Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Mar 25, 2019 13:44

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 02:16 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
Thatsnews wrote:
crw wrote:
Can the lawyers in this forum tell us, if it is against the law to name a motor vehicle and not the driver?

Which is what the report bad driving blogs/forums is doing, naming a vehicle and not a person.


If you identify something which could identify someone then that would be potential grounds for either a slander or a libel action.

I am not a lawyer, though I did study some law at college in a time that was far, far away.

If a car driver breaks the law and you get one digit of the plate wrong and thus make an accidental false report. Or someone could make up a deliberate false report to get back at someone.

These site are, IMO, (and remember I am not a lawyer!) potentially dangerous.


I am assuming the chap means reporting on the internet and not to the :stop: :bib: :popcorn:

If the car trigs a camera - the registered keeper is notified by virtue of the routine check to Swansea's database :popcorn: (which may not be 100% accurate .. about 95% given some 5% of "terminal chavs" do not register the chuckaways and some vehicles can be "cloned". Fortunately this last one is not quite as widespread as it once was.. :popcorn: - but it would be naive to pretend it does not occur. :popcorn:

The driver may not necessarily be the "registered keeper". OK .. so if it's a hired car.. or leased company car.. there is a paper trail which can lead to the identity of the driver. This works in the case of a NIP and even better if :twisted: collared by a REAL :stop: :bib: :wink: :popcorn:

But where there is no log . kept - pool cars used by small firms come to mind - along with the family who share the driving and honestly cannot recall at which point they changed over as it never occurred to them one of their party might do "something daft" are some ways in which merely reporting a vehicle being "perceived as being driven poorly" and thus merely placing its details on a website and thus providing the means to identify only the registered keeper and not necesarily the driver could be argued as a tort in the civil courts as it can be construed as infringing a basic human right to being assumed innccent unless proven or confessing otherwise via a properly issued NIP :wink: This latter may be a fair cop or be admitted under duress dependent on the recipient's "perception" :wink: of the NIP :popcorn: :wink:




A vehicle may be reported by two uniformed officers whose professional assessment (and may or may bot be backed by photographic evidence - but is preferable :wink: and essential if a lone :bib: :stop: :popcorn: (why the apple case had the helicopter photos :wink:)

We have the means to trace the driver and ask the right kind of questions and charge if an offence has in fact been committed.



If the vehicle's details are placed on an internet site with malicious intent to harrass the owner of said vehicle.. then this could potentially be a criminal offence. But this would perhaps not be the only item of evidence in such a case as burdens of proof have to be able to prove guilt beyond reasoned doubt.


There is also the problem of a digit being transposed or partial recollection of the registration, mix-ups and confusion over make and model.... all of which can create what civil law calls a "tort" if an innocent party is "injured" by the posting of the details onto a website. "Injury" is not just the result of being "run over by accident". It also refers to "a party being wronged - as in defamed or falsely accused of something"

You would be surprised how often witnesses to any incident deviate and gt things wrong. That's why we take a number of statements and re-interview to sort out all inconsistencies in the accounts :wink:


Thus identifying a car on a website can perhaps infringe "law of tort" :wink: You are far better off reporting to the police who might just be able to do something about it and be on the alert for any daftness its "driver may do".

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 03:27 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
Bloody 'ell! Now you have done it! The law of tort. Or tort-ure as it was know to us as students! :lol:

I think crw was referring to "grass someone up" websites. Not to "real" law people. :D

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 15:49 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 18:34
Posts: 90
Thatsnews wrote:
crw wrote:
Can the lawyers in this forum tell us, if it is against the law to name a motor vehicle and not the driver?

Which is what the report bad driving blogs/forums is doing, naming a vehicle and not a person.


If you identify something which could identify someone then that would be potential grounds for either a slander or a libel action.

I am not a lawyer, though I did study some law at college in a time that was far, far away.

If a car driver breaks the law and you get one digit of the plate wrong and thus make an accidental false report. Or someone could make up a deliberate false report to get back at someone.

These site are, IMO, (and remember I am not a lawyer!) potentially dangerous.



