VIDEO: Watch moment large road sweeper collides with parked car in Blackburn - then drives off

CCTV from a house in Coniston Road, Blackburn

CCTV from a house in Coniston Road, Blackburn

First published in News
Last updated
Lancashire Telegraph: Photograph of the Author by , Crime reporter

THIS is the moment a road sweeper collided with a car parked at the side of the road.

CCTV from a house in Coniston Road, Blackburn, shows how the yellow Charlton Sweeper Hire vehicle struck a stationary Volkswagen Golf, and dragged it a short distance before slowing down and then driving off.

The daughter of the woman who owns the car said she was ‘fuming’ that it might now have to be written off.

The 31-year-old mother-of-one, who is seven months pregnant, said she had been visiting an ill relative when the crash happened.

She said: “I just kept watching the CCTV over and over again. I just could not believe it.

“By the time the sweeper had finished with my car, one of the wheels was on the pavement.

“I am really upset and annoyed. The sweeper didn’t just sweep the road, it swept up our car too.”

The motorist’s insurance company has been assessing the damage, although she has been told the car could have to be written off because when the car was dragged, the suspension was damaged.

It is understood the sweeper also scratched two other cars.

The police were called and an investigation was launched.

A spokesman for Charlton Sweeper Hire, in Bolton, said: “I have been in contact with the police and it is being dealt with by the police.”

A spokeswoman for Lancashire Police said: “We got a call to Coniston Road following the report of a damage only road traffic collision.

“The informant reported a truck had driven down the road and damaged several vehicles in the street.

“The truck had a logo on it saying Charlton Sweeper Hire.”

Comments (58)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:36am Wed 20 Aug 14

BuckoTheMoose says...

"The 31-year-old mother-of-one, who is seven months pregnant, said she had been visiting an ill relative when the crash happened. "

Alright, don't milk it. You'll get your payout.
"The 31-year-old mother-of-one, who is seven months pregnant, said she had been visiting an ill relative when the crash happened. " Alright, don't milk it. You'll get your payout. BuckoTheMoose
  • Score: 39

8:24am Wed 20 Aug 14

A Darener says...

A few years ago a BwD small road sweeper was brushing the pavement outside my house when he reversed into a lamp standard and brought it down. He left it laying across the road with the electrics exposed, just the job for any curious school child passing. He then left. After ringing the council it hadn't even been reported by the driver. These left hand drive vehicles are a menace.
A few years ago a BwD small road sweeper was brushing the pavement outside my house when he reversed into a lamp standard and brought it down. He left it laying across the road with the electrics exposed, just the job for any curious school child passing. He then left. After ringing the council it hadn't even been reported by the driver. These left hand drive vehicles are a menace. A Darener
  • Score: 31

8:36am Wed 20 Aug 14

mark anthony says...

Talk about milking it! Get over it. Could have been worse a lot worse children playing on the street lose ball ect headlines could have all been different
Talk about milking it! Get over it. Could have been worse a lot worse children playing on the street lose ball ect headlines could have all been different mark anthony
  • Score: -29

8:48am Wed 20 Aug 14

Moomin23 says...

To play Devil's Advocate, I'm sure the insurance company will be on the ball enough to notice the car is not only illegally parked by having a rear wheel on the kerb, but is also illegally double parked. I think she'll be lucky to get away with anything!
To play Devil's Advocate, I'm sure the insurance company will be on the ball enough to notice the car is not only illegally parked by having a rear wheel on the kerb, but is also illegally double parked. I think she'll be lucky to get away with anything! Moomin23
  • Score: -56

9:00am Wed 20 Aug 14

Bellypork says...

Could have done with that sweeper in our defence last night.......!
Could have done with that sweeper in our defence last night.......! Bellypork
  • Score: 26

9:30am Wed 20 Aug 14

haha2013 says...

Moomin23 wrote:
To play Devil's Advocate, I'm sure the insurance company will be on the ball enough to notice the car is not only illegally parked by having a rear wheel on the kerb, but is also illegally double parked. I think she'll be lucky to get away with anything!
not sure about the double parking but if you watch the footage you will see she was not parked with the rear wheel on the kerb - it was dragged into that position
[quote][p][bold]Moomin23[/bold] wrote: To play Devil's Advocate, I'm sure the insurance company will be on the ball enough to notice the car is not only illegally parked by having a rear wheel on the kerb, but is also illegally double parked. I think she'll be lucky to get away with anything![/p][/quote]not sure about the double parking but if you watch the footage you will see she was not parked with the rear wheel on the kerb - it was dragged into that position haha2013
  • Score: 78

9:42am Wed 20 Aug 14

Grumpy_Northener says...

Ok the road sweeper should not have driven off, but there is no way that a fire engine would have got through the gap in an emergency if a road sweeper couldn't. Extremely selfish parking.
Ok the road sweeper should not have driven off, but there is no way that a fire engine would have got through the gap in an emergency if a road sweeper couldn't. Extremely selfish parking. Grumpy_Northener
  • Score: -9

9:46am Wed 20 Aug 14

mark anthony says...

Grumpy_Northener wrote:
Ok the road sweeper should not have driven off, but there is no way that a fire engine would have got through the gap in an emergency if a road sweeper couldn't. Extremely selfish parking.
Female driver. I say no more
[quote][p][bold]Grumpy_Northener[/bold] wrote: Ok the road sweeper should not have driven off, but there is no way that a fire engine would have got through the gap in an emergency if a road sweeper couldn't. Extremely selfish parking.[/p][/quote]Female driver. I say no more mark anthony
  • Score: -36

9:46am Wed 20 Aug 14

mark anthony says...

Grumpy_Northener wrote:
Ok the road sweeper should not have driven off, but there is no way that a fire engine would have got through the gap in an emergency if a road sweeper couldn't. Extremely selfish parking.
Female driver. I say no more
[quote][p][bold]Grumpy_Northener[/bold] wrote: Ok the road sweeper should not have driven off, but there is no way that a fire engine would have got through the gap in an emergency if a road sweeper couldn't. Extremely selfish parking.[/p][/quote]Female driver. I say no more mark anthony
  • Score: -28

10:07am Wed 20 Aug 14

GracesDad says...

Grumpy_Northener wrote:
Ok the road sweeper should not have driven off, but there is no way that a fire engine would have got through the gap in an emergency if a road sweeper couldn't. Extremely selfish parking.
That isn't the ladys fault. The council should have double yellows painted. She has done nothing wrong at all and whats to say that she wasn't already parked and the other car parked selfishly?

