Re: Law and number of passengers allowed


"Conor" <conor.turton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ebf02ebda6b151c98c7cb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <Uh35g.4564$ca3.11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, greydog says...

"Brimstone" <brimstone@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:vqqdnU3ow-d5IMnZnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxx
In news:w%25g.5189$mH3.1562@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
greydog said:
"Brimstone" <brimstone@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

I was.

You made two mistakes in your reply to the OP.

I was not only correcting your comment about the use of seatbelts but
also (and more importantly) there is also nothing in law against
transporting more people in a *private car* than there are seatbelts.

Therefore your post was totally misleading, so I corrected it. i.e.
to help the OP.

No, you're simply being a pedantic prat.

rather that trying to show everyone how clever you are.

Oh please. It was you who replied without putting brain into gear.

It was sufficiently in gear to deal with the question whereas you are
in
"auto" mode and trying to be clever - whilst failing miserably.

The fact is that it's not illegal for 4 people to travel in the back seat
of
a private car which has only 3 seatbelts.

What is the percentage that are?

What is the percentage that are..what?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Law and number of passengers allowed
    ... In article, greydog says... ... I was not only correcting your comment about the use of seatbelts but ... transporting more people in a *private car* than there are seatbelts. ... It was you who replied without putting brain into gear. ...
    (uk.rec.driving)
  • Re: Law and number of passengers allowed
    ... I was not only correcting your comment about the use of seatbelts but ... transporting more people in a *private car* than there are seatbelts. ... You told him he was breaking the law (yet have not managed to provide ...
    (uk.rec.driving)