Norwich Road (Ipswich) traffic signals

[Paul Boyd]

Blimey - another pedant!

You said "a motorist who comes across a set of lights that is red and
does not change, who waits a sufficient period of time, then proceeds
slowly carefully and cautiously past teh lights, would be guilty of an
offence."

I said "if a motorist came to a red light that wouldn't change, they
were supposed to turn around and find another route"

OK, I didn't spell it out in words of one syllable, but surely you can
see by impication that what /I/ said was you're not allowed to drive
through a light stuck on red. What /you/ said was that by driving
through a light stuck on red, you're committing an offence. Surely the
meaning is the same???

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[pete whelan]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> Blimey - another pedant!
>
> You said "a motorist who comes across a set of lights that is red and
> does not change, who waits a sufficient period of time, then proceeds
> slowly carefully and cautiously past teh lights, would be guilty of an
> offence."
>
> I said "if a motorist came to a red light that wouldn't change, they
> were supposed to turn around and find another route"
>
> OK, I didn't spell it out in words of one syllable, but surely you can
> see by impication that what /I/ said was you're not allowed to drive
> through a light stuck on red. What /you/ said was that by driving
> through a light stuck on red, you're committing an offence. Surely the
> meaning is the same???
>
and if it is a oneway street, you'd be guilty of another offence of
going the wrong way

 

[Paul Boyd]

On 04/07/2006 19:45, pete whelan said,

> and if it is a oneway street, you'd be guilty of another offence of
> going the wrong way

Well, yes. I really wasn't aiming to cover every possible scenario

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 13:54:10 +0100, Paul Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
> Blimey - another pedant!

ooh, an irregular verb:
I am precise
you are picky
he is a pedant

> You said "a motorist who comes across a set of lights that is red and
> does not change, who waits a sufficient period of time, then proceeds
> slowly carefully and cautiously past teh lights, would be guilty of an
> offence."
>
> I said "if a motorist came to a red light that wouldn't change, they
> were supposed to turn around and find another route"
>
> OK, I didn't spell it out in words of one syllable, but surely you can
> see by impication that what /I/ said was you're not allowed to drive
> through a light stuck on red. What /you/ said was that by driving
> through a light stuck on red, you're committing an offence. Surely the
> meaning is the same???

No, because what you said is that a motorist, having determined that
he cannot proceed without comitting an offence, is "supposed" to turn
round and go another way. What I said is that the same motorist in
teh same situation is expected to proceed through the light, and would
suffer no penalty for doing so.

While both indicate an offence occurs, your explanation implies an
offence which is serious, and were the motorist to commit it and be
observed, likely to result in penalty. My explanation explicitly made
it clear that the motorist would be expected to commit what is only
technically an offence, and would suffer no penalty for doing so.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Paul Boyd]

For God's sake - are you a civil servant or something?

Don't take life quite so literally, and you will find it more fun.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[ian henden]

"Paul Boyd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ian Smith said the following on 03/07/2006 14:02:
>
>> I think you are mistaken.
>
> Entirely possible!
>
>> More interesting is whether a set of lights showing permanent red and not
>> changing is faulty.
>
> That was the scenario I meant. A set of lights near me goes out all the
> time, but no lights means it's OK to proceed with caution (and the traffic
> flow is so much better!) What actually happens is that traffic on the
> main road continues at speed as if there was no junction,

Wot.... aren't there any STOP lines (solid white lines) across the roadway?
Cos if there are.... then traffic that has not yet crossed said STOP line
has to give way to other traffic that is already on the junction.

IOW, miniroundabout rules apply (even though there is no actual
miniroundabout).

 

[Paul Boyd]

ian henden said the following on 05/07/2006 11:44:

> Wot.... aren't there any STOP lines (solid white lines) across the roadway?
> Cos if there are.... then traffic that has not yet crossed said STOP line
> has to give way to other traffic that is already on the junction.

Yes there are STOP lines, but every single driver I saw zoomed straight
along the main road is if there was nothing there. The STOP lines
appeared to have no meaning to them whatsoever. The problem generally
is that an awful lot of drivers have no real idea of who has to give way
to who. Treating the junction as if it was a mini-roundabout would be
sensible, but the silly old-fashioned concept of giving way to traffic
on a roundabout seems to have disappeared!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/