Registration plate 
Official local mnemonic: Hampshire and Dorset
Postal area: Portsmouth
Issued: between march 2002 and august 2002
Silver Peugeot 206, manufactured in 2002, first registered on 1 March 2002. Cylinder capacity: 1587cc, CO2 emissions: 183 g/km.
As of 13 July 2017 this vehicle had done 92,722 miles. Current estimated odometer reading: 107,500 miles.
Official local mnemonic: Hampshire and DorsetPostal area: Portsmouth
Issued: between march 2002 and august 2002
Silver Peugeot 206, manufactured in 2002, first registered on 1 March 2002. Cylinder capacity: 1587cc, CO2 emissions: 183 g/km.
As of 13 July 2017 this vehicle had done 92,722 miles. Current estimated odometer reading: 107,500 miles.
✗ Untaxed Tax due: 1 February 2020
✗ No MOT Expired: 5 August 2019
MOT history
| Test date | Expiry date | Result | Odometer reading |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017-07-13 | 2018-07-12 | ✓ Pass | 92,722 |
| |||
| 2017-07-13 | - | ✗ Fail | 92,722 |
| |||
| 2016-07-06 | 2017-07-05 | ✓ Pass | 90,678 |
| |||
| 2016-07-05 | - | ✗ Fail | 90,678 |
| |||
| 2015-04-15 | 2016-05-04 | ✓ Pass | 86,117 |
| 2014-05-01 | 2015-05-04 | ✓ Pass | 78,235 |
| |||
| 2013-05-03 | 2014-05-04 | ✓ Pass | 74,035 |
| |||
| 2012-05-05 | 2013-05-04 | ✓ Pass | 67,857 |
| |||
| 2012-05-05 | - | ✗ Fail | 67,857 |
| |||
| 2010-10-22 | 2011-10-21 | ✓ Pass | 56,166 |
| 2010-10-13 | - | ✗ Fail | 56,163 |
| |||
| 2009-06-30 | 2010-07-09 | ✓ Pass | 48,975 |
| |||
| 2008-07-04 | 2009-07-09 | ✓ Pass | 42,115 |
| |||
| 2007-07-10 | 2008-07-09 | ✓ Pass | 34,363 |
| 2006-03-02 | 2007-03-01 | ✓ Pass | 25,235 |
Rate driver
Comments
HV02 XZH
Ponyegg2022-01-21 16:34:10
You get out of your car and start coming at me.... I'll use whtever I have to hand to brain the fuck out of you.... little fucking old man can go fuck himself.
You get out of your car and start coming at me.... I'll use whtever I have to hand to brain the fuck out of you.... little fucking old man can go fuck himself.
HV02 XZH
Aussie2019-01-01 07:00:23
Hey - check out the guys tee shirt - not only
1 He can't drive.
2 He's a very horrible character - who can't drive.
3 He likes to actually advertise he's a bonehead who belives in atmosphere seeding ??? how dumb can you get??? I thought it was a joke that people believed that. Oh - and he can't drive.
Hey - check out the guys tee shirt - not only
1 He can't drive.
2 He's a very horrible character - who can't drive.
3 He likes to actually advertise he's a bonehead who belives in atmosphere seeding ??? how dumb can you get??? I thought it was a joke that people believed that. Oh - and he can't drive.
HV02 XZH
Steve2016-09-06 14:10:58
Why do people like this get so upset when someone touches their car with their hand? I dont care if someone touches my car, as long as there's no damage, what's the problem?
Why do people like this get so upset when someone touches their car with their hand? I dont care if someone touches my car, as long as there's no damage, what's the problem?
HV02 XZH
2022-03-29 18:53:31
Maybe because some people actually care about their cars and don’t want you scratching it.
Maybe because some people actually care about their cars and don’t want you scratching it.
HV02 XZH
nonA2016-08-31 21:25:57
It's all about getting another video on Youtube.
Why do you have to keep mentioning the camera?
You speed up to purposely touch the car which is totally unessecary.
I suggest you take a look at ALL you videos and learn from them as if you carry on being a prick oneday (camera or no camera) you'll antagonise the wrong person won't be able tp go home to upload them.
