3D numberplates

[MrSp...@bcy363pj80qzrkeo8.co.uk]

No idea if anyone still reads this group or the trolls have scared everyone
off, but in case someone does , has anyone noticed the sudden prevelance of
3D style number plates where the letters are raised up plastic moulds?
Looks bloody ugly to me.

[JNugent]

I can remember a time when all number plates were made like that.

For example:
<https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTuIP_KU3QggtJ_NicovI_AJ442beqQZyOmdhCRrmPaJCnqmRKZKEpDOaSpR55F1TiwPjs&usqp=CAU>

[MrSpud...@ox9oeo.org]

Fair enough. They look just as amateurish however.

[Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 11:34:13 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

Those didn't reflect light like the modern ones do, did they?

--

"SHPAMMERSH ARE CROOKSH,DON'T DO BUSINESSH VITH CROOKSH!"
- jew paedophile shpammer Barry Z. Shein (world.std.com home page)

#me joo

[JNugent]

On 04/07/2021 12:42 am, Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells wrote:

> On JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 28/06/2021 09:27 am, MrSp...@bcy363pj80qzrkeo8.co.uk wrote:
>
>>> No idea if anyone still reads this group or the trolls have scared everyone
>>> off, but in case someone does , has anyone noticed the sudden prevelance of
>>> 3D style number plates where the letters are raised up plastic moulds?
>>> Looks bloody ugly to me.
>
>> I can remember a time when all number plates were made like that.
>
>> For example:
>> <https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTuIP_KU3QggtJ_NicovI_AJ442beqQZyOmdhCRrmPaJCnqmRKZKEpDOaSpR55F1TiwPjs&usqp=CAU>
>
> Those didn't reflect light like the modern ones do, did they?

They did reflect light (otherwise you wouldn't have been... er... able
to see them).

Whether that was "like the modern ones", I can't say.

It is possible that the modern ones are made with better-suited materials.

But to be accurate, the PP had only commented on their lack of beauty.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <ikcd9l...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> writes

Actually, the old-style plates only partially reflected the light. The
backing plate was black - so little light was reflected from it. The
letters, being white, reflected most of the light - but, of course, had
a relatively small total surface area.

However, it was decided that it was desirable to make vehicles more
visible at night by making the backing plate highly reflective by
covering it with tiny (glass?) beads, and to distinguish the front from
the rear by making the colours different. The obvious choice for the
front was white, but (rather strangely) the rear was made yellow, and
not red. [The RoI changed to red, but, apparently, our tests had shown
that yellow was more visible than red.]
--
Ian

[Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells]

On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 01:22:13 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

>On 04/07/2021 12:42 am, Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells wrote:
>
>> On JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> On 28/06/2021 09:27 am, MrSp...@bcy363pj80qzrkeo8.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>> No idea if anyone still reads this group or the trolls have scared everyone
>>>> off, but in case someone does , has anyone noticed the sudden prevelance of
>>>> 3D style number plates where the letters are raised up plastic moulds?
>>>> Looks bloody ugly to me.
>>
>>> I can remember a time when all number plates were made like that.
>>
>>> For example:
>>> <https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTuIP_KU3QggtJ_NicovI_AJ442beqQZyOmdhCRrmPaJCnqmRKZKEpDOaSpR55F1TiwPjs&usqp=CAU>
>>
>> Those didn't reflect light like the modern ones do, did they?
>
>They did reflect light (otherwise you wouldn't have been... er... able
>to see them).

Technically speaking, yes.

>Whether that was "like the modern ones", I can't say.

It wasn't.

>It is possible that the modern ones are made with better-suited materials.

They are.

>But to be accurate, the PP had only commented on their lack of beauty.

All in the eye(s) of the beholder.

[MrSpud...@jjw.gov.uk]

On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 09:01:48 +0100
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>the rear by making the colours different. The obvious choice for the
>front was white, but (rather strangely) the rear was made yellow, and
>not red. [The RoI changed to red, but, apparently, our tests had shown
>that yellow was more visible than red.]