So what you are saying thatsnew if you named a vehicle (but not a person by name say Joe Blow) you are breaking the law?

Any links to the law in all the countries to prove this?

As some law at college in a time that was far, far away does not mean you know the law about slander and libel, especially as you didn't tell us what area of law you studied.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 15:52 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 18:34
Posts: 90
So I guess with the slow, no or poor replies especially from thatsnew it is not against the law, to name a vehicle in public?

And I don't mean naming your vehicle say Herbie.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 15:58 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 18:34
Posts: 90
MrsMiggins wrote:
crw wrote:
Can the lawyers in this forum tell us, if it is against the law to name a motor vehicle and not the driver?


Is it against what law? In what context?

Your question doesn't make sense without more detail.

If your question is wrt to responding to a S172 request then yes, you have to name the driver. If it's just wrt the Better Driving Please website you can name every driver and/or every vehicle in the UK if you like, as that site has nothing to do with the law so there's nothing to be 'against' in that context.


If you cannot understand a simple question Mrs, even more details would be harder for you?

And your comments doesn't make sense as what is a S172 and what has a S172 got to do with a dangerous driving web site naming vehicles?

Also so naming a person in public say a bad driving site is not slander or libel?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Thanks In Gear :-)
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 16:06 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 18:34
Posts: 90
In gear thanks for your detail comments :)

But should we report it to The Police, when they say they have to be there to see it?

And what about The Police where they get the public to report dangerous driving online, you might have it in for your ex and report them?

But then again vehicles being video tape on TV showing the number plates, are the TV Channels breaking the law?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thanks In Gear :-)
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 00:16 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940
crw wrote:
In gear thanks for your detail comments :)

But should we report it to The Police, when they say they have to be there to see it?

And what about The Police where they get the public to report dangerous driving online, you might have it in for your ex and report them?

But then again vehicles being video tape on TV showing the number plates, are the TV Channels breaking the law?



Ach! I should leave to IG who know what he talk about from knowledge/expertise.

Ja.. I know what you mean by Police have to see it. I think this where IG''s patch might have the "sharpened scalpel" :wink: or .. "bludgeoning baton" ..or "teasing taser" ..even.. :popcorn:


I try to say .. if they are "ubiquitous". .. they see a lot. :wink: It does work in all reality. I want more real police. They re-assure me.. comfort me.. I have nothing to fear from them after all. I am a wild feline in that I speak my mind :lol: = but law abiding :rotfl: all the same :lol:

I think police, CPS/Defence team und the courts do .. in a benign state :wink: look at the evidence as presented.


I note on the popular progs that if person convicted .. reg plate not hidden. If "proceeding" .. they are blurred :popcorn:

I note this.. I am sure others must do likewise.

BUT .. car might be sold on. Has then a stigma .. so perhaps the progs should blur out all data like that.

It just a thought. :wink:

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien
!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:15 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
crw wrote:
So I guess with the slow, no or poor replies especially from thatsnew it is not against the law, to name a vehicle in public?

And I don't mean naming your vehicle say Herbie.


It could be illegal on the following grounds:

If you identify a car as being driven illegally (and it is not) and the vehicle is owned and driven by a particular driver then actions for slander and libel could be launched by the owner/driver of the vehicle.

That is British law. Other countries law's may be different.

A curious point about British law is that even if what you allege about a person is true you can still be sued for libel. And might be found guilty.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:01 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 08:57
Posts: 90
Location: South East England
Thatsnews wrote:

A curious point about British law is that even if what you allege about a person is true you can still be sued for libel. And might be found guilty.


Do you have a source for that?

I only ask because I was always told that the best defence against libel is to prove that the statement is true. (Not always easy)

As a background...

A defamatory statement either:
1. lowers the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally (Sim v Stretch (1936)); or
2. causes him to be shunned or avoided; or
3. is to a person's discredit (Youssoupoff v MGM (1934)).

