T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
686.244 | The 2 Second rule doesn't apply if you're in the wrong lane! | SUBURB::POWELLM | Nostalgia isn't what it used to be! | Thu Feb 11 1993 16:32 | 22 |
| Re .140 CRATE::HOBBS
>> What does annoy me is the guy behind who gets impatient?frustrated?
>> because of the gap and pulls out, overtakes on the left and pulls
>> back in again. Petty.
FLAME ON>>>
You are the one who is breaking the law, Bob! If there is room for
someone to overtake you on the left on a Motorway, then you cannot be
overtaking anyone else by definition and so you should not be
travelling in an overtaking lane!
Little known, less acknowledged and even less obeyed law says that
there is only ONE driving lane on Motorways, all other lanes are
OVERTAKING lanes, NOT to be used for driving in! You seem to be one of
my PET HATES as per the Topic. People like you convert Motorways to single
lane since it is illegal (on Motorways only) to overtake on the left.
FLAME OFF>>>
I've said it before and I'll probably say it again - drive on the
left in Great Britain!
Malcolm.
|
686.245 | | KERNEL::SHELLEYR | Hypodeemic nerdle | Thu Feb 11 1993 18:37 | 9 |
| I little noting tip -
When replying to an old note, particularly when addressing the author,
its worth looking at the date.
I don't think "Bob" works for the company anymore and to be fair his
thoughts on motorway driving may have changed in 4 years.
Roy
|
686.246 | no offence Malcolm :-) | SIOG::KANE | The clot, thickens... | Thu Feb 11 1993 20:12 | 9 |
| furthermore:
"Bob" is now "Barbara" & was last spotted, thumbing a lift to Detroit.
Roy, your restraint should be commended. I, however, am mere mortal &
cannot resist Mlle. Sarcasm when she pops her head up so invitingly.
:-)
Mike.
|
686.247 | Not law, but certainly good driving practice | IOSG::SHOVE | Dave Shove -- REO2-G/M6 | Thu Feb 11 1993 20:19 | 27 |
| Not law, merely advisory.
Quote from the new edition of the Highway Code (page 39, "On the
Motorway" section):
"164. Keep to the left-hand lane unless overtaking. You may use the
lane to the right of a stream of slower vehicles to overtake them but
return to the lane to your left when you have passed them."
.
.
.
"167. Overtake only on the right unless traffic is moving in queues and
the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are. Do not move
to a lane on your left to overtake. You MUST NOT use the hard shoulder
for overtaking."
Note the lack of the words MUST and MUST NOT except once in para 167.
The note at the beginning says "In the following rules the words
MUST/MUST NOT refer to requirements of the law." and "A failure on the
part of a person to observe any provision of the Highway Code shall not
of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any
kind, but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or
criminal ...) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending
to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those
proceedings - Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 38."
|
686.248 | Please to be checking facts please. 8-) | SUBURB::POWELLM | Nostalgia isn't what it used to be! | Thu Feb 18 1993 12:17 | 27 |
| That last section from which you quoted Dave, has not been altered
since the Highway Code was introduced - LONG before the first Motorway
was built, much less a Highway Code section for it written. The
Highway Code section on Motorways was taken directly from the new laws
governing the use of Motorways!
Hence - the Motorway section of the Highway Code is law.
Regarding my note to which you refer, I'm still in catch-up mode
and only "next unseen'ing" those Topics that are of little or no
interest to me. The fellow to whose note I refered may have left, but
his note remains and he just hit my biggest pet hate - Motorway
converters! Offence was not meant, but if the cap fits and all that
jazz!
Regarding Headlamp wattages, there is, in the construction and use
regulations - ie. the law, words which state that one may not use a
greater than 36W (YES thirtysix Watt) bulb in any headlamp with clear
glass. This obviously refers to cars built before around '48-50 which
had those great big headlamps, as did my Jaguar 1 1/2 litre (I've still
got the manufacturers service manual somewhere). It has been
susequently updated to cover modern style headlamps with beam
controlling patterning in the glass, to specify a maximum wattage of
55W - that is why that is the standard fitted today.
Hope that helps.
