|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Motorists really should be tested on their knowledge of thehighway code
On 11/04/2011 19:55, Squashme wrote:
On Apr 11, 7:53 am, wrote: On Apr 10, 9:10 am, Tony wrote: On 10/04/2011 07:17, Doug wrote: On Apr 8, 6:21 pm, Tony wrote: On 08/04/2011 07:55, Doug wrote: On Apr 7, 3:48 pm, Simon wrote: On Apr 7, 3:28 pm, wrote: I can understand some one that is not too with it taking a motorway slip in an absent minded moment, but why continue on? http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local...s/2011/04/07/c... Scraping the barrel today, Cheerless? 2/3 of the story was about the chaos drivers were causing on the M62 - the cyclist came and went without incident. "Drivers also faced hold-ups on the motorway s eastbound carriageway late yesterday, after an accident involving a lorry and a car. The vehicles blocked the nearside lane approaching the slip road at Junction 26 (Chain Bar) but no-one was hurt. Traffic queues built up for several miles before the vehicles were removed. It was the second day in a row that a serious accident brought M62 chaos. On Tuesday, four fire crews were called to deal with a five-vehicle pile-up which left one driver badly hurt." The obstructive motorists obviously had a poor knowledge of the Highway Code and also bear in mind they are much more dangerous than cyclists. -- . UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated). http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. What part of the HC would that be? Several parts, such as tailgating and taking suitable precautions. I am not sure if you are referring to the original accident, in which case what part of the HC did they not obey, or the motorists in the queue, and if so what part they did not consider. I'm not saying that there was not a breach of the HC but my limited knowledge of the incident tells me nothing. Well I am glad you agree. Surely, if the HC is always strictly obeyed there can be no crashes? Haven't you read it yet? Yes last time that I did the online course that my employer insists I do every year. And if the traffic was that slow , why were they a danger? From impatient drivers who can't bear holdups, obviously. Doug Oh I see, fast traffic is a danger, slow traffic is a danger, can motorists travel at a medium speed? Anyway you are always insisting that motor traffic is slowed down. The slower the traffic the less impact force it exerts on collision, the greater the stopping distance and the longer reaction time of the drivers.. But we know what the reason for your post is, is it that you admire this cyclist& are trying to defend him, you are on record as saying you think cyclists should be allowed to travel on motorways. No I am on record as saying there should be no discriminatory public roads. Obviously motorways should always have a cycle track and pavements so as not to discriminate unfairly against cyclists and pedestrians. We can blame Hitler for motorway discrimination. Is it anywhere on record that he disliked cyclists? I bet he did. Doug. Apparently he found them useful:- http://tinyurl.com/68q4x6w He also apparently didn't like meat-eating much. He obviously approved of wearing shorts. The Nazis were interested in the environment, allegedly. I don't know where they stood on sandals. On top of them, I would imagine. Doesn't everyone (who wears sandals)? |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Motorists really should be tested on their knowledge of thehighway code
On Apr 11, 10:46*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 11/04/2011 19:55, Squashme wrote: On Apr 11, 7:53 am, *wrote: On Apr 10, 9:10 am, Tony *wrote: On 10/04/2011 07:17, Doug wrote: On Apr 8, 6:21 pm, Tony * *wrote: On 08/04/2011 07:55, Doug wrote: On Apr 7, 3:48 pm, Simon * * *wrote: On Apr 7, 3:28 pm, * * *wrote: I can understand some one that is not too with it taking a motorway slip in an absent minded moment, but why continue on? http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local...s/2011/04/07/c... Scraping the barrel today, Cheerless? 2/3 of the story was about the chaos drivers were causing on the M62 - the cyclist came and went without incident. "Drivers also faced hold-ups on the motorway s eastbound carriageway late yesterday, after an accident involving a lorry and a car. The vehicles blocked the nearside lane approaching the slip road at Junction 26 (Chain Bar) but no-one was hurt. Traffic queues built up for several miles before the vehicles were removed. It was the second day in a row that a serious accident brought M62 chaos. On Tuesday, four fire crews were called to deal with a five-vehicle pile-up which left one driver badly hurt." The obstructive motorists obviously had a poor knowledge of the Highway Code and also bear in mind they are much more dangerous than