Assume makes an **** of you and me but in this instance, just you!!!
[quote][p][bold]Grumpy_Northener[/bold] wrote: Ok the road sweeper should not have driven off, but there is no way that a fire engine would have got through the gap in an emergency if a road sweeper couldn't. Extremely selfish parking.[/p][/quote]That isn't the ladys fault. The council should have double yellows painted. She has done nothing wrong at all and whats to say that she wasn't already parked and the other car parked selfishly? Assume makes an **** of you and me but in this instance, just you!!! GracesDad
  • Score: 55

10:10am Wed 20 Aug 14

onlyonesimongarner says...

Out of interest , I wonder if the person with the CCTV gotthe permissionof their neighbours to point the camera at their front Windows. CCTV can only cover your own property.
Out of interest , I wonder if the person with the CCTV gotthe permissionof their neighbours to point the camera at their front Windows. CCTV can only cover your own property. onlyonesimongarner
  • Score: -24

10:12am Wed 20 Aug 14

burner says...

moonmin . . . it's not illegal to " double park " . . . . btw . . what do you mean? Never heard of it in the world of Law.
moonmin . . . it's not illegal to " double park " . . . . btw . . what do you mean? Never heard of it in the world of Law. burner
  • Score: 21

10:21am Wed 20 Aug 14

GracesDad says...

onlyonesimongarner wrote:
Out of interest , I wonder if the person with the CCTV gotthe permissionof their neighbours to point the camera at their front Windows. CCTV can only cover your own property.
That's not strictly true.

You would have to prove to the council that the camera was infringing on your privacy and as there are no upstairs windows of the houses opposite on view, this would be very difficult to do.
[quote][p][bold]onlyonesimongarner[/bold] wrote: Out of interest , I wonder if the person with the CCTV gotthe permissionof their neighbours to point the camera at their front Windows. CCTV can only cover your own property.[/p][/quote]That's not strictly true. You would have to prove to the council that the camera was infringing on your privacy and as there are no upstairs windows of the houses opposite on view, this would be very difficult to do. GracesDad
  • Score: 27

10:24am Wed 20 Aug 14

thirdeyevision says...

Moomin23 wrote:
To play Devil's Advocate, I'm sure the insurance company will be on the ball enough to notice the car is not only illegally parked by having a rear wheel on the kerb, but is also illegally double parked. I think she'll be lucky to get away with anything!
She could have been parked in the middle of the road, that does not mean you can go around crashing in to cars. were she was parked does not make a diffrence.
[quote][p][bold]Moomin23[/bold] wrote: To play Devil's Advocate, I'm sure the insurance company will be on the ball enough to notice the car is not only illegally parked by having a rear wheel on the kerb, but is also illegally double parked. I think she'll be lucky to get away with anything![/p][/quote]She could have been parked in the middle of the road, that does not mean you can go around crashing in to cars. were she was parked does not make a diffrence. thirdeyevision
  • Score: 30

10:36am Wed 20 Aug 14

HarryBosch says...

I'm a little exasperated by the negative comments relating to the female driver of the vehicle which has been hit. The fault firmly lies with the sweeper driver, without question. I would throw the book at him/her. Driving without due care and attention, failing to stop after an accident, failure to report an accident etc. BTW double parking is where two vehicles are parked parallel to the same kerb - clearly not the case here.
I'm a little exasperated by the negative comments relating to the female driver of the vehicle which has been hit. The fault firmly lies with the sweeper driver, without question. I would throw the book at him/her. Driving without due care and attention, failing to stop after an accident, failure to report an accident etc. BTW double parking is where two vehicles are parked parallel to the same kerb - clearly not the case here. HarryBosch
  • Score: 59

11:05am Wed 20 Aug 14

ikap22 says...

It looks staged!
It looks staged! ikap22
  • Score: -31

11:09am Wed 20 Aug 14

gazzandste says...

The article states , the truck had damage several vehicles in the street. Sounds like a driver who has had a drink. Why should he do a runner, then damage other vehicles in panic to get away.
The article states , the truck had damage several vehicles in the street. Sounds like a driver who has had a drink. Why should he do a runner, then damage other vehicles in panic to get away. gazzandste
  • Score: 23

11:38am Wed 20 Aug 14

onlyonesimongarner says...

GracesDad wrote:
onlyonesimongarner wrote:
Out of interest , I wonder if the person with the CCTV gotthe permissionof their neighbours to point the camera at their front Windows. CCTV can only cover your own property.
That's not strictly true.

You would have to prove to the council that the camera was infringing on your privacy and as there are no upstairs windows of the houses opposite on view, this would be very difficult to do.
Not entirely true sir. Private property windows should be masked with black blocks on modern systems such as this ( dead easy to do) but there is no law to say that any camera cannot record public access like roads and paths.
[quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]onlyonesimongarner[/bold] wrote: Out of interest , I wonder if the person with the CCTV gotthe permissionof their neighbours to point the camera at their front Windows. CCTV can only cover your own property.[/p][/quote]That's not strictly true. You would have to prove to the council that the camera was infringing on your privacy and as there are no upstairs windows of the houses opposite on view, this would be very difficult to do.[/p][/quote]Not entirely true sir. Private property windows should be masked with black blocks on modern systems such as this ( dead easy to do) but there is no law to say that any camera cannot record public access like roads and paths. onlyonesimongarner
  • Score: 10

11:38am Wed 20 Aug 14

onlyonesimongarner says...

GracesDad wrote:
onlyonesimongarner wrote:
Out of interest , I wonder if the person with the CCTV gotthe permissionof their neighbours to point the camera at their front Windows. CCTV can only cover your own property.
That's not strictly true.

You would have to prove to the council that the camera was infringing on your privacy and as there are no upstairs windows of the houses opposite on view, this would be very difficult to do.
Not entirely true sir. Private property windows should be masked with black blocks on modern systems such as this ( dead easy to do) but there is no law to say that any camera cannot record public access like roads and paths.
[quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]onlyonesimongarner[/bold] wrote: Out of interest , I wonder if the person with the CCTV gotthe permissionof their neighbours to point the camera at their front Windows. CCTV can only cover your own property.[/p][/quote]That's not strictly true. You would have to prove to the council that the camera was infringing on your privacy and as there are no upstairs windows of the houses opposite on view, this would be very difficult to do.[/p][/quote]Not entirely true sir. Private property windows should be masked with black blocks on modern systems such as this ( dead easy to do) but there is no law to say that any camera cannot record public access like roads and paths. onlyonesimongarner
  • Score: 3

11:42am Wed 20 Aug 14

rudis_dad says...