It's all about getting another video on Youtube.
Why do you have to keep mentioning the camera?
You speed up to purposely touch the car which is totally unessecary.
I suggest you take a look at ALL you videos and learn from them as if you carry on being a prick oneday (camera or no camera) you'll antagonise the wrong person won't be able tp go home to upload them.
HV02 XZH
2022-03-29 18:54:59
If he antagonises the wrong person then natural selection will take its course.
If he antagonises the wrong person then natural selection will take its course.
HV02 XZH
2016-09-01 14:26:14
@ Adam.
Not about gianing footage for Youtube? Really?
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrWE9AKDjFcf60vApu50STw
@ Adam.
Not about gianing footage for Youtube? Really?
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrWE9AKDjFcf60vApu50STw
HV02 XZH
Adam2016-09-01 09:11:48
He keeps mentioning the camera as it is a deterrent to the man threatening violence that if he was to physically assault the cyclist, there would be sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution in a court of law. Therefore making the driver think twice before doing something stupid... In that specific moment, it's not about gaining footage for YouTube at all.
He keeps mentioning the camera as it is a deterrent to the man threatening violence that if he was to physically assault the cyclist, there would be sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution in a court of law. Therefore making the driver think twice before doing something stupid... In that specific moment, it's not about gaining footage for YouTube at all.
HV02 XZH
Sonny2016-08-31 11:33:04
Hi,
Mr. Cyclist.
When you passed the traffic calming measure you can see clearly that there is cut out solely for cyclist's. Why did you not use this? And why were you brandishing a weapon and why were you using foul and abusive language?
Another self righteous cyclist. Rides beside a cycle path instead of on it just because the law says he can.
Hi,
Mr. Cyclist.
When you passed the traffic calming measure you can see clearly that there is cut out solely for cyclist's. Why did you not use this? And why were you brandishing a weapon and why were you using foul and abusive language?
Another self righteous cyclist. Rides beside a cycle path instead of on it just because the law says he can.
HV02 XZH
2016-09-02 02:31:18
Please refer to a specific time-frame to give a better idea of what you're talking about. Thanks.
Please refer to a specific time-frame to give a better idea of what you're talking about. Thanks.
HV02 XZH
2016-09-01 14:15:16
He is waving a bike lock around if you look closely, I think that would be classed as a weapon just like a jack handle or tyre iron.
He is waving a bike lock around if you look closely, I think that would be classed as a weapon just like a jack handle or tyre iron.
HV02 XZH
2016-08-31 23:11:16
"They buy a bike it comes with a free copy of the Highway code and suddenly they own the roads."
Who does?
"They buy a bike it comes with a free copy of the Highway code and suddenly they own the roads."
Who does?
HV02 XZH
2016-08-31 23:10:39
The traffic calming reference is completely irrelevant. Same for your reference to any cycle lane or shared use facility.
What weapon are you accusing the cyclist of brandishing?
All in all I find your comment so full of hateful, spiteful and factually-flawed bullshit that you can positively see the steam coming off it from afar.
The traffic calming reference is completely irrelevant. Same for your reference to any cycle lane or shared use facility.
What weapon are you accusing the cyclist of brandishing?
All in all I find your comment so full of hateful, spiteful and factually-flawed bullshit that you can positively see the steam coming off it from afar.
HV02 XZH
2016-08-31 14:26:58
Spot on.
They buy a bike it comes with a free copy of the Highway code and suddenly they own the roads.
Spot on.
They buy a bike it comes with a free copy of the Highway code and suddenly they own the roads.
HV02 XZH
BikerandDrive2016-08-30 19:37:10
Dude can I just ask, why speed up? That's really dangerous and, in this instance, I feel it was most unnecessary. Had you coasted then slightly tapped the brakes I feel this wouldn't have ended there, possibly with a 'thank you wave'. All done and dusted and forgotten about before the day's out probably.
I cycle an awful lot and I get this done on me.. people do make mistakes (including myself). It's just give and take and the world goes round that much smoother.