cyclists. -- . UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated). *http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. What part of the HC would that be? Several parts, such as tailgating and taking suitable precautions. I am not sure if you are referring to the original accident, in which case what part of the HC did they not obey, or the motorists in the queue, and if so what part they did not consider. I'm not saying that there was not a breach of the HC but my limited knowledge of the incident tells me nothing. Well I am glad you agree. Surely, if the HC is always strictly obeyed there can be no crashes? Haven't you read it yet? Yes last time that I did the online course that my employer insists I do every year. And if the traffic was that slow , why were they a danger? * From impatient drivers who can't bear holdups, obviously. Doug Oh I see, fast traffic is a danger, slow traffic is a danger, can motorists travel at a medium speed? Anyway you are always insisting that motor traffic is slowed down. The slower the traffic the less impact force it exerts on collision, the greater the stopping distance and the longer reaction time of the drivers.. But we know what the reason for your post is, is it that you admire this cyclist& *are trying to defend him, you are on record as saying you think cyclists should be allowed to travel on motorways. No I am on record as saying there should be no discriminatory public roads. Obviously motorways should always have a cycle track and pavements so as not to discriminate unfairly against cyclists and pedestrians. We can blame Hitler for motorway discrimination. Is it anywhere on record that he disliked cyclists? I bet he did. Doug. Apparently he found them useful:- http://tinyurl.com/68q4x6w He also apparently didn't like meat-eating much. He obviously approved of wearing shorts. The Nazis were interested in the environment, allegedly. I don't know where they stood on sandals. On top of them, I would imagine. Doesn't everyone (who wears sandals)? I was bowling underarm. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Motorists really should be tested on their knowledge of thehighway code
On Apr 11, 7:53*am, Doug wrote:
On Apr 10, 9:10*am, Tony Dragon wrote: On 10/04/2011 07:17, Doug wrote: On Apr 8, 6:21 pm, Tony *wrote: On 08/04/2011 07:55, Doug wrote: On Apr 7, 3:48 pm, Simon * *wrote: On Apr 7, 3:28 pm, * *wrote: I can understand some one that is not too with it taking a motorway slip in an absent minded moment, but why continue on? http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local...s/2011/04/07/c... Scraping the barrel today, Cheerless? 2/3 of the story was about the chaos drivers were causing on the M62 - the cyclist came and went without incident. "Drivers also faced hold-ups on the motorway s eastbound carriageway late yesterday, after an accident involving a lorry and a car. The vehicles blocked the nearside lane approaching the slip road at Junction 26 (Chain Bar) but no-one was hurt. Traffic queues built up for several miles before the vehicles were removed. It was the second day in a row that a serious accident brought M62 chaos. On Tuesday, four fire crews were called to deal with a five-vehicle pile-up which left one driver badly hurt." The obstructive motorists obviously had a poor knowledge of the Highway Code and also bear in mind they are much more dangerous than cyclists. -- . UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated). *http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. What part of the HC would that be? Several parts, such as tailgating and taking suitable precautions. I am not sure if you are referring to the original accident, in which case what part of the HC did they not obey, or the motorists in the queue, and if so what part they did not consider. I'm not saying that there was not a breach of the HC but my limited knowledge of the incident tells me nothing. Well I am glad you agree. Surely, if the HC is always strictly obeyed there can be no crashes? Haven't you read it yet? Yes last time that I did the online course that my employer insists I do every year. And if the traffic was that slow , why were they a danger? *From impatient drivers who can't bear holdups, obviously. Doug Oh I see, fast traffic is a danger, slow traffic is a danger, can motorists travel at a medium speed? Anyway you are always insisting that motor traffic is slowed down. The slower the traffic the less impact force it exerts on collision, Speed is not the only factor. the greater the stopping distance Stopping distance increases as speed gets less, is this called 'reverse physics'? and the longer reaction time of the drivers.. I fail to see what speed has to do with reaction time. But we know what the reason for your post is, is it that you admire this cyclist & are trying to defend him, you are on record as saying you think cyclists should be allowed to travel on motorways. No I am on record as saying there should be no discriminatory public roads. Obviously motorways should always have a cycle track and pavements so as not to discriminate unfairly against cyclists and pedestrians. We can blame Hitler for motorway discrimination. Did Hitler invent motorways, I think not. Is it anywhere on record that he disliked cyclists? I bet he did. Doug. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=051PZMaZClQ Seems he did. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Motorists really should be tested on their knowledge of the highwaycode