GracesDad wrote:
Grumpy_Northener wrote:
Ok the road sweeper should not have driven off, but there is no way that a fire engine would have got through the gap in an emergency if a road sweeper couldn't. Extremely selfish parking.
That isn't the ladys fault. The council should have double yellows painted. She has done nothing wrong at all and whats to say that she wasn't already parked and the other car parked selfishly?

Assume makes an **** of you and me but in this instance, just you!!!
So in other words, because the council haven't painted double yellows, it absolves you of good manners and consideration for other people does it? i.e. the council have tacitly OK'ed parking like a two-hat?

I'm not condoning what the sweeper driver did, but it was a crappy piece of parking to start with - six of one and half a dozen of the other. I wonder if she'd have been making as much fuss if it was a fire appliance or ambulance that couldn't get through the gap?
[quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grumpy_Northener[/bold] wrote: Ok the road sweeper should not have driven off, but there is no way that a fire engine would have got through the gap in an emergency if a road sweeper couldn't. Extremely selfish parking.[/p][/quote]That isn't the ladys fault. The council should have double yellows painted. She has done nothing wrong at all and whats to say that she wasn't already parked and the other car parked selfishly? Assume makes an **** of you and me but in this instance, just you!!![/p][/quote]So in other words, because the council haven't painted double yellows, it absolves you of good manners and consideration for other people does it? i.e. the council have tacitly OK'ed parking like a two-hat? I'm not condoning what the sweeper driver did, but it was a crappy piece of parking to start with - six of one and half a dozen of the other. I wonder if she'd have been making as much fuss if it was a fire appliance or ambulance that couldn't get through the gap? rudis_dad
  • Score: -12

11:46am Wed 20 Aug 14

GracesDad says...

rudis_dad wrote:
GracesDad wrote:
Grumpy_Northener wrote:
Ok the road sweeper should not have driven off, but there is no way that a fire engine would have got through the gap in an emergency if a road sweeper couldn't. Extremely selfish parking.
That isn't the ladys fault. The council should have double yellows painted. She has done nothing wrong at all and whats to say that she wasn't already parked and the other car parked selfishly?

Assume makes an **** of you and me but in this instance, just you!!!
So in other words, because the council haven't painted double yellows, it absolves you of good manners and consideration for other people does it? i.e. the council have tacitly OK'ed parking like a two-hat?

I'm not condoning what the sweeper driver did, but it was a crappy piece of parking to start with - six of one and half a dozen of the other. I wonder if she'd have been making as much fuss if it was a fire appliance or ambulance that couldn't get through the gap?
As mentioned earlier, what evidence do you have to show that the car on the opposite side of the road was already parked there when she parked?
[quote][p][bold]rudis_dad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grumpy_Northener[/bold] wrote: Ok the road sweeper should not have driven off, but there is no way that a fire engine would have got through the gap in an emergency if a road sweeper couldn't. Extremely selfish parking.[/p][/quote]That isn't the ladys fault. The council should have double yellows painted. She has done nothing wrong at all and whats to say that she wasn't already parked and the other car parked selfishly? Assume makes an **** of you and me but in this instance, just you!!![/p][/quote]So in other words, because the council haven't painted double yellows, it absolves you of good manners and consideration for other people does it? i.e. the council have tacitly OK'ed parking like a two-hat? I'm not condoning what the sweeper driver did, but it was a crappy piece of parking to start with - six of one and half a dozen of the other. I wonder if she'd have been making as much fuss if it was a fire appliance or ambulance that couldn't get through the gap?[/p][/quote]As mentioned earlier, what evidence do you have to show that the car on the opposite side of the road was already parked there when she parked? GracesDad
  • Score: 22

12:24pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Rovers til I cry says...

Aside to the damage, police and councils up and down the country should be knocking on the door of the person with the CCTV to ask where they bought the cameras. Best CCTV picture I have ever seen. If a private property can have such good CCTV why is it not installed in our town !
Aside to the damage, police and councils up and down the country should be knocking on the door of the person with the CCTV to ask where they bought the cameras. Best CCTV picture I have ever seen. If a private property can have such good CCTV why is it not installed in our town ! Rovers til I cry
  • Score: 48

1:40pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Joseph O'M says...

......and that's why cars should be allowed to park slightly on the pavement. Not enough to block wheelchairs, and prams, but enough to allow safe access for larger vehicles.

I feel for the car owner though. It's a massive hassle at 7 months pregnant, and I bet her insurance goes up even though she wasn't at fault.
......and that's why cars should be allowed to park slightly on the pavement. Not enough to block wheelchairs, and prams, but enough to allow safe access for larger vehicles. I feel for the car owner though. It's a massive hassle at 7 months pregnant, and I bet her insurance goes up even though she wasn't at fault. Joseph O'M
  • Score: 11

1:49pm Wed 20 Aug 14

painterman1060 says...

burner wrote:
moonmin . . . it's not illegal to " double park " . . . . btw . . what do you mean? Never heard of it in the world of Law.
The driver should not of drove off he needs sacking . If this was done to anyone's car u would be fuming
[quote][p][bold]burner[/bold] wrote: moonmin . . . it's not illegal to " double park " . . . . btw . . what do you mean? Never heard of it in the world of Law.[/p][/quote]The driver should not of drove off he needs sacking . If this was done to anyone's car u would be fuming painterman1060
  • Score: 18

1:49pm Wed 20 Aug 14

painterman1060 says...

burner wrote:
moonmin . . . it's not illegal to " double park " . . . . btw . . what do you mean? Never heard of it in the world of Law.
The driver should not of drove off he needs sacking . If this was done to anyone's car u would be fuming
[quote][p][bold]burner[/bold] wrote: moonmin . . . it's not illegal to " double park " . . . . btw . . what do you mean? Never heard of it in the world of Law.[/p][/quote]The driver should not of drove off he needs sacking . If this was done to anyone's car u would be fuming painterman1060
  • Score: 8

2:03pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Rovers.1875 says...

GracesDad wrote:
Grumpy_Northener wrote:
Ok the road sweeper should not have driven off, but there is no way that a fire engine would have got through the gap in an emergency if a road sweeper couldn't. Extremely selfish parking.
That isn't the ladys fault. The council should have double yellows painted. She has done nothing wrong at all and whats to say that she wasn't already parked and the other car parked selfishly?

