Will we find anyone form here on this site??

[vrbob]

Just got sent this website as a link by a friend.

http://www.betterdrivingplease.com/index3.asp

I had a quick look and i have not been reported (I shouldnt really as of course i always drive like a saint!)

Just wondered if anyone else may find themselves reported on there?

Plus if some other driver pi55es you off you can vent your anger by dobbing them in on this website.

 

[james0808]

I typed in Nottingham to see if there was anyone local to me on there,36 reports,what a bunch of sad twats.

 

[Shades]

This bunch were on TV the other day. While I suppose its a commendable idea it appears the site has been taken over by a bunch of pathetic little people with no joy in their lives who have nothing else better to do!!

Sorry, this is going to be a long post but please take a moment to read it. For a site that is supposed to identify bad driving there are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of reports that turn the site into nothing more than a complete Joke... here is some of the best (and I only got up to page 21 of 1266!!!!):


Incident Type: Illegal blue lights
Passed car with blue lights lit on bonnet

While its a crime of taste I'm pretty sure its not illegal!​

Incident Type: Ambiguous Registration Plate
Vehicle had a large square playboy logo on registration plate

Oooh Jesus... Lock 'em up and throw away the key!​

Incident Type: Illegal use of foglights
Vehicle travelling towards M1 on the A650 dual carriageway out of Wakefield with foglights illuminated. Conditions were bright and dry with broken high cloud and sunny intervals. Visibility was well in excess of 100m legal limit.

I too am sick of getting dazzled by foglights in the DAYTIME! "AAARRRGHHH I can't see... I can't see!!!"​

Incident Type: Defective Vehicle
The rear lights are permanenty showing white/reversing lights. This is a dangerous fault and needs to be seen to! Please inform the registered keeper

Perhaps he was going to the garage d**khead!!​

Incident Type: Ambiguous Registration Plate
Number plates printed as [L11N__LF].

Wow! Your number plates make you a bad driver! Its official then... everyone on A-S.net with a "Ambiguous Registration Plate" is a BAD driver!​

Incident Type: Ambiguous Registration Plate
Number plates printed without a space as [W4LDA]

More "Proof"​

Incident Type: Ambiguous Registration Plate
Number plates printed as [X5D__CJ]

I hope I never come across an Ambiguous Registration Plate... They definately MUST be the worst drivers of all!​

I'm not going to post any more "Ambiguous Registration Plate" entries as there is literally hundreds of them... Far, far more than any geniune, serious complaints!!!


Incident Type: Defective Vehicle
all side windows too tinted to be able to see if the driver was using a phone... or wearing womens lingerie... or even if there was a driver at all!

Oh no! The tints have broke my car! Okay... I added the last bit too!​

Incident Type: Failure to indicate
Failed to indicate when making a left turn then slammed on brakes when I flashed my lights to alert the driver that I was behind them.

While failing to indicate is annoying I don't remember flashing of lights to be the correct method to alert someone of your presence? Surely the 'snitch' should have therefore filed a report about himself?​

Incident Type: Defective Vehicle
Although dark/street lights on, this car had no headlights on!!! Many flashed but still no lighting! Basis(?) Volvo on 56 plate would perceive a fault with this vehicle?Although think Police would consider too dangerous to use at night without any lights even to take to a garage to get fixed?

Unless I'm mistaken (and I may be) if driving in an area with street lights FULL headlights are not a legal requirement, using only sidelights is perfectly legal. As Volvo's permanately have their DRLs/Sidelights permanantly on....​

However it does appear someone has a sense of humour (without realising it)... and there just may be a god after all:


Incident Type: Tailgating
The most disturbing thing about this report is that fact that this vehicle was a POLICE CAR. Driving far too close to the vehicle in front at one of the most busy times of day for this road.

Don't you know the rules of the road don't apply to the boys in blue!​

 

[jeffers999]

all my cars are clean lol ....

 

[grathies]

Isnt "S3 JAS" on here?

