Re: Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.

[Richard]

Steve Firth wrote:
> No, if you don't know the road you should allow other traffic to pass,
> and not play at being a mobile road block.

Even if they have to break the speed limit to do so?

 

[Adrian]

Richard ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

>> No, if you don't know the road you should allow other traffic to pass,
>> and not play at being a mobile road block.

> Even if they have to break the speed limit to do so?

How does "allowing other traffic to pass" force you to break the speed
limit?

 

[Simonb]

Adrian wrote:
> Richard ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying :
>
>>> No, if you don't know the road you should allow other traffic to
>>> pass, and not play at being a mobile road block.
>
>> Even if they have to break the speed limit to do so?
>
> How does "allowing other traffic to pass" force you to break the speed
> limit?

You mean the car in front should pull over?

 

[Adrian]

Simonb ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

>>>> No, if you don't know the road you should allow other traffic to
>>>> pass, and not play at being a mobile road block.

>>> Even if they have to break the speed limit to do so?

>> How does "allowing other traffic to pass" force you to break the speed
>> limit?

> You mean the car in front should pull over?

If there's a queue built up behind them, then - yes - they should.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.shtml#145

It could also include slowing slightly, moving as far left as possible, and
helping the traffic behind overtake whenever there's an opportunity -
instead of moving right to reduce the overtaker's space and accelerating
hard as they get alongside, as some seem to do.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Dave J wrote:

>> Ah, I forgot - your definition of "actively obstruct" includes
>> anybody who dares to use your road when you want to. Silly of me...

> Ah, I forgot, your definition of not actively obstructing includes
> driving at the speed limit when the person behind you wants to drive
> faster. Contrary to the highway code.

Yes, you are right, speeding is contrary to the highway code. And indeed
the law. You wouldn't be so hypocritical as to stand on the Highway Code to
require someone to allow you to break the law, would you?

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Steve Firth wrote:

>> Although safe driving experts such as Paul Ripley have been known to
>> mention that safe drivers keep within the law...

> And he has also stated that drivers who obstruct others are more of a
> menace than those who use speed appropriately when passing slower
> traffic.

But of course since he has repeatedly said that one should not speed, the
driver observing the speed limit cannot, by definition, fall into the
category of those causing a menace by obstructing others.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Dave J wrote:

>> And you can tell just by looking at the car whether the driver needs
>> his licence to earn a living? Wow, that's impressive!

> No, but there are some vehicles where there is a higher likelyhood,
> and you can usually spot them from style of driving. I couldn't say
> how, but there *is* usually a difference.

Fascinating. So how could you tell from looking at my car the date and time
on which my contract changed so that I will no longer lose my job if I am
not in possession of a current UK driving licence?

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

 

[Simonb]

Adrian wrote:
> Simonb ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
> sounding much like they were saying :
>
>>>>> No, if you don't know the road you should allow other traffic to
>>>>> pass, and not play at being a mobile road block.
>
>>>> Even if they have to break the speed limit to do so?
>
>>> How does "allowing other traffic to pass" force you to break the
>>> speed limit?
>
>> You mean the car in front should pull over?
>
> If there's a queue built up behind them, then - yes - they should.

Even if you're driving at the posted limit?

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

> No, by 'getting out of the way' I certainly do *not* mean driving
> faster on a road I don't know. What I do is pull over. This gets me
> out of the way (or him/her out of the way depending on point of view)
>
But again, why should I? REmember I'm in my car, not in a lorry, and
I'm doing 40MPH in a 40 limit.


--
Conor

If you're not on somebody's **** list, you're not doing anything
worthwhile.

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

> Indeed. I would be the last person to suggest that you 'just stop'
> until affordable alternatives have been introduced for all but 'last
> leg' delivery.
>
I wish they'd hurry up.


--
Conor

If you're not on somebody's **** list, you're not doing anything
worthwhile.

 

[Adrian]

Simonb ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

>>> You mean the car in front should pull over?

>> If there's a queue built up behind them, then - yes - they should.

> Even if you're driving at the posted limit?

If you wouldn't mind just putting the goal posts back where you found 'em.
Thanks.

 

[James Hodson]

On Tue, 18 May 2004 13:03:06 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> ROFLMAO!
>
>Ah, I forgot - your definition of "actively obstruct" includes anybody who
>dares to use your road when you want to. Silly of me...

Very silly indeed, Guy. By tending towards both the Dark Side and the
extra-long Goodie Bike area you are per se deliberately obstructing
the traffic. As you well know, the word traffic does not include
cycles, horses, etc. Indeed, "traffic" applies to anyone else who is
not "ME!!" (ME!!! being automoblile drivers of a certain persuasion.)

I watched a prog. last night about lorry drivers being guilty for
several aspects of road rage. The main complaint seemed to be that
lorries had braking and accelerating distances somewhat longer than
cars. IE, it took them longer to get out of the way. IMO, the vast
majority of HGV drivers are incredible courteous.

Live and let live/die - dum de dum, dum de dum, dum dum
James

 

[Colin Blackburn]

On 18 May 2004 14:33:27 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Simonb ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
> sounding much like they were saying :
>
>>>> You mean the car in front should pull over?
>
>>> If there's a queue built up behind them, then - yes - they should.
>
>> Even if you're driving at the posted limit?
>
> If you wouldn't mind just putting the goal posts back where you found
> 'em.

I think you'll find the goal posts have been in this position since half
three yesterday.