Assume makes an **** of you and me but in this instance, just you!!!
Just to put it out there, he never said in his comment that it was the female driver that was parking extremely selfishly... So assumption has made an a$$ out of you too ;-p
[quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grumpy_Northener[/bold] wrote: Ok the road sweeper should not have driven off, but there is no way that a fire engine would have got through the gap in an emergency if a road sweeper couldn't. Extremely selfish parking.[/p][/quote]That isn't the ladys fault. The council should have double yellows painted. She has done nothing wrong at all and whats to say that she wasn't already parked and the other car parked selfishly? Assume makes an **** of you and me but in this instance, just you!!![/p][/quote]Just to put it out there, he never said in his comment that it was the female driver that was parking extremely selfishly... So assumption has made an a$$ out of you too ;-p Rovers.1875
  • Score: 3

2:08pm Wed 20 Aug 14

GracesDad says...

Rovers.1875 wrote:
GracesDad wrote:
Grumpy_Northener wrote:
Ok the road sweeper should not have driven off, but there is no way that a fire engine would have got through the gap in an emergency if a road sweeper couldn't. Extremely selfish parking.
That isn't the ladys fault. The council should have double yellows painted. She has done nothing wrong at all and whats to say that she wasn't already parked and the other car parked selfishly?

Assume makes an **** of you and me but in this instance, just you!!!
Just to put it out there, he never said in his comment that it was the female driver that was parking extremely selfishly... So assumption has made an a$$ out of you too ;-p
He clearly alludes to the car that got hit being selfishly parked.

Thank you and goodnight :)
[quote][p][bold]Rovers.1875[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grumpy_Northener[/bold] wrote: Ok the road sweeper should not have driven off, but there is no way that a fire engine would have got through the gap in an emergency if a road sweeper couldn't. Extremely selfish parking.[/p][/quote]That isn't the ladys fault. The council should have double yellows painted. She has done nothing wrong at all and whats to say that she wasn't already parked and the other car parked selfishly? Assume makes an **** of you and me but in this instance, just you!!![/p][/quote]Just to put it out there, he never said in his comment that it was the female driver that was parking extremely selfishly... So assumption has made an a$$ out of you too ;-p[/p][/quote]He clearly alludes to the car that got hit being selfishly parked. Thank you and goodnight :) GracesDad
  • Score: -5

2:13pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Rovers.1875 says...

GracesDad wrote:
Rovers.1875 wrote:
GracesDad wrote:
Grumpy_Northener wrote:
Ok the road sweeper should not have driven off, but there is no way that a fire engine would have got through the gap in an emergency if a road sweeper couldn't. Extremely selfish parking.
That isn't the ladys fault. The council should have double yellows painted. She has done nothing wrong at all and whats to say that she wasn't already parked and the other car parked selfishly?

Assume makes an **** of you and me but in this instance, just you!!!
Just to put it out there, he never said in his comment that it was the female driver that was parking extremely selfishly... So assumption has made an a$$ out of you too ;-p
He clearly alludes to the car that got hit being selfishly parked.

Thank you and goodnight :)
I'm not convinced... I still feel you have made some assumption here haha
[quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rovers.1875[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grumpy_Northener[/bold] wrote: Ok the road sweeper should not have driven off, but there is no way that a fire engine would have got through the gap in an emergency if a road sweeper couldn't. Extremely selfish parking.[/p][/quote]That isn't the ladys fault. The council should have double yellows painted. She has done nothing wrong at all and whats to say that she wasn't already parked and the other car parked selfishly? Assume makes an **** of you and me but in this instance, just you!!![/p][/quote]Just to put it out there, he never said in his comment that it was the female driver that was parking extremely selfishly... So assumption has made an a$$ out of you too ;-p[/p][/quote]He clearly alludes to the car that got hit being selfishly parked. Thank you and goodnight :)[/p][/quote]I'm not convinced... I still feel you have made some assumption here haha Rovers.1875
  • Score: -11

2:15pm Wed 20 Aug 14

martin.cat says...

The car is illegally parked where a painted solid whit line is marking a traffic calming hump? However that’s secondary and the road sweeper driver is at fault and should have dealt with the accident at the scene.

As for the CCTV data protection laws need to be adhered and one does wonder if the video should have been put in the public domain especially if it’s to be used as evidence
The car is illegally parked where a painted solid whit line is marking a traffic calming hump? However that’s secondary and the road sweeper driver is at fault and should have dealt with the accident at the scene. As for the CCTV data protection laws need to be adhered and one does wonder if the video should have been put in the public domain especially if it’s to be used as evidence martin.cat
  • Score: 10

2:22pm Wed 20 Aug 14

the beaver says...

onlyonesimongarner wrote:
Out of interest , I wonder if the person with the CCTV gotthe permissionof their neighbours to point the camera at their front Windows. CCTV can only cover your own property.
Looking at the thumbs down people do not mind neighbours filming them. If that was me seeing that I would be asking for it to be moved else I would move it myself its illegal. And the owner of that camera could be prosecuted. On another note how good is that camera picture town centre and banks cctv take note!
[quote][p][bold]onlyonesimongarner[/bold] wrote: Out of interest , I wonder if the person with the CCTV gotthe permissionof their neighbours to point the camera at their front Windows. CCTV can only cover your own property.[/p][/quote]Looking at the thumbs down people do not mind neighbours filming them. If that was me seeing that I would be asking for it to be moved else I would move it myself its illegal. And the owner of that camera could be prosecuted. On another note how good is that camera picture town centre and banks cctv take note! the beaver
  • Score: -6

3:04pm Wed 20 Aug 14

useyourhead says...

quite surprised about all the comments wittering about where the cameras are pointing, i had to look it up recently and you cant film folk in their homes but everything else is fair game as far as a private individual protecting their own property, how much would you realistically be able to see into those windows anyway, most have nets etc.
-
first thing the nieghbours would do if they got robbed would be to ask if these guys had any footage, can't have it both ways. our system has been used by our nieghbours to catch two burglaries, a malicious vehicle damage and an arson with intent to endanger life. funnily enough we have never had any problems concerning our own property.
quite surprised about all the comments wittering about where the cameras are pointing, i had to look it up recently and you cant film folk in their homes but everything else is fair game as far as a private individual protecting their own property, how much would you realistically be able to see into those windows anyway, most have nets etc. - first thing the nieghbours would do if they got robbed would be to ask if these guys had any footage, can't have it both ways. our system has been used by our nieghbours to catch two burglaries, a malicious vehicle damage and an arson with intent to endanger life. funnily enough we have never had any problems concerning our own property. useyourhead
  • Score: 19

3:05pm Wed 20 Aug 14

A Darener says...

"There are currently no rules governing the use of private CCTV cameras. With security systems becoming cheaper, and hundreds of thousands of properties thought to have some form of camera system, Whitehall sources said complaints about privacy were growing more common."

