snowy

The owner of a vehicle isn't responsible for the use of the vehicle- otherwise lease hire firms would be financially viable for any costs of a collision. the registered keeper can deny they were driving (and therefore not responsible) and cannot be compelled to say who was. Doing that can result in a £ fine and/or points for the registered keeper, but invariably at a much lower level than would be given to a named driver responsible. its like you're just realising that license plates are for vehicles not individual drivers... Glad on your final point, that you are now agreeing with the OP and Leeming that it was careless driving (leaving the scene of an incident) and dangerous driving (aggravated taking without consent).

A vehicle isn't insured, a driver is. Given the driver ran away we don't know if they were insured, whether the car was theirs etc which is why that blog says that the tax payer will have to bear the costs of the repairs to a memorial thats been there, unharmed, on a pedestrian island since the late 19th century, plus the costs of the emergency services etc Which also answers the question from Rockets as to whether it "was dangerous or careless driving':Leaving a scene of a collision is one of the definitions of careless driving. Regarding dangerous driving, and the report that it was a car, the first post in this thread says "Presumably the vehicle that did this must have been travelling with some force when it mounted the kerb and sent the stone blocks flying: significant weight or speed or both. Supposedly this is a 20mph zone." which i guess is answered too - so counting as dangerous driving. On your second slightly bizarre 'but bikes/scooter' point, that's why a hierarchy of road users exists. I'm not quite sure an escooter would do that amount of damage to a marble statue.

According to this local community website, it was hit by a car. The driver then fled: https://norwoodforum.org/node/3436 "There is some doubt that the costs of repair and reinstatement can be met from any motor insurance policy - the driver of the car concerned is said to have left the scene" "We have also asked for the road safety aspects for southbound traffic from Norwood Road/Robson Road traffic lights be reconsidered. Two lanes merge into one lane here and there are longstanding problems of speeding traffic on Norwood High Street and the rest of the West Norwood gyratory"

anyway, keep posting laughably iill informed, inaccurate and ill conceived posts and I will keep laughing at them.

Calm down Lynn!

Timely reminder that Rockets defines anti car organisations as: The Department for Transport The National Highways Agency The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety The National Police Chiefs’ Council The AA who all don't use the word accident. Lol, so common and frequent that Rockets can't differentiate between the two...

Great.

Hire bikes already have registration numbers and you need to provide ID to hire them when you set up an account.

No, many (mine included) has a specific first party property and third party liability sections. Even LCC offers full insurance for something like £10 - year as the damage caused by cyclists is so minimal. Also the precedent set by the Russell vs Smith court case will probably blow your mind

Simon Heffer The Telegraph Cycling The anti-cycling bingo card practically writes itself. What is the UK and Farage supporter saying? It's behind a firewall?.I bet license plates, something unresearched about insurance (which you're covered by home contents insurance), road tax, war on motorists etc? i'm unsure of his background as a road and traffic management expert, does he explan what makes his view more valuable?

Or will find any point to latch on to. A quick back of a fag packet calculation is that 1 family car in a year has the same emissions as 18 square metres of that Indian sandstone.

But apparently no punctuation.

That's lovely dear, but nothing to do with the conversation we're having - signaling- which is a should not a must. And you understand the legal difference don't you.

Please please go and re read the Highway Code if you're a driver. There are distinct differences in what it says cyclists/ horse riders should do from what vehicle drivers must do.

So this is a long winded way of saying yes, you do think your opinion is better than theirs and don't understand risk management.

So this is a long winded way of saying yes, you do think your opinion is better than theirs.

So we've reached the nub of it - you think that your opinion is better than that of the DfT etc.

Blinkered organisations according to you are: The Department for Transport The National Highways Agency The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety The National Police Chiefs’ Council The AA

Actually it’s pronounced “jaslight” - you’ve been saying it wrong the whole time.

So after 3 days we are back to the issue that every authority involved in designing, building, maintaining and managing the road network disagrees with one mono topic poster...

Classic Alan Partridge!

So one the one hand we have the following organisations who no longer use the word accident as "Describing every crash as an ‘accident’ in effect makes excuses for serious incidents. Most crashes are not ‘accidents’ but are avoidable, normally by drivers and other road users paying more attention.” Edmund King (the AA) The Department for Transport The National Highways Agency The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety The National Police Chiefs’ Council The AA and then on the other hand we have some lone, out of touch poster called Rockets.

You clearly don't understand that junction then.

Are you aware of the work of Brent Lee?

And another interpretation (the report was published when the Conservatives were in power): "Analysis of the most popular social media posts on the subject between 2022 and 2023 reveals that the proportion classed as ‘disinformation’ – including conspiracy theories – rose from 5% to 28% year-on-year, the report by the cross-party think tank Demos and the Public Interest News Foundation found. In parallel, the proportion of the same posts that could be classified as anti-LTN rose from 48% in 2022 to 79% in 2023. Demos says that the stark rise in disinformation came in the year that “Rishi Sunak attacked councils for the introduction of the policy his Government had previously championed”. There were also concerns that councils failed to properly engage and consult communities as the Government funding was dependent on fast implementation of the schemes. Direct attacks on the infrastructure such as planters, cameras and bollards have followed, as well as death threats against local councillors, the study found."