 

[fingermouse]

bah not on there .................... yet lol

 

[auroan]

Incident Type: Illegal blue lights
Passed car with blue lights lit on bonnet

While its a crime of taste I'm pretty sure its not illegal!​

Incident Type: Illegal use of foglights
Vehicle travelling towards M1 on the A650 dual carriageway out of Wakefield with foglights illuminated. Conditions were bright and dry with broken high cloud and sunny intervals. Visibility was well in excess of 100m legal limit.

I too am sick of getting dazzled by foglights in the DAYTIME! "AAARRRGHHH I can't see... I can't see!!!"​

Incident Type: Defective Vehicle
The rear lights are permanenty showing white/reversing lights. This is a dangerous fault and needs to be seen to! Please inform the registered keeper

Perhaps he was going to the garage d**khead!!​

Incident Type: Failure to indicate
Failed to indicate when making a left turn then slammed on brakes when I flashed my lights to alert the driver that I was behind them.

While failing to indicate is annoying I don't remember flashing of lights to be the correct method to alert someone of your presence? Surely the 'snitch' should have therefore filed a report about himself?​

Incident Type: Defective Vehicle
Although dark/street lights on, this car had no headlights on!!! Many flashed but still no lighting! Basis(?) Volvo on 56 plate would perceive a fault with this vehicle?Although think Police would consider too dangerous to use at night without any lights even to take to a garage to get fixed?

Unless I'm mistaken (and I may be) if driving in an area with street lights FULL headlights are not a legal requirement, using only sidelights is perfectly legal. As Volvo's permanately have their DRLs/Sidelights permanantly on....​

Incident Type: Tailgating
The most disturbing thing about this report is that fact that this vehicle was a POLICE CAR. Driving far too close to the vehicle in front at one of the most busy times of day for this road.

Don't you know the rules of the road don't apply to the boys in blue!​

Think you need to read the highway code mate

 

[Shades]

Think you need to read the highway code mate

Who rattled your cage? Not a member of that site are you?

Oh dear, Oh dear... If only you knew the can of worms you've just opened!! You obviously don't recall my encounters with AndyMac (Who, after said encounters, I think is a nice and very knowledgable guy... who does put forward some good arguments! But by god don't anyone tell him I said that! ) in threads in which you participated.


Here we go again... :weight_lift2:

First lets remind ourselves of the sites own title "BetterDrivingPlease.com"... Right, got that? Then we shall proceed...

• Fair enough, it is illegal (I wasn't sure anyway) to have washer LEDs in anything other than white (while driving at least), but does poor taste (and a casual flouting of a frankly trivial law) really qualify for the driver of a vehicle equipped with such a mod to be labelled as a bad driver?

• Granted, having your fog lights on during the daytime is illegal, I never said it wasn't! However, as the purpose of the site is to 'report' bad driving does having foglights on in the daytime really indicate a bad driver? The report also gives no indication as to the weather conditions on the previous night either... Could it be possible that this 'bad driver' simply forgot to switch the fog lights off after having a valid reason to use them? My gripe with this 'report' is that I've yet to be dazzled by someones fog lights in the daytime. Annoyed yes, but certainly not dazzled! Also, considering it is illegal, would a copper pull you over and give you the riot act for having your fog lights on in the daytime? I seriously doubt you'd get anything other than 'Your fog lights are on, please try to remember to switch them off in future'.

• As reverse lights are not a legal requirement, and are in fact not even a test item for an MOT, whether they work, don't or are stuck on is irrelevant (don't believe me? Google it!). There is absolutely no justification for the vehicle to be listed on that website, the purpose of which is to "name and shame" bad drivers, for such a trivial matter that has nothing to do with the standard of driving by the owner (drivers) of the vehicle. The report however is an indication of the pathetic nature of the busy bodies, and their 'better than everyone else' attitude, that is making a mockery of the sites original purpose!

• Now for the 'Failed to indicate' report. Please bear with me as it is quite long!
  
  Section 103 (Signals) of the highway code states:
  Signals warn and inform other road users, including pedestrians of your intended actions. You should always...
  
