Motorised Zimmers
Was driving home today, and got stuck in a slow moving lane of traffick. Increasingly getting frustrated, as each of the cars in front took turns to gradually overtake something, i eventually saw what was causing the hold-up.
It was some wrinkly old man driving along the road on one of those motorised carts that old people zoom around the town-centre (when cycling is not allowed there) on, driving over peoples toes and barging into small children.
Now i already hate old people (thats another UP YOURS™ blog in itself!) but what makes guys like him think they have the right to drive around in the middle of the road!? Especially when it's dark! It didn't have break-lights or indicators, and i'm certain that he has not paid road tax or has subjected the motorised zimmer to an MoT inspection. Nor would he have insurance. All things that road vehichles are subject to.
So what made him feel that he could do this!? I should have run him over.
Oi, Old Giffer, UP YOURS™!
posted by MJ at 7:45 PM
10 Comments:
They have no rights to be on the road what-so-ever, and in fact shouldn't even be on the road... They're not allowed.
It'd have to be a particular b*stard of a police officer to pull them over and tell them to get off the road, but they should, in theory.
Having said that, using them on the pavement is a hazard for all the reasons you mentioned above. 1. They're old and as such don't have sufficient reactions to cope with avoiding people, 2. They just assume you will get out of their way, even though it's a pavement and they're driving a go-kart down it.
That awesome gadget that you ride on, and lean forward and back to accelerate and brake isnt allowed on the road or the pavement, so why should the old-people-charriots be allowed?
Same rule should apply... a kid isn't supposed to ride a stand-on-scooter with a garden strimmer engine attached on a pavement - so why do old people get the fun?
Old people, particularly those in electric-shopping-karts, Up YOURS!
8:14 AM
Actually certain of these vehicles are capable of more than 4 mph and are therefore entitled to run on the highway and are insured and registered with the DVLA and they have as much right as you ignoramuses to be on the highway and are not allowed to travel on the pedestrian footpaths. Your ignorance of motoring law leaves me to believe you should not hold licences.
9:42 PM
Your own response starts with 'certain...vehicles'. My original post was in specific reference to a vehicle which did not conform with the requirements of specific equipment that must be present on a road vehicle, which was also driven in a manner as to cause an offence of dangerous driving or careless and inconsiderate driving.
And how exactly are you differentiating yourself from us 'ignoramuses' by your own concurring statement of 'not allowed to travel on the pedestrian footpaths', which only repeats an original point. You can not contradict a statement by stating the same as the statement you are trying to contradict.
Your concluding statement certainly made me laugh, and is a further contradicting display of your own ignorance. Obtaining and holding a valid driving license requires one to demonstrate ability to drive, and knowledge of The Highway Code. The Highway Code is not law, but it does include many points of law (denoted by the word must in bold type). And failing to observe the code, while not in itself an offence, may be taken as evidence of 'driving without due care', a catch-all charge covering the many types of blithering stupidity perpetrated by road users. The ability to recognise which vehicles, not being driven by yourself, are or are not entitled to be legally driven on the highway, bears absolutely no relevance to entitlement to hold a driving license. So go fuck yourself.
12:16 AM
Dear anonymous,
In the true spirit of the blog let me abuse you with my rhetoric -
OI, UP YOURS
12:26 AM
Hmm Blogger has changed, just had to update some details or something. At least 'SJJ' should be shown now, not 'steven'.
There was obviously some hold up in the system, like a crimson gokartboy carriage as described by Tarantino in the bog +l.
12:34 AM
anonymous said... "blah blah blah", shut the f*ck up. If you can't be bothered to even give your name, your opinion, as far as I am concerned, is null and void.
You see very few of these things that come with a complete set of lighting as required on all road going vehicles; lights, brake lights, indicators, fog light, reverse light etc. If one has all of that, and can travel with sufficient speed, fair enough - but most don't - because they're more expensive, as long as the old codger behind the wheel can keep the thing under control and doesn't ride it down the middle of the carriageway.
8:18 AM
The Anon at the end of my post does not mean anonymous.
It is my Silver Surfer Nickname and stands fo A-Non-Entity or in your words an old codger with gray hair who shouldn't be on the highways neither electronic or motoring.
What's wrong with you people is you can't take a little joking when you become the Butt of the Joke and your prejudices are made overt.
6:33 PM
Funny - i thought my prejudices were made quite clear throughout all of these entries.
That is, essentially, the whole purpose of this blog. To get your prejudice out in the open, have a rant about it, and be told you're brilliant because of it.
You, silver surfer, are clearly prejudice against young people who don't like your road-going-ways.
12:55 PM
ps. You didn't say "Anon" at the end of your post.
anonymous is the name you chose to post with... hence "anonymous said..."
Pillock.
1:02 PM
Just because you've got no legs, doesn't mean you can't join in!
4:27 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home