On 11/04/2011 19:55, Squashme wrote:
I thought you had died? -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Motorists really should be tested on their knowledge of thehighway code
On 11/04/2011 22:46, JNugent wrote:
Doesn't everyone (who wears sandals)? What do you call a Frenchman wearing sandals? Phillipe Phillop. I'll get me coat.... -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Motorists really should be tested on their knowledge of thehighway code
On Apr 11, 8:54*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote: Doug wrote: On Apr 10, 9:10 am, Tony Dragon wrote: On 10/04/2011 07:17, Doug wrote: On Apr 8, 6:21 pm, Tony wrote: On 08/04/2011 07:55, Doug wrote: On Apr 7, 3:48 pm, Simon wrote: On Apr 7, 3:28 pm, wrote: I can understand some one that is not too with it taking a motorway slip in an absent minded moment, but why continue on? http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local...s/2011/04/07/c... Scraping the barrel today, Cheerless? 2/3 of the story was about the chaos drivers were causing on the M62 - the cyclist came and went without incident. "Drivers also faced hold-ups on the motorway s eastbound carriageway late yesterday, after an accident involving a lorry and a car. The vehicles blocked the nearside lane approaching the slip road at Junction 26 (Chain Bar) but no-one was hurt. Traffic queues built up for several miles before the vehicles were removed. It was the second day in a row that a serious accident brought M62 chaos. On Tuesday, four fire crews were called to deal with a five-vehicle pile-up which left one driver badly hurt." The obstructive motorists obviously had a poor knowledge of the Highway Code and also bear in mind they are much more dangerous than cyclists. -- . UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated). http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. What part of the HC would that be? Several parts, such as tailgating and taking suitable precautions. I am not sure if you are referring to the original accident, in which case what part of the HC did they not obey, or the motorists in the queue, and if so what part they did not consider. I'm not saying that there was not a breach of the HC but my limited knowledge of the incident tells me nothing. Well I am glad you agree. Surely, if the HC is always strictly obeyed there can be no crashes? Haven't you read it yet? Yes last time that I did the online course that my employer insists I do every year. And if the traffic was that slow , why were they a danger? From impatient drivers who can't bear holdups, obviously. Doug Oh I see, fast traffic is a danger, slow traffic is a danger, can motorists travel at a medium speed? Anyway you are always insisting that motor traffic is slowed down. The slower the traffic the less impact force it exerts on collision, the greater the stopping distance and the longer reaction time of the drivers.. But we know what the reason for your post is, is it that you admire this cyclist & are trying to defend him, you are on record as saying you think cyclists should be allowed to travel on motorways. No I am on record as saying there should be no discriminatory public roads. Obviously motorways should always have a cycle track and pavements so as not to discriminate unfairly against cyclists and pedestrians. We can blame Hitler for motorway discrimination. Is it anywhere on record that he disliked cyclists? I bet he did. Doug. Godwin's law. Motorways are a safe place to travel partly because of the LACK of cyclists and pedestrians. Motorways are hardly a safe places for motorists, due to the dangerously high speeds there and multiple crashes. They are only rated as safer because they don't kill pedestrians and cyclists who are not there anyway. As cyclists cannot be bothered to obey the simplest laws regarding safe use of any roads, the idea of them on motorways is appalling. The only good thing would be that their numbers could be quickly culled. A typical motorist's view, i.e. "human life is worthless and the only law is the law of the jungle". -- . UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated). http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Motorists really should be tested on their knowledge of the highway code