Strictly, a libel is a defamatory statement to which there is no defence. A libel is, therefore, a narrower notion than a defamatory statement
Truth (justification) is a complete defence in defamation
It follows that a defamatory statement which is proved to be true is not a libel. It can remain defamatory.
(Courtesy of swarb.co.uk)

Although I understand that their are always oddities in case law over the years and you may well have some extra info on your example.

_________________
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 03:18 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
Beamer wrote:
Thatsnews wrote:

A curious point about British law is that even if what you allege about a person is true you can still be sued for libel. And might be found guilty.


Do you have a source for that?

I only ask because I was always told that the best defence against libel is to prove that the statement is true. (Not always easy)

As a background...

A defamatory statement either:
1. lowers the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally (Sim v Stretch (1936)); or
2. causes him to be shunned or avoided; or
3. is to a person's discredit (Youssoupoff v MGM (1934)).

Strictly, a libel is a defamatory statement to which there is no defence. A libel is, therefore, a narrower notion than a defamatory statement
Truth (justification) is a complete defence in defamation
It follows that a defamatory statement which is proved to be true is not a libel. It can remain defamatory.
(Courtesy of swarb.co.uk)

Although I understand that their are always oddities in case law over the years and you may well have some extra info on your example.


OK, let's suppose that someone calls a homosexual a "&^%$ing queer."
Now the defence would be that, although an offensive term it was accurate in that the person is gay.

However, it would be actionable as slander or libel even though, in effect, the allegation was true. This would I think drift off into the realms of defamation.

I got rid of all of my law books many years ago. :) This seems an interesting primer http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A1183394

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 09:01 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 18:34
Posts: 90
Thatsnews wrote:
crw wrote:
So I guess with the slow, no or poor replies especially from thatsnew it is not against the law, to name a vehicle in public?

And I don't mean naming your vehicle say Herbie.


It could be illegal on the following grounds:

If you identify a car as being driven illegally (and it is not) and the vehicle is owned and driven by a particular driver then actions for slander and libel could be launched by the owner/driver of the vehicle.

That is British law. Other countries law's may be different.

A curious point about British law is that even if what you allege about a person is true you can still be sued for libel. And might be found guilty.


Sorry thatsnew your own opinion is not proof that someone or a web site naming a vehicle (not a person) is breaking the law, so any links to the law would help?

But then again if you actually read people comments before replying, weren't we talking about naming a vehicle, not the driver by name as you seen to be going on about in your comments with no links to the law?

PS Tell us again, why did you leave or drop out of the law course?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 09:07 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 18:34
Posts: 90
Thatsnews wrote:
Beamer wrote:
Thatsnews wrote:

A curious point about British law is that even if what you allege about a person is true you can still be sued for libel. And might be found guilty.


Do you have a source for that?

I only ask because I was always told that the best defence against libel is to prove that the statement is true. (Not always easy)

As a background...

A defamatory statement either:
1. lowers the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally (Sim v Stretch (1936)); or
2. causes him to be shunned or avoided; or
3. is to a person's discredit (Youssoupoff v MGM (1934)).

Strictly, a libel is a defamatory statement to which there is no defence. A libel is, therefore, a narrower notion than a defamatory statement
Truth (justification) is a complete defence in defamation
It follows that a defamatory statement which is proved to be true is not a libel. It can remain defamatory.
(Courtesy of swarb.co.uk)

Although I understand that their are always oddities in case law over the years and you may well have some extra info on your example.


OK, let's suppose that someone calls a homosexual a "&^%$ing queer."
Now the defence would be that, although an offensive term it was accurate in that the person is gay.

However, it would be actionable as slander or libel even though, in effect, the allegation was true. This would I think drift off into the realms of defamation.

I got rid of all of my law books many years ago. :) This seems an interesting primer http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A1183394


Thatsnew,
Using a media site to prove naming a vehicle (not a person) is against the law?

What no links to law sites to prove you are right (or wrong), that naming a vehicle (not a person) is against the law?

Better tell my friends not to name their vehicles Herbie?

;-)

And common sense, reality and research would tell you what is in your law books years ago, is not always what is the law today.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:57 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
Quote:
OK, let's suppose that someone calls a homosexual a "&^%$ing queer."


