Routemasters (again)

In message , Nick Finnigan
writes
On 03/08/2013 12:53, Ian Jackson wrote:

Why is it so difficult for us to accept the HC definition that "Green means
you may go on if the way is clear"?

Because it is a tautology.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tautology
--
Ian

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 13:23:25 +0100, Nick
wrote:


Give Way to 'em, in other words...

No, "give way to" is not synonymous with "don't drive into". If
somone is across the line but not blocking your path there is no
obligation for you to stop and let them cross.


I would interpret "give way to pedestrians who are crossing" (under the
explanation of green in the link provided by adrian) to mean that there
is an obligation for the driver to stop and let them cross.


If he's turning into a side road, yes there is - which is what that
passage said. Going straight on, no. There's an obligation not to hit
them, or indeed to do anything careless or dangerous. Stop and let
them cross, no.

In fact I think I was taught that you should not drive trough a
pedestrian crossing until all pedestrians had finished crossing, but
maybe that was zebras.

I always stop and allow zebras to cross.

--

Ian D

On Sat, 3 Aug 2013 12:53:00 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Nick Finnigan
writes
On 03/08/2013 11:02, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:59:22 +0100, JNugent wrote:

The whole diversion about proceeding only if the way is clear had been
dealt with. It has nothing to do with traffic lights per se. It applies
everywhere, all the time.

Yes, it does. That's true. But it is explicitly given as the definition
of a green light. Don't assume that green means it's clear to cross the
junction. If there's somebody else in the junction, let 'em go, whether
they should be there or not.

Give Way to 'em, in other words...

Most drivers take 'give way' to mean more than that; obviously not all.

Why is it so difficult for us to accept the HC definition that "Green
means you may go on if the way is clear"?

In what way is that a definition, and of what?

--

Ian D

On 03/08/2013 12:53, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Nick Finnigan
writes
On 03/08/2013 11:02, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:59:22 +0100, JNugent wrote:

The whole diversion about proceeding only if the way is clear had been
dealt with. It has nothing to do with traffic lights per se. It applies
everywhere, all the time.

Yes, it does. That's true. But it is explicitly given as the definition
of a green light. Don't assume that green means it's clear to cross the
junction. If there's somebody else in the junction, let 'em go, whether
they should be there or not.

Give Way to 'em, in other words...

Most drivers take 'give way' to mean more than that; obviously not all.

Why is it so difficult for us to accept the HC definition that "Green
means you may go on if the way is clear"?

Easy.

It's because the "if the way is clear" applies everywhere, not just at
traffic lights. It simply isn't a traffic light rule. The code's author
decided to stick it in as a reminder.

On Sat, 3 Aug 2013 09:40:16 +0100, "Norman Wells" wrote:

snip


Highway Code Rule 176:

"You MUST NOT move forward over the white line when the red light is
showing. Only go forward when the traffic lights are green if there is
room for you to clear the junction safely or you are taking up a
position to turn right".


is that the same as:

"You MUST NOT move forward over the white line when the red light is
showing. You MUST only go forward when the traffic lights are green if there is
room for you to clear the junction safely or you are taking up a
position to turn right".

On Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:14:23 +0000 (UTC), Adrian wrote:

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 12:08:14 +0100, Judith wrote:

Cyclists were weaving in and out of other traffic, overtaking first
one one side then on the other, right in front of the eyes of police
officers

Umm, yes, and?
Care to tell us which HC rules that's inherently breaking?

Oh - so you think that that sort of action is OK do you?

I haven't seen the programme. But you'll note I explicitly asked
"inherently".

Many thanks - you have confirmed the point which NY was making.

68 You MUST NOT
* ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner

"Weaving in and out" and "overtaking first one side then the other" are
not _inherently_ dangerous, careless or inconsiderate. They _can_ be,
sure. But they aren't inherently.


Many thanks - I take it that you are a psycholist.


Do you think it is OK for a cyclist to ignore a red light if the way ahead is
seen to be clear of traffic?

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 13:39:25 +0100, Nick Finnigan wrote:

On 03/08/2013 12:02, Judith wrote:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 22:43:50 +0100, "NY" wrote:

snip


Maybe I'm weird in that I will not do anything as a cyclist which would get
me prosecuted if I did it as a car driver.


Spot on - and same here. Unfortunately we seem to be in a minority which is
getting smaller.

Do either of you ride in bus /cycle lanes then?


yes - I often ride in bus and cycle lanes - I also drive in them as well
(actually the same ones)

"Truebrit" wrote:
Going from green to amber I would tend to agree with you but when the
lights
are in the opposite sequence and are going from green to amber

Judith" wrote:
Oh dear : not bright.

Truebrit" wrote:
Indeed. :-)
Proof reading never was one of my fortes. Of course the second line should
read from amber to green. I did correct it in a later post.
Truebrit.

"Ian Dalziel" wrote
They never go from amber to green.


OK Mr. Picky. From red and amber to green. Happy now? Pedantic prick.
Truebrit.

On 03/08/2013 14:42, Ian Dalziel wrote:

I would interpret "give way to pedestrians who are crossing" (under the
explanation of green in the link provided by adrian) to mean that there
is an obligation for the driver to stop and let them cross.


If he's turning into a side road, yes there is - which is what that
passage said. Going straight on, no. There's an obligation not to hit
them, or indeed to do anything careless or dangerous. Stop and let
them cross, no.


Actually I see now that the passage (quoted below) was ambiguous. You
made a particular assumption I made a different one. We would need
further clarification to understand which meaning was intended.


Quote from:


"Take special care if you intend to turn left or right and give way to
pedestrians who are crossing."

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 11:28:17 +0100, Judith
wrote:

(Why not start suggesting that certain things are "decriminalised" so that LAs
can collect money from motorists. That sounds a good plan, and you will go
right up in everyone's estimation of you. Unless it goes up your arse of
course)

Oh dear... I seem to have upset you (again) with that excellent
suggestion of mine. It was totally by accident, ...honest.