  Notice the word 'should'? This means, by the actual wording definition in the highway code, that failing to use indicators is not illegal (and therefore is not punishable by law). It is, in reality, only a recommendation.
  
  Okay, so the offending vehicle failed to indicate but this itself can not be considered to be an act of bad driving...
  
  Section 147 of the Highway Code states:
  Be considerate. Be careful of and considerate towards all types of road users, especially those requiring extra care. You should:
  • try to be understanding if other road users cause problems; they may be inexperienced or not know the area well
  • be patient; remember that anyone can make a mistake
  
  With the above in mind the question of "What exactly was the 'reporting' driver doing to feel the need to alert the other driver of his/her own presence?" arises. Why would you need to alert a vehicle you were following to your presence? After consideration, the only situation I can envisage is if the 'reporting' driver was not giving the 'offending' vehicle a due, safe distance and was unprepared for the vehicle to do something unexpected... Which I'm pretty sure is what you should always be expecting while driving!
  
  As a sidenote: While it is true that flashing your headlights is an allowed method of alerting another driver of your presence I was taught that its not best practice to use lights to indicate presence (or anything else if possible, as intention can be misconstrued and lead to accidents). While it is legal for you to do so you should only use the horn to indicate presence.
  
  It could also be concieved that the offending driver 'slammed on the brakes' after being distracted by being flashed at, which may have in turn caused the 'offending' driver to nearly miss his/her turn, thus requiring the 'offending' driver to brake sharply. Once again, if the following vehicle was giving the vehicle in front a due and safe distance this also would not have been a problem to the following vehicle. Admittedly this scenario is nothing more than conjecture however, as the report itself does not explicitely detail the incident, this hypothesis is as valid as any other!
  
  Section 126 (Stopping Distances) of the Highway Code states:
  Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. You should:
  • Leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance.
  • Allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle in front on roads carrying faster-moving traffic and in tunnels where visibility is reduced. The gap should be at least doubled on wet roads and increased still further on icy roads.
  
  As section 126 states, if the following vehicle was travelling at a safe distance, and therefore having ample time to stop or slow down, there would have been absolutely no need to alert (by any method) the 'offending' vehicle of his/her presence upon it executing an unexpected manouvre.
  
  My complaint with this report is that it is ambiguous itself and strikes me as nothing more than the whinging of an "Holier than thou" ******** who, having such a sad and pathetic empty life, has nothing better to do than 'report' a trivial incident for which he (without even realising it could) appear to be partly at fault!

• Section 113 (Lighting requirements) of the highway code states:
  You MUST:
  • ensure all sidelights and rear registration plate lights are lit between sunset and sunrise
  • use headlights at night, except on a road which has lit street lighting. These roads are generally restricted to a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise specified.
  
  The driver of the Volvo (which always have DRLs/side-lights on) was therefore well within his/her rights to drive with the headlights switched off in an area, as stated in the report, that was lit by street lighting!

• While actually a real report, the incident concerning the police tailgating was offered very much with tongue planted firmly in cheek!

Oh, and it may have been wise to keep your trap shut before telling me I need to read the Highway Code:

I was pegging it @ 110 when you flew past me up the hill.

(http://www.audi-sport.net/vb/showthread.php?t=17366)

Section 124 (Speed Limits) of the Highway Code states:
You MUST NOT exceed the maximum speed limits for the road and for your vehicle.

Or was the reference to 110 meant as km/h? In which case you must have a really slow car if 110km/h (68mph) is "pegging it"!!

And finally...

Its also inciteful to note that you have removed all references to ambiguous registration plates in the quote of my post? Would this have anything to do with the 99 T 1.9 Tdi 110 SE (saloon) you had on a private plate?

I bid you adieu!

 

[fingermouse]

omg do you also spot trains ?????


as for people with fog lights on day or night they are a complete waste of time. Even in the most foggy of conditions they are pretty much u/s. As for foggetting to switch them off ???? looks like most BMW`s have them wired into the ignition.

 

[Shades]

omg do you also spot trains ?????

LOL! I was expecting some comment... but not that quick!