Malcolm.
|
686.249 | | PEKING::SMITHRW | Err..... | Thu Feb 18 1993 15:49 | 11 |
686.250 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Fri Feb 19 1993 12:34 | 7 |
686.251 | | SUBURB::FRENCHS | Semper in excernere | Fri Feb 19 1993 15:35 | 4 |
| The why have and be tested on handsignals, and how do you get to a
garage.
Simon
|
686.252 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Fri Feb 19 1993 16:00 | 8 |
|
Because some older cars don't have indicators fitted, so you have to
know what they are.
You can get towed to a garage.
Heather
|
686.253 | | ARNIES::SIMSA | Adrian Sims @REO 7-830-3986 | Fri Feb 19 1993 16:40 | 5 |
| Who in their own right have a tow to a garage if the indicators had broken down,
I certainly would not and I doubt if 99.999% of drivers would either.
P.S Heather Do you happen work for the BBC Watchdog program ;-)
|
686.254 | | MENOW::PACEN | Here comes the twist | Fri Feb 19 1993 17:08 | 3 |
| Hand signals were removed from the driving test several years ago.
~sam
|
686.255 | ask Alan Johnson Reading's chief examiner. | UBOHUB::BELL_A1 | still they want more | Fri Feb 19 1993 20:13 | 9 |
|
Oh no they were not..
you can still be asked to demonstrate and hand signal, and when doing
the MOTORCYCLE driving test you will be expected to backup indicator
lights with hand signals when/if necessary..
Alan
|
686.256 | | SUBURB::FRENCHS | Semper in excernere | Mon Feb 22 1993 13:18 | 13 |
| Hand signals were still in the test in '88.
1st test failed, my fault.
2nd test indicators failed so test cancelled, I wsn't allowed to
continue using handsignals
3rd test cancelled by DOT
4th test passed
Simon
|
686.257 | | SBPUS4::Mark | at the trailing edge..... | Mon Feb 22 1993 13:37 | 5 |
| Me...
1st test Hit cyclist. Not my fault, honest.
2nd test Incident with a bus on a zebra crossing. My fault
3rd test Passed
|
686.258 | | VANGA::KERRELL | ('O^O') | Mon Feb 22 1993 14:59 | 3 |
| What is this driving test thingy? Is it new?
Dave.
|
686.259 | ;-) | SBPUS4::Mark | at the trailing edge..... | Mon Feb 22 1993 15:03 | 2 |
| 'scuse me, Mr. Kerrell, but did you make a New Year's resolution which may have a bearing
on your new noting style ?
|
686.260 | | PEKING::SMITHRW | Err..... | Mon Feb 22 1993 16:17 | 5 |
| re: -2
I suspect the driving test might be a pet hate....
|
686.261 | | NEWOA::DALLISON | | Thu Feb 25 1993 10:42 | 4 |
| Is it my imagination or are the number of cyclists now not using lights
increasing ?
-tony
|
686.262 | | PEKING::SMITHRW | The Great Pyramid of Bloke | Thu Feb 25 1993 11:34 | 5 |
| No, they've always not used lights. It's just more noticeable in the
winter months....8*)
Richard
|
686.263 | Make the carry a license! | NEEPS::IRVINE | To Ride Pegasus | Thu Feb 25 1993 12:27 | 22 |
686.264 | | PLAYER::BROWNL | Anag: Nubile Arrow | Thu Feb 25 1993 12:36 | 11 |
| RE: .263
At the risk of repeating myself, you lot don't know you're born. If
you want to see cyclists in action, go to Amsterdam. I lived there for
a year; believe me, it's something else... Here in Brussels cyclists
are very rare, at least those that stay alive more than a week are. You
really have nothing to moan about.
Laurie.
PS. As a noun, it's spelt "licence", with an 's', it's a verb.
|
686.265 | This is CARS_UK | NEEPS::IRVINE | To Ride Pegasus | Thu Feb 25 1993 13:00 | 6 |
| Many thanks for the correction Laurie..... I do appreciate your
concerns, but once again it is *MY* Pet Hate...