I was asked once by a foreign aquaintance why UK number plates were white
at the front and yellow at the back since no other EU country bothered with
that. I told him so you could tell which was front and back and he gave the
obvious response that if you're too stupid to tell which way around a car
is just from looking at it the chances of you clocking the number or plate
colour are pretty slim too. He had a point.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <sbufjn$nls$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, MrSpud...@jjw.gov.uk
writes

So why have we always had red lights at the rear?
--
Ian

[MrSpud_...@km0gurf3edrjmfzdbo.org]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 10:18:37 +0100

Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <sbufjn$nls$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, MrSpud...@jjw.gov.uk
>writes
>>On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 09:01:48 +0100
>>Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>>>the rear by making the colours different. The obvious choice for the
>>>front was white, but (rather strangely) the rear was made yellow, and
>>>not red. [The RoI changed to red, but, apparently, our tests had shown
>>>that yellow was more visible than red.]
>>
>>I was asked once by a foreign aquaintance why UK number plates were white
>>at the front and yellow at the back since no other EU country bothered with
>>that. I told him so you could tell which was front and back and he gave the
>>obvious response that if you're too stupid to tell which way around a car
>>is just from looking at it the chances of you clocking the number or plate
>>colour are pretty slim too. He had a point.
>>
>So why have we always had red lights at the rear?

Nice try at being clever, bad luck it didn't work out. Braking is a fast
virtually subconcious action and you need to be able to tell the difference
between a car braking in front or a car coming towards you in the other
direction instantly. Reading a numberplate however is a slow concious action
so by the time you've done it you've had plenty of time to tell which way
around the car is and which way its going.

[JNugent]

On 05/07/2021 10:18 am, Ian Jackson wrote:

> MrSpud...@jjw.gov.uk writes

>> Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:

>>> the rear by making the colours different. The obvious choice for the
>>> front was white, but (rather strangely) the rear was made yellow, and
>>> not red. [The RoI changed to red, but, apparently, our tests had shown
>>> that yellow was more visible than red.]
>
>> I was asked once by a foreign aquaintance why UK number plates were white
>> at the front and yellow at the back since no other EU country bothered
>> with that. I told him so you could tell which was front and back and he
>> gave the obvious response that if you're too stupid to tell which way>
>> around a car is just from looking at it the chances of you clocking
>> the number or plate colour are pretty slim too. He had a point.
>
> So why have we always had red lights at the rear?

+1.

[MrSpu...@3v5elh_f5fwkxm.edu]

Seriously?

[JNugent]

Yes. I support the point that IJ was making by asking his question.

it isn't controversial. Every country I've ever been to has a rule that
front lights are white (or yellow!) and rear lights are red and it is
fairly obvious that the distinction would be carried through into the
specified colours of numberplates.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <sbunqm$iac$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
MrSpud_...@km0gurf3edrjmfzdbo.org writes

>On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 10:18:37 +0100
>Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <sbufjn$nls$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, MrSpud...@jjw.gov.uk
>>writes
>>>On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 09:01:48 +0100
>>>Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>the rear by making the colours different. The obvious choice for the
>>>>front was white, but (rather strangely) the rear was made yellow, and
>>>>not red. [The RoI changed to red, but, apparently, our tests had shown
>>>>that yellow was more visible than red.]
>>>
>>>I was asked once by a foreign aquaintance why UK number plates were white
>>>at the front and yellow at the back since no other EU country bothered with
>>>that. I told him so you could tell which was front and back and he gave the
>>>obvious response that if you're too stupid to tell which way around a car
>>>is just from looking at it the chances of you clocking the number or plate
>>>colour are pretty slim too. He had a point.
>>>
>>So why have we always had red lights at the rear?
>
>Nice try at being clever, bad luck it didn't work out. Braking is a fast
>virtually subconcious action and you need to be able to tell the difference
>between a car braking in front or a car coming towards you in the other
>direction instantly.

Who mentioned braking?

> Reading a numberplate however is a slow concious action
>so by the time you've done it you've had plenty of time to tell which way
>around the car is and which way its going.