And that statement would also be an offence under the sexual discrimination act (Oct2003) !

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 16:13 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
crw wrote:
Thatsnews wrote:
Beamer wrote:
Thatsnews wrote:

A curious point about British law is that even if what you allege about a person is true you can still be sued for libel. And might be found guilty.


Do you have a source for that?

I only ask because I was always told that the best defence against libel is to prove that the statement is true. (Not always easy)

As a background...

A defamatory statement either:
1. lowers the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally (Sim v Stretch (1936)); or
2. causes hm to be shunned or avoided; or
3. is to a person's discredit (Youssoupoff v MGM (1934)).

Strictly, a libel is a defamatory statement to which there is no defence. A libel is, therefore, a narrower notion than a defamatory statement
Truth (justification) is a complete defence in defamation
It follows that a defamatory statement which is proved to be true is not a libel. It can remain defamatory.
(Courtesy of swarb.co.uk)

Although I understand that their are always oddities in case law over the years and you may well have some extra info on your example.


OK, let's suppose that someone calls a homosexual a "&^%$ing queer."
Now the defence would be that, although an offensive term it was accurate in that the person is gay.

However, it would be actionable as slander or libel even though, in effect, the allegation was true. This would I think drift off into the realms of defamation.

I got rid of all of my law books many years ago. :) This seems an interesting primer http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A1183394


Thatsnew,
Using a media site to prove naming a vehicle (not a person) is against the law?

What no links to law sites to prove you are right (or wrong), that naming a vehicle (not a person) is against the law?

Better tell my friends not to name their vehicles Herbie?

;-)

And common sense, reality and research would tell you what is in your law books years ago, is not always what is the law today.


crw, why do you think that many journalists in the UK do not get sued for libel and defamation? It is because the knowledge of most journalists is equal to or better than most solicitors, on this part of the law. It has to be. It means life is easier!:)

crw, I will forgive you your ignorance as to the purpose of the site I chose to cite. I had hoped the site I chose to cite would be insightful and give insight, but perhaps it did not. :wink:

By the way, in the UK law is based on case law, meaning that previous legal decisions -even those dating back hundreds of years- MUST be taken into consideration when judges rule on law today. So the law does not change as much as you'd think.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 17:02 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 18:34
Posts: 90
Thatsnews wrote:

crw, why do you think that many journalists in the UK do not get sued for libel and defamation? It is because the knowledge of most journalists is equal to or better than most solicitors, on this part of the law. It has to be. It means life is easier!:)

crw, I will forgive you your ignorance as to the purpose of the site I chose to cite. I had hoped the site I chose to cite would be insightful and give insight, but perhaps it did not. :wink:

By the way, in the UK law is based on case law, meaning that previous legal decisions -even those dating back hundreds of years- MUST be taken into consideration when judges rule on law today. So the law does not change as much as you'd think.


thatsnew why are you ducking and weaving by changing the subject and are ignorance of what we are talking about, scare to admit the truth that you know fluck all when it comes to the law especially in claiming "So the law does not change as much as you'd think" without proof of this.

Because as you can see we are talking about naming a vehicle, you know those things with 3, 4 or more wheels, we are not talking about drivers or journalists like you.

So perhaps to make life easier you better not write any longer, as you have proven many times you never ever give a meaningful insight especially when reality is concerned?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 17:07 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 18:34
Posts: 90
thatsnew thinks a media site would be insightful and give insight?

I guess this is where they get all their information from and would claim in court, this is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 18:00 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
crw wrote:
thatsnew thinks a media site would be insightful and give insight?

I guess this is where they get all their information from and would claim in court, this is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?


Pssst! You have been sussed, crw! :lol:

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 18:46 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 18:34
Posts: 90
Thatsnews wrote:
crw wrote:
thatsnew thinks a media site would be insightful and give insight?

I guess this is where they get all their information from and would claim in court, this is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?


