for big puddles when driving, and pay particular attention when there are pedestrians around."

On 19/06/2023 07:37 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Under section three of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is illegal to splash someone as it amounts to driving “without reasonable consideration for other persons.”

What does any of that irrelevance have to do with the case at hand (see
thread title) wherein a humourless chav on a bike took umbrage against a
disabled child for squirting her (the chav) with a *water* *pistol*?

> Those found guilty of deliberately driving through puddles and splashing pedestrians will likely be hit with a £100 fixed penalty notice and three penalty points if caught by police.

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.
>
> However, should motorists be deemed to be driving in a manner that “amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience, and aggressiveness” then the maximum punishment of a £5,000 fine could be levelled.

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.
>
> If drivers fail to pay the £100 fixed penalty or refuse the penalty notice they could also face the maximum £5,000 fine if the case is taken to court.

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.
>
> RAC road safety spokesman Pete Williams calls on motorists to show respect and care for other road users and pedestrians, to they don’t give out any unwanted soakings.

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.
>
> He said: "Anyone unfortunate enough to have suffered a drenching by an inconsiderate motorist splashing them when driving through a puddle would probably welcome a sizeable financial penalty for the driver.

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.
>
> "Since 2013 careless driving can be dealt with by a Fixed Penalty Notice with a £100 fine and three penalty points.

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.
>
> "If, however, they refuse [the notice] then they will face a magistrate who could impose a fine up to £5,000, although the maximum is very unlikely.”

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.
>
> Mr Williams said that the fine would then likely be appropriate to the level of distress caused, which would help send out a clear message to other drivers that this sort of behaviour is not acceptable.

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.
>

On 19/06/2023 11:29 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> What might seem like a harmless prank to motorists could see them be fined as much as £5,000.

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.
>
> Driving through puddles and splashing pedestrians may seem like a normal or unavoidable occurrence, but it is not just rude - it could be illegal.
>
Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.

> Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is illegal to drive "without reasonable consideration for other persons". The law also bans "driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed".
>
Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.

> While the £5,000 figure is one extreme, most people would be handed a fixed £100 penalty for the offence, Gloucestershire Live reports.

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.
>
> That would be imposed if the driver’s behaviour is found to be "an act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience, or aggressiveness".

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.
>
> However, as well as points, drivers are risking three and nine penalty points on their licence.

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.
> Will police really act?

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.
>
> Last year, in Cambridgeshire, an appeal was launched to find a motorist who soaked a mother after ploughing through a puddle.

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.
>
> The mother was with her two children, including one in a pram, when a car drove through the 20ft-long puddle and splashed all three.

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.
>
> A spokesman for Cambridgeshire Police said at the time: "On Thursday, January 4, around noon, a mother was with her two children, one in a pram and the other walking alongside her near the junction of Pig Lane and Greengarth in St Ives.

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.
>
> "Due to the poor weather, a very large puddle had built up due to a blocked drain near to the junction which was half way across the road. It was not raining and the puddle, some 20 feet in length, could easily be seen by motorists.

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.

> Is there anything you can do if you fall victim to the splash? (Image: Manchester Evening News)

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.
>
> "Unbelievably a motorist drove through the puddle causing the water to soak the three.

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.
>
> "The driver could well have waited to drive around the puddle or driven through it very slowly so as to not cause water to splash anyone on the footpath."

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.
>
> National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) guidance is that lower level careless driving offences are considered for a fixed penalty, while advice also states the offender should be offered driver education in most cases.

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.
>
> The CPS charging guidelines cites splashing pedestrians as an example of driving that should lead to a charge.
> 'Serious safety issue'

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.
>
> Confused.com motoring editor, Amanda Stretton, described the offence as "a serious safety issue for drivers".

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.
>
> She said: "Firstly, drivers have no way of knowing what the road surface is under the puddle, causing unpredictable driving conditions.

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.
>
> "Secondly, the water itself can cause the car to aquaplane – where the vehicle’s tyres fail to grip the road and cause the driver to lose control.

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.
>
> "If that isn’t enough, it’s also just incredibly rude and drivers can be penalised, quite rightly, with a huge £5,000 fine.

Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.
>
> "Puddle rage really can lead to big fines. To avoid this cost and to ensure their safety, we advise motorists to look out for big puddles when driving, and pay particular attention when there are pedestrians around."
>
Not relevant and posted only as a deceitful chav-cyclist attempt at
diversion.

This is the seventh post you’ve made in this thread, concerning vehicles
splashing people, concentrating on the punishments available in law, which
of course are the same in each post, the law not having changed since the
thread started.

Is there any particular reason for this amount of repetition, or has your
memory been damaged by medications or something ?

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> What might seem like a harmless prank to motorists could see them be
> fined as much as £5,000.
>
> Driving through puddles and splashing pedestrians may seem like a normal
> or unavoidable occurrence, but it is not just rude - it could be illegal.
>
> Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is illegal to drive "without
> reasonable consideration for other persons". The law also bans "driving
> through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed".
>
> While the £5,000 figure is one extreme, most people would be handed a
> fixed £100 penalty for the offence, Gloucestershire Live reports.
>
> That would be imposed if the driver’s behaviour is found to be "an act of
> incompetence, selfishness, impatience, or aggressiveness".
>
> However, as well as points, drivers are risking three and nine penalty
> points on their licence.
> Will police really act?
>
> Last year, in Cambridgeshire, an appeal was launched to find a motorist
> who soaked a mother after ploughing through a puddle.
>
> The mother was with her two children, including one in a pram, when a car
> drove through the 20ft-long puddle and splashed all three.
>
> A spokesman for Cambridgeshire Police said at the time: "On Thursday,
> January 4, around noon, a mother was with her two children, one in a pram
> and the other walking alongside her near the junction of Pig Lane and
> Greengarth in St Ives.
>
> "Due to the poor weather, a very large puddle had built up due to a
> blocked drain near to the junction which was half way across the road. It
> was not raining and the puddle, some 20 feet in length, could easily be seen by motorists.
> Is there anything you can do if you fall victim to the splash? (Image:
> Manchester Evening News)
>
> "Unbelievably a motorist drove through the puddle causing the water to soak the three.
>
> "The driver could well have waited to drive around the puddle or driven
> through it very slowly so as to not cause water to splash anyone on the footpath."
>
> National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) guidance is that lower level
> careless driving offences are considered for a fixed penalty, while
> advice also states the offender should be offered driver education in most cases.
>
> The CPS charging guidelines cites splashing pedestrians as an example of
> driving that should lead to a charge.
> 'Serious safety issue'
>
> Confused.com motoring editor, Amanda Stretton, described the offence as
> "a serious safety issue for drivers".
>
> She said: "Firstly, drivers have no way of knowing what the road surface
> is under the puddle, causing unpredictable driving conditions.
>
> "Secondly, the water itself can cause the car to aquaplane – where the
> vehicle’s tyres fail to grip the road and cause the driver to lose control.
>
> "If that isn’t enough, it’s also just incredibly rude and drivers can be
> penalised, quite rightly, with a huge £5,000 fine.
>
> "Puddle rage really can lead to big fines. To avoid this cost and to
> ensure their safety, we advise motorists to look out for big puddles when
> driving, and pay particular attention when there are pedestrians around."
>

