A
AHPP
Well-known member
V8Druid. Are you the guy on here whose dad was a traffic copper?
utter bollox .... you are not advocating free trade on a level playing fieldPeople have been refused the right to run a lorry. Or at least threatened with the amount they'll be fined or the time they'll be imprisoned if they do - "chains." The right to do something with permission (driving licence etc) isn't really a right. It's what's called positive liberty, an actively granted right to something and not true liberty. Negative liberty, the absence of constraint, is liberty.
I'm anti theft because it has a victim. I'm pro free trade because it doesn't.
I am .... but I fail to see what bearing that has?V8Druid. Are you the guy on here whose dad was a traffic copper?
if you can not see the imbalance that is being discussed, you obviously don't want to ..... as for the answer .. it's above -- wasn't aware we are 'on the clock'What's the imbalance in the playing field? And answer the question about your dad.
I am .... but I fail to see what bearing that has?
what's more we also have a member who is ex-30 year traffic too
most 'traccy plant' trailers are overweight with even a 13 tonner on board, let alone some of the ridiculously larger m/c.s . as for loss ... if a haulier is forced out of business by some traccy haulier 'running bent' that too is a loss in many waysSurely the road safety issue creates victims, if you are unfortunate enough to loose a family member because some traccy user is undercutting an hgv haulier with a 20ton digger behind his John Deere and looses control on road and causes a death then surely that's an imbalance
can't be many on here that don't ... I still fail to see the relevance. I would question just why you seem to be so in favour of those breaking the rules, to the detriment of everyone else, whom they are illegitimately competing against. I am "fiercely " against their blatant flaunting of the 'rules' that make competing for a living 'even'.I knew. I just wanted you to say it for the audience. Perhaps it was your upbringing that made you so fiercely in favour of all these rules and so fiercely entitled to think you should be able to interrogate people going about their day. Or perhaps it was something else.
Do you follow all the rules about everything? Do you believe the rulemakers know better than you about everything?
can't be many on here that don't ... I still fail to see the relevance. I would question just why you seem to be so in favour of those breaking the rules, to the detriment of everyone else, whom they are illegitimately competing against.
as for "interogating" a suspected law breaker ... those who have nothing to fear/hide, should not object ... as said " thou protesteth too much " are you one of the type under discussion ??
no .... they are people who endeavour to circumvent the societal rules, whom 99.9% abide by, for their own personal gain at a significant cost to others. Why not advocate anarchy, if you extrapolate this to the ultimate conclusion.Humour me and think outside the paradigm for a moment. It's only 'breaking the rules' and 'illegitimate' because the aforementioned Westminster ***** say it is. These people are only baddies because the Whatever Regulations 1999 say they are. In the absence of that construct, they're just people digging holes and moving soil, like you.
no .... they are people who endeavour to circumvent the societal rules, whom 99.9% abide by, for their own personal gain at a significant cost to others. Why not advocate anarchy, if you extrapolate this to the ultimate conclusion.
None of us like the Westminster ***** .. they have gone well beyond their remits ...... but if you applaud the minority who are just doing WTF they like, it's a very slippery slope. I doubt very much you would be so enthused, if as Mike suggested above, you were to lose a family member to some traccy driver, illegally hauling a m/c., or a dump full of crud, that he had no right, or legitimate purpose to be doing so, would you still be advocating freedom to do WTF you like and sod the rest ???
these people are selfish, greedy and irresponsible
if you can not see the imbalance that is being discussed, you obviously don't want to ....![]()
........ And answer the question ...........
one can only assume from your stance that you very likely are........ as said " thou protesteth too much " are you one of the type under discussion ??
the obvious cost to others is that legitimate operators are unfairly competing against the do WTF they like-ers, to the detriment of their legitimate, law abiding, business (and those assigned with enforcing the rules don't seem to GAF. )What's the cost to others?
I'd be annoyed by anyone driving something they can't handle, tractor, lorry, Renault Clio or bicycle. But if you can handle it, I wouldn't want you to be forced to pay to drive it just because some others can't. It wouldn't be fair on you. ???????
No, while they’re just running bent, they’re rogues trying to get ahead. When they have an accident because they’re running with bald/half flat tyres, overloaded, not secured, no lights, load hanging over one side, dropping s**t on the road, bouncing Across the white line because they can’t keep the front wheels down (all seen round here in the last three or four years) they’re a menace. Often a menace exploiting kids who are all too keen to play Billy Big Balls and who don’t realise they’ll take the drop big time when it goes wrong.Humour me and think outside the paradigm for a moment. It's only 'breaking the rules' and 'illegitimate' because the aforementioned Westminster ***** say it is. These people are only baddies because the Whatever Regulations 1999 say they are. In the absence of that construct, they're just people digging holes and moving soil, like you.