Who mentioned reading?
--
Ian

[Ian Jackson]

In message <ikgpk2...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> writes

Having been introduced, the UK plates have stayed white and yellow
However, the RoI white and red plates (introduced in 1969) didn't last
for very long (1987?). [Actually, as far as readability is concerned, in
my opinion the RoI black letters on a red plate were not as readable as
the UK black on yellow - but at least you initially instinctively
associated it with the rear of the vehicle.]
--
Ian

[MrSpud...@sptp.info]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 17:17:07 +0100

Perhaps you missed my reply to him, but its quite useful to know if a car
is braking ahead instantly without having to watch it first. It is not
useful to know which way a car is facing when looking at the numberplate
since at night it would be given away by the lights anyway and in daytime
unless you're blind you can see from the car body itself. Therefore having
different colour plates is non sensical.

[MrSpu...@shlmhz3f.eu]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 17:34:45 +0100

If the lights are on due to them acting as lights you don't need any
further indication of which way around the car is so why have coloured
plates?

>> Reading a numberplate however is a slow concious action
>>so by the time you've done it you've had plenty of time to tell which way
>>around the car is and which way its going.
>
>Who mentioned reading?

What else are numberplates for, decoration?

[JNugent]

On 06/07/2021 09:15 am, MrSpud...@sptp.info wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>> MrSpud_dko@3v5elh_f5fwkxm.edu wrote:
>>> JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>>>>>> I was asked once by a foreign aquaintance why UK number plates were white
>>>>>> at the front and yellow at the back since no other EU country bothered
>>>>>> with that. I told him so you could tell which was front and back and he
>>>>>> gave the obvious response that if you're too stupid to tell which way>
>>>>>> around a car is just from looking at it the chances of you clocking
>>>>>> the number or plate colour are pretty slim too. He had a point.
>
>>>>> So why have we always had red lights at the rear?
>
>>>> +1.
>
>>> Seriously?
>
>> Yes. I support the point that IJ was making by asking his question.
>> it isn't controversial. Every country I've ever been to has a rule that
>> front lights are white (or yellow!) and rear lights are red and it is
>> fairly obvious that the distinction would be carried through into the
>> specified colours of numberplates.

> Perhaps you missed my reply to him, but its quite useful to know if a car
> is braking ahead instantly without having to watch it first. It is not
> useful to know which way a car is facing when looking at the numberplate
> since at night it would be given away by the lights anyway and in daytime
> unless you're blind you can see from the car body itself. Therefore having
> different colour plates is non sensical.

Someone else has already pointed out that reading black characters* on a
yellow background is easier than reading them on a red background, and
I'm inclined to agree with that.

[* I hope I'm allowed to say "black characters".]

[Ian Jackson]

In message <ikimat...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> writes

[On this rare occasion that you agree with me, I'll grant you my
special, personal permission.]

Anyway, having different colour plates is not 'non-sensical'. Instead,
try arguing that it's 'of little advantage'. After all many (if not
most) countries don't have different coloured plates.
--
Ian

[MrSpud_c...@qkaa_ypmhyrv0429y0.biz]

Probably, and reading black on white is probably even easier. So why don't
we ditch the yellow rear plate and make them both white which if nothing else
will save money.

[JNugent]

In the dark, the distinction between front and rear plates is obvious
even when the vehicle is not showing any other lights. A bit like
reflectors.

[MrSpu...@7hadkmg6_2t7rlet.com]

On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 16:04:12 +0100

And that matters because?

"Mr Poirot, I saw the car parked north-south, not south-north that night"
"Aha, in that case I have solved zee case!"

[Ian Jackson]

In message <ikj9nc...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> writes

In the dark, the direction of a parked, unlit vehicle should be
reasonably obvious by the presence of its passive red rear reflectors.
However, the use of different colour reflective plates will certainly
provide additional useful information.
--
Ian

[MrSpu...@3dr_5we13k36c_.edu]

Who the hell cares which way around a car is parked in the dark?

[JNugent]

The law of the land does, for a start. The idea is that you pass red
lights or reflectors to the right, white to their left.

[MrSpu...@l8kpn0fs3j3xh.ac.uk]

Huh? The law of what land? Not the UK I can assure you where you can park in
any direction you like. Some anally retentive countries like canada might
care but ironically they have the same colour plates on the front and rear.

