Mrs Average has an ally.

People might remember "Mrs Average" who has better things to do like
thinking of what to cook for tea than on her speed (well, yes - she's passed
into legend by now). No doubt peeved at the lack of support (she only
received anti responses) she popped up the other day to yell ya boo sucks to
"her critics".

Well, today she received one supporter, however, it turns out to be the
original woman who started this whole thing off. The ex police special
officer who complained of being done for speeding in a 30 mph zone because
she didn't know the speed limit as there were no 30 mph signs (as there
doesn't need to be).


BEGINS:


I HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN REREAD HIGHWAY CODE


09:30 - 24 May 2004
I Thoroughly agree with Julia Kent from Hessle ("Let he who has not sinned
cast the first stone", Letters, Mail, May 19).

Only a handful of people dislike me for bringing the topic of the Highway
Code to the Mail.

This I can handle because the majority of people like Julia are backing me
and people have both rang and congratulated me face-to-face for having the
guts to speak up for myself.

I also like SG Ward's reply ("I play golf, but don't know all the rules",
Letters, Mail, April 14) to Sergeant Swann's comment - good for him.

With regard to other comments about not being on the road if you do not know
the Highway Code, maybe these people, if tested, would find out after
passing a test 16-years ago they would not know a great deal unless they
constantly have it at their bedside like a bible to read nightly.

I work for a living and have more interesting things to do in my life.

Ms S Bateman,

Blenheim Street,

Hull.

Simon Mason wrote:

Only a handful of people dislike me for bringing the topic of the
Highway Code to the Mail.

She's taking this rather personally, isn't she?

(I play golf, but don't know all the rules", Letters, Mail, April 14)

Hmmm. Isn't there a big difference between playing golf without knowing the
rules, and driving a motor vehicle on public roads without knowing the
rules.

unless they constantly have it at their bedside like a bible to
read nightly.

Wouldn't she be a better christian if she referred to the Highway Code, at
least occasionally?

I work for a living and have more interesting things to do in my life.

Love thy neighbour, and all that.

"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...
People might remember "Mrs Average" who has better things to do like
thinking of what to cook for tea than on her speed (well, yes - she's
passed
into legend by now). No doubt peeved at the lack of support (she only
received anti responses) she popped up the other day to yell ya boo sucks
to
"her critics".

Well, today she received one supporter, however, it turns out to be the
original woman who started this whole thing off. The ex police special
officer who complained of being done for speeding in a 30 mph zone because
she didn't know the speed limit as there were no 30 mph signs (as there
doesn't need to be).


article snipped

I think it's fair to say that the "victim" (for want of a better word) and
the writer of the letter are both wrong.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that the lampposts rules seems abit silly

Clearly, there should be no need for repeater signs in clearly urban areas
regardless of the provisions of street lighting - so it seems to me to be
silly to require them where there is an absence of lighting

Additionally, on roads which do not appear obviously urban but have street
lighting, there is a bit of ambiguity. No excuse for the motorist who should
know the law, but we'd be better off without that ambiguity.

Also, there is the point that you can have "restricted" roads (i.e. those
where repeaters are not required) and "derestricted" roads where a 30mph
limit applies. The signing doesn't really differentiate between the two that
well, which is a problem for laws such as those governing use of the horn on
restricted roads.

And then there's the complication that it doesn't apply on A or B roads in
Scotland and so on.

It's a bit of a mess really. It would be better IMHO if we had a "start of
urban restrictions" sign, like most of the continent does. I think it would
be simpler, better understood and more workable in villages.

But as I say, this doesn't excuse "Mrs Average".

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Simon Mason
breathed:

[ quote from letter to paper ]
This I can handle because the majority of people like Julia are backing me
and people have both rang and congratulated me face-to-face for having the
guts to speak up for myself.

First ever real-world instance of "The lurkers support me in email"?

:-)

--
- Pyromancer.
- http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk -- Pagan Gothic Rock!
- http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk -- Electronic Metal!
- http://www.revival.stormshadow.com -- The Gothic Revival.

"Nathaniel Porter" wrote in message
...


Nevertheless, it seems to me that the lampposts rules seems abit silly

Clearly, there should be no need for repeater signs in clearly urban areas
regardless of the provisions of street lighting - so it seems to me to be
silly to require them where there is an absence of lighting

Additionally, on roads which do not appear obviously urban but have street
lighting, there is a bit of ambiguity. No excuse for the motorist who
should
know the law, but we'd be better off without that ambiguity.

