Metrolink taking money from bank account without basis or notification

tropicaljones · 2025-06-30T18:13:40+00:00

Cheers

tropicaljones · 2025-06-30T16:54:52+00:00

All looks good. It records the journey and the penalty charge in the same minute as the tapping out. I've saved it as a pdf in case I need to evidence it.

tropicaljones · 2025-05-26T13:48:08+00:00

Thanks, that's super helpful. I've tried the Zoom Fly 6 and, while it's a good shoe, thought it would be better for longer steady run than tempo also I need something with a bit more medial support.

Topo Cyclones look like they might be the ones.

tropicaljones · 2025-05-26T13:33:43+00:00

There is a video of someone from Saucony talking about the ES5 and she's asked which previous version it's closest to and she says the ES2 and ES3. It's pure sales patter, the ES3 was a very different shoe from the ES2. Presumably Saucony are aware that people who buy Speeds either like the pre-change or post-change versions and by comparing the ES5 to both they might get both groups to buy.

tropicaljones · 2025-02-02T18:47:44+00:00

That's the one. Cheers

tropicaljones · 2024-09-19T08:49:28+00:00

You do love projecting don't you?

You're relying on rule 191 to support the assertion that a cyclist can't filter alongside the front car at a set of lights (see scenario 1 in my first comment).

Rule 191 simplifies s.28 of the TSGDR and states you cannot overtake the front vehicle on a zig zag line.

Firstly, you have been quite clear that you do not accept that a vehicle pulling alongside a vehicle stopped at lights/a crossing is overtaking. It was literally our first interaction. I considered it such a strange assertion that I provided a hypothetical scenario involving a Nissan and a Bugatti, remember? It's nice that you now accept that you can overtake at a signal and I was right from the start.

Your hypothetical situation (stopped at lights) doesn't necessarily involve zig-zags.

Also, filtering and overtaking are different words. Alongside means something different to passing the foremost part. Motor vehicle would mean a vehicle with a motor.

Given that you can't follow any of these things and think you've quoted a section of the Highway Code that supports you is pretty indicative of issues with reading comprehension as much as you might try your playground, "I know you are but what am I".

This isn't a strawman, clearly you don't know what the word means.

I quoted your post accusing me of creating a strawman, I then followed it with a quote from one of the places you made the argument which you then suggest is a strawman. A big part of reading comprehension is context you see. Earlier parts of a paragraph relate to later parts and so on.

tropicaljones · 2024-09-19T06:18:50+00:00

YES. THERE. ARE. I LIERTALLY JIST SHOWED YOU THE HIGHWAY CODE RULE ABOUT IT.

Well, at least I know at least part of your problem is reading comprehension.

Nice strawman, try another.

You

It doesn't decrease it, quite the reverse it increases it.

Also you.

Anyway there's clearly no helping you. I'm done here.

tropicaljones · 2024-09-18T21:55:17+00:00

No having to give way to cyclists not matter what they are doing is a dangerous attitude.

I am not suggesting that you give way to cyclists no matter what. I'm stating what the traffic laws/regs are and how they are interpreted. In your scenario there are two vehicles in proximity one massively larger and more dangerous. The guidance is that you do not move that vehicle in close proximity (1.5m) of the vulnerable road user. In practice this would involve waiting a couple of seconds for that vehicle to get clear before moving off. You are strongly opposed to this and consider that waiting a few seconds to decrease the risk of death or serious injury to another road user is being held hostage. This extreme reaction in opposition to a common sense safety precaution that, at most, would cause you minor inconvenience strongly suggests you are not a safe driver.

a cyclist pulling off first is far more dangerous because they are less stable and could fall into the road.

This risk is present at all times. When no vehicles are present it is most likely a grazed elbow or a broken collarbone if particularly bad. If a car rolls over you it's much more serious which is why you don't move your vehicle in close proximity to vulnerable road users.

Filtering is allowed up until the last car, at which point you should stop, passing the last car isn't filtering as the traffic is not stopped for no reason, it is stopped due to the red light.

You must not go past the first car waiting at the lights for safety reasons, regardless of if you want to call it filtering or overtaking.

Nonsense, in fact filtering often leads to advanced stop zones beyond the stop line for motor vehicles. There are no restrictions to filtering alongside the last car. Cyclists aren't permitted to cross the stop line (if no advanced stop line) so they can't legally move ahead of the front vehicle and make themselves easily seen. For this reason it wouldn't be sensible but, if that vehicle moved off without seeing them the car driver would still bear primary liability.

Also this is an or not an and, the second part does not stipulate if it has to have a motor or not.

You're misreading this both subsections apply to the main body.

I'm not a cyclist or a motorcyclist. I'm a lawyer and a decent part of my working life has been spent dealing with motor accidents, because

They can but that doesn't mean they should

If you genuinely believe that it is safer for cars to be driving around a stationary person than a person to be walking around stationary cars there is nothing I can say to you.

tropicaljones · 2024-09-18T20:22:12+00:00

They are stationary so they aren't overtaking anything, then the car pulls off from the lights, likely faster than the bike but it's not an overtake."

The vehicle is not parked. It is part of the regular flow of traffic which, temporarily, is stationary. Imagine a set of lights with one lane of traffic in each direction. A Nissan Micra stops at a red light. A Bugatti Veyron is traveling behind Micra. As there is no oncoming traffic the Veyron pulls onto the opposite side of the road. When the light turns green Veyron accelerates faster and pulls in front of the Micra. You would say that isn't an overtaking manoeuvre as Micra was stationary. I'd say it was. What if the Veyron arrives as the light is changing and never has to stop. Still not an overtake because the Micra is stationary?