There are also other considerations with regards to positioning of cameras.
"There are currently no rules governing the use of private CCTV cameras. With security systems becoming cheaper, and hundreds of thousands of properties thought to have some form of camera system, Whitehall sources said complaints about privacy were growing more common." There are also other considerations with regards to positioning of cameras. A Darener
  • Score: -2

3:37pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Davelyn says...

Is this really a top story LT. How many other cars in Blackburn have been bumped in the last week. Is there an underlying message here, who does the car belong to that makes a third rate story hit the headlines like this. For gods sake get your priorities right.
Is this really a top story LT. How many other cars in Blackburn have been bumped in the last week. Is there an underlying message here, who does the car belong to that makes a third rate story hit the headlines like this. For gods sake get your priorities right. Davelyn
  • Score: -8

4:50pm Wed 20 Aug 14

kingbilly says...

Moomin23 wrote:
To play Devil's Advocate, I'm sure the insurance company will be on the ball enough to notice the car is not only illegally parked by having a rear wheel on the kerb, but is also illegally double parked. I think she'll be lucky to get away with anything!
i think the picture is after the car was dragged,spec savers mate
[quote][p][bold]Moomin23[/bold] wrote: To play Devil's Advocate, I'm sure the insurance company will be on the ball enough to notice the car is not only illegally parked by having a rear wheel on the kerb, but is also illegally double parked. I think she'll be lucky to get away with anything![/p][/quote]i think the picture is after the car was dragged,spec savers mate kingbilly
  • Score: 15

5:43pm Wed 20 Aug 14

mrdd186 says...

Joseph O'M wrote:
......and that's why cars should be allowed to park slightly on the pavement. Not enough to block wheelchairs, and prams, but enough to allow safe access for larger vehicles.

I feel for the car owner though. It's a massive hassle at 7 months pregnant, and I bet her insurance goes up even though she wasn't at fault.
no car should be allowed on the pavement if you can't park leaving room for a fire engine to get through park some where else, she is 7 months pregnant not disabled. the person drivivg the road sweeper should be banned from driving, and why would her insurance go up she won't be claiming off her insurance.
[quote][p][bold]Joseph O'M[/bold] wrote: ......and that's why cars should be allowed to park slightly on the pavement. Not enough to block wheelchairs, and prams, but enough to allow safe access for larger vehicles. I feel for the car owner though. It's a massive hassle at 7 months pregnant, and I bet her insurance goes up even though she wasn't at fault.[/p][/quote]no car should be allowed on the pavement [who would decide slightly on would be] if you can't park leaving room for a fire engine to get through park some where else, she is 7 months pregnant not disabled. the person drivivg the road sweeper should be banned from driving, and why would her insurance go up she won't be claiming off her insurance. mrdd186
  • Score: 5

6:30pm Wed 20 Aug 14

AnotherPounding4Burnley says...

Double yellows down one side would be an idea
Double yellows down one side would be an idea AnotherPounding4Burnley
  • Score: 6

8:49pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Openminded? says...

the beaver wrote:
onlyonesimongarner wrote:
Out of interest , I wonder if the person with the CCTV gotthe permissionof their neighbours to point the camera at their front Windows. CCTV can only cover your own property.
Looking at the thumbs down people do not mind neighbours filming them. If that was me seeing that I would be asking for it to be moved else I would move it myself its illegal. And the owner of that camera could be prosecuted. On another note how good is that camera picture town centre and banks cctv take note!
Seriously? It is not illegal.

I have two cameras which overlooks the whole block of where I live (terraced houses), I can see people leaving and going for over 15 houses!

It is not illegal, and you believe it is please provide the legislation of where it states it would be illegal.

I believe there is a requirement that a notice bust be visible if you have 4 or more cameras installed?
[quote][p][bold]the beaver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]onlyonesimongarner[/bold] wrote: Out of interest , I wonder if the person with the CCTV gotthe permissionof their neighbours to point the camera at their front Windows. CCTV can only cover your own property.[/p][/quote]Looking at the thumbs down people do not mind neighbours filming them. If that was me seeing that I would be asking for it to be moved else I would move it myself its illegal. And the owner of that camera could be prosecuted. On another note how good is that camera picture town centre and banks cctv take note![/p][/quote]Seriously? It is not illegal. I have two cameras which overlooks the whole block of where I live (terraced houses), I can see people leaving and going for over 15 houses! It is not illegal, and you believe it is please provide the legislation of where it states it would be illegal. I believe there is a requirement that a notice bust be visible if you have 4 or more cameras installed? Openminded?
  • Score: 10

12:23am Thu 21 Aug 14

HAPPY PLOTTER says...

I think, if you look carefully - there are actually no white lines on the road.... what you are interrpreting as white lines is actually the edge of the kerb stones... If you look at where the car ends up - the front tyre (which is on the road) is not hiding any of the 'white line' however - if you look at the back tyre (which is on the pavement) it is hiding part of the 'white line' which is actually the edge of the kerb stone.... its the same on the opposite side of the road too.....

I feel sorry for the lady concerned - the driver should have stopped and luckily it was caught on cctv..... how many of us would be very appreciate of someone's cctv if it managed to catch something happening to something of ours?....... I for one would be extremely grateful......
I think, if you look carefully - there are actually no white lines on the road.... what you are interrpreting as white lines is actually the edge of the kerb stones... If you look at where the car ends up - the front tyre (which is on the road) is not hiding any of the 'white line' however - if you look at the back tyre (which is on the pavement) it is hiding part of the 'white line' which is actually the edge of the kerb stone.... its the same on the opposite side of the road too..... I feel sorry for the lady concerned - the driver should have stopped and luckily it was caught on cctv..... how many of us would be very appreciate of someone's cctv if it managed to catch something happening to something of ours?....... I for one would be extremely grateful...... HAPPY PLOTTER
  • Score: 13

8:11am Thu 21 Aug 14

bradscorner says...

