Routemasters (again)

In message , JNugent
writes
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.

This is simply getting silly. OK - if the authors of the HC have got it
wrong, just what IS the 'official' traffic light rule?
--
Ian

"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.

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

"GordonD" wrote: You say that as if it's a bad
thing!
--

Irritating. Similar to a low grade toothache.
Truebrit.

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 15:24:25 +0100, Judith wrote:

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.

When I'm on a bicycle, I'm a cyclist.
When I'm in a car, I'm a driver.
When I'm on foot, I'm a pedestrian.

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?

How many times?

Of course it's not OK to ignore red lights. Nor is a green an unqualified
"go". No matter what form of transport you're using.

On Sat, 3 Aug 2013 16:56:42 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , JNugent
writes
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.

This is simply getting silly. OK - if the authors of the HC have got it
wrong, just what IS the 'official' traffic light rule?

They haven't got it wrong.

--

Ian D

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

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".

The words are different. MUST NOT in the Highway Code indicates a
mandatory requirement of the law. Words not governed by MUST or MUST
NOT are advisory rules for safety or traffic flow that everyone should
follow nevertheless.

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 16:41:53 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

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.


No sunshine - you have of course not upset me nor I doubt anyone else.

proven that you are a ****wit : yes
upset anyone : no

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 20:12:46 +0100, Judith
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 16:41:53 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

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.


No sunshine - you have of course not upset me nor I doubt anyone else.

You give a good impression of someone upset.

proven that you are a ****wit : yes
upset anyone : no

That is not how it sounds.

On 03/08/2013 17:35, Ian Dalziel wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2013 16:56:42 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , JNugent
writes
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.

This is simply getting silly. OK - if the authors of the HC have got it
wrong, just what IS the 'official' traffic light rule?

They haven't got it wrong.

Quite right. It isn't wrong to remind road-users of the basic road
rules, such as "only move forwards if you won't hit something by doing so".

What would be quite wrong would be to try to pretend that this is
something peculiar or specific to traffic light junctions. It isn't.

On 04/08/2013 03:40, Phil W Lee wrote:
"Max Demian" considered Fri, 2 Aug 2013
23:16:56 +0100 the perfect time to write:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...

The signals displayed by a traffic light mean stop, stop, stop, and
give way.
There is no Go, as even a green only allows you to proceed if the way
is clear.

Can you give the Highway Code reference (page number, etc) for that,
please?

Well it must be against some law to run someone over deliberately.

More specifically:
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 section 36
(1)(d): the green signal shall indicate that vehicular traffic may
proceed beyond the stop line and proceed straight on or to the left or
to the right;
(2) Vehicular traffic proceeding beyond a stop line in accordance with
paragraph (1) shall proceed with due regard to the safety of other
road users and subject to any direction given by a constable in
uniform or a traffic warden or to any other applicable prohibition or
restriction.

So the most it can give is permission to proceed with due regard for
other road users.

Just like the "Give Way" sign.

Why specify a priority junction feature? Everyone is under a duty to
proceed with due regard (the law uses the term "consideration", though I
don't expect that you are familiar with that concept) to other
road-users all the time, everywhere, not just at junctions (of any sort).

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 20:12:46 +0100, Judith wrote:

sunshine

Why do people insult others?

people who insult are insecure and what they say to be mean is the
deepest fear they have about themselves
its a control drama