With that out the way, I feel that what the driver did next was completely and utterly indefensible. I am referring to his apparent desire to use his car as a weapon with which to impede traffic.. doing it to a car would be dangerous, but a bike rider..well that's how people end up seriously injured or even dead. And quite frankly I am appalled at the police response.
My thoughts as regards resolution are thus. If you can't justify the reason why you sped up then with the greatest respect I think you should be done for the offence of furious cycling. The driver for reckless and dangerous driving, and for his threats (the latter a public order offence). Please, if you sped up to tap the car just to prove a point, don't. It is simply not bloody worth it no matter how justified you feel. The last thing you want to be doing is arguing the toss, on a bike, with something that weighs several tons. Your life is far too important. I am just trying to be objective and fair to all and would never advise speeding up like that. If a car swings into you you've had it. Take care all.
Dude can I just ask, why speed up? That's really dangerous and, in this instance, I feel it was most unnecessary. Had you coasted then slightly tapped the brakes I feel this wouldn't have ended there, possibly with a 'thank you wave'. All done and dusted and forgotten about before the day's out probably.
I cycle an awful lot and I get this done on me.. people do make mistakes (including myself). It's just give and take and the world goes round that much smoother.
With that out the way, I feel that what the driver did next was completely and utterly indefensible. I am referring to his apparent desire to use his car as a weapon with which to impede traffic.. doing it to a car would be dangerous, but a bike rider..well that's how people end up seriously injured or even dead. And quite frankly I am appalled at the police response.
My thoughts as regards resolution are thus. If you can't justify the reason why you sped up then with the greatest respect I think you should be done for the offence of furious cycling. The driver for reckless and dangerous driving, and for his threats (the latter a public order offence). Please, if you sped up to tap the car just to prove a point, don't. It is simply not bloody worth it no matter how justified you feel. The last thing you want to be doing is arguing the toss, on a bike, with something that weighs several tons. Your life is far too important. I am just trying to be objective and fair to all and would never advise speeding up like that. If a car swings into you you've had it. Take care all.
HV02 XZH
BikeAndDrive2016-09-02 02:38:19
"I fail to see how that was covered said distance whilst coasting and/or braking".
Apologies for my rushed bollocks. Should read: "I fail to see how that distance was covered whilst coasting and/or braking."
"I fail to see how that was covered said distance whilst coasting and/or braking".
Apologies for my rushed bollocks. Should read: "I fail to see how that distance was covered whilst coasting and/or braking."
HV02 XZH
2016-08-31 23:27:15
Yes Anon the cyclist did have priority however they were not reading the road ahead very well were they? You're on a bike and someone pulls out on you in a narrow road approaching an even narrower stretch due to traffic calming - you'd be a fool not to try and keep back and create some distance.
Yes Anon the cyclist did have priority however they were not reading the road ahead very well were they? You're on a bike and someone pulls out on you in a narrow road approaching an even narrower stretch due to traffic calming - you'd be a fool not to try and keep back and create some distance.
HV02 XZH
BikerandDrive2016-08-31 23:07:45
Thanks for your comment, Anon.
I'm not smoking anything, thanks. I'm merely expressing my opinion based on observation. I count around six seconds for that cyclist to take evasive action. If you're coasting and braking at a fairly moderate speed then can I ask you..would it really require that much braking distance? Looking at the distance covered and the time taken to cover it, I fail to see how that was covered said distance whilst coasting and/or braking - they appeared to speed up.
I have not once accused the cyclist of speed, or for that matter suggested he isn't allowed on the road. He is of course there by right and I agree, the Peugeot driver should have given way. However the world is not perfect, and all people are prone to making mistakes. As I mentioned, whether he did make a mistake or not, I would not recommend racing upto someone's blind spot to prove a point. My first priority is safety and the cyclist is more vulnerable - whether right or wrong, they will lose. It's simply not worth it. And saying they wouldn't have done it to another vehicle. Well, I get it done on me whether I'm on two wheels or 4: someone facing the wrong way pulling out. If I can slow down safely to avoid hitting them then I do. Is there something wrong with doing that?