Pssst! You have been sussed, crw! :lol:



Pssst, anyone has sussed you long ago that you lie, you think a media site would be insightful and give insight, you know nothing about the law, you think we are talking about naming a driver when we are not etc etc. thatsnew! :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 03:07 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
crw wrote:
Thatsnews wrote:
crw wrote:
thatsnew thinks a media site would be insightful and give insight?

I guess this is where they get all their information from and would claim in court, this is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?


Pssst! You have been sussed, crw! :lol:



Pssst, anyone has sussed you long ago that you lie, you think a media site would be insightful and give insight, you know nothing about the law, you think we are talking about naming a driver when we are not etc etc. thatsnew! :lol:


OK, I will be kind to you crw, I will explain how it works.:roll:

Let's suppose that a Website, Grassupotherpeople.vom, invites people to grass up car drivers.

Now let us imagine that it is well known that a doctor Dr. Brown-Bear has a car with the personalised plate: Localdoctor.

Let us suppose that someone for a bit of a lark decides to place a fictional report of an incident: "The driver of a blue Ford Probe, car registration localdoctor, broke the speed limit, he ran through a red light, caused me to crash my car into a wall. He drove like he was drunk or drugged up."

Now, all the people who looked at the site who knew Dr Brown-Bear, knew that car registration localdoctor was only ever driven by Dr Brown-Bear. So people presumed that Dr Brown-Bear had driven through a red light, broken the speed limit, driven so badly that he had caused another car to crash and that he was driving whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Thus by naming the type of car and the car registration plate details, they would have identified Dr Brown-Bear as the person driving. Thus there would be a prima facie case for libel and defamation.

Do you understand it NOW, crw?

Perhaps in your country the laws of libel are not quite so well-codified as they are in Britain. Or perhaps your country does not have a law of libel that we would recognise as being a law of libel in the UK? Oh well, each to their own, I suppose.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 17:32 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 18:34
Posts: 90
Thatsnews wrote:
crw wrote:
Thatsnews wrote:
crw wrote:
thatsnew thinks a media site would be insightful and give insight?

I guess this is where they get all their information from and would claim in court, this is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?


Pssst! You have been sussed, crw! :lol:



Pssst, anyone has sussed you long ago that you lie, you think a media site would be insightful and give insight, you know nothing about the law, you think we are talking about naming a driver when we are not etc etc. thatsnew! :lol:


OK, I will be kind to you crw, I will explain how it works.:roll:

Let's suppose that a Website, Grassupotherpeople.vom, invites people to grass up car drivers.

Now let us imagine that it is well known that a doctor Dr. Brown-Bear has a car with the personalised plate: Localdoctor.

Let us suppose that someone for a bit of a lark decides to place a fictional report of an incident: "The driver of a blue Ford Probe, car registration localdoctor, broke the speed limit, he ran through a red light, caused me to crash my car into a wall. He drove like he was drunk or drugged up."

Now, all the people who looked at the site who knew Dr Brown-Bear, knew that car registration localdoctor was only ever driven by Dr Brown-Bear. So people presumed that Dr Brown-Bear had driven through a red light, broken the speed limit, driven so badly that he had caused another car to crash and that he was driving whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Thus by naming the type of car and the car registration plate details, they would have identified Dr Brown-Bear as the person driving. Thus there would be a prima facie case for libel and defamation.

Do you understand it NOW, crw?

Perhaps in your country the laws of libel are not quite so well-codified as they are in Britain. Or perhaps your country does not have a law of libel that we would recognise as being a law of libel in the UK? Oh well, each to their own, I suppose.


Thastnew do you understand reality?

Do you really think in this real world the type of car and the car registration plate details, would identified every single person driving that certain vehicle?

What about others drivers that are not on the the car registration plate details, like a car thief are they on the car registration plate details?

And from this I also understand now, in the past and in the future, you do not understand that we are (except you) are talking about naming a vehicle like the number plate, colour, type etc.

We are not talking about the driver by the person name.

So perhaps before replying again, you read comments to see what others are talking about (naming vehicles), is clearly not what you are going on about (naming drivers)?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.398s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]