Also ITYF in a RHD country like the UK it would be red on the left, white
on the right.

[JNugent]

I was talking about which side of them you *pass*.

You can definitely get a FPN for parking on the "wrong" side of the road
during the hours of darkness. Even with lights on.

[MrSpud...@ejavm966b5308rqn34zz.net]

Utter rubbish. Who told you that?

[Ian Jackson]

In message <iklic9...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent

Indeed. After dark you must not park on the 'wrong' side of the road
except in a designated parking space. In some countries, you must ALWAYS
park on the correct side.

Highway Code, rule 248 states: ‘you MUST NOT park on a road at night
facing against the direction of the traffic flow unless in a recognised
parking space’.
--
Ian

[MrSpud_...@fnx3.tv]

On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 14:49:56 +0100
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <iklic9...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
><jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> writes

>>You can definitely get a FPN for parking on the "wrong" side of the
>>road during the hours of darkness. Even with lights on.
>
>Indeed. After dark you must not park on the 'wrong' side of the road
>except in a designated parking space. In some countries, you must ALWAYS
>park on the correct side.

We're not talking about other countries , we're talking about the UK and
no, you won't get a ticket for it.

>Highway Code, rule 248 states: ‘you MUST NOT park on a road at night
>facing against the direction of the traffic flow unless in a recognised
>parking space’.

If that ancient rule were enforced half the cars parked on suburban streets in
the UK would get a ticket.

[JNugent]

The police officer who put the FPN on my car parked outside my mother's
terraced house.

[JNugent]

Thank you.

[JNugent]

On 07/07/2021 02:55 pm, MrSpud_...@fnx3.tv wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 14:49:56 +0100
> Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <iklic9...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>> <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> writes
>>> You can definitely get a FPN for parking on the "wrong" side of the
>>> road during the hours of darkness. Even with lights on.
>>
>> Indeed. After dark you must not park on the 'wrong' side of the road
>> except in a designated parking space. In some countries, you must ALWAYS
>> park on the correct side.
>
> We're not talking about other countries , we're talking about the UK and
> no, you won't get a ticket for it.
>

>> Highway Code, rule 248 states: ‘you MUST NOT park on a road at night

>> facing against the direction of the traffic flow unless in a recognised

>> parking space’.

>
> If that ancient rule were enforced half the cars parked on suburban streets in
> the UK would get a ticket.

In London (where I was living), the rule is rarely enforced, so much so
that no-one I knew had ever heard of it.

In Liverpool, it was and may still be enforced sporadically. I suspect
that I was the "victim" of a probationer PC and his or her puppy-walking
sergeant. This was in a cul-de-sac terraced street with (of course) no
through traffic. FPNs then still cost £2.

[MrSpud...@6_kumjiw3lpb.gov]

On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 15:26:24 +0100

JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On 07/07/2021 02:45 pm, MrSpud...@ejavm966b5308rqn34zz.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 12:44:09 +0100
>> JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> On 07/07/2021 12:19 pm, MrSpu...@l8kpn0fs3j3xh.ac.uk wrote:
>>>> Also ITYF in a RHD country like the UK it would be red on the left, white
>>>> on the right.
>>>
>>> I was talking about which side of them you *pass*.
>>>
>>> You can definitely get a FPN for parking on the "wrong" side of the road
>>> during the hours of darkness. Even with lights on.
>>
>> Utter rubbish. Who told you that?
>
>The police officer who put the FPN on my car parked outside my mother's
>terraced house.

Plods haven't dished out parking tickets for decades. Have another go.

[JNugent]

It was decades ago.

The law is still in place and the same.

[MrSpud_3...@ovb6wf8h1a93zy9d.com]

On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 16:57:57 +0100

So was being able to shoot a welshman with an arrow within the walls of
Chester until a few years back. However an unenforced law is an irrelevant
law and anyone who got a ticket now for parking in the wrong direction
would almost certainly win any appeal as signs or painted lines are now
required by law to inform drivers of parking restrictions.

[JNugent]

The law is still in place.

Not "until a few years back".

*Now*.