--
Spike

On 19/06/2023 04:06 pm, Spike wrote:
>
> This is the seventh post you’ve made in this thread, concerning vehicles
> splashing people, concentrating on the punishments available in law, which
> of course are the same in each post, the law not having changed since the
> thread started.
>
> Is there any particular reason for this amount of repetition, or has your
> memory been damaged by medications or something ?
>
> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What might seem like a harmless prank to motorists could see them be
>> fined as much as £5,000.
>>
>> Driving through puddles and splashing pedestrians may seem like a normal
>> or unavoidable occurrence, but it is not just rude - it could be illegal.
>>
>> Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is illegal to drive "without
>> reasonable consideration for other persons". The law also bans "driving
>> through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed".
>>
>> While the £5,000 figure is one extreme, most people would be handed a
>> fixed £100 penalty for the offence, Gloucestershire Live reports.
>>
>> That would be imposed if the driver’s behaviour is found to be "an act of
>> incompetence, selfishness, impatience, or aggressiveness".
>>
>> However, as well as points, drivers are risking three and nine penalty
>> points on their licence.
>> Will police really act?
>>
>> Last year, in Cambridgeshire, an appeal was launched to find a motorist
>> who soaked a mother after ploughing through a puddle.
>>
>> The mother was with her two children, including one in a pram, when a car
>> drove through the 20ft-long puddle and splashed all three.
>>
>> A spokesman for Cambridgeshire Police said at the time: "On Thursday,
>> January 4, around noon, a mother was with her two children, one in a pram
>> and the other walking alongside her near the junction of Pig Lane and
>> Greengarth in St Ives.
>>
>> "Due to the poor weather, a very large puddle had built up due to a
>> blocked drain near to the junction which was half way across the road. It
>> was not raining and the puddle, some 20 feet in length, could easily be seen by motorists.
>> Is there anything you can do if you fall victim to the splash? (Image:
>> Manchester Evening News)
>>
>> "Unbelievably a motorist drove through the puddle causing the water to soak the three.
>>
>> "The driver could well have waited to drive around the puddle or driven
>> through it very slowly so as to not cause water to splash anyone on the footpath."
>>
>> National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) guidance is that lower level
>> careless driving offences are considered for a fixed penalty, while
>> advice also states the offender should be offered driver education in most cases.
>>
>> The CPS charging guidelines cites splashing pedestrians as an example of
>> driving that should lead to a charge.
>> 'Serious safety issue'
>>
>> Confused.com motoring editor, Amanda Stretton, described the offence as
>> "a serious safety issue for drivers".
>>
>> She said: "Firstly, drivers have no way of knowing what the road surface
>> is under the puddle, causing unpredictable driving conditions.
>>
>> "Secondly, the water itself can cause the car to aquaplane – where the
>> vehicle’s tyres fail to grip the road and cause the driver to lose control.
>>
>> "If that isn’t enough, it’s also just incredibly rude and drivers can be
>> penalised, quite rightly, with a huge £5,000 fine.
>>
>> "Puddle rage really can lead to big fines. To avoid this cost and to
>> ensure their safety, we advise motorists to look out for big puddles when
>> driving, and pay particular attention when there are pedestrians around."

....and all because a playful, disabled, small child squirted a
chav-cyclist with a water pistol.

Chavs-on-bikes have a weird sense of their own (lack of) dignity.

It’s against the law to drench a pedestrian? 😲

How on earth is this a surprise to people? : if you walked up to someone in the street and threw a bucket of water over them you'd expect consequences surely? A car just changes the technical name of the offence.

It's also incredibly bad practice to blast through puddles anyway, pavement/pedestrians or not. Can total your engine, you can lose traction, you don't know how deep the water is and you don't know what other hazards such as glass/ditches might be below it.

On 19/06/2023 04:32 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> It’s against the law to drench a pedestrian? 😲

Not always.
>
> How on earth is this a surprise to people? : if you walked up to someone in the street and threw a bucket of water over them you'd expect consequences surely? A car just changes the technical name of the offence.

You say "a car".

But you really mean a water pistol deployed by a small child.

Of course, one can depend upon any chav-on-a-bike to take umbrage on
being splashed by a child. It's an affront to their non-existent dignity.

> It's also incredibly bad practice to blast through puddles anyway, pavement/pedestrians or not. Can total your engine, you can lose traction, you don't know how deep the water is and you don't know what other hazards such as glass/ditches might be below it.

Nothing in the slightest to do with the instant case of the playful
small child.

QUOTE: Drivers across the UK face fines of up to £5,000 for an immature action when in control of a car in wet conditions.
Amid heavy rain across the UK in recent months, driving conditions have been far from ideal. One rule drivers need to know involves driving in puddles of water in wet conditions. Although the urge to soak a pedestrian may be strong, it has been highlighted as a £5,000 offence according to new research from Zuto. ENDS

"Although the urge to soak a pedestrian may be strong" - A SMALL WINDOW INTO THE VINDICTIVE MIND OF THE AVERAGE CHAV DRIVER.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> QUOTE: Drivers across the UK face fines of up to £5,000 for an immature
> action when in control of a car in wet conditions.
> Amid heavy rain across the UK in recent months, driving conditions have
> been far from ideal. One rule drivers need to know involves driving in
> puddles of water in wet conditions. Although the urge to soak a
> pedestrian may be strong, it has been highlighted as a £5,000 offence
> according to new research from Zuto. ENDS
>
> "Although the urge to soak a pedestrian may be strong" - A SMALL WINDOW
> INTO THE VINDICTIVE MIND OF THE AVERAGE CHAV DRIVER.

