"If you don't move I'll run you over".
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Polish Bus Drivers
Next: The motorway
From: Mrcheerful on 4 Mar 2010 13:18 Mike Ross wrote: > On 04 Mar 2010 17:24:25 GMT, fburton(a)nyx.net (Francis Burton) wrote: > >> In article <otlvo59i512shodq6bd1o41s7146se7oso(a)4ax.com>, >> Mike Ross <mike(a)corestore.org> wrote: >>> finally get my license this summer), and amateur gas turbine >>> engineer. Currently building a gas turbine / electric hybrid car. >>> >>> Out-of-date turbine stuff is here: >>> http://www.corestore.org/turbine.htm >> >> I assume you don't use the BMW/MAN ground power unit to run the >> PDP11 computer(s)! :-) (I recognized the corner of the RK05 disk >> drive.) > > Good for you, and no. Though I did once toy with using a larger > turbine to generate 3-phase for the pdp-10... > > Sanity (FSSVO 'sanity') prevailed and I got a rotary converter > instead... > > Mike How do you find the time and space for your projects?
From: Doug on 4 Mar 2010 13:19 On 4 Mar, 08:34, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote: > Doug wrote: > > ... > > > The traffic is being blocked in the interests of safety. > > It is only unsafe for those who fail to observe the traffic signs and > signals. > Wrong again. It is rendered unsafe when an impatient driver forces his way from a side-road into a mass of cyclists who are passing and repassing on a main road, that is why they are prevented from doing so by a few corkers. The irony is that the driver would be delayed even more when he finds himself trapped amid a mass of slow moving cyclists but then some have been known to also ram in such circumstances. > > > If someone is > > lying unconscious in the middle of the road do you think bystanders > > should allow traffic to run over them because blocking might be > > illegal? > > There would then be a defence of necessity, which does not apply to law > breakers assisting others to break the law on the grounds that breaking > the law puts them in danger. > See above. What about breaking the law in order to put others in danger, like physically threatening and assaulting them with a car weapon? > > > > A driver in a traffic jam who does not leave a gap at a side turning > > is deliberately blocking traffic > > In Britain, there is no requirement to give way to traffic trying to > join your stream of traffic, except as subject to road signs and traffic > controls. That is not the same as intentionally blocking the road, to > prevent traffic even attempting to join the traffic stream. > You obviously have failed to see the quote from the HC given previously about leaving a gap in slow moving traffic to allow exiting from a side road, which applies to drivers as well as cyclists and is rarely observed by drivers in traffic jams. "151 In slow-moving traffic. You should * reduce the distance between you and the vehicle ahead to maintain traffic flow * never get so close to the vehicle in front that you cannot stop safely * leave enough space to be able to manoeuvre if the vehicle in front breaks down or an emergency vehicle needs to get past * not change lanes to the left to overtake **** allow access into and from side roads, as blocking these will add to congestion * be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side" > > > but, of course, is unlikely to be > > rammed to allow the right of passing and repassing, unlike a > > vulnerable cyclist. > > There are different risks for drivers who upset other motorists: > > http://yourshepway.co.uk/kent-news/Motorist-shot-in-stomach-during-ro... > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/3937501.stm > That some drivers suffer from violent road-rage. It sees to go with the territory, due no doubt to them being accustomed to getting from A to B in the quickest possible time regardless of the law. > > Of course, one of those perpetrators might some day be among those the > cyclists stop, which will make being gently nudged by a car seem much > more preferable. > Being deliberately rammed by a driver is never preferable as it might lead to being run over and even injury or death. Not that the motorists on these NGs seem to care so busy are they trying to justify it. -- Critical Mass London http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk "Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist"
From: "Nightjar "cpb" on 4 Mar 2010 13:26 Doug wrote: > On 2 Mar, 16:33, Mike Ross <m...(a)corestore.org> wrote: >> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 01:06:48 -0800 (PST), Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: >>> On 2 Mar, 08:43, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >> <snip> >> >>>> It is not an issue of drivers-v-cyclists pers se. Try (with or without >>>> your bike) blocking a pedestrian on the pavement and refusing to let >>>> him pass. Don't be surprised if he tries to push past. Try continuing >>>> to block him. Don't be surprised if you end up with a fat lip. And, if >>>> you've videoed the whole thing, don't be surprised if a court finds >>>> you are entirely the author of your own misfortune. >>> What is likely to happen and what can happen legally are not the same. >>> Also I have no doubt that such a jury would consist of a majority of >>> motorists. >> Learn to bloody read: Mr Tabard was talking about two pedestrians, one >> deliberately blocking the other and not letting them past on the pavement. No >> car involved. So how is it relevant if the jurists in the hypothetical trial are >> motorists or not? Motoring doesn't come in to it. >> > And here was I thinking this thread was supposed to be about motorists > and cyclists. I thought it had to do with causing an obstruction and the consequences of that action, which would at least make it vaguely relevant to uk.legal. Colin Bignell