The Road Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986:

<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/101/made>

QUOTE:
101.—(1) Save as provided in paragraph (2) no person shall, except with
the except with the permission of a police officer in a uniform, cause
or permit any motor vehicle to stand on a road at any time between half
an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise unless the *near*
*side* of the vehicle is as close as may be to the edge of the carriageway.
ENDQUOTE

Paragraph (2) contains exceptions for police cars, ambulances, roadworks
vehicles, etc, as well as for one-way streets and marked out parking places.

[MrSpud_v...@qv6_8no5syxtxdo776.biz]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 11:03:24 +0100
JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On 08/07/2021 08:39 am, MrSpud_3...@ovb6wf8h1a93zy9d.com wrote:
>> So was being able to shoot a welshman with an arrow within the walls of
>> Chester until a few years back. However an unenforced law is an irrelevant
>> law and anyone who got a ticket now for parking in the wrong direction
>> would almost certainly win any appeal as signs or painted lines are now
>> required by law to inform drivers of parking restrictions.
>
>The law is still in place.

Plenty of unenforced laws are still in place.

>Not "until a few years back".
>
>*Now*.

Since when is 1986 now?

>QUOTE:
>101.—(1) Save as provided in paragraph (2) no person shall, except with
>the except with the permission of a police officer in a uniform, cause
>or permit any motor vehicle to stand on a road at any time between half
>an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise unless the *near*
>*side* of the vehicle is as close as may be to the edge of the carriageway.
>ENDQUOTE

There is no way in hell that could or would ever be enforced now. As I said,
parking restrictions by law need a sign or a road marking to be enforcable.

[JNugent]

On 08/07/2021 12:40 pm, MrSpud_vm2uF7U3ej@qv6_8no5syxtxdo776.biz wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 08/07/2021 08:39 am, MrSpud_3...@ovb6wf8h1a93zy9d.com wrote:

>>> So was being able to shoot a welshman with an arrow within the walls of
>>> Chester until a few years back. However an unenforced law is an irrelevant
>>> law and anyone who got a ticket now for parking in the wrong direction
>>> would almost certainly win any appeal as signs or painted lines are now
>>> required by law to inform drivers of parking restrictions.

>> The law is still in place.

> Plenty of unenforced laws are still in place.

>> Not "until a few years back".
>> *Now*.

> Since when is 1986 now?

The 1986 Act is in force now. It also specifies the condition in which a
vehicle must be maintained (lights, tyres, brakes, visibility, security
of seats, etc.).

Acts don't have to be replaced every few years. They don't "run out".
There is still legislation from 1847 on the statute book (and yes, part
of it relates to obstructive vehicles) and probably from earlier than that.

>> QUOTE:
>> 101.—(1) Save as provided in paragraph (2) no person shall, except with

>> the except with the permission of a police officer in a uniform, cause
>> or permit any motor vehicle to stand on a road at any time between half
>> an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise unless the *near*
>> *side* of the vehicle is as close as may be to the edge of the carriageway.
>> ENDQUOTE
>
> There is no way in hell that could or would ever be enforced now. As I said,
> parking restrictions by law need a sign or a road marking to be enforcable.

The one about parking with the nearside to the kerb does not need signs
or markings. Everyone knows which is the nearside of a vehicle and
everyone knows where the kerb "edge of carriageway") is.

What is your problem with this?

[MrSpu...@yu3s26wv93kgq2j7wa2ia8.org]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 15:35:39 +0100

JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On 08/07/2021 12:40 pm, MrSpud_vm2uF7U3ej@qv6_8no5syxtxdo776.biz wrote:
>> Since when is 1986 now?
>
>The 1986 Act is in force now. It also specifies the condition in which a
>vehicle must be maintained (lights, tyres, brakes, visibility, security
>of seats, etc.).

See my example about shooting welshmen in Chester.

>> There is no way in hell that could or would ever be enforced now. As I said,
>> parking restrictions by law need a sign or a road marking to be enforcable.
>
>The one about parking with the nearside to the kerb does not need signs
>or markings. Everyone knows which is the nearside of a vehicle and
>everyone knows where the kerb "edge of carriageway") is.
>
>What is your problem with this?