Posting this same information eight times in one thread certainly does open
a window into the vindictive small mind of the average cyclist.

--
Spike

On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 7:34:38 PM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
> QUOTE: The Road Traffic Act requires you to drive with reasonable consideration for other road users – including pedestrians. You cannot therefore splash through puddles and soak pedestrians without being punished, however funny you may find it…ENDS

Oh how all the chavs laughed in their chavmobile.

On 20/06/2023 11:42 am, swldx...@gmail.com...

.... deceitfully pretending only to answer his own posts, said:

> On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 7:34:38 PM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:

>> QUOTE: The Road Traffic Act requires you to drive with reasonable consideration for other road users – including pedestrians. You cannot therefore splash through puddles and soak pedestrians without being punished, however funny you may find it…ENDS
>
> Oh how all the chavs laughed in their chavmobile.

What does the Road Traffic Act say about:

(a) young disabled children.

(b) toy water pistols and

(c) pompous and humourless chavs on bikes who "think" that it offends
their non-existent dignity to be squirted by a young child with a toy
water pistol?

With the weather getting more grim as the month goes on, you might find yourself walking outside with an umbrella.

And with rain comes puddles which means there are plenty of opportunities to get soaked by drivers.

But what does the law say and what are you rights regarding this?

Under British law, drivers could be hit with a maximum fine for £5,000 if they are caught driving through a puddle which causes a pedestrian to be splashed.

So yes, it is illegal to splash a pedestrian with water from the road whilst driving your car and you could also be slapped with a public order offence if you are seen to deliberately drive through puddles to target pedestrians.
Splashing a pedestrian could land you in trouble.

Under section three of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is an offence to drive "without reasonable consideration for other persons", and this includes any instance of "driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed"..
How much could you be fined?

The maximum punishment is a level five fine of £5,000 in instances where driving "amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness".

You are more likely to be be issued with a £100 fixed penalty notice and three penalty points if you are caught.

But if you refuse to pay and take the matter to court you could see a maximum fine of £5,000 imposed.

Nine times now in this thread, Briedbart limit on the horizon…

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> With the weather getting more grim as the month goes on, you might find
> yourself walking outside with an umbrella.
>
> And with rain comes puddles which means there are plenty of opportunities
> to get soaked by drivers.
>
> But what does the law say and what are you rights regarding this?
>
> Under British law, drivers could be hit with a maximum fine for £5,000 if
> they are caught driving through a puddle which causes a pedestrian to be splashed.
>
> So yes, it is illegal to splash a pedestrian with water from the road
> whilst driving your car and you could also be slapped with a public order
> offence if you are seen to deliberately drive through puddles to target pedestrians.
> Splashing a pedestrian could land you in trouble.
>
> Under section three of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is an offence to
> drive "without reasonable consideration for other persons", and this
> includes any instance of "driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed".
> How much could you be fined?
>
> The maximum punishment is a level five fine of £5,000 in instances where
> driving "amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or
> aggressiveness".
>
> You are more likely to be be issued with a £100 fixed penalty notice and
> three penalty points if you are caught.
>
> But if you refuse to pay and take the matter to court you could see a
> maximum fine of £5,000 imposed.
>

--
Spike

A maths teacher has been convicted of assault after squirting his ex-partner with a water pistol.

Timothy Gledhill, 40, wept in court when he was told a judge would not be overturning the conviction.

Gledhill feared professional ruin after he was found guilty of soaking his furious victim with a child's toy in a 'humiliating' attack during two heated rows.

During the appeal he was asked if the water had struck Catherine Weir in the attack and Gledhill told the judge and two magistrates that it was a question of probability.

He said he had fired the water pistol and could not rule out that water had not accidentally hit her, but added: 'I haven't done anything wrong.'

