idiot biker

[fizzwheel]

I dont know if Id say anything, but BluePete being a traffic officer IMHO is well within his rights to pull that person over and have a word or take further action.

Surely common sense tells you that if the pilion seat is there then thats a more suitable place to sit your child rather than the fuel tank. Perhaps the child is sat on the tank because he's to short to reach the pillion pegs ? Or he wont sit still or do as he's told, which IMHO means he's to young to be out on that bike with his dad.

Is it not just a novelty tankbag?

Definitely an idiot, just look as those chicken strips and as for that far out helmet... And apart from that the kid will ruin the paint work

Originally Posted by muffles

I think there's a fine line between doing the right thing and poking your nose in other people's business, but I have to say I think (from the evidence) the guy has crossed it. This is purely because it is a child, i.e. someone who isn't able to (or the law deems not able to - let's assume that's reasonable for this discussion) decide for himself if it's safe, etc. If it was another guy on the front I wouldn't care.

The child already has someone to decide what's safe - his (I presume) father. Most people would argue that his father's seriously lacking common sense, and probably rightly so. But if anyone thinks that the government holds the monopoly on common sense then you're naive, and if you think that they know anything about caring for kids, given their record, then you're quite mad.

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

The child already has someone to decide what's safe - his (I presume) father. Most people would argue that his father's seriously lacking common sense, and probably rightly so. But if anyone thinks that the government holds the monopoly on common sense then you're naive, and if you think that they know anything about caring for kids, given their record, then you're quite mad.

Not sure where the Govt crops up here except that they are often instrumental in making law but I think the majority of level headed people would say that this action is both dangerous and stupid and has little regard for safety of the kid or other road users. After all Hovis's mate could have fallen off his bike taking this picture as he took the outside line to get a better shot

Originally Posted by skint

After all Hovis's mate could have fallen off his bike taking this picture as he took the outside line to get a better shot

I actually thought he was driving a bus full of school kids at the time

[G]

Originally Posted by carlos

I actually thought he was driving a bus full of school kids at the time

And all the kids were taking there pet puppies and kittens to school for show and tell

[Sid Squid]

FWIW: Chap in picture = knob.

But the reason this is now a narky thread is simply because there is a child involved, stop emoting people and start thinking instead.

However alighting on this is, for me, impossible without comment. Note this has nothing to do with anyone's opinion on the above matter.

Originally Posted by BluePete

It's my damn right to impose the LAW.

It most emphatically is not, it is your job as a functionary to ADMINISTER the law according to your legally granted powers, the decision as to whether you might have been right to do so or not is fortunately not yours, it's to be decided upon by a magistrate or court.

Originally Posted by BluePete

I CAN and WILL impose my morality on this man.

Which would be an horrific abuse of your position. You're employed to administer the law, not your feelings on the subject.

Originally Posted by BluePete

Now come back with a response that shows you have a spine.

Rude, no better no worse, no argument no excuse. Don't have a reasoned reply? - don't reply.

Originally Posted by Sid Squid

But the reason this is now a narky thread is simply because there is a child involved, stop emoting people and start thinking instead.

Yes, it is a bit narky in places due to emotive posts and if it was the guys wife on the tank we'd probably all be falling about laughing, but be careful not to fall into the trap of assuming that because a post is emotive, it hasn't been thought about.

Especially in people that are quite emotional characters, they could step back and think about it for days, and still come up with the same conclusion as that first emotive response. It's not necessarily a blinkered response, it's just that sometimes the head and the heart agree.

Perhaps you are just the type of person who finds it easier to separate your emotions from your grey matter? I don't know you from Adam and its not my place to make any such assumption.

I would imagine however, a lot of folk could read back their posts on here, think about them in a considered manner, and come back saying "I still agree with what I wrote the first time".

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

Yes, it is a bit narky in places due to emotive posts, but be careful not to fall into the trap of assuming that because a post is emotive, it hasn't been thought about.

Especially in people that are quite emotional characters, they could step back and think about it for days, and still come up with the same conclusion as that first emotive response. It's not necessarily a blinkered response, it's just that sometimes the head and the heart agree.

Perhaps you are just the type of person who finds it easier to separate your emotions from your grey matter?

I would imagine a lot of folk could read back their posts on here, think about them in a considered manner, and come back saying "I still agree with what I wrote the first time".

Just because someone spends time to think over something doesn't necessarily mean that spent that time reasoning over it.