No doubt it won't be the last though!

 

[marms]

Well there is no doubt that Shades does plenty of research on his posts.
Difficult to argue with that response.

 

[fingermouse]

shades whats the highway code distance for fog lights is it something like 20 meters visability ?????

just asking as I was talking with my dad about it the other night lol

 

[marms]

That site does seem to attract anorak users.

I just did a search on my local area and out of the 68 entries found 57 of them were by a single user.

 

[vrbob]

I was more on the funny angle than actually making this into a debate. But i guess it is a tad petty taking down the registrations of all the muppets on the road that annoy you and then spending your spare time logging the incidents on a website. still each to their own and it is quite funny i think.

I have been looking for some of my old registrations for previous cars i owned but still found nothing guess they must all be owned by good responsible drivers now (or of course in a scrap yard somewhere).

 

[Les 51]

Maybe I should be on that site, It annoys the hell out of me following twats with fog lights on! There is no need for front or rear fog lights to be on unless it is very foggy.
IMO if they have them on it makes them a bad driver full stop.

 

[marms]

Maybe I should be on that site, It annoys the hell out of me following twats with fog lights on! There is no need for front or rear fog lights to be on unless it is very foggy.
IMO if they have them on it makes them a bad driver full stop.

if not bad it certainly makes them an inconsiderate driver.

 

[Shades]

shades whats the highway code distance for fog lights is it something like 20 meters visability ?????

just asking as I was talking with my dad about it the other night lol

You may use fog lights only if the visibility is anything less than 100m (328ft). However, use of fog lights during such conditions is by no means a requirement, whereas using your headlights is.

 

[diesel-a4]

i had a read on there and 2 be honest i think some people have feck all else to do but tout on other people. Fair enough if your break the law and what not but some of them reports are just a joke

 

[Shades]

Well there is no doubt that Shades does plenty of research on his posts.
Difficult to argue with that response.

Thanks. Unfortunately the down-side is its due to too much of this:

and not enough of this:

Thats beer... not women!!

 

[Randomjim]

Hello blondie *motorboats*

 

[Shades]

Hello blondie *motorboats*

 

[Bascule]

its neighbourhood watch, curtain 'twitchers', school prefects, geeks who tried and failed to be traffic cops but still covet the uniform, nature's traffic wardens, the slimy kid at college who kept a notebook recording who he had bought drinks for and who still owed some to him, the guys who watch the cctv at the local shopping centre and get excited every time they get to call the shopfloor security on the radio, the 50 something do-gooders from the local church who write letters to the paper about litter without picking any up themselves, the retired middle management who now have nothing better to do than spy on neighbours and smugly score points on their mental tally by gloating over every percieved injustice or infringement of their standards, the annoying girl from primary school who spent every break looking for the 'naughty' boys in order to tell the teacher about, and poorly run management teams all trying to make each other look bad instead of working constructively... it's all of them, rolled up into one

My god, how sad and lonely must someones life be for this kind of thing to be so important to them that they create this kind of site? or even subscribe to it?

We all want safer roads, we all want the dangerous muppets removed, fair enough. But we have to accept with the numbers of cars on the road that we will encounter mixed driving abilities, lapses of judgement, plain and simple accidents, misinterpretation of other drivers actions, signnals, the lot - which is why everyone of us has to be vigilant about out own driving in order to guard against that, and to minimise our own lapses of judgement, cos they WILL happen..

The dangerous or criminal driving should be reported, no question, to those who have the power to do something about it. Whats the point of a site like this though, other than pettyness?

grrr this kind of thing makes me so cross. And the kid at college? yep, when we found his notebook, we counted how many drinks he was owed, took him to the pub and bought him every single one of them, then left him to it..

rant over. (*****, have I just reduced myself to the level of that site with this rant? damn I hope not.. nah, dont think so.. but am definately a grumpy old man now!)

[goes back to sharing randomjim's appreciation of the blonde..]

 

[Onlyme]

Can those dicks get away with Posting your number plate on the web especially if they post a picture as well because surely someone could clone your car.