Canterbury Crown Court was played a recording of the incident, which happened on a bridge in Canterbury, made by Ms Weir in which she was heard to shout: 'Stop it, stop it. Stop shooting at me.'

Gledhill told the appeal panel: 'She was just trying to get me into trouble.. It isn't illegal to hold a water pistol. It's just a toy.'

Judge Nigel Van Der Bijl and the magistrates dismissed the appeal saying they could not accept Gledhill's version of events.

The judge said: 'What you did wasn't funny. It was done to humiliate your former partner.

'You thought you were being clever in covering your tracks. But she was a victim of an assault and there is no doubt about it.

'You knew perfectly well what you were doing. You did it to in some way humiliate her and to put one over on her.'

Gledhill voluntarily left Canterbury College in February and took up a post at Canterbury Academy.

He spent a significant amount trying to clear his name and failed - but the teacher has had the full support of his new school.

Head teacher Phil Karnavas said Gledhill has spent several thousands of pounds trying to clear his name.

He said: 'It has left most of us somewhat surprised that A, it got that far and B, we've ended where we have.
Canterbury Crown Court (pictured) was played a recording of the incident made by Ms Weir in which she was heard to shout: 'Stop it, stop it. Stop shooting at me'

'Mr Gledhill continues to have my full professional and personal support.

'The bottom line is he's a really nice, honourable and decent bloke that has found himself in a situation that none of us would like to find ourselves..

'He was so morally offended by it and so upset by the fact that he was carrying the record for something he didn't recognise as being anything other than being a bit daft.

'It's cost him a significant amount of money and has experienced a significant degree of nervous anxiety and professional stress.

'I think spraying someone with a water pistol doesn't really seem to me to be an offence to public safety let alone a halfway appropriate use of public money.'

The teacher, of Sturry, Kent, was given a 12-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay £400 costs for the assaults on Ms Weir in July 2014.

On 20/06/2023 04:39 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> A maths teacher has been convicted of assault after squirting his ex-partner with a water pistol.
> Timothy Gledhill, 40, wept in court when he was told a judge would not be overturning the conviction.
> Gledhill feared professional ruin after he was found guilty of soaking his furious victim with a child's toy in a 'humiliating' attack during two heated rows.

Chav-cyclists, surely, by definition, can't *be* humiliated?

They're already as very 'umble as anyone be. Or at least, they ought to be.

Now... any reports of 9-year old disabled children being convicted for
squirting a water pistol at an arrogant chav-on-a-bike?

Just the one example will do...

Here's the space for it:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> During the appeal he was asked if the water had struck Catherine Weir in the attack and Gledhill told the judge and two magistrates that it was a question of probability.
> He said he had fired the water pistol and could not rule out that water had not accidentally hit her, but added: 'I haven't done anything wrong.'
> Canterbury Crown Court was played a recording of the incident, which happened on a bridge in Canterbury, made by Ms Weir in which she was heard to shout: 'Stop it, stop it. Stop shooting at me.'

"shooting at me...".

Cyclists also often appear to have a fear of water, don't they? And soap.
>
> Gledhill told the appeal panel: 'She was just trying to get me into trouble. It isn't illegal to hold a water pistol. It's just a toy.'
> Judge Nigel Van Der Bijl and the magistrates dismissed the appeal saying they could not accept Gledhill's version of events.
> The judge said: 'What you did wasn't funny. It was done to humiliate your former partner.
> 'You thought you were being clever in covering your tracks. But she was a victim of an assault and there is no doubt about it.
> 'You knew perfectly well what you were doing. You did it to in some way humiliate her and to put one over on her.'
> Gledhill voluntarily left Canterbury College in February and took up a post at Canterbury Academy.
> He spent a significant amount trying to clear his name and failed - but the teacher has had the full support of his new school.
> Head teacher Phil Karnavas said Gledhill has spent several thousands of pounds trying to clear his name.
> He said: 'It has left most of us somewhat surprised that A, it got that far and B, we've ended where we have.
> Canterbury Crown Court (pictured) was played a recording of the incident made by Ms Weir in which she was heard to shout: 'Stop it, stop it. Stop shooting at me'
> 'Mr Gledhill continues to have my full professional and personal support.
> 'The bottom line is he's a really nice, honourable and decent bloke that has found himself in a situation that none of us would like to find ourselves....

