High Way Code omission
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Mike Barnes on 10 Jun 2010 04:33 Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk>: > >"Phil Bradby" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message news:huokj8$2l3$1(a)sp >eranza.aioe.org... >> Why not just establish priority, for example by saying that the car >> moving back left always has priority? This would add clarity and remove >> danger. > >I'd say that the car moving right should have priority as they are >doing so to be able to get past another vehicle. >The one in L3 wanting to move left has already gone past whoever they >were overtaking and won't be inconvenienced by staying in L3 for a >while. Agreed. Unless the vehicle in L3 is making for an exit, in which case the driver will surely have allowed plenty of time for such delays. The other thing to point out is that the consequences of a collision are related to the speed differential, which is usually very low. -- Mike Barnes
From: Mortimer on 10 Jun 2010 06:15 "Mike Barnes" <mikebarnes(a)bluebottle.com> wrote in message news:M93H7$HYNKEMFwpm(a)g52lk5g23lkgk3lk345g.invalid... > Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk>: >> >>"Phil Bradby" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message news:huokj8$2l3$1(a)sp >>eranza.aioe.org... >>> Why not just establish priority, for example by saying that the car >>> moving back left always has priority? This would add clarity and remove >>> danger. >> >>I'd say that the car moving right should have priority as they are >>doing so to be able to get past another vehicle. >>The one in L3 wanting to move left has already gone past whoever they >>were overtaking and won't be inconvenienced by staying in L3 for a >>while. > > Agreed. Unless the vehicle in L3 is making for an exit, in which case > the driver will surely have allowed plenty of time for such delays. I'd want it the opposite way round because the driver of the car moving left has to move his eyes a long way from the straight ahead position to check his left mirror and also probably to look over his left shoulder because a correctly-adjusted left mirror will see the lane he is about to move into (L2) and cars in L1 may be in the blind spot.
From: Brimstone on 10 Jun 2010 08:35 "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4c10afdf$0$1993$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "Silk" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message > news:huon39$6sb$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >> On 09/06/2010 18:55, Phil Bradby wrote: >> >>> Why not just establish priority, for example by saying that the car >>> moving back left always has priority? This would add clarity and remove >>> danger. >> >> Because, if they did, people would assume a right of way and just switch >> lanes without looking. Also, hardly anyone reads the Highway Code. > > It would be a priority, not a right - msm etc safety checks would still > apply. To far too many people priority and right of way are the same thing.
From: GT on 10 Jun 2010 08:39 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:U5qdnU7myru9QY3RnZ2dnUVZ7sCdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message > news:4c10afdf$0$1993$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> "Silk" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message >> news:huon39$6sb$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >>> On 09/06/2010 18:55, Phil Bradby wrote: >>> >>>> Why not just establish priority, for example by saying that the car >>>> moving back left always has priority? This would add clarity and remove >>>> danger. >>> >>> Because, if they did, people would assume a right of way and just switch >>> lanes without looking. Also, hardly anyone reads the Highway Code. >> >> It would be a priority, not a right - msm etc safety checks would still >> apply. > To far too many people priority and right of way are the same thing. Absolutely agree... "I have my indicator on, therefore I'm coming - you better move"!!
From: Silk on 10 Jun 2010 11:07
On 10/06/2010 13:35, Brimstone wrote: > > "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message > news:4c10afdf$0$1993$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> "Silk" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message >> news:huon39$6sb$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >>> On 09/06/2010 18:55, Phil Bradby wrote: >>> >>>> Why not just establish priority, for example by saying that the car >>>> moving back left always has priority? This would add clarity and remove >>>> danger. >>> >>> Because, if they did, people would assume a right of way and just >>> switch lanes without looking. Also, hardly anyone reads the Highway >>> Code. >> >> It would be a priority, not a right - msm etc safety checks would >> still apply. > To far too many people priority and right of way are the same thing. Agreed. It's probably the number one cause of accidents. |