Park like that on your driving test and you will fail, this is why you shouldn't double park, why do people think they own the road?
Park like that on your driving test and you will fail, this is why you shouldn't double park, why do people think they own the road? bradscorner
  • Score: -3

8:23am Thu 21 Aug 14

A Darener says...

bradscorner wrote:
Park like that on your driving test and you will fail, this is why you shouldn't double park, why do people think they own the road?
The examiner would not ask a pupil to park where it was not safe.
There is nothing wrong with the way the car was parked, it is not doubled parked! The other parked cars are on the other side of the road. The fault lies solely with the sweeper vehicle. What if the car was broken down? Would it still have been right for the sweeper to brush it aside? No pun intended.
[quote][p][bold]bradscorner[/bold] wrote: Park like that on your driving test and you will fail, this is why you shouldn't double park, why do people think they own the road?[/p][/quote]The examiner would not ask a pupil to park where it was not safe. There is nothing wrong with the way the car was parked, it is not doubled parked! The other parked cars are on the other side of the road. The fault lies solely with the sweeper vehicle. What if the car was broken down? Would it still have been right for the sweeper to brush it aside? No pun intended. A Darener
  • Score: 3

9:04am Thu 21 Aug 14

HarryBosch says...

bradscorner wrote:
Park like that on your driving test and you will fail, this is why you shouldn't double park, why do people think they own the road?
There is nothing wrong with the way this lady has parked. It is no different than the way millions (not an exaggeration) of motorists park outside their homes every day, esp in streets of terraced houses in the north. Coniston Rd is wide enough for vehicles to park on both sides of the road and still room for a bus to drive along.
It's clear that you are not a driver yourself as you don't have an inkling what double parking is! In order to educate yourself simply Google "double parking image" and, as the saying goes 'a picture paints a thousand words'!
[quote][p][bold]bradscorner[/bold] wrote: Park like that on your driving test and you will fail, this is why you shouldn't double park, why do people think they own the road?[/p][/quote]There is nothing wrong with the way this lady has parked. It is no different than the way millions (not an exaggeration) of motorists park outside their homes every day, esp in streets of terraced houses in the north. Coniston Rd is wide enough for vehicles to park on both sides of the road and still room for a bus to drive along. It's clear that you are not a driver yourself as you don't have an inkling what double parking is! In order to educate yourself simply Google "double parking image" and, as the saying goes 'a picture paints a thousand words'! HarryBosch
  • Score: 9

11:42am Thu 21 Aug 14

burner says...

bradscorner wrote:
Park like that on your driving test and you will fail, this is why you shouldn't double park, why do people think they own the road?
No you won't . . . . bet you don't drive. Sorry, but you are grossly ignorant of traffic laws and requirements.
[quote][p][bold]bradscorner[/bold] wrote: Park like that on your driving test and you will fail, this is why you shouldn't double park, why do people think they own the road?[/p][/quote]No you won't . . . . bet you don't drive. Sorry, but you are grossly ignorant of traffic laws and requirements. burner
  • Score: 6

12:45pm Thu 21 Aug 14

bradscorner says...

burner wrote:
bradscorner wrote:
Park like that on your driving test and you will fail, this is why you shouldn't double park, why do people think they own the road?
No you won't . . . . bet you don't drive. Sorry, but you are grossly ignorant of traffic laws and requirements.
Highway code rule 243: Do not stop or park opposite a traffic island or another parked vehicle.
[quote][p][bold]burner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bradscorner[/bold] wrote: Park like that on your driving test and you will fail, this is why you shouldn't double park, why do people think they own the road?[/p][/quote]No you won't . . . . bet you don't drive. Sorry, but you are grossly ignorant of traffic laws and requirements.[/p][/quote]Highway code rule 243: Do not stop or park opposite a traffic island or another parked vehicle. bradscorner
  • Score: -3

12:51pm Thu 21 Aug 14

A Darener says...

bradscorner wrote:
burner wrote:
bradscorner wrote:
Park like that on your driving test and you will fail, this is why you shouldn't double park, why do people think they own the road?
No you won't . . . . bet you don't drive. Sorry, but you are grossly ignorant of traffic laws and requirements.
Highway code rule 243: Do not stop or park opposite a traffic island or another parked vehicle.
opposite a traffic island or (if this would cause an obstruction) another parked vehicle.
Bit of selective printing on your part. It was not an obstruction, just bad driving by the sweeper driver..
[quote][p][bold]bradscorner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bradscorner[/bold] wrote: Park like that on your driving test and you will fail, this is why you shouldn't double park, why do people think they own the road?[/p][/quote]No you won't . . . . bet you don't drive. Sorry, but you are grossly ignorant of traffic laws and requirements.[/p][/quote]Highway code rule 243: Do not stop or park opposite a traffic island or another parked vehicle.[/p][/quote]opposite a traffic island or (if this would cause an obstruction) another parked vehicle. Bit of selective printing on your part. It was not an obstruction, just bad driving by the sweeper driver.. A Darener
  • Score: 8

3:02pm Thu 21 Aug 14

bradscorner says...

A Darener wrote:
bradscorner wrote:
burner wrote:
bradscorner wrote:
Park like that on your driving test and you will fail, this is why you shouldn't double park, why do people think they own the road?
No you won't . . . . bet you don't drive. Sorry, but you are grossly ignorant of traffic laws and requirements.
Highway code rule 243: Do not stop or park opposite a traffic island or another parked vehicle.
opposite a traffic island or (if this would cause an obstruction) another parked vehicle.
Bit of selective printing on your part. It was not an obstruction, just bad driving by the sweeper driver..
If it was not an obstruction, why was it in the way?
[quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bradscorner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bradscorner[/bold] wrote: Park like that on your driving test and you will fail, this is why you shouldn't double park, why do people think they own the road?[/p][/quote]No you won't . . . . bet you don't drive. Sorry, but you are grossly ignorant of traffic laws and requirements.[/p][/quote]Highway code rule 243: Do not stop or park opposite a traffic island or another parked vehicle.[/p][/quote]opposite a traffic island or (if this would cause an obstruction) another parked vehicle. Bit of selective printing on your part. It was not an obstruction, just bad driving by the sweeper driver..[/p][/quote]If it was not an obstruction, why was it in the way? bradscorner
  • Score: 0

3:07pm Thu 21 Aug 14

A Darener says...

bradscorner wrote:
A Darener wrote:
bradscorner wrote:
burner wrote:
bradscorner wrote:
Park like that on your driving test and you will fail, this is why you shouldn't double park, why do people think they own the road?
No you won't . . . . bet you don't drive. Sorry, but you are grossly ignorant of traffic laws and requirements.
Highway code rule 243: Do not stop or park opposite a traffic island or another parked vehicle.
opposite a traffic island or (if this would cause an obstruction) another parked vehicle.
Bit of selective printing on your part. It was not an obstruction, just bad driving by the sweeper driver..
If it was not an obstruction, why was it in the way?
It wasn't in the way, as I said it was bad driving.
[quote][p][bold]bradscorner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bradscorner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bradscorner[/bold] wrote: Park like that on your driving test and you will fail, this is why you shouldn't double park, why do people think they own the road?[/p][/quote]No you won't . . . . bet you don't drive. Sorry, but you are grossly ignorant of traffic laws and requirements.[/p][/quote]Highway code rule 243: Do not stop or park opposite a traffic island or another parked vehicle.[/p][/quote]opposite a traffic island or (if this would cause an obstruction) another parked vehicle. Bit of selective printing on your part. It was not an obstruction, just bad driving by the sweeper driver..[/p][/quote]If it was not an obstruction, why was it in the way?[/p][/quote]It wasn't in the way, as I said it was bad driving. A Darener
  • Score: 4

3:10pm Thu 21 Aug 14

A Darener says...

