prowla

Maybe just stop trying to read between the lines and make assumptions. As for your “obviously”, that is incorrect too, because the inference you have made is wrong. As for enlightening the royal “we”, ok, then… I don’t know why you are referring to “either of the fines”? There is one fine which doubled then trebled. (And then reverted to doubled when it was pointed out that they had made a procedural error.) FYI, the fine was issued for stopping in a box junction, but there is no such law. (The law is that you may not stop if your exit is blocked by stationary vehicles.) The fine (a penalty charge) was contested, but they rejected it on the basis that the vehicle wasn’t stopped due to the presence of oncoming vehicles preventing it turning right (there is no right turn at that box junction). A subject access request (SAR) was raised for their video evidence, but they failed to send it and increased the fine (to treble). A second appeal, to an independent tribunal, is in progress. When it was pointed out that the SAR and independent appeal had been raised, they reverted the trebling of the fine. They have decided to contest the appeal and continue to misquote the law, and despite the fact that their own video evidence shows traffic continuing on past, through, and exiting the box junction (ie. the exit was not blocked and so there was no transgression of the law).

Almost every point you make there is wrong, along with your apparent assumptions as to what has been done. Basically you don’t know what you are talking about.

There is a balance required… On the one hand, the government has no business prying into our lives. But on the other, the government has a duty to gather intelligence to protect our lives. The public has to trust the government and the government has to respect the public. Overall I think the UK government tends to act in our interests, but there have been occurrences which could lead us to question that. I’ve given a personal example where a government authority has sent a fine for allegedly breaking a law and said pay up or we’ll double it. It’s been demonstrated that no law was broken and their response has been now we’ll treble it. They know that no law was broken and they’ve accessed personal data to send the demands. That’s the risk in implementing badly thought out laws and putting their implementation into that hands of badly trained or dishonest operatives. We should question these proposed changes and consider their impacts.

Maybe a discussion regarding the crazy examples of discussions on internet forums would be an enlightening sub-topic?

As mentioned, there are some supplementary extenuating circumstances, including that one. In my case, TfL have ignored the “stationary vehicles” stipulation and gone straight to asserting that none of the extras apply. BTW, I introduced that as an example of giving power to ignorant or belligerent people who don’t understand or care what their remit is.

(if your exit isn't clear due to stationary vehicles) I agree regarding that the ULEZ definition vs road tax definition is confused. As for the Dartford crossing, you have to pay online and have a day or two's grace; first time I crossed since they did that I didn't know you couldn't pay at the location and got stressed out wondering if I'd missed it, so I went online to search. I don't know what the situation would be if you were unavoidably directed that way by road sign and/or police. I've been caught out a couple of times by signage being obscured: once by temporary scaffolding and once by a tall-sided van; sadly I didn't take pictures at the time (because I didn't know the signs were there), so I couldn't fight those cases. I think the lesson is (a) keep an eye out for signs, and (b) don't trust the road signage to be on your side; it's a revenue stream and they are out to get you. Easy to do after an eventful day out (it's illegal to search the web whilst driving, or stopped!).

In my case, the fine is for stopping in a box junction. However, there is no law against stopping in a box junction. The law they quote (TSRGD 2016, Paragraph 11) is for stopping in a box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. TSRGD then gives a number of supplementary exceptions to the principal rule, such as being prevented from turning right by oncoming traffic. They've skipped the "stationary vehicles" part of the rule and are saying that the vehicle didn't meet those exception criteria. However, there were no "stationary vehicles" in-play (their video and pictures show traffic freely flowing past) and so the supplementary rules are irrelevant. They also quote the Highway Code, but that is not the law and so is not a basis for a fine. My experience of these traffic & parking fines (including the fake private ones) is to always contest them (but don't ignore them). There are advice boards available to guide you through the process and the claims often fail because the signage or claims don't meet the legal requirements. With TfL, always do a SAR (GDPR Subject Access Request); it'll stop the escalation clock whilst they send you a DVD of the transaction. I had one council parking fine cancelled because I pointed out that they didn't follow their written procedures. If nothing else, you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that you've wasted the scammer's time and money so that they make no gain.

I'm just going through the exercise of contesting a TfL fine; they're misquoting the law to demand money. Believe me - if you give some ill-trained officials some power and then give them some targets, they'll do what they can to screw you over.

That’s not the point; the issue is that the proposed changes impose workload and intrusive practices.

Well, there's always room for another colour...

Well - it depends upon your definition of "very few". (But then again...)

I said it hasn’t stopped it (we had kids in the news just this week on laughing gas). That said, of course there has been a change. Arguably education and attitudes changed, plus detection is easier, plus people are easier to spot, plus other factors. I’m not sure that the people who indulge in the sort of thing being discussed here would be anything similar: there is subterfuge and conniving going on.

You know that’s not what I said or meant.

Whilst I am in favour of the two particular items you've quoted, there are other things which serve no purpose other than to inconvenience people. For example: it's illegal to have a multi-tool in your car because youths in London are stabbing each other. Slavery is illegal, but we keep hearing occurences of it. I really don't think this proposed act will do anything of value and instead could have far-reaching, detrimental, and pernicious impacts on our society. This is not the answer to the issue.

Well, the driving one hasn't stopped it though, so legislation in itself isn't the answer.

I've played "Money" on that bass. 🙂

...just stringing you along! 🙂

You can palm mute on the normal bridge/tailpiece assembly. I have found an appropriate place for one of my Hipshot bridges, though:

My '64 - I'll put the plate on the right way one day...

It has been done...

(I don't think it's the OP's.)

Arf! I like the twin truss-rods.

I have a V2 bridge on one of my 2010 Rics.

Maybe the politicians have shares in VPN providers.

These attempts to control people are really annoying; all they do is make things difficult for ordinary folks whilst the actual criminals just move on to something else.