From: Ophelia on 4 Mar 2010 13:31 "NM" <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> wrote in message news:cbb459c9-037d-4491-93d1-c1c6d4de988f(a)q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com... > On 4 Mar, 16:55, "Ophelia" <Ophe...(a)Elsinore.me.uk> wrote: >> <damduck-...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> >> news:bnivo5d77utt6s9gbs0luahk68ij2jv37h(a)4ax.com... >> >> >> >> > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:46:10 -0000, "Ophelia" <Ophe...(a)Elsinore.me.uk> >> > wrote: >> >> >><damduck-...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> >> >>> But in your description below aren't you just overcooking the status >> >>> of Long Marston, the RAF moved out over 50 years ago it was hardly a >> >>> V >> >>> bomber base. >> >> >>It was indeed part of Bomber Command... Victors I think. >> >> > Bomber command yes, but the RAF left it in 1954, The first V bomber >> > base was Gaydon in Warwickshire in 1954 so I stand by my statement >> > that Long Marston was not a V bomber base. Victors became operational >> > in 1957. >> >> OK it was just a guess. I used to live under that flight path for >> Waddington... Vulcans....lovely aircraft:) > > > Lincolns I suppose? You suppose right:) -- -- https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
From: Peter Grange on 4 Mar 2010 13:57
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:19:05 -0800 (PST), Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote: >On 4 Mar, 08:34, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote: >> Doug wrote: >> >> ... >> >> > The traffic is being blocked in the interests of safety. >> >> It is only unsafe for those who fail to observe the traffic signs and >> signals. >> >Wrong again. It is rendered unsafe when an impatient driver forces his >way from a side-road into a mass of cyclists who are passing and >repassing on a main road, that is why they are prevented from doing so >by a few corkers. The irony is that the driver would be delayed even >more when he finds himself trapped amid a mass of slow moving cyclists >but then some have been known to also ram in such circumstances. OK, I need to ask. If the cyclists had stopped at the red light, how would the motorist be forcing his way into a mass of cyclists? If there was no red light, and all the cyclists were passing along a major road with the motorist trying to cross a "give way" line, quite a lot of the people who have been giving you a hard time would likely be on your side. In an unofficial procession, such as a simple case where someone is following me because I know the way (usually this applies in cars I guess), where the procession is broken because the light changes after I go through, the simple remedy is that I wait until the back half of the procession catches up. Have you considered this remarkable remedy for your problem? You may argue that it causes even more delay for other people. Well:- 1) If it does at least you're legally in the clear. 2) Isn't causing delay to other people what you're trying to do anyway? >> >> > If someone is >> > lying unconscious in the middle of the road do you think bystanders >> > should allow traffic to run over them because blocking might be >> > illegal? >> >> There would then be a defence of necessity, which does not apply to law >> breakers assisting others to break the law on the grounds that breaking >> the law puts them in danger. >> >See above. What about breaking the law in order to put others in >danger, like physically threatening and assaulting them with a car >weapon? >> >> >> > A driver in a traffic jam who does not leave a gap at a side turning >> > is deliberately blocking traffic >> >> In Britain, there is no requirement to give way to traffic trying to >> join your stream of traffic, except as subject to road signs and traffic >> controls. That is not the same as intentionally blocking the road, to >> prevent traffic even attempting to join the traffic stream. >> >You obviously have failed to see the quote from the HC given >previously about leaving a gap in slow moving traffic to allow exiting >from a side road, which applies to drivers as well as cyclists and is >rarely observed by drivers in traffic jams. > >"151 > >In slow-moving traffic. You should > > * reduce the distance between you and the vehicle ahead to >maintain traffic flow > * never get so close to the vehicle in front that you cannot stop >safely > * leave enough space to be able to manoeuvre if the vehicle in >front breaks down or an emergency vehicle needs to get past > * not change lanes to the left to overtake > **** allow access into and from side roads, as blocking these will >add to congestion > * be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on >either side" >> >> > but, of course, is unlikely to be >> > rammed to allow the right of passing and repassing, unlike a >> > vulnerable cyclist. >> >> There are different risks for drivers who upset other motorists: >> >> http://yourshepway.co.uk/kent-news/Motorist-shot-in-stomach-during-ro... >> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/3937501.stm >> >That some drivers suffer from violent road-rage. It sees to go with >the territory, due no doubt to them being accustomed to getting from A >to B in the quickest possible time regardless of the law. >> >> Of course, one of those perpetrators might some day be among those the >> cyclists stop, which will make being gently nudged by a car seem much >> more preferable. >> >Being deliberately rammed by a driver is never preferable as it might >lead to being run over and even injury or death. Not that the >motorists on these NGs seem to care so busy are they trying to justify >it. |