Ps even if it was in the way, you can't just barge through brushing the car aside. He should have stopped and enquired as to where the owner was or called the police. He should be aware of the width of his vehicle. Whatever it was STILL the drivers fault.
Ps even if it was in the way, you can't just barge through brushing the car aside. He should have stopped and enquired as to where the owner was or called the police. He should be aware of the width of his vehicle. Whatever it was STILL the drivers fault. A Darener
  • Score: 2

3:21pm Thu 21 Aug 14

bradscorner says...

So now you have conceded it was in the way, ergo it was an obstruction parked opposite another car, therefore contravening Highway Code rule 243, and as I said in my original point had she done that on her driving test she would have failed, whether a vehicle comes along and hits the car or not. The driver of the road sweeper of course carries a lot of fault here, but the underlying fact is in the rules, and if she had adhered to the Highway Code this unfortunate incident would not have happened.
So now you have conceded it was in the way, ergo it was an obstruction parked opposite another car, therefore contravening Highway Code rule 243, and as I said in my original point had she done that on her driving test she would have failed, whether a vehicle comes along and hits the car or not. The driver of the road sweeper of course carries a lot of fault here, but the underlying fact is in the rules, and if she had adhered to the Highway Code this unfortunate incident would not have happened. bradscorner
  • Score: -3

5:46pm Thu 21 Aug 14

jimjoiner says...

I wonder how many "injured passengers" there would of been if the incident was not recorded on video . . . . just a thought.
I wonder how many "injured passengers" there would of been if the incident was not recorded on video . . . . just a thought. jimjoiner
  • Score: 5

5:49pm Thu 21 Aug 14

A Darener says...

bradscorner wrote:
So now you have conceded it was in the way, ergo it was an obstruction parked opposite another car, therefore contravening Highway Code rule 243, and as I said in my original point had she done that on her driving test she would have failed, whether a vehicle comes along and hits the car or not. The driver of the road sweeper of course carries a lot of fault here, but the underlying fact is in the rules, and if she had adhered to the Highway Code this unfortunate incident would not have happened.
That point will be conceded when the driver is prosecuted and the other car driver is charged with causing an obstruction.
[quote][p][bold]bradscorner[/bold] wrote: So now you have conceded it was in the way, ergo it was an obstruction parked opposite another car, therefore contravening Highway Code rule 243, and as I said in my original point had she done that on her driving test she would have failed, whether a vehicle comes along and hits the car or not. The driver of the road sweeper of course carries a lot of fault here, but the underlying fact is in the rules, and if she had adhered to the Highway Code this unfortunate incident would not have happened.[/p][/quote]That point will be conceded when the driver is prosecuted and the other car driver is charged with causing an obstruction. A Darener
  • Score: 5

6:07pm Thu 21 Aug 14

burner says...

bradscorner wrote:
burner wrote:
bradscorner wrote:
Park like that on your driving test and you will fail, this is why you shouldn't double park, why do people think they own the road?
No you won't . . . . bet you don't drive. Sorry, but you are grossly ignorant of traffic laws and requirements.
Highway code rule 243: Do not stop or park opposite a traffic island or another parked vehicle.
DUCKHEAD . . . . you quoted the Highway Code correctly but OMITTED the section of the quote which states . . . " if this would cause an obstruction "
.
You cannot select the part of any regulation which suits you !!!.
.
There is no obstruction in this video . . . . if there was an obstruction, how come A) the car opposite was not struck and B) the car was not struck by every other vehicle ? . . . . even the learner driver managed !!!
[quote][p][bold]bradscorner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bradscorner[/bold] wrote: Park like that on your driving test and you will fail, this is why you shouldn't double park, why do people think they own the road?[/p][/quote]No you won't . . . . bet you don't drive. Sorry, but you are grossly ignorant of traffic laws and requirements.[/p][/quote]Highway code rule 243: Do not stop or park opposite a traffic island or another parked vehicle.[/p][/quote]DUCKHEAD . . . . you quoted the Highway Code correctly but OMITTED the section of the quote which states . . . " if this would cause an obstruction " . You cannot select the part of any regulation which suits you !!!. . There is no obstruction in this video . . . . if there was an obstruction, how come A) the car opposite was not struck and B) the car was not struck by every other vehicle ? . . . . even the learner driver managed !!! burner
  • Score: 4

7:44pm Thu 21 Aug 14

bradscorner says...

burner wrote:
bradscorner wrote:
burner wrote:
bradscorner wrote:
Park like that on your driving test and you will fail, this is why you shouldn't double park, why do people think they own the road?
No you won't . . . . bet you don't drive. Sorry, but you are grossly ignorant of traffic laws and requirements.
Highway code rule 243: Do not stop or park opposite a traffic island or another parked vehicle.
DUCKHEAD . . . . you quoted the Highway Code correctly but OMITTED the section of the quote which states . . . " if this would cause an obstruction "
.
You cannot select the part of any regulation which suits you !!!.
.
There is no obstruction in this video . . . . if there was an obstruction, how come A) the car opposite was not struck and B) the car was not struck by every other vehicle ? . . . . even the learner driver managed !!!
D'oh, as is evidently clear, it became an obstruction the moment it was hit. Had the sweeper been an ambulance or a fire engine do you think she would have been causing an obstruction then? Had the sweeper stopped and beeped the horn to get her to move, would it have been an obstruction then? To say this was not causing an obstruction is just being a blind fool, she parked her car without any thought for any other road user- including any emergency services that may have been required to pass- and got what is often termed KARMA.
[quote][p][bold]burner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bradscorner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bradscorner[/bold] wrote: Park like that on your driving test and you will fail, this is why you shouldn't double park, why do people think they own the road?[/p][/quote]No you won't . . . . bet you don't drive. Sorry, but you are grossly ignorant of traffic laws and requirements.[/p][/quote]Highway code rule 243: Do not stop or park opposite a traffic island or another parked vehicle.[/p][/quote]DUCKHEAD . . . . you quoted the Highway Code correctly but OMITTED the section of the quote which states . . . " if this would cause an obstruction " . You cannot select the part of any regulation which suits you !!!. . There is no obstruction in this video . . . . if there was an obstruction, how come A) the car opposite was not struck and B) the car was not struck by every other vehicle ? . . . . even the learner driver managed !!![/p][/quote]D'oh, as is evidently clear, it became an obstruction the moment it was hit. Had the sweeper been an ambulance or a fire engine do you think she would have been causing an obstruction then? Had the sweeper stopped and beeped the horn to get her to move, would it have been an obstruction then? To say this was not causing an obstruction is just being a blind fool, she parked her car without any thought for any other road user- including any emergency services that may have been required to pass- and got what is often termed KARMA. bradscorner
  • Score: -4

7:49pm Thu 21 Aug 14

A Darener says...