If my opinions strike a chord that you don't agree with.. <NEXT UNSEEN>
Bob
|
686.266 | This is CARS_UK | CURRNT::CARSON | | Thu Feb 25 1993 13:18 | 5 |
| re .264
Spelling and Grammar nit-picking should be confined to ef92, where we
can safely ignore it.
|
686.267 | | NEWOA::DALLISON | | Thu Feb 25 1993 13:53 | 2 |
|
Agreed !
|
686.268 | SFROASFO | PLAYER::BROWNL | Anag: Nubile Arrow | Thu Feb 25 1993 15:12 | 8 |
| Hey,
I was helping the guy out. Firstly he clearly has no idea how well off
he is in comparison to other parts of Europe. Secondly, and it was a
PS, I pointed out something else he didn't know, in a factual and
non-judgemental way.
Laurie.
|
686.269 | yeah, so what's new | KRAKAR::WARWICK | Can't you just... ? | Thu Feb 25 1993 16:31 | 9 |
|
It's true, some cyclists do jump red lights - I do it myself sometimes
when I'm cycling on my own and believe it's safe to do so.
I think that cyclists do this for the same reason that the majority of
car drivers routinely break the speed limit - because they can get
away with it.
Trevor
|
686.270 | | VANGA::KERRELL | but that's not my real job | Thu Feb 25 1993 17:36 | 3 |
| Actually I sometimes go the odd 1mph over the limit because I'm in a hurry.
Dave ;-)
|
686.271 | | NEWOA::DALLISON | | Thu Feb 25 1993 17:55 | 8 |
|
.269
But you'd be the first person to whinge when somebody pulls out and
knocks you off your bike straight to the nearest life support
machine.
-tony
|
686.272 | poetic justice? | BONNET::HARDY | | Thu Feb 25 1993 20:17 | 14 |
| tony,
I thought green meant something like 'proceed with caution' not
right foot down
lets have some fun
5 points for a cyclist
10 for a nun
peter
|
686.273 | | NEEPS::IRVINE | To Ride Pegasus | Thu Feb 25 1993 20:25 | 15 |
686.274 | | KRAKAR::WARWICK | Can't you just... ? | Thu Feb 25 1993 21:05 | 16 |
|
> But you'd be the first person to whinge when somebody pulls out and
> knocks you off your bike straight to the nearest life support
> machine.
You mean if I had just jumped a red light ? No, then it would be my
fault entirely. My point was that I only ever jump lights on my bike
when I feel there's no danger to me or to anyone else from doing it
(i.e., usually when there are no cars around).
I've never felt in any danger on the occasions when I've jumped lights,
because I'm in control. I've had plenty of experiences where bad
driving by someone in normal circumstances *has* almost put me on a
life support machine, and this is completely out of my control.
Trevor
|
686.275 | | NEWOA::DALLISON | | Fri Feb 26 1993 11:13 | 5 |
|
But Trevor, jumping lights is illegal. Why do you do it on a bike when
you wouldn't do it in a car ?
-tony
|
686.276 | | PEKING::SMITHRW | The Great Pyramid of Bloke | Fri Feb 26 1993 11:50 | 7 |
| What really hacks me off is the BMX kiddies who zip out of cover onto
pedestrian crossings without warning, leaving me shredding my tyres on
the Shellgrip while the old ladies at the bus-stop go "Oooh! Tut-tut!
etc".
Richard
|
686.277 | Bicyclists who jump lights | VANTEN::MITCHELLD | "Management is opaque" | Fri Feb 26 1993 13:46 | 5 |
| Even a roller skater is a vehicle and is covered by the rules
and so are PRAMs and child buggies.
I have nearly taken out 6 bicyclists who have jumped the lights.
One day I'm going hit one. But I might make him/her get off the bike first.
|
686.278 | Some people can still WALK | NEWOA::MINDELSOHN_C | | Mon Mar 01 1993 14:16 | 9 |
|
> You mean if I had just jumped a red light ? No, then it would be my
> fault entirely. My point was that I only ever jump lights on my bike
> when I feel there's no danger to me or to anyone else from doing it
> (i.e., usually when there are no cars around).
^^^^
Ahem!... What about pedestrians?!
- Celia
|
686.279 | | KRAKAR::WARWICK | Can't you just... ? | Mon Mar 01 1993 15:28 | 7 |
|
> > (i.e., usually when there are no cars around).
I did say "usually" when there are no cars around. No, actually I was
lying. I always try to run pedestrians over.
Trevor
|