I can tell you there is nothing ambiguous about this road. The usual excuse
used is that it is a dual carriageway, which has got nothing to do with it
as there are plenty of other 30 mph dual carriageways in the city apart from
this one.

All it is, is somebody has got fined for speeding and instead of holding
their hands up, admitting guilt, paying the fine, vowing to be more careful
in future, perhaps (gasp) even buying an up to date HC and reading it
instead of watching East Enders one evening, which is what most reasonable
people would have done. She has taken it upon herself to blame the system,
roadsigns, the police and anyone but herself and has only succeeded in
looking a total berk to anyone with their head screwed on.

I think the 'paper knew this as the headline is a bit of a stitch up.

I HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN REREAD HIGHWAY CODE
--
Simon M.

"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...

"Nathaniel Porter" wrote in message
...


Nevertheless, it seems to me that the lampposts rules seems abit silly

Clearly, there should be no need for repeater signs in clearly urban
areas
regardless of the provisions of street lighting - so it seems to me to
be
silly to require them where there is an absence of lighting

Additionally, on roads which do not appear obviously urban but have
street
lighting, there is a bit of ambiguity. No excuse for the motorist who
should
know the law, but we'd be better off without that ambiguity.

I can tell you there is nothing ambiguous about this road. The usual
excuse
used is that it is a dual carriageway, which has got nothing to do with it
as there are plenty of other 30 mph dual carriageways in the city apart
from
this one.


Abolutely. But I think we could have a better system which addresses the
failings of the current one (which I don't think has much to do with this
case though) :-)

All it is, is somebody has got fined for speeding and instead of holding
their hands up, admitting guilt, paying the fine, vowing to be more
careful
in future, perhaps (gasp) even buying an up to date HC and reading it
instead of watching East Enders one evening, which is what most reasonable
people would have done. She has taken it upon herself to blame the system,
roadsigns, the police and anyone but herself and has only succeeded in
looking a total berk to anyone with their head screwed on.


Absolutely.

snip

Response:

I find it interesting to read that Ms Bateman (24 MAY 04) has better things
to do with her time than to familiarise herself with the basic rules of the
road before setting out in her car. I wonder if she is also too busy to
visit a pub, do the lottery or watch East Enders like millions of others can
find the time for. As she watches TV might she wonder if it may be a more
useful pursuit to spend a while finding out what other laws she is not aware
of, even if only to prevent any more future fines?

--

Simon M.

Simon Mason wrote:
Response:

I find it interesting to read that Ms Bateman (24 MAY 04) has better
things to do with her time than to familiarise herself with the basic
rules of the road before setting out in her car. I wonder if she is
also too busy to visit a pub, do the lottery or watch East Enders
like millions of others can find the time for. As she watches TV
might she wonder if it may be a more useful pursuit to spend a while
finding out what other laws she is not aware of, even if only to
prevent any more future fines?

I like it. Pithy.

On Mon, 24 May 2004 14:43:48 +0100, "Simonb"
wrote (more or less):

Simon Mason wrote:

Only a handful of people dislike me for bringing the topic of the
Highway Code to the Mail.

She's taking this rather personally, isn't she?

(I play golf, but don't know all the rules", Letters, Mail, April 14)

Hmmm. Isn't there a big difference between playing golf without knowing the
rules, and driving a motor vehicle on public roads without knowing the
rules.

Mm, yes. Playing golf carelessly is not likely to kill or seriously
injure someone (yes it's possible it might, but the chances are not
high).

....
--
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

On Mon, 24 May 2004 14:21:54 +0100 someone who may be "Simon Mason"
quoted this:-

With regard to other comments about not being on the road if you do not know
the Highway Code, maybe these people, if tested, would find out after
passing a test 16-years ago they would not know a great deal unless they
constantly have it at their bedside like a bible to read nightly.

I work for a living and have more interesting things to do in my life.

I suspect that somewhere in the Highway Code there is a note about
keeping oneself up-to-date with the Code. When one accepts a driving
licence then the conditions include following the Code ISTR. If my
recollection is true then she is saying that she is not complying
with the conditions of the contract between herself and society.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.