Courtesy too far.
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Green MP
Next: Motoring policy
From: Man at B&Q on 13 May 2010 05:00 On May 12, 6:37 pm, "John" <Who90nos...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: > "Mike Barnes" <mikebar...(a)bluebottle.com> wrote in message > > news:y8m69otQqr6LFwy6(a)g52lk5g23lkgk3lk345g.invalid... > > > Man at B&Q <manatba...(a)hotmail.com>: > >>Like many a dictionary, the HC has simply faied to keep up with common > >>usage. > > > There's a fundamental difference between the HC and a dictionary. The HC > > describes how we *ought* to behave. A dictionary describes how we > > *actually* use the language. > > > -- > > Mike Barnes > > I flashed to say "Pull out behind me" and he nearly hit me! I flashed and got arrested. Must remember not to do it outside a school at playtime. MBQ
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 13 May 2010 05:45 On Thu, 13 May 2010 08:36:49 +0100, Mike Barnes <mikebarnes(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: >I don't see any need for a ruling. I always treat a headlamp flash as >ambiguous, and I would encourage others to do the same. I don't expect >things to change in that regard within my lifetime. neither do I and you are right to regard it as ambiguous. But whatever the HC tells people they must not do, people will continue to flash - "after you" and flashing "I am here" becomes ever rarer as, whatever the HC says, it's interpreted as "**** you. You got in my way!" >FWIW there already is a system of green lights on trucks in India, which >I think means "I can see the road ahead and it's safe to overtake me". >(Er, no thanks) they used to have that in Spain. -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: boltar2003 on 13 May 2010 05:57 On Thu, 13 May 2010 10:45:13 +0100 ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >>FWIW there already is a system of green lights on trucks in India, which >>I think means "I can see the road ahead and it's safe to overtake me". >>(Er, no thanks) > >they used to have that in Spain. A pretty poor idea IMO. Someone only has to forget to turn them off and there'll be a nasty crash. B2003
From: Zimmy on 13 May 2010 06:53 "ChelseaTractorMan" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:rhcnu5t3b23s4jmk987d36rk93pffsvt76(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 13 May 2010 08:59:11 +0100, "Zimmy" <z(a)y.x> wrote: > >>> very true, but when almost everybody demonstrates the need for a >>> ruling, shouldn't it give one? >> >> >>It already did. Its just that some people like to override it with their >>own >>"ruling". >>Next you'll be saying "lets get rid of traffic lights and just flash >>people >>across at junctions" > > er, no. I'm talking about sensible change. Why should it be 'sensible' to override lines but not lights? You know better after all? Z
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 13 May 2010 07:20
On Thu, 13 May 2010 11:53:55 +0100, "Zimmy" <z(a)y.x> wrote: >> er, no. I'm talking about sensible change. > >Why should it be 'sensible' to override lines but not lights? because conceding priority to others aids traffic flow and encourages good natured driving while jumping lights is ******* stupid. Any more silly questions? -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine. |