 

[Shades]

^^^^^^^ Puts "research hat" on again!

 

[TDI-line]

Can those dicks get away with Posting your number plate on the web especially if they post a picture as well because surely someone could clone your car.

Are you feeling alright Bainsy, you made no comment about Heidi and her beer drinking friends...

 

[jdp1962]

I read this thread just after a drive back to London on a rural road where overtaking opportunities are few and far between. For something like 20 miles, I was driving behind someone who drove at 40mph in a 60mph limit, and at 25mph in a 40mph limit. She braked every time a car came the other way, simply because it was there, and on the occasion when my patience finally snapped and I tried a marginal overtaking manouevre, speeded up just enough to leave me high and dry.

This woman probably thinks she is a careful driver but in truth she is a menace whose behaviour should be the subject of a citing on that better driving website. But I can't be @rsed to write it.

 

[auroan]

Shades, you obviously have more time on your hands than I. I prefer to live my life rather than spend all day looking through the forum for quotes etc.

You made some childish remarks on your first post, and some not so childish ones. You had some correct information and spme that I percieved as incorrect.

Plus you can only be a women to bring up posts I made way back in the past to support your arguments... LOL my soon to be ex-wife was good at that.

LOL.

 

[Shades]

I read this thread just after a drive back to London on a rural road where overtaking opportunities are few and far between. For something like 20 miles, I was driving behind someone who drove at 40mph in a 60mph limit, and at 25mph in a 40mph limit. She braked every time a car came the other way, simply because it was there, and on the occasion when my patience finally snapped and I tried a marginal overtaking manouevre, speeded up just enough to leave me high and dry.

This woman probably thinks she is a careful driver but in truth she is a menace whose behaviour should be the subject of a citing on that better driving website. But I can't be @rsed to write it.

As is usual with me please be warned this is a long post but I would like to kindly ask you (all) to take a moment to read it.


Now, I absolutely don't want to get into any argument about this and its absolutely, 100% nothing personal (towards jdp1962) but I would like to take the above quote as an example of why, if posted on the BetterDrivingPlease website, it would be ultimately pointless (like most of the posts on that site)...

Naturally it may be annoying and an inconvenience if the person in front of you is driving below the speed limit but that is something to which they are perfectly entitled, and can quite legally do (unless there is a posted minimum speed limit which, as it is not mentioned, I can only assume there wasn't). The Highway Code (section 146) itself states that the maximum speed limit is not a target and it is often not safe or appropriate to drive at that limit.

Who's to say that this woman did not know the (rural) road and was not comfortable driving at the speed limit where she would present an even greater danger? The Highway code also recommends other drivers make provisions for this by being patient and considerate (section 147)

There is also no information included about road width, weather conditions (Dry? Raining?) and light conditions (Day? Night? Dull? Dusk/Dawn?) which may, or may not, offer an explanation for the constant braking when encountering oncoming traffic. For example; if it was at night or during low light conditions (where cars are required to use their headlights) section 115 of the Highway code recommends you to slow down, and if necessary stop, if you are dazzled by oncoming headlights.

While it is only the womans driving that is being criticised its also interesting to note that if the driver of the vehicle in front is posing a problem by slowing down when encountering traffic this itself would indicate that that the following vehicle is itself too close. The highway code (section 126) advises to leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops.

Its also worth noting that on a road where "overtaking opportunities are few and far between" jdp1962 goes on to say "when my patience finally snapped and I tried a marginal overtaking manouevre...". This itself could be considered a dangerous act and also driving without reasonable consideration for other road users (H/C section 144).

While I am in no way attempting to defend the woman speeding up as she was attempted to be overtaken (if her intention was to prevent the manouevre) but could it not also be concievable that she, just at the same time as it was viewed it to be a 'marginally' safe place to overtake, also viewed it as a safe place to increase her speed?



Like I said, I am by no means attempting to criticise jdp1962's driving. I am merely trying to emphasis why the BetterDrivingPlease website is ultimately, and terminally, flawed due to the hundreds (and hundreds) of 'reports' that are represented in the same manner as jdp1962 posted above. It would just strike me as the whinging of someone who percieved that another driver did not drive to their particular standards, and in fact has nothing to do with the law or the other driver being a particularly bad.