Its not taught in driving lessons either in the car or in the theory test.
It cannot be enforced because it would not be upheld in court. If it could
councils would be making hay with it as we speak.

[JNugent]

On 08/07/2021 03:43 pm, MrSpu...@yu3s26wv93kgq2j7wa2ia8.org wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 08/07/2021 12:40 pm, MrSpud_vm2uF7U3ej@qv6_8no5syxtxdo776.biz wrote:

>>> Since when is 1986 now?
>
>> The 1986 Act is in force now. It also specifies the condition in which a
>> vehicle must be maintained (lights, tyres, brakes, visibility, security
>> of seats, etc.).
>
> See my example about shooting welshmen in Chester.

What about it?

>>> There is no way in hell that could or would ever be enforced now. As I said,
>>> parking restrictions by law need a sign or a road marking to be enforcable.
>
>> The one about parking with the nearside to the kerb does not need signs
>> or markings. Everyone knows which is the nearside of a vehicle and
>> everyone knows where the kerb "edge of carriageway") is.
>
>> What is your problem with this?
>
> Its not taught in driving lessons either in the car or in the theory test.

So what? A lot of things aren't.

On that basis, anyone who passed their test before late 1967 could argue
that the Breathalyser can't apply to them because they weren't asked
about on their driving test (there was no separate theory test then).

> It cannot be enforced because it would not be upheld in court. If it could
> councils would be making hay with it as we speak.

What makes you say that the law of the land would not be upheld in court
when a prosecution is brought?

[Ian Jackson]

In message <sc6o6k$1dm9$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
MrSpud_vm2uF7U3ej@qv6_8no5syxtxdo776.biz writes

>On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 11:03:24 +0100
>JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>On 08/07/2021 08:39 am, MrSpud_3...@ovb6wf8h1a93zy9d.com wrote:
>>> So was being able to shoot a welshman with an arrow within the walls of
>>> Chester until a few years back. However an unenforced law is an irrelevant
>>> law and anyone who got a ticket now for parking in the wrong direction
>>> would almost certainly win any appeal as signs or painted lines are now
>>> required by law to inform drivers of parking restrictions.
>>
>>The law is still in place.
>
>Plenty of unenforced laws are still in place.
>
>>Not "until a few years back".
>>
>>*Now*.
>
>Since when is 1986 now?

Once a law is enacted, it stays in force until it is either rescinded or
amended. It doesn't cease to apply the following year. [But, of course,
you know that.]
>
>>QUOTE:
>>101.—(1) Save as provided in paragraph (2) no person shall, except with

>>the except with the permission of a police officer in a uniform, cause
>>or permit any motor vehicle to stand on a road at any time between half
>>an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise unless the *near*
>>*side* of the vehicle is as close as may be to the edge of the carriageway.
>>ENDQUOTE
>
>There is no way in hell that could or would ever be enforced now. As I said,
>parking restrictions by law need a sign or a road marking to be enforcable.
>

Don't be silly. There are countless thousands of situations where laws
apply, but don't require signage to make you aware of them. And
ignorance of then law is no defence.

I'm sure a person of your calibre knows, for example, that "unless an
order has been made and the road is signed to the contrary, a 30 mph
speed limit applies where there are three or more lamps throwing light
on the carriageway and placed not more than 183 metres apart". [Google
'30 limit street lights distance'.] Or, if you want a totally ridiculous
example, when did you ever see any signs saying "Murder is illegal"?
[It's back under the bridge time,]
--
Ian

[Nick Finnigan]

Regulation 101 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations
1986 may well not have been amended, but in controlled parking zones you
can not get a FPN for contravening it.

[Nick Finnigan]

On 08/07/2021 08:39, MrSpud_3...@ovb6wf8h1a93zy9d.com wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 16:57:57 +0100
> JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>> The law is still in place and the same.
>
> So was being able to shoot a welshman with an arrow within the walls of
> Chester until a few years back.

Which law was that?

[Nick Finnigan]

On 08/07/2021 12:40, MrSpud_vm2uF7U3ej@qv6_8no5syxtxdo776.biz wrote:

> There is no way in hell that could or would ever be enforced now. As I said,
> parking restrictions by law need a sign or a road marking to be enforcable.
>

Which law is that ?