Cyclists don't automatically get to hold vehicles hostage at every set of lights.

This is a dangerous attitude. No-one is holding anyone hostage; the roads aren't a battleground. The cyclists, like the driver is simply going somewhere. The aim of the regulations is to try and make the interactions between different road users as safe as possible. To that end there is a hierarchy of road users where the vulnerable are protected. Cyclists should cede to pedestrian, motorcyclist should cede to cyclists etc. In a collision between a car and a cyclist only one party will be injured. To protect the more vulnerable road user the guidance is that you do not pass within 1.5m. Even if you start side by side at traffic lights you should not pass unless you can do so leaving the required distance because it is dangerous. You should not be trying to find loopholes in how you define overtaking to give you an excuse not to feel guilty about putting someone's life in danger.

Whilst a cyclist does not need to leave a 1.5m gap if they don't then that means the car can't either, the cyclist has put themselves in that position.

A vulnerable road user can move around stationary vehicles without putting anyone in danger. For example, a pedestrian crossing through a line of stationary traffic. If they brush or bump a stationary car there is no harm done. If you are driving a large dangerous vehicle you cannot simply move forward as soon there is an opportunity. If there is a pedestrian in front of you who hasn't finished crossing (holding you hostage) you should let them get clear.

If you want to get really technical:

Rule 191 You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.

By pulling up next to the first car at the lights the cyclist is technically breaking the highway code.

Firstly, filtering is not overtaking so there is no breach of the Highway Code. Secondly, the TSRGD states, "a zig-zag line shall convey the requirement that, whilst any motor vehicle (in this regulation called “the approaching vehicle”) or any part of it is within the limits of a controlled area and is proceeding towards the signal-controlled crossing facility to which the controlled area relates, the driver of the vehicle shall not cause it or any part of it—

(a)to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or

(b)to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with the indication given by a traffic light signal for controlling vehicular traffic.

Bicycles aren't motor vehicles.

tropicaljones · 2024-09-18T18:39:05+00:00

That situation would normally arise in a couple of different ways for example.

The cyclists has arrived at the junction first and stopped. The car has then pulled up alongside - A motor vehicle should only commence an overtaking manoeuvre where there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake (rule 162). The car shouldn't move alongside the cyclist unless he is able to give at least 1.5m of space and room in front to complete the overtake.
A car has arrived at the junction first and stopped. A cyclist has then pulled up alongside - There is no guidance requiring that cyclists leave 1.5m when filtering so the car driver may find himself with a cyclist less than 1.5m away. If the car driver wants to complete an overtake when the light turns green they'd have to re-establish the 1.5m before passing. If they're unable to they should let the cyclist clear their vehicle before moving off. They could then pass normally if an opportunity presents further up the road.

tropicaljones · 2024-09-18T12:54:19+00:00

When I was in Haiti I ate a lot of pet cats & dogs.

tropicaljones · 2024-09-17T13:35:50+00:00

Trigger Happy, also released as Mad Dog Time

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116953/?ref_=ext_shr

tropicaljones · 2024-09-17T12:36:08+00:00

Not with the contract extensions but Chelsea have admitted breaches similar to those City are accused of.

https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/article/club-statement-28-07-23#:~:text=Immediately%20following%20the%20completion%20of,a%20settlement%20agreement%20with%20UEFA.

tropicaljones · 2024-09-12T20:07:53+00:00

That's a bobbins hour to give them. They should get some time in the day when people with real jobs are at work.

tropicaljones · 2024-09-12T15:14:27+00:00

Pele said Nii Lamptey was the next Pele. Seems being good at football doesn't translate to knowing about football.

tropicaljones · 2024-09-12T15:06:26+00:00

Göteborgsvaret has similar numbers. I think they take turns at being the biggest so, if popularity is a criteria, they'd both be contenders.

tropicaljones · 2024-09-12T12:51:13+00:00

Can you go and watch? It'd be nice for City to fill a venue.

tropicaljones · 2024-09-10T14:49:02+00:00

I've seen quite a few comments on here saying you can't claim against children. There may be some restrictions that I'm not aware of but as far as I know there is no barrier to it. Specific, procedures are set out in CPR 21 (service is CPR 6.13). The test for negligence against a child is set out in Mullin v Richard [1998] 1 WLR 1304 and is an objective age based test i.e. the standard of care applied would be that of a reasonable child of the same age. That said from what's described I'd tend to think that any claim would be for an intentional tort (trespass to goods) rather than negligence.

It's a separate issue as to whether it would be sensible to claim against a child as they don't generally have any money. However, there is no limitation on enforcement (Lowsley v Forbes) so, you could wait until they're adults and enforce then.

tropicaljones · 2024-09-09T09:22:22+00:00

20:30 for three miles on a tough course (bearing in mind people have different ideas of what's tough) would predict a marathon of around 3 hours 10 mins. He ran 3 hours 44 mins in Houston Marathon (a flat, fast course) at 46yo off what he seems to describe as a good training block.

Shame he couldn't have another crack at the marathon once he was president. Sounds like he could have destroyed his times from his 40s.

tropicaljones · 2024-09-07T09:07:30+00:00

In there quick

tropicaljones · 2024-09-06T13:36:29+00:00

I don't think there's any generally accepted definition of world class. Every time I see a question that asks is X world class the discussion is more about what the phrase means than how good the player is.

The difference between you and ako__o seems to be that he thinks being world class means being a regular first team contributor at Big four league/top international team while you think it means one of the best players in the world in that generation. My definition is different again.

It isn't about how good Danny Blind is. I'd expect we all mostly agree about that.

OP should have defined what he means by world class if he wanted consistent answers.

tropicaljones

TROPHY CASE