My point is nobody drives like a saint (or largely how they were taught) and nobody follows the highway code to the absolute letter. The thing that annoys me the most is the fact that, as drivers, the contributors to that site are no different to you and I, and probably make exactly the same 'mistakes' on a daily basis too. Who at some point in time hasn't been guilty of driving too close, failing to signal, speeding (even slightly), forgetting to switch off foglights, etc, etc? Nobody is perfect not even, as they would like you to believe, the many pious contributors to BetterDrivingPlease.

I do not begrudge those that post incidents of illegal, dangerous driving (especially those with proof), however most posts to BetterDrivingPlease are nothing more than petty venting of annoyances while others, without actually realising it, incriminate themselves to be equally guilty of bad driving (if the Highway Code is followed to the letter). Then there are the posts about people with ambiguous registration plates, naughty modifications etc which in no shape or form are an indication upon the driving abilities of the owners and absolutely should not be included in a website designed to highlight bad drivers.

It also worries me that the contributions cannot be verified (unless accompanied by photographic evidence) and are open to abuse by bias, omissions, grudges or can even be completely made up!


I know this has been a long post but thank you to all that have taken the time to read it. Your opinions will be looked forward to!

 

[Shades]

you obviously have more time on your hands than I. I prefer to live my life rather than spend all day looking through the forum for quotes etc.

I'm a DJ, I have far too much time on my hands! I don't actually spend all day looking for quotes, I don't need to... I'm that good. However I'm, obviously, not very modest!

You made some childish remarks on your first post, and some not so childish ones.

That was however the point! Most of the posts I highlighted from BetterDrivingPlease site are nothing more than petty, childish and quite frankly stupid, so I was responding likewise.

Plus you can only be a women to bring up posts I made way back in the past to support your arguments... LOL my soon to be ex-wife was good at that.

I nearly pee'd myself laughing when I read that! I am in fact male but I, as do most men, perfectly understand what you're saying!

:thumbsup:

 

[james0808]

Holy **** shades,do you know how long it just took me to read all that.I thought your first post was quite funny though.
But can we have more finds like this...

The blonde not the other 2 muts.

 

[james0808]

My point is nobody drives like a saint!

This guy does......

:icon_thumright:

 

[Shades]

^^^^^^^ takes "research hat" off

Can those dicks get away with Posting your number plate on the web especially if they post a picture.

Unfortunately, yes.

After failing to find a Privacy Policy (which all websites, organisations and businesses that collect Personal Data are required to) on BetterDrivingPlease I found something that reveals that they (well, quite obviously their solicitors) are well aware of the legalities of what they are doing. As a result nothing they collect or publish is covered by Privacy or Data Protection laws (so they don't actually need a Privacy Policy). As a result there is also no requirement to provide a mechanism for you to be able to have your details removed from the site.

Not willing to take just their word for it I did my own digging...

Your car registration, which is in the public domain (i.e. on show for all to see), cannot be classed as personal data under the Data Protection Act which means they can legally post car registrations. Posting a description of your vehicle is also legal as this too is on display for all to see.

The publication of recognisable photographs taken in a public place is not classed as an invasion of privacy (as suggested on the BetterDrivingPlease website) as, in a public place, there can be no invasion of privacy. The publishing of recognisable photographs is actually covered by the Data Protection Act, which makes it unlawful for an individual, organisation or company to store or publish recognisable photographs of an individual without proper authorisation. The only exceptions to this are if the photographs are to be used for journalistic or artistic purposes, neither of which BetterDrivingPlease can claim to be. To get around this they mask the face of all recognisable individuals in all photographs provided as 'evidence'.

They are also not allowed to mention names (again, protected by the Data Protection Act) even if they know them. Likewise they are not allowed to mention house numbers, although street names are acceptable. For example a contributor can say "The vehicle pulled onto the drive of a house in John Smith Street". However this is still very much a grey area as it could potentially identify the property at which the driver resides, which is as effective as actually mentioning the house number.