If you somehow think I'm anti-cyclist then all I would advise is think again. I've been in situations where I have unfortunately had to defend myself physically and not just from someone driving a car. As I said earlier I am not defending the driver for both their driving and threatening behaviour. But by the same measure I cannot see why the cyclist couldn't slow down within the given time frame.
Here is my honest opinions are regards what I consider to be 'one' possible explanation for the pull-out. You see the green/blue car pulling in earlier on? Perhaps the driver was focussed mainly on that car and assumed that nothing was behind it. Without second glancing they pulled out and for whatever reason they ended up alongside the cyclist.
All I am saying is, I think this situation could have easily been avoided. However that in no way justifies the driver's threatening behaviour (including using their car as a weapon), and in my opinion the police are negligent not to prosecute.
Hope this explains things.
Thanks for your comment, Anon.
I'm not smoking anything, thanks. I'm merely expressing my opinion based on observation. I count around six seconds for that cyclist to take evasive action. If you're coasting and braking at a fairly moderate speed then can I ask you..would it really require that much braking distance? Looking at the distance covered and the time taken to cover it, I fail to see how that was covered said distance whilst coasting and/or braking - they appeared to speed up.
I have not once accused the cyclist of speed, or for that matter suggested he isn't allowed on the road. He is of course there by right and I agree, the Peugeot driver should have given way. However the world is not perfect, and all people are prone to making mistakes. As I mentioned, whether he did make a mistake or not, I would not recommend racing upto someone's blind spot to prove a point. My first priority is safety and the cyclist is more vulnerable - whether right or wrong, they will lose. It's simply not worth it. And saying they wouldn't have done it to another vehicle. Well, I get it done on me whether I'm on two wheels or 4: someone facing the wrong way pulling out. If I can slow down safely to avoid hitting them then I do. Is there something wrong with doing that?
If you somehow think I'm anti-cyclist then all I would advise is think again. I've been in situations where I have unfortunately had to defend myself physically and not just from someone driving a car. As I said earlier I am not defending the driver for both their driving and threatening behaviour. But by the same measure I cannot see why the cyclist couldn't slow down within the given time frame.
Here is my honest opinions are regards what I consider to be 'one' possible explanation for the pull-out. You see the green/blue car pulling in earlier on? Perhaps the driver was focussed mainly on that car and assumed that nothing was behind it. Without second glancing they pulled out and for whatever reason they ended up alongside the cyclist.
All I am saying is, I think this situation could have easily been avoided. However that in no way justifies the driver's threatening behaviour (including using their car as a weapon), and in my opinion the police are negligent not to prosecute.
Hope this explains things.
HV02 XZH
Endless Nameless2016-08-31 14:25:31
@Anon2016-08-31 05:54:24
"Doesn't matter if he speeded up, doesn't matter if he had a camera"
Of course it matters!
1. If he hadn't speeded up the car would have pulled away and it's all forgotten about.
2. If he didn't have a camera he would not have behaved as he did.
As for trying to put him down for driving a Peugeot, are you forgetting that YOU USE A KIDS TOY AS TRANSPORT!
@Anon2016-08-31 05:54:24
"Doesn't matter if he speeded up, doesn't matter if he had a camera"
Of course it matters!
1. If he hadn't speeded up the car would have pulled away and it's all forgotten about.
2. If he didn't have a camera he would not have behaved as he did.
As for trying to put him down for driving a Peugeot, are you forgetting that YOU USE A KIDS TOY AS TRANSPORT!
HV02 XZH
Anon2016-08-31 05:54:24
@BikerandDrive
Speed up? speed up? wtf are you smoking?
He's a cyclist, he's coasting along, he's not speeding, he's allowed on the road legally, the twat in the Peugeot should of given way plain & simple
Doesn't matter if he speeded up, doesn't matter if he had a camera - had it been another vehicle would the twat have pulled out? of course not
And as for the aggressive driving and temper tantrum - there's no point PC Plod having a word in his ear because there's nothing stopping the sound waves from exiting the other ear plus he's driving a Peugeot enough said.
