High Way Code omission
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: JNugent on 13 Jun 2010 11:09 Brimstone wrote: > > "JNugent" <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote in message > news:87k9t8FmriU2(a)mid.individual.net... >> NM wrote: >>> On 13 June, 15:10, Silk <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>>> On 13/06/2010 14:22, NM wrote: >>>> >>>>> It does, try entering such a road when it's busy, you need to wait for >>>>> a gap in the lorry 'train' before you launch yourself from the slip >>>>> road, similarly you need to plan ahead to find a suitable gap long >>>>> before your exit, some don't this can lead to very hairy cutting >>>>> across the bows. >>>> The lorries should be leaving a larger gap as a matter or course. If >>>> not, they should be prosecuted for driving with excess meat to the >>>> head. >>> >>> Why? They are doing nothing wrong, they are complying with law, >> >> Driving too close to the vehicle in front is not complying with the law. > > Define "too close". > >> Failing to allow overtaking traffic (on the right) to pull left (and >> failing to leave a gap into which that traffic *can* pull left) is >> similarly unlawful. >> > Under what legislation? The Road Traffic Act. The early sections include a catch-all offence of driving without due care and attention *or* (not *and*) without consideration for other road-users. It covers everything from read-ending the vehicle in fron to splashing a pedestrian by driving through a deep puddle. Endorsable, of course.
From: Silk on 13 Jun 2010 11:19 On 13/06/2010 15:50, Brimstone wrote: > > "Silk" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message > news:hv2qfl$vd1$3(a)speranza.aioe.org... >> On 13/06/2010 15:23, NM wrote: >>> On 13 June, 15:10, Silk<m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>>> On 13/06/2010 14:22, NM wrote: >>>> >>>>> It does, try entering such a road when it's busy, you need to wait for >>>>> a gap in the lorry 'train' before you launch yourself from the slip >>>>> road, similarly you need to plan ahead to find a suitable gap long >>>>> before your exit, some don't this can lead to very hairy cutting >>>>> across the bows. >>>> >>>> The lorries should be leaving a larger gap as a matter or course. If >>>> not, they should be prosecuted for driving with excess meat to the >>>> head. >>> >>> Why? They are doing nothing wrong, they are complying with law, if you >>> find their behaviour irritating then why are you not campaigning for >>> the law to be changed instead of whinging and calling them stupid, I'm >>> not sure they are the only stupid ones. >> >> They should be leaving a decent gap for something called safety. Not a >> concept lorry drivers are familiar with, so it would seem. > > Do you consider such a gap long enough to move a car into at 56 mph? Yes. Unfortunately, most lorry drivers don't know how large this gap should be.
From: Brimstone on 13 Jun 2010 14:10 "Silk" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:hv2suj$5hu$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > On 13/06/2010 15:50, Brimstone wrote: >> >> "Silk" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message >> news:hv2qfl$vd1$3(a)speranza.aioe.org... >>> On 13/06/2010 15:23, NM wrote: >>>> On 13 June, 15:10, Silk<m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>>>> On 13/06/2010 14:22, NM wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It does, try entering such a road when it's busy, you need to wait >>>>>> for >>>>>> a gap in the lorry 'train' before you launch yourself from the slip >>>>>> road, similarly you need to plan ahead to find a suitable gap long >>>>>> before your exit, some don't this can lead to very hairy cutting >>>>>> across the bows. >>>>> >>>>> The lorries should be leaving a larger gap as a matter or course. If >>>>> not, they should be prosecuted for driving with excess meat to the >>>>> head. >>>> >>>> Why? They are doing nothing wrong, they are complying with law, if you >>>> find their behaviour irritating then why are you not campaigning for >>>> the law to be changed instead of whinging and calling them stupid, I'm >>>> not sure they are the only stupid ones. >>> >>> They should be leaving a decent gap for something called safety. Not a >>> concept lorry drivers are familiar with, so it would seem. >> >> Do you consider such a gap long enough to move a car into at 56 mph? > > Yes. Unfortunately, most lorry drivers don't know how large this gap > should be. > How long do you think it should be?
From: Brimstone on 13 Jun 2010 14:14 "JNugent" <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote in message news:87kakuFmriU4(a)mid.individual.net... > Brimstone wrote: >> >> "JNugent" <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote in message >> news:87k9t8FmriU2(a)mid.individual.net... >>> NM wrote: >>>> On 13 June, 15:10, Silk <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>>>> On 13/06/2010 14:22, NM wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It does, try entering such a road when it's busy, you need to wait >>>>>> for >>>>>> a gap in the lorry 'train' before you launch yourself from the slip >>>>>> road, similarly you need to plan ahead to find a suitable gap long >>>>>> before your exit, some don't this can lead to very hairy cutting >>>>>> across the bows. >>>>> The lorries should be leaving a larger gap as a matter or course. If >>>>> not, they should be prosecuted for driving with excess meat to the >>>>> head. >>>> >>>> Why? They are doing nothing wrong, they are complying with law, >>> >>> Driving too close to the vehicle in front is not complying with the law. >> >> Define "too close". No definition then? >>> Failing to allow overtaking traffic (on the right) to pull left (and >>> failing to leave a gap into which that traffic *can* pull left) is >>> similarly unlawful. >>> >> Under what legislation? > > The Road Traffic Act. Which one? > The early sections include a catch-all offence of driving without due care > and attention *or* (not *and*) without consideration for other road-users. > It covers everything from read-ending the vehicle in fron to splashing a > pedestrian by driving through a deep puddle. So "failing to allow overtaking traffic to pull left" and "failing to leave a gap into which that traffic *can* pull left" are not actual offences? > Endorsable, of course. Only if proven beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted and such a punishment is considered appropriate.
From: Nick Finnigan on 13 Jun 2010 15:04
NM wrote: > On 13 June, 11:29, Nick Finnigan <n...(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: >> NM wrote: >> >>> others point of view, clue, motorways are not there for the sole use >>> of motorists, >> erm... > > Constructed principally for the movement of freight Constructed inter alia for the movement of freight only by motorists. |