[MrSpud...@7te34tivyt92gy.com]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 15:47:56 +0100

JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On 08/07/2021 03:43 pm, MrSpu...@yu3s26wv93kgq2j7wa2ia8.org wrote:
>> See my example about shooting welshmen in Chester.
>
>What about it?

Have a think.

>> Its not taught in driving lessons either in the car or in the theory test.
>
>So what? A lot of things aren't.

If it was enforced it would be rather fundamental, you know, like yellow lines
etc. In lessons during parking exercises it would certainly come up don't
you think?

>On that basis, anyone who passed their test before late 1967 could argue
>that the Breathalyser can't apply to them because they weren't asked
>about on their driving test (there was no separate theory test then).

You mean they won't have seen all the xmas ads and all the stories in
newspapers and on TV about drunk driving?

>> It cannot be enforced because it would not be upheld in court. If it could
>> councils would be making hay with it as we speak.
>
>What makes you say that the law of the land would not be upheld in court
>when a prosecution is brought?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Freeman

[MrSp...@7iqgw.ac.uk]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 15:55:10 +0100
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <sc6o6k$1dm9$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
>MrSpud_vm2uF7U3ej@qv6_8no5syxtxdo776.biz writes
>>On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 11:03:24 +0100

>>There is no way in hell that could or would ever be enforced now. As I said,
>>parking restrictions by law need a sign or a road marking to be enforcable.
>>
>Don't be silly. There are countless thousands of situations where laws
>apply, but don't require signage to make you aware of them. And
>ignorance of then law is no defence.

Don't be obstuse, there are laws and then there are laws that no one gives
a shit about and arn't enforced by either the police or councils. This will
be one of them.

>I'm sure a person of your calibre knows, for example, that "unless an
>order has been made and the road is signed to the contrary, a 30 mph
>speed limit applies where there are three or more lamps throwing light
>on the carriageway and placed not more than 183 metres apart". [Google

That comes up in the theory and practical tests.

>'30 limit street lights distance'.] Or, if you want a totally ridiculous
>example, when did you ever see any signs saying "Murder is illegal"?
>[It's back under the bridge time,]

Are you seriously comparing murder to an obscure parking bylaw? Don't be
a fucking ass.

[MrSpud...@yp_plp.gov.uk]

www.google.com

[Nick Finnigan]

Doesn't help. Which law was that?

[Roman the Foreskin PEELER]

Classic example of a sleazy jew shyshter.

--

The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus admits he got
no life AT ALL outside stalking on THE Usenet!
"Frankly, if he were gone, I wouldn't know what to do here."
Message-ID: <FCOQt.107901$hp7....@fx13.fr7>

The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus, defending his fellow
Grik sodomite the Grikboxer® and under the delusion that he's
been able to grow a pair: "You'd have to get past me first,"
Message-ID: <LOOQt.337647$Qr2....@fx08.fr7>

Yet more proof that the Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus
thinks he got a pair: "Just to let you know: ANYONE who "befriends"
the subnormal swine will have to deal with me! Get ready, bitch!"
Message-ID: <FHg6t.166438$Nl5....@newsfe07.iad>

The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus STILL seems to think
he got a pair: "Which will NEVER happen! You'd have to get past
me first, poor psycho! LOL"
Message-ID: <MCSIu.1$c5...@fx32.fr7>

The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus having still MORE delusions
about growing a pair: "If ANYONE dared to grab me by the neck
like that he'd get my fist in his face."
Message-ID: <qeilfu$iog$1...@gioia.aioe.org>

In spite of all the evidence, the Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus
STILL has delusions about growing a pair!
"What kind of other-worldly pussies (men?) are you all? If someone
would dare to grab me by the back of my neck like that and push me
around, my instinctive, AUTOMATIC reaction would be to knock him in
the face! NOBODY is allowed to do that to ANYONE!"
Message-ID: <qfnPE.73303$YG3....@usenetxs.com>

Best of all! From the Foreskin Peeler's doctoral dissertation in divinity,
'University' of Salonica (1992): "The jew g-d is your g-d's dad."