I'd of given him one warning "back up or you get put down in self defence" hopefully being the thick twat he is he'd of ignored the warning.
@BikerandDrive
Speed up? speed up? wtf are you smoking?
He's a cyclist, he's coasting along, he's not speeding, he's allowed on the road legally, the twat in the Peugeot should of given way plain & simple
Doesn't matter if he speeded up, doesn't matter if he had a camera - had it been another vehicle would the twat have pulled out? of course not
And as for the aggressive driving and temper tantrum - there's no point PC Plod having a word in his ear because there's nothing stopping the sound waves from exiting the other ear plus he's driving a Peugeot enough said.
I'd of given him one warning "back up or you get put down in self defence" hopefully being the thick twat he is he'd of ignored the warning.
HV02 XZH
Spawn of Rab2016-08-30 19:45:14
Why speed up? because he has a camera and wanted to make an issue out of it.
His own 'evidence' bites him in the arse. :)
Why speed up? because he has a camera and wanted to make an issue out of it.
His own 'evidence' bites him in the arse. :)
HV02 XZH
BikerandDrive2016-08-30 19:37:44
"I feel this wouldn't have ended there". Sorry I meant "would" have ended there.
"I feel this wouldn't have ended there". Sorry I meant "would" have ended there.
HV02 XZH
Mij Tawt2016-09-01 14:24:02
Not ALL camera carrying cyclists are wankers, just the ones (like in this instance) where instead of trying to avoid an incident they escalate it and then rush home to add it to their YouTube channel.
I cycle myself and see lots of incidents that I could involve myself in but it's better to roll your eyes, smile and carry on with life.
Not ALL camera carrying cyclists are wankers, just the ones (like in this instance) where instead of trying to avoid an incident they escalate it and then rush home to add it to their YouTube channel.
I cycle myself and see lots of incidents that I could involve myself in but it's better to roll your eyes, smile and carry on with life.
HV02 XZH
2016-08-31 23:18:16
"The first thing all you camera carrying wankers say in these videos is "You're on camera". It's no coincidence is it? "
Bit of an assumption there? Lots of people carry cameras and no doubt lots of people have had good reason to inform others they're "on camera".. doesn't mean the person holding the camera is a "wanker". Indeed, such footage can be used and has been used as potential evidence in court, with the assailant prosecuted. Others carry cameras for education purposes or just for the hell of it - all perfectly legal. If however you think that any cyclist with a camera is wanker? Then there's nothing more I can say to someone who in that instance clearly doesn't want to be reasoned with..
"The first thing all you camera carrying wankers say in these videos is "You're on camera". It's no coincidence is it? "
Bit of an assumption there? Lots of people carry cameras and no doubt lots of people have had good reason to inform others they're "on camera".. doesn't mean the person holding the camera is a "wanker". Indeed, such footage can be used and has been used as potential evidence in court, with the assailant prosecuted. Others carry cameras for education purposes or just for the hell of it - all perfectly legal. If however you think that any cyclist with a camera is wanker? Then there's nothing more I can say to someone who in that instance clearly doesn't want to be reasoned with..
HV02 XZH
Mij Tawt2016-08-30 19:51:31
Jim, The only lesson the driver needs teaching is to next time PULL OUT IN FRONT OF YOU as you claim he did anyway.
Then you will maybe have a legitimate arguement.
You need to ask yourself if you would you have sped up and caused a scene if you didn't have the camera? I doubt it.
The first thing all you camera carrying wankers say in these videos is "You're on camera". It's no coincidence is it?
Jim, The only lesson the driver needs teaching is to next time PULL OUT IN FRONT OF YOU as you claim he did anyway.
Then you will maybe have a legitimate arguement.
You need to ask yourself if you would you have sped up and caused a scene if you didn't have the camera? I doubt it.
The first thing all you camera carrying wankers say in these videos is "You're on camera". It's no coincidence is it?
Add comment
Attaching movies and photos (?)
It's enough to include link to photo or youtube or facebook movie into comment's content in order to attach them to the comment
Pulls out without looking
Then starts road raging
Then is affraid that he hit his car