Doug wrote:
On Apr 11, 8:54 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote: Mrcheerful wrote: Doug wrote: On Apr 10, 9:10 am, Tony Dragon wrote: On 10/04/2011 07:17, Doug wrote: On Apr 8, 6:21 pm, Tony wrote: On 08/04/2011 07:55, Doug wrote: On Apr 7, 3:48 pm, Simon wrote: On Apr 7, 3:28 pm, wrote: I can understand some one that is not too with it taking a motorway slip in an absent minded moment, but why continue on? http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local...s/2011/04/07/c... Scraping the barrel today, Cheerless? 2/3 of the story was about the chaos drivers were causing on the M62 - the cyclist came and went without incident. "Drivers also faced hold-ups on the motorway s eastbound carriageway late yesterday, after an accident involving a lorry and a car. The vehicles blocked the nearside lane approaching the slip road at Junction 26 (Chain Bar) but no-one was hurt. Traffic queues built up for several miles before the vehicles were removed. It was the second day in a row that a serious accident brought M62 chaos. On Tuesday, four fire crews were called to deal with a five-vehicle pile-up which left one driver badly hurt." The obstructive motorists obviously had a poor knowledge of the Highway Code and also bear in mind they are much more dangerous than cyclists. -- . UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated). http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. What part of the HC would that be? Several parts, such as tailgating and taking suitable precautions. I am not sure if you are referring to the original accident, in which case what part of the HC did they not obey, or the motorists in the queue, and if so what part they did not consider. I'm not saying that there was not a breach of the HC but my limited knowledge of the incident tells me nothing. Well I am glad you agree. Surely, if the HC is always strictly obeyed there can be no crashes? Haven't you read it yet? Yes last time that I did the online course that my employer insists I do every year. And if the traffic was that slow , why were they a danger? From impatient drivers who can't bear holdups, obviously. Doug Oh I see, fast traffic is a danger, slow traffic is a danger, can motorists travel at a medium speed? Anyway you are always insisting that motor traffic is slowed down. The slower the traffic the less impact force it exerts on collision, the greater the stopping distance and the longer reaction time of the drivers.. But we know what the reason for your post is, is it that you admire this cyclist & are trying to defend him, you are on record as saying you think cyclists should be allowed to travel on motorways. No I am on record as saying there should be no discriminatory public roads. Obviously motorways should always have a cycle track and pavements so as not to discriminate unfairly against cyclists and pedestrians. We can blame Hitler for motorway discrimination. Is it anywhere on record that he disliked cyclists? I bet he did. Doug. Godwin's law. Motorways are a safe place to travel partly because of the LACK of cyclists and pedestrians. Motorways are hardly a safe places for motorists, due to the dangerously high speeds there and multiple crashes. They are only rated as safer because they don't kill pedestrians and cyclists who are not there anyway. As cyclists cannot be bothered to obey the simplest laws regarding safe use of any roads, the idea of them on motorways is appalling. The only good thing would be that their numbers could be quickly culled. A typical motorist's view, i.e. "human life is worthless and the only law is the law of the jungle". -- . UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated). http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. You are wrong, motorways are a bit like air travel, actually very safe per mile, but when there is a crash it can be very bad indeed. adding any extra problems like cyclists and pedestrians would ruin that. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Motorists really should be tested on their knowledge of thehighway code
On Apr 11, 6:46*pm, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 11/04/2011 15:28, Simon Mason wrote: On Apr 11, 7:53 am, *wrote: Well I am glad you agree. Surely, if the HC is always strictly obeyed there can be no crashes? Surely if there was a driver that should have known the Highway Code, it was this one. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-motorist-kill... "Wall was sitting alongside her mother - a driving instructor - when she lost control of the Suzuki Jimny she was driving home from a shopping trip. Wall, who had only passed her driving test months earlier, was looking at the message on her phone when she mounted a pavement." -- Simon Mason Her mother should have stopped her if possible. Her defence that she 'showed remorse' clashes with carrying her mobile in court. There's no GCSE for Decorum. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Motorists really should be tested on their knowledge of thehighway code
