Did anyone see the article in the Daily Express today about the Lorry driver being done for (not sure what the exact charge was) something like dangerous or careless driving because he soaked W.P.C. when he went through a puddle, whats your views and does anyone know a link to it?.
My opinion is its absolute stupidity.
I saw it, he got 5 points on his licence for it.
mrpj:
I saw it, he got 5 points on his licence for it.
■■■■!!! 
Next time there is a puddle on my side of the road I suppose it would be better if I drove on the wrong side 
The world has gone mad. 
Apparently he smiled at her as he did it, so was it deliberate.
Dafman:
Apparently he smiled at her as he did it, so was it deliberate.
And■■? 
So, I see a woman walking down the road in a police uniform, who just happens to be your Missus, Jammy. I drive through a puddle and soak her, smiling as I do so… would you still consider me being nicked stupidity■■? Or is it your original post that is stupidity.
If ANY driver drives through a puddle and DELIBERATELY soaks a pedestrian, whatever they are wearing, then they deserve to be nicked and fined heavily!!!
splish splash i was havin a bath.
So number one here DONT smile when you are driving?.
Number two when in the vicinity of coppers always STOP no matter whats behind you hold all the traffic just in case you wet them.
Ever since i was a child i had this amazing ability of knowing what a puddle is and what happened if something BIG like a lorry goes in to it, its called displacement.
So since i was a child i have always moved out of the way when i see a large vehicle coming near me and a puddle, i think its reffered to as common sense.
jammymutt:
i think its reffered to as common sense.
something you show an amazing lack of with some of your posts, Jammy
Careful, that’s so borderline that you’re lucky I’m in a good mood, else it’d be gone. Attack the post, not the poster. L.
jammymutt:
Did anyone see the article in the Daily Express today about the Lorry driver being done for (not sure what the exact charge was) something like dangerous or careless driving because he soaked W.P.C. when he went through a puddle, whats your views and does anyone know a link to it?.My opinion is its absolute stupidity.
I actually asked about this beofre my c+e test since it was raining heavy. The instuctor told me since its an hazard that could hide anysort of Problem (talking a decent size puddle here of course) so if possible indicate and go round it. if this was not possible to slow down and go through slowly so not to cause a wave.
And before someone says it im talking about a mass of water not EVERY puddle… and im guessing this guy went for an obvious area of standing water though i cant comment with any authority since we dont know the whole story.
it gave me a good laugh when i read it anway! they had to invent the charge though, spraying water without due care and attention and dangerous soaking, causing a copper to recieve a dry cleaning old-bill unlawfully, or the most heinous of all, laughing whilst in charge of a 32 ton super-soaker!!! need i go on! actually thinking about it, they should string the ■■■■■■ up, its the only language he’d understand!
i only splash the ladies that arent wearing bras 
Bones has stated that his instructor classed puddles as a hazard, if you
have read , COLA BANDITS; Then you will have read the story about the
Hungarian Driver who found his lorry was stopped from driveing due to a
volkswagen engine in the puddle,
TheBear:
If ANY driver drives through a puddle and DELIBERATELY soaks a pedestrian, whatever they are wearing, then they deserve to be nicked and fined heavily!!!
Agree, however was there any actual PROOF that this was deliberate? 5 points is IMO extreme also.
mrpj:
TheBear:
If ANY driver drives through a puddle and DELIBERATELY soaks a pedestrian, whatever they are wearing, then they deserve to be nicked and fined heavily!!!Agree, however was there any actual PROOF that this was deliberate? 5 points is IMO extreme also.
Note I did say fined, Mrpj … I think points are excessive. I think one of the previous posts makes the remark that it did seem to be deliberate
TheBear:
Note I did say fined, Mrpj … I think points are excessive.
Noted 
, also the part about proof was a general comment and not aimed at your post in particular.
From the report I heard on the radio this was more than a small puddle on the side of the road. The Policewoman was helping motorists caught in a flooded road, when the truck came through at speed.
If this is true, at the very least that is driving without due care and attention.
to be fair it is very funny but he should have slowed down if there was people in the way i mean how would he like spending the day in wet clothes cos someone soaked him with a puddle.
i think the 5 points is very harsh i think he should have just got a fine.
if we are going to be very extreme supposeing there was a big pothole in the road under the puddle and he lost control ( i know that is extreme ).
if there was flooding and the wpc was directing traffic how come he was going so fast anyway.
all in all still a funny story.
Would the same punishment have occured if this had happened to a member of the public though? If the answers yes then fair enough but I doubt it.
muckles:
From the report I heard on the radio this was more than a small puddle on the side of the road. The Policewoman was helping motorists caught in a flooded road, when the truck came through at speed.
If this is true, at the very least that is driving without due care and attention.
I heard that report and in that case the muppet got what he deserved.
mrpj:
Would the same punishment have occured if this had happened to a member of the public though? If the answers yes then fair enough but I doubt it.
I have heard of people being done for this several times before, it usually makes the papers and it is usually reported that there was some degree of intent, and it wasn’t a police officer on those occasions.