If that is classed as an obstruction then virtually every side street in any town in the country with a road width similar to the one in the video would be classed as an obstruction. Perhaps the answer is to narrow all the pavements to the minimum requirement for a wheelchair then most roads would be wide enough to park on either side.
If that is classed as an obstruction then virtually every side street in any town in the country with a road width similar to the one in the video would be classed as an obstruction. Perhaps the answer is to narrow all the pavements to the minimum requirement for a wheelchair then most roads would be wide enough to park on either side. A Darener
  • Score: 2

10:38pm Thu 21 Aug 14

John05 says...

Moomin23 wrote:
To play Devil's Advocate, I'm sure the insurance company will be on the ball enough to notice the car is not only illegally parked by having a rear wheel on the kerb, but is also illegally double parked. I think she'll be lucky to get away with anything!
Watch the video. The car only ends up with its rear wheel on the kerb after it's been dragged into that position by the sweeper. Also, who's to say the silver Focus on the opposite side, parked facing the wrong way for that side of the road to be pedantic, wasn't parked after the black Golf that was hit? Neither the Golf owner or the insurance companies could prove it one way or the other unless, I suppose, they demanded the CCTV footage going back as far as the Golf owner parking her car.

Even then, I think the obvious carelessness of the sweeper driver and the fact he failed to stop would go against him. Watch the vehicles passing through later and you can see the gap between the cars looks reasonably wide if care is taken in passing through.
[quote][p][bold]Moomin23[/bold] wrote: To play Devil's Advocate, I'm sure the insurance company will be on the ball enough to notice the car is not only illegally parked by having a rear wheel on the kerb, but is also illegally double parked. I think she'll be lucky to get away with anything![/p][/quote]Watch the video. The car only ends up with its rear wheel on the kerb after it's been dragged into that position by the sweeper. Also, who's to say the silver Focus on the opposite side, parked facing the wrong way for that side of the road to be pedantic, wasn't parked after the black Golf that was hit? Neither the Golf owner or the insurance companies could prove it one way or the other unless, I suppose, they demanded the CCTV footage going back as far as the Golf owner parking her car. Even then, I think the obvious carelessness of the sweeper driver and the fact he failed to stop would go against him. Watch the vehicles passing through later and you can see the gap between the cars looks reasonably wide if care is taken in passing through. John05
  • Score: 1

10:41pm Thu 21 Aug 14

bradscorner says...

John05 wrote:
Moomin23 wrote:
To play Devil's Advocate, I'm sure the insurance company will be on the ball enough to notice the car is not only illegally parked by having a rear wheel on the kerb, but is also illegally double parked. I think she'll be lucky to get away with anything!
Watch the video. The car only ends up with its rear wheel on the kerb after it's been dragged into that position by the sweeper. Also, who's to say the silver Focus on the opposite side, parked facing the wrong way for that side of the road to be pedantic, wasn't parked after the black Golf that was hit? Neither the Golf owner or the insurance companies could prove it one way or the other unless, I suppose, they demanded the CCTV footage going back as far as the Golf owner parking her car.

Even then, I think the obvious carelessness of the sweeper driver and the fact he failed to stop would go against him. Watch the vehicles passing through later and you can see the gap between the cars looks reasonably wide if care is taken in passing through.
The gap has been widened since the sweeper made its pass!
[quote][p][bold]John05[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moomin23[/bold] wrote: To play Devil's Advocate, I'm sure the insurance company will be on the ball enough to notice the car is not only illegally parked by having a rear wheel on the kerb, but is also illegally double parked. I think she'll be lucky to get away with anything![/p][/quote]Watch the video. The car only ends up with its rear wheel on the kerb after it's been dragged into that position by the sweeper. Also, who's to say the silver Focus on the opposite side, parked facing the wrong way for that side of the road to be pedantic, wasn't parked after the black Golf that was hit? Neither the Golf owner or the insurance companies could prove it one way or the other unless, I suppose, they demanded the CCTV footage going back as far as the Golf owner parking her car. Even then, I think the obvious carelessness of the sweeper driver and the fact he failed to stop would go against him. Watch the vehicles passing through later and you can see the gap between the cars looks reasonably wide if care is taken in passing through.[/p][/quote]The gap has been widened since the sweeper made its pass! bradscorner
  • Score: 1

10:47pm Thu 21 Aug 14

John05 says...

GracesDad wrote:
Grumpy_Northener wrote:
Ok the road sweeper should not have driven off, but there is no way that a fire engine would have got through the gap in an emergency if a road sweeper couldn't. Extremely selfish parking.
That isn't the ladys fault. The council should have double yellows painted. She has done nothing wrong at all and whats to say that she wasn't already parked and the other car parked selfishly?

Assume makes an **** of you and me but in this instance, just you!!!
A driver should be able to judge where is a good place to park and where is hazardous and causing an obstruction without there being double yellow lines. We shouldn't need notices everywhere telling us to take care and not to do one thing and another because we can't take responsibility and think for ourselves.
[quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grumpy_Northener[/bold] wrote: Ok the road sweeper should not have driven off, but there is no way that a fire engine would have got through the gap in an emergency if a road sweeper couldn't. Extremely selfish parking.[/p][/quote]That isn't the ladys fault. The council should have double yellows painted. She has done nothing wrong at all and whats to say that she wasn't already parked and the other car parked selfishly? Assume makes an **** of you and me but in this instance, just you!!![/p][/quote]A driver should be able to judge where is a good place to park and where is hazardous and causing an obstruction without there being double yellow lines. We shouldn't need notices everywhere telling us to take care and not to do one thing and another because we can't take responsibility and think for ourselves. John05
  • Score: 1

12:26pm Sat 23 Aug 14

ossybsting says...

why do kamikaze pilots wear helmuts
why do kamikaze pilots wear helmuts ossybsting
  • Score: 0

4:41pm Wed 27 Aug 14

EDL make me laugh says...

The trauma of seeing her car dragged will have give her nightmares and sleepless nights.

No win no fee
The trauma of seeing her car dragged will have give her nightmares and sleepless nights. No win no fee EDL make me laugh
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree