He wouldn't happen to be a teacher at a clown college would he?
A north London teacher has been banned from driving for 12 months, fined almost £1,000 and ordered to take an extended driving test after breaking the "most people in a Volvo S70" world record by cramming 12 passengers into the red saloon before squeezing behind the wheel. Abraham Gniwosch, of Tottenham, was pulled on 8 August …
In his defence, Gniwosch said he'd been "driving sensibly at no more than 20 mph", and added: "I'm not a quick driver, I'm a slow driver. I've been silly in what I've done, but not dangerous."
Yes, that's fine, but it won't stop another car, a large 4x4, van etc rear ending you with a closing speed of 40mph or more. People do drive drunk, don't pay attention, etc.
If that had happened, you'd understand the meaning of the term 'meat grinder'.
You fucking retard.
He's clearly not a physics teacher. Or, given the state of education these days, he might be.
Dead vulture, because if someone had crashed into *him*, the occupants would be in a physically worse state than it.
This was four adults and 9 infants; total weight of infants probably about 170kg, the load was probably the same as four grossly overweight adults, and not over the max load recommended by the manufacturers (450kg?). £1000 and disqualification is OTT, unless he was stopped the next day for the same thing.
Fools! Do you not see that this could only be a case in which a rogue timelord's Tardis, complete with army of deadly child-like automatons, materialised with it's chameleon circuit working but its bigger-inside-than -out widget severely burned out?
No doubt this seemingly idiotic "Gniwosch" (and does that look like an Earth name to *you*?) is in fact none other than the insidious timelord genius, The Master, and yet another diabolical plot is unfolding in his newly established headquarters in Tottenham.
And what do the forces of law and Order do? They let him off with a "driving ban", a paltry fine and a slap on the wrist!
When will the British courts get a grip on the real threats facing society?
Oh, the cops may have tried to confiscate the "Volvo" but we all know that the locks on a Tardis are isolinear when the plot demands it. Tthey'd never have gotten inside it to release the handbrake so they could tow it.
"Gross overloading" and "squeezed behind the wheel" intimate that 13 ADULTS were in the vehicle.
Sounds like it was a bunch of kids.
If he'd crashed or someone crashed into him, they'd have been little (if any) safer in a minivan with 12 seats (where some of the seats are small pokey temporary ones).
When I was still a sixth-former back in the early eighties, I managed to cram seven of my friends into my mother's BL Mini - two in the front seat (one with their leg in the driver's footwell), three across the rear seat, one lying sideways on the floor beneath the seated guys' feet and one on their laps. We drove a couple of miles quite ok, apart from hitting the chap with the spread legs in the front, in the nuts every time I went into second gear. Eight young lads in the car and if we'd been stopped we'd have just got a rollicking from Plod.
Volvo S70? bet you could get at least twenty in there if you tried.
Using kids is cheating FFS. In days of yore a mate once managed 14 adult passengers in one of the old 3.5 rovers (the one with the wood interior). A taxi driver in North London took 7 of us in one of those little Datsun 120y's - two of them were 6'6". Another mate had 7 including driver in an old Mini, although the subframe broke the second time he tried it.
Not adult, not responsible, but we were neither at the time.
Isn't there all sorts of legislation about children having to be fitted into child seats or booster seats?
Six kids standing and sitting in the centre rear section must be six counts of 'not safely restrained' or whatever.
Also, didn't mention if there was a passenger side airbag, which could have been well dodgy for the child in the front.
The police request to confiscate the vehicle seems mild, given the circumstances.
I would have thought there could have been lots of charges in addition to gross overloading.
...and this idiot is a school teacher????
This post has been deleted by its author
When I was a kid, the unlucky mum (it was always the mother) that had hosted a kids birthday party also had to drive the kids home - I'm sure we had one in the front seat, 3 or 4 in the back seat, and 2 or 3 in the boot (station wagon mind - not a hatch-back). All except the kids in the boot would have had seat-belts on. Was this gross overloading? It seemed safe enough at the time, but that was 30 years ago, and the roads seemed safer then too.
I'm sure you could fit 18 in one of them if you tried hard enough.
12 would be about right for an S40
And to be honest i think the man should be commended.
Have you seen the price of diesel recently?
I bet that works out far better for the environment than the stinky buses
that drive round here.
They counted a couple of infants in the tally. That is cheating...
During the mad boozing week that followed the high school proms the year when I graduated we got stopped for gross overloading with 15 people in the car at 3am. The cop could not believe his eyes so he had us lined up on the road side to count us up. That was 15 teenagers in an old Volga estate. The cop let us off after finding out with dismay that the driver was absolutely sober (this was in the wild East, I would not expect to get off so lightly in Health-n-Safety paranoiac UK).
Hang on a sec,
This has GOT to be a hoax. There is absolutely no way this could really have really happened.
No seriously - in North London there is no such thing as a 'Traffic Officer'. I've lived here for 10 years or so and never ever seen one. Seems they've all been replaced by speed cameras, of which there are quite a few.
Every person in a car must have their own seat with a belt and it's the driver's responsibility to enforce it or take the consequences.
All you prats who're boasting about how many you've crammed in a car, you really are the sort of people who need to be taken out to a road crash site and shown the full horror of what a road accident is like. Lacerations, broken and torn off limbs and litres of blood everywhere, the awful sound of people, especially children, screaming.
Get serious, get sensible or get off the roads!
This is from the BBC website....."The court heard Abraham Gniwosch had been driving for five years "....
....so if 9 of them were infants then he could surely have argued that when he set out 5 years ago, there were only 4 adults in the car........
Paris.....I'd have her in the back of my car....and over the bonnet......
"If he'd crashed or someone crashed into him, they'd have been little (if any) safer in a minivan with 12 seats (where some of the seats are small pokey temporary ones)."
Clearly kinematics isn't your strong point.
In a minivan [or a minibus, more realisitically - but I know what you mean] everyone has an individual seat, and these days, legally, a seat belt. It's not perfect, but if someone [say an off duty police car coming around a blind bend at 70mph with a dab of oppo lock on] rear ends you, you at least have less of a chance of being thrown around the cabin like soft, fleshy ping pong balls. Or your face ripped open along a the fragments of a broken side window, etc. Which is almost a certainty if you aren't secured. Which if you overload a vehicle, is what some people will be.
Young kids don't have a choice in the matter, it's the adults responsibility to make the choice for them and ensure they are safely seated in a car.
You complete mong. Have you ever been in even a minor shunt without a belt on? Read up on Newtons Laws of Motion.
I'm not saying the guy should be hung, drawn and quartered - but a bit of public ridicule at his clear lack of understanding of what is 'reasonably safe' and what isn't wouldn't go amiss.
Cheers AC 1605, looks like it's you, me, and only a few others getting the point here.
AC 1547, your ability to read is staggeringly poor, perhaps you were taught by Mr Gniwosch?
"Abraham Gniwosch, of Tottenham, was pulled on 8 August last year in ***Llandudno, Conwy***, the BBC reports. Traffic officer PC Roger Brazel told Llandudno magistrates he'd stopped the vehicle for "serious dramatic overloading".
Since when was Llandudno in North London?
...that's nowt. Wen I were a lad we 'ad 135 people on't back of a hard-tyred push bike.
In 65 foot blizzards.
And no shoes. Just to go t' school. And then when we got there we got whipped because our rags 'ad threads hanging off. And thankful for it, mind.
And we 'ad to pay thrupence hap'ney fort privelege. And me ol' mum used to wash us by throwing wet stones from't stream at us. But at least the 'ouse was clean. Oh yes. Me ol' mum used to scrub the front step day in, day out with 'er knuckles cos we couldn't afford a brush. Even in the winter. In 85 foot blizzards. And she was thankful that she was so lucky.
Kids today. Don't know they're born.
Mutter, mutter, grumble, grumble.
Wow, this has to win some kind of award for stupid AND complacent at the same time:
>"If he was only a danger to himself and his passengers, who cares?"
First off: he wasn't. He was a danger to everyone around.
Second: even if there hadn't been anyone around, how the hell do you get that it's ok to endanger a bunch of little children who don't get to have any say in whether they're loaded into this deathtrap or not? If he was only a danger to HIMSELF, that would be ok. Being a danger to other people is EXACTLY the point at which the state, the law, and everyone else has a right to butt in.
That would be... none of us.
What isn't ok is the reaction from the rozzers and to a lesser extent the judge. At least the judge wasn't drunk on his own power and wanting to "stick it to the man" who has no respect for his "authoritah".
You see, there's a HUUUGE fucking gap between "not OK" and "Illegal".
E.g. it's NOT OK to pick your nose. If you were fined £1000 for it, THAT would be wrong.
God this world has gone to the dogs. Everyone is afraid of doing anything for fear of being hurt. Sure, cramming that many people into the car wasn't a good idea and the fact of the matter is no one got hurt!!!
Yes they could have been hurt, but they weren't. Neither were any of the other people who talked about similar situations.
In almost any scenario chances of something terrible happening are somewhat better than having a piano fall out of the sky and crush you, but not much better. Considering the huge number of people on the plant and the huge number of people simultaneously doing stupid things - accidents are quite rare.
Consider the risks and if you deem it manageable go for it.
In my youth (must have been 1979 - 1980) we had 13 of us in an Austin 1100.
This included two people in the driving seat, one doing the pedals and one steering.
We were on our way to a party. We all got out at a village pub on the way, and could only work out how to get 11 of us back in
And yet you watch those Police Camera shows and whilst you get some sense of smug satisfaction when the little scrotes get caught, all they get is a ticking off for offences that should be sending them to jail or better still breaking rocks and castration to ensure they don't spawn any more of themselves, yet this kind of offence carries a ban!
Okay maybe dangerous but it sounds like this was blown way out of proportion considering the amount of kids being carried on people's knees.
Hmm whilst seat belts are important and I make sure that all occupants of my car wear them. And I go through the necessary fuss of the booster seats , plus I carry extras. However as a child of the seventies , I do find this fuss over seat belts and booster seats a touch nannyish. We didn't have rear belts until the late eighties yet we were not dying like flies. Sheesh the only people he'd likely to have harmed are the other occupants of the car. They did have FREE WILL. They did not have to travel in the car with him. He was not speeding and was unlikely to have harmed anyone else other than the passengers.
Glad to see that Plod is putting in lots of effort to catch the master criminals. Now we have proof that traffic cops do exist (cos I ain't seen one for years) can we hope for a campaign against the chavs who treat the residential roads in my neighbourhood as a racetrack. Or will Plod go after the fat nobodies in company cars who drive past my kids school at 50 mph? Fat chance. Needless to say PC Plod once again shows how he only goes after the easy crimes. Probably couldn't find anyone walking in a built-up area during the hours of daylight whilst in possession of a camera.
"Gross overloading" should be judged on the weight of people in the car, not on their number. I can quite imagine it would be possible to find 4 adults who weigh more than the occupants of this car (given that many of them were small children). Yet presumably it'd be quite legal to transport the heavier adults. Daft.
They should have been done for not wearing seat belts (unless the Volvo has 13 seat belts of course).
I'd like to give the coppers the benefit of the doubt and presume that asked to take the car away so he at least had to buy a new one before driving despite the driving ban.
But, you're right...it's harsh...after all, no one drives when they're not licenced, taxed, MOTd and insured...
is 10 teenagers/twenties into a Ford Cortina back in the 80s. Brother was driving; his mate in the front passenger seat with gf on his lap; 4 of us crammed in the back seat, 2 with gfs on laps, plus one in the boot. We travelled about 32 km(about 20 miles for you Brits/Yanks) like this at 30 kmh (19 mph) with the tyres scraping the wheel-arches, and the poor old car was never quite the same afterwards! Never saw a cop on the way either...
If the police want to see "serious dramatic overloading" they should try looking on any peak-time train on the Paddington line.
Despite the fact that I have paid half the GDP of a small African nation for a seat, I am frequently forced to travel crammed into the aisle or those porch areas where the carriages join (and where the train is most likely to break apart in the event of a high-speed derailment or collision).
Why does the law see it as perfectly safe and reasonable to transport thousands of commuters in those conditions at speeds approaching 100MPH every day on one of the busiest rail lines in the country, but take a dim view of someone carrying a dozen people in similar circumstances in a volvo travelling at 20MPH on a back road in Wales?
Don't get me wrong - I believe that this guy should have been prosecuted, but only because there were children in the car who could not reasonably be expected to weigh up the risks involved. But by the same measure First Great Western should also be prosecuted. In fact what they do is worse because they are transporting paying customers and routinely put their passengers at risk for the financial gain of cramming a few more on.
@ AC 16:05 yesterday: Most of these people are talking about the roads many, many years ago. They're also talking about near-adult pranks where they knew they were being a bit dim but thought it was funny. Entirely different from wilfully putting your dependents at risk. Loose kida in a car are a fucking menace; I've seen drivers trying to proceed with their child stood between the front seats tugging on their shoulder.
"Why does the law see it as perfectly safe and reasonable to transport thousands of commuters in those conditions at speeds approaching 100MPH every day on one of the busiest rail lines in the country, but take a dim view of someone carrying a dozen people in similar circumstances in a volvo travelling at 20MPH on a back road in Wales?"
Because there are thousands of road accidents every day (many involving back roads in Wales...), whereas trains almost never crash (and where they do, I doubt it makes much difference if you're standing or sitting). And the family were from London - were they really going to stay at 20mph all the way home?
Tis easy to see why the UK is going to pot. We are no longer allowed to assess our risks and take them accordingly.
I think it is ludicrous that now if I am driving in atrocious weather conditions along a narrow dangerous road with no footpaths at night and come across a mother and baby walking home, I am not allowed to stop and give them a lift as it would be too dangerous and hence against NuLabs laws. Children under 3 have to sit in a special child seat so I could lose my license and car if this lot are anything to go by. In our extended family (cousins etc) we had about 20 children who did not have seats to travel in. God knows how they survived, may I burn in hell!
Many of these passenger number restrictions have come in not for safety reasons but because of the US style compensation claim culture. The insurance companies are reluctant to expose themselves to a massive compo claim from many unexpected passengers and so now state that if you have more passengers then the insurance is invalid as a getout.
I used to have a Microbus with bench seats and we often had 12/13 with prams and luggage. When you have passengers of any number you drive more defensively and if some tosser comes slamming round a corner on the wrong side of the road etc, then tough! It is risk we all take every time we go out, however in normal driving YOU dictate how close you are to the car in front, edge of the road, speed and direction. If you can't do it safely you shouldn't be on the road anyway.
When I wert lad, my dad used to take us lots of places in lots of different vehicles, cars, lorries, landrovers. No seatbelts then and we had bench seats in the front. One day in 62, in the landrover he said " never brake in snow on a corner or this will happen" and showed us, a lesson we have all kept with us. If something had happened then my dad may have ended up feeling guilty, but we kids wouldn't have held it against him as we were busy enjoying life and learning.
The state we are in now (nanny), we are no longer allowed to think for ourselves or assess our own risk taking because some moron jobsworth who is not as intelligent has decided otherwise. The end result, boring lives which then lead to us starving or freezing on the streets as penniless pensioners.
And quite honestly if the moron is driving badly then the passengers will stand a better chance inside any vehicle rather than outside fully exposed.
The bloke should have pleaded not guilty but then with our magistrates system, there is a little man who tells the magistrates that regardless of what they think they have to find the defendant guilty or they will lose their JP status. ie more jobsworths.
For those who berate him and say "but what if", get over it nothing happened. I have no doubt you all think cameras are for safety when no-one will publish the figures that will confirm it: The total number of cars clocked "speeding" versus the total number of these "clocked" cars involved in an accident at the time and scene of the clocking.
To this poster and all others who seem to be ignorant of the laws of physics.
Imagine a flatbed truck with 12 unsecured objects on it, each weighing in at at least 30 kilos. Then imagine the truck involved in a collision. What happens to the load?
Then imagine putting the 12 objects on seats and putting them behind 1/4'' sheet of glass. I dont know about you but, i would think a 30 kilo kiddie missile constitues a risk to other people. Seatbelt laws for rear occupants were primarily brought in to prevent killing people sitting in front of them and people in the way when they went flying through the windscreen.
'No longer allowed to think for ourselves.' - Ah, that's ok. So when my kids about to stick their hand onto a hot stove I'll just stand and watch and let them think for themselves shall I?
For everyone else arguing that it's the nanny state, go cram you, you're loved ones and a few mates into a car and drive around until some other dick on the road turns it into meat blender and after you're finished burying your family you get back to me. Though you'll still probably blame the other guy.
The man's an idiot of the highest order.
Have I been involved in stupidly over-loading a car ?? Yes, 8 in a Mk3 Escort and 7 in a Mk1 Golf. I was old enough to know better, but all those involved still look back on those moments with fond-ness.
Would I do the same today ?? Probably not. I like my licence and the roads today are very different to the roads those incidents took place on.
So, to all those going "oh dear god, you're all so stupid to be bragging about such things", many of those are sarcastic and many are harking back wistfully to days gone by. Get a grip. Most of the cars mentioned that took part in these incidents are 15+ years since they've been usable cars (one mentions an Austin 1100 for fucks sake, that was my *dad's* first new car).
To put this into context, think of the number of famous faces, done for doing 100+ on the M1 and the like, given a £300-£400 fine and 6 month ban. Then we have a teacher, who overloaded his car, drove slowly on what was most likely a quiet country lane and he gets a £1000 fine and a 12 month ban.
The former can easily afford both the fine and the lack of transport, the latter has just had to fork over 5% of his salary.
Back in about 1998 the Jamaica Observer carried a story about the gentleman who drove home from a New Year's party with 12 passengers, all of them adult, in a Toyota Starlet... and not one of the four-door models, either. Apparently there were 3 in the front, including the driver, 5 in the back, and 4 more in the boot with the hatchback open. He went around a known dangerous corner (some kind soul had labled it Killer Corner, with a skull and cross-bones on a bright red background after the third fatal accident there, some time before this incident; the sign was still there the last time I went by, rather faded but present) much too quickly and had a slight head-on with a minibus going the other way. Oops. IIRC three dead and four severely injured. Killer Corner strikes again...
According to the Observer, the police dispatcher had quite some difficulty in understanding that the minibus was empty except for its driver, and the Starlet had 13 aboard.
Dead bird for obvious reasons.