Colin

 

[Gawnsoft]

On Tue, 18 May 2004 09:16:07 +0100, Peter Amey
<[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

>Gawnsoft wrote:
....
>> Which is why I'm glad rudimentary hazard perception is now a part of
>> driver testing, as well as just elementary car control skills.
>>
>
>Agreed, but it's a shame the test is so badly constructed. I had a go
>at one of the practice versions recently (my son was learning to drive).
> At the first attempt I scored exactly zero because I had seen and
>clicked on each hazard too soon! As far as I could tell it is set up to
>require a mouse click somewhere near the emergency brake distance from
>the hazard rather than at the point where you should be adjusting for it.

aargh! they're training that early perception and action is wrong!

Aaaaaaaargh!!!


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

[Richard]

Adrian wrote:

>>>>>No, if you don't know the road you should allow other traffic to
>>>>>pass, and not play at being a mobile road block.
>
>
>>>>Even if they have to break the speed limit to do so?
>
>
>>>How does "allowing other traffic to pass" force you to break the speed
>>>limit?
>
>
>
>>You mean the car in front should pull over?
>
>
> If there's a queue built up behind them, then - yes - they should.
>
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.shtml#145

Dear Sir,

I was making my getaway from a bank job when I was disgusted to
encounter a Volvo driver who was doing the posted limit. He refused to
pull over and let me pass, quite contrary to the highway code quoted
above. As a result a long queue of very impatient police cars built up
behind me. Why can't the police start arresting real criminals instead
of persecuting law-abiding bank robbers like me?

Yours,
Disgusted of HMP Tunbridge Wells.

 

[Trevor Barton]

On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:39:01 +0100, Dave J wrote:
> In MsgID<[email protected]> within
> uk.rec.driving, 'Conor' wrote:
>
>>
>>> No, by 'getting out of the way' I certainly do *not* mean driving
>>> faster on a road I don't know. What I do is pull over. This gets me
>>> out of the way (or him/her out of the way depending on point of view)
>>>
>>But again, why should I? REmember I'm in my car, not in a lorry, and
>>I'm doing 40MPH in a 40 limit.
>
> Depends on your values for 'should', mine say that I should follow the
> highway code and show consideration. They also say I should not cause
> a hazard by sitting in front of someone that wishes I wasn't.

Are you allowed in English law to aid or assist someone to break it?
By pulling over while doing the speed limit to allow someone to overtake
so that they can exceed the limit, you are presumably assisting them to
commit an offence, especially if you do it knowing that they want
to break the limit. That sort of assisting is certainly in itself
an offence for some crimes (to take an extreme if you helped a burglar
by kicking in the door of a house because their hands were already full
of swag). Is it true for all law-breaking?

--
Trevor Barton

 

[Martin]

>>I actively obstruct drivers wishing to pass where it would put me in
danger if
>>they tried to pass.

Serious risk of injury here!

I would never do that and I survived being a child too!

 

[Martin]

>>Not going to hold you up as long as a loaded horse box lying flat right
>>across the road would, is it?

No it is that a large number of horse box drivers are assholes.

I see quite a few going around, and 90% are driven by assholes.

Then they meet up somewhere - blocking the road - with their boxes, horses
and dogs wearing their gay clothes and start harrasing foxes - everyone
knows a rifle does a better job!

 

[Trevor Barton]

On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:02:53 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Dave J wrote:
>
>>> And you can tell just by looking at the car whether the driver needs
>>> his licence to earn a living? Wow, that's impressive!
>
>> No, but there are some vehicles where there is a higher likelyhood,
>> and you can usually spot them from style of driving. I couldn't say
>> how, but there *is* usually a difference.

And you presumably know that because you've stopped them and asked
the driver?

> Fascinating. So how could you tell from looking at my car the date and time
> on which my contract changed so that I will no longer lose my job if I am
> not in possession of a current UK driving licence?

No, it's the obvious clues. The distracted manner, the reading of the
newspaper when you're on the move because it's the only time you
have to yourself, the mobile phone because you have to let Sue in the
office know that Jerry is expecting to meet you in the layby on the
A65. As soon as you no longer need to drive for your job you don't
do any of these things, obviously, so suddenly you become a courteous
and law-abiding driver.

--
Trevor Barton

 

[scott]

Trevor Barton wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:39:01 +0100, Dave J wrote:
>> In MsgID<[email protected]> within
>> uk.rec.driving, 'Conor' wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> No, by 'getting out of the way' I certainly do *not* mean driving
>>>> faster on a road I don't know. What I do is pull over. This gets me
>>>> out of the way (or him/her out of the way depending on point of
>>>> view)
>>>>
>>> But again, why should I? REmember I'm in my car, not in a lorry, and
>>> I'm doing 40MPH in a 40 limit.
>>
>> Depends on your values for 'should', mine say that I should follow
>> the highway code and show consideration. They also say I should not
>> cause a hazard by sitting in front of someone that wishes I wasn't.
>
> Are you allowed in English law to aid or assist someone to break it?
> By pulling over while doing the speed limit to allow someone to
> overtake so that they can exceed the limit, you are presumably
> assisting them to commit an offence, especially if you do it knowing
> that they want
> to break the limit. That sort of assisting is certainly in itself
> an offence for some crimes (to take an extreme if you helped a burglar
> by kicking in the door of a house because their hands were already
> full of swag). Is it true for all law-breaking?

No, by pulling over, you are not preventing them from speeding, not
assisting them. There is a difference. It's the same as seeing a potential
burgular walking along a street and deciding not to go and stop them.