....and his antagonist is not even reported to be a chav-on-a-bike.
>
> 'He was so morally offended by it and so upset by the fact that he was carrying the record for something he didn't recognise as being anything other than being a bit daft.
> 'It's cost him a significant amount of money and has experienced a significant degree of nervous anxiety and professional stress.
> 'I think spraying someone with a water pistol doesn't really seem to me to be an offence to public safety let alone a halfway appropriate use of public money.'
> The teacher, of Sturry, Kent, was given a 12-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay £400 costs for the assaults on Ms Weir in July 2014.

These days, that's a mild punishment.

As it ought to be, of course.

A student was wounded by a classmate who shot a water pistol containing hydrochloric acid in their face.

The victim, aged between 11 and 15, was left 'stunned and with facial sores' after the corrosive liquid missed their eyes by 'millimetres', reported The Sun.

The attack at an unnamed school in north Wales.

The attacker was reportedly issued a community resolution order, which does not result in a criminal record and carries less weight than a caution.

Earlier this year, retailers including Tesco signed up to a voluntary Government initiative that banned the sale of products with harmful levels of acid to minors.

It came following a sharp rise in the number of acid attacks taking place in Britain.

There were 454 acid-based attacks in London alone in 2016, up on 261 the year before, according to Government figures.

The Acid Survivors Trust International say there has been a 90 percent increase in acid violence in the UK over he last 10 years.

The problem is prevalent among teenagers.

A report last year indicated schoolchildren find it easier to squirt rivals with acid rather than stab or fight them.

On 20/06/2023 06:03 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> A student was wounded by a classmate who shot a water pistol containing hydrochloric acid in their face.
> The victim, aged between 11 and 15,

"student", aged 11 to 15?

> was left 'stunned and with facial sores' after the corrosive liquid missed their eyes by 'millimetres', reported The Sun.
> The attack at an unnamed school in north Wales.
> The attacker was reportedly issued a community resolution order, which does not result in a criminal record and carries less weight than a caution.
> Earlier this year, retailers including Tesco signed up to a voluntary Government initiative that banned the sale of products with harmful levels of acid to minors.

You have never been able to buy hydrochloric acid at Tesco.

Maybe some strong alkali for cleaning drains.
>
> It came following a sharp rise in the number of acid attacks taking place in Britain.
> There were 454 acid-based attacks in London alone in 2016, up on 261 the year before, according to Government figures.
> The Acid Survivors Trust International say there has been a 90 percent increase in acid violence in the UK over he last 10 years.
> The problem is prevalent among teenagers.
> A report last year indicated schoolchildren find it easier to squirt rivals with acid rather than stab or fight them.

Did the disabled child's water-pistol contain hydrochloric acid, then?

Police are appealing for witnesses after a 12-year-old girl was punched in the face by a woman for squirting people with a water pistol.

In happened outside a pizza shop in Dartington, near Totnes.

Devon and Cornwall Police would like to hear from witnesses who may have seen the incident or have information about the assault.

The incident happened at around 7.15pm on Friday 29 May outside Pizza Side at Meadowbrook on Totnes Road .

The girl, who was with her friend, had been squirting members of the public with a water pistol when the woman took it off her and punched her in the face.

On 20/06/2023 09:04 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Police are appealing for witnesses after a 12-year-old girl was punched in the face by a woman for squirting people with a water pistol.
> In happened outside a pizza shop in Dartington, near Totnes.
> Devon and Cornwall Police would like to hear from witnesses who may have seen the incident or have information about the assault.

The assault was the punch administered by a (presumably adult) woman to
a child.

And all over a toy.

So little sense of proportion, that woman's probably a chav-cyclist as well.

> The incident happened at around 7.15pm on Friday 29 May outside Pizza Side at Meadowbrook on Totnes Road .
> The girl, who was with her friend, had been squirting members of the public with a water pistol when the woman took it off her and punched her in the face.

That's the sort of thing that Mason is itching to do.

He can deck any pre-pubescent girl with one punch, as people like him
say in their trade.