 

[Shades]

But can we have more finds like this...

[Picture of nice blonde bird with large beer]

Hows this?

 

[james0808]

Nice jugs.:icon_thumright:

 

[treblesykes]

what a load of bull , shades should stfu and stick to posting pictures

 

[Shades]

what a load of bull , shades should stfu and stick to posting pictures

What a charming range of vocabulary you have! Posts like that should have no place on A-S.net.

I will be quite happy to accept I am wrong if you can prove so in a polite and civilised manner. Until then I kindly ask that you please refrain from being very offensive for no particular reason.

 

[Onlyme]

Are you feeling alright Bainsy, you made no comment about Heidi and her beer drinking friends...

LOL straight up i missed that picture last night and was scrolling down and saw it tonight and thought F--king lovely blondie with a nice bit of tit on display only a little bit but its still a bit of tit and I like tits

 

[AndyMac]

Holy **** shades,do you know how long it just took me to read all that.I thought your first post was quite funny though.
But can we have more finds like this...

The blonde not the other 2 muts.

Come on now, the one at the far end is excellent also.

 

[Onlyme]

^^^^^^^ takes "research hat" off



Unfortunately, yes.

After failing to find a Privacy Policy (which all websites, organisations and businesses that collect Personal Data are required to) on BetterDrivingPlease I found something that reveals that they (well, quite obviously their solicitors) are well aware of the legalities of what they are doing. As a result nothing they collect or publish is covered by Privacy or Data Protection laws (so they don't actually need a Privacy Policy). As a result there is also no requirement to provide a mechanism for you to be able to have your details removed from the site.

Not willing to take just their word for it I did my own digging...

Your car registration, which is in the public domain (i.e. on show for all to see), cannot be classed as personal data under the Data Protection Act which means they can legally post car registrations. Posting a description of your vehicle is also legal as this too is on display for all to see.

The publication of recognisable photographs taken in a public place is not classed as an invasion of privacy (as suggested on the BetterDrivingPlease website) as, in a public place, there can be no invasion of privacy. The publishing of recognisable photographs is actually covered by the Data Protection Act, which makes it unlawful for an individual, organisation or company to store or publish recognisable photographs of an individual without proper authorisation. The only exceptions to this are if the photographs are to be used for journalistic or artistic purposes, neither of which BetterDrivingPlease can claim to be. To get around this they mask the face of all recognisable individuals in all photographs provided as 'evidence'.

They are also not allowed to mention names (again, protected by the Data Protection Act) even if they know them. Likewise they are not allowed to mention house numbers, although street names are acceptable. For example a contributor can say "The vehicle pulled onto the drive of a house in John Smith Street". However this is still very much a grey area as it could potentially identify the property at which the driver resides, which is as effective as actually mentioning the house number.

Well If ever my car goes on that anorak site with all my cars details so that some low classed **** wipe clones my motor and i start to get parking tickets etc I will take those barstards too court no matter what thats site solicitors state, I would get that Nick Freeman think thats his name on the case and hopefully those sad anorak wearing tree hugging lets not polute the world with petrol fumes save the world, save the whale, save the polar bears hippies will be forced to close it down and go do something worthwhile with there lives like help others in there communities rather than driving around like goons winding other road users within there communities up.
If those goons want to make a difference then go help homeless people or people struggling to makes ends meet rather than acting like they are holyier than though. WAKERS every one of them if some has driven that bad that they feel they need to act then tell the police also why those dicks are taking down details are there minds on the road or on there notes, I can see a report on there soon moaning about someone not indicating to come out of a junction and whilst i was taking down notes about this idiot not using his indicators i accidentally ran down a five year child that had run out in front of me.
So your not allowed to have a website telling people whoes a padeophile in your area but you can have a web site that can give a crook enough details to clone your motor priceless

 

[Onlyme]

Come on now, the one at the far end is excellent also.

Are they all midgets because those pint glasses look massive