On Apr 11, 6:38*pm, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 11/04/2011 07:53, Doug wrote: On Apr 10, 9:10 am, Tony *wrote: On 10/04/2011 07:17, Doug wrote: On Apr 8, 6:21 pm, Tony * *wrote: On 08/04/2011 07:55, Doug wrote: On Apr 7, 3:48 pm, Simon * * *wrote: On Apr 7, 3:28 pm, * * *wrote: I can understand some one that is not too with it taking a motorway slip in an absent minded moment, but why continue on? http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local...s/2011/04/07/c... Scraping the barrel today, Cheerless? 2/3 of the story was about the chaos drivers were causing on the M62 - the cyclist came and went without incident. "Drivers also faced hold-ups on the motorway s eastbound carriageway late yesterday, after an accident involving a lorry and a car. The vehicles blocked the nearside lane approaching the slip road at Junction 26 (Chain Bar) but no-one was hurt. Traffic queues built up for several miles before the vehicles were removed. It was the second day in a row that a serious accident brought M62 chaos. On Tuesday, four fire crews were called to deal with a five-vehicle pile-up which left one driver badly hurt." The obstructive motorists obviously had a poor knowledge of the Highway Code and also bear in mind they are much more dangerous than cyclists. -- . UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated). *http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. What part of the HC would that be? Several parts, such as tailgating and taking suitable precautions. I am not sure if you are referring to the original accident, in which case what part of the HC did they not obey, or the motorists in the queue, and if so what part they did not consider. I'm not saying that there was not a breach of the HC but my limited knowledge of the incident tells me nothing. Well I am glad you agree. Surely, if the HC is always strictly obeyed there can be no crashes? If you recall a few years ago, an accident that happened when a road cone fell/was thrown of a motorway bridge causing an accident. You agreed then that nothing could have been done to avoid the incident. The HC was obeyed. Haven't you read it yet? Yes last time that I did the online course that my employer insists I do every year. And if the traffic was that slow , why were they a danger? * From impatient drivers who can't bear holdups, obviously. Doug Oh I see, fast traffic is a danger, slow traffic is a danger, can motorists travel at a medium speed? Anyway you are always insisting that motor traffic is slowed down. The slower the traffic the less impact force it exerts on collision, the greater the stopping distance and the longer reaction time of the drivers.. So if cars go slower, the stopping distance increases, are you trying to reinvent physics again. Why would reaction time vary with speed? You may well have asked, "why would reaction time vary with booze?" But we know what the reason for your post is, is it that you admire this cyclist& *are trying to defend him, you are on record as saying you think cyclists should be allowed to travel on motorways. No I am on record as saying there should be no discriminatory public roads. Obviously motorways should always have a cycle track and pavements so as not to discriminate unfairly against cyclists and pedestrians. We can blame Hitler for motorway discrimination. Is it anywhere on record that he disliked cyclists? I bet he did. Doug. Would you explain Hitlers input to motorways? I would have invoked Godwin's law, but somebody has got there first. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists really should be tested on their knowledge of thehighway code
On Apr 7, 5:12*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 07/04/2011 15:28, Mrcheerful wrote: I can understand some one that is not too with it taking a motorway slip in an absent minded moment, but why continue on? http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local...s/2011/04/07/c... I can recall such stories ever since the first stretch of M6 opened. They became more frequent when the stretch from Haydock to Stafford opened in 1963. Manchester Wheelers or Kirkby CC ? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Highway code | Coyoteboy | UK | 13 | November 23rd 07 01:11 AM |
Highway code sections concerning drivers and cyclists | D.M. Procida | UK | 2 | May 26th 07 06:02 PM |
How many cyclists to change the Highway Code? | Ian Smith | UK | 0 | May 25th 07 06:46 PM |
Bit OT - New Highway Code | Russ | UK | 5 | February 5th 05 12:41 AM |
Highway Code Changes | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 14 | May 5th 04 10:44 AM |