Search results

I knew a girl who lived in Hockley Village, who got nailed a couple of times in the school zone there, so I never assume that someone doesn't know what's right around the corner from them when they get nailed ;)

When insurance costs more than the car is worth.

And yet if anyone else drove like that around their own kids, they'd flip out. I think that people really need to see video of themselves driving, before being told that it was them. It might wake them up a bit.

Surprised you haven't seen them waiting there before. For decades now they've sat at the bottom of that hill and nailed people who let their speed creep up as the came down the hill.

Brampton. Tesla. Garage. Do the math.

Anything that obscures the plate, such as polarized/smoked plate covers, are explicitly illegal. By the letter of the law even those dealer plate surrounds are illegal, as they partially obscure the plate. I've said, many times, that there needs to be a blitz on smoked covers. EDIT - That...

I wonder if it will be progressive fines, based on the vehicle or if they'll make it the 'first offence' range, based on not being able to identify? Either way a few of those fines should make people think more about who is driving their car.

Obvious flight risk, so remanded. Good to see that it does occasionally happen.

You've obviously never heard of high explosives.

That's a "dangerous operation causing death" charge, right there. No excuse not to charge at that level, when you have video evidence.

They don't, but they can't inspect everything. Until they get noticed by a cop they're free to endanger everyone else on the road, for increased profit margin.

Do you mean other than those tires about to spit their retread all over following traffic?

I'm planning on giving it a watch but, to me, Chow Yun-Fat will always be The Killer.

The trailer for "Living" sort of reminds me of a serious take on the old British sitcom "The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin." English office funtionary realizes that he's pretty much wasted his life and starts searching for a way to actually live.

Remember the glacial efficiency of our court system. What happens at 17 likely doesn't get resolved until you're 19+.

Something that we'll never know, just as we don't really know if the truck signalled.

Most, if not all of us. In this case, however, we have no real evidence for or against the truck having actually signalled this turn. The cyclist probably couldn't see what, if anything was in front of the truck until he was alongside it, so wouldn't necessarily have known why it was slowing...

And NDAs are the result of a settlement, not a trial. That means everything reverts to basic contract law. A violation of NDA essentially voids the contract, meaning that cash settlement could all be clawed back (as you imply).

The overtaking wasn't illegal, if the turn was prohibited.

Might be thinking of publication bans. Of course NDAs are strictly a civil thing and the shoving case will be civil.