Man fined after driving into his own driveway
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: The horrors of biofuels.
Next: Start/Stop "ECO" cars
From: Nick Finnigan on 28 Apr 2010 15:53 Ian Jackson wrote: > In message <hr9oiu$hm7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Nick Finnigan > <nix(a)genie.co.uk> writes >> >> You are allowed to stop on zig zags 'for the purpose of making a left >> or right turn'. The prohibition is stopping, not waiting. > > But surely that guy WAS waiting to make a left or right turn (albeit in > reverse)? It sounds like it to me.
From: Mortimer on 28 Apr 2010 15:56 "NM" <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> wrote in message news:76f61d44-345e-4564-afb7-5b0a8c89b8af(a)b18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> Not police malice. More individual police officers sticking to the letter >> of >> the law rather than the spirit and using some common sense. > > But wouldn't it have been a whole lot better, less paperwork and good > police public relations for them to stop the traffic allow him to back > in then discussed their view of how he should avoid infringment in > future, result smiles all round and job done. Instead we have ill > feeling and long faces, what happened to common sense, I agree with > the earlier poster, this country is fucked. Yes. It's yet another case of "we'd rather catch and punish someone for committing a crime than help them or deter them from committing the crime in the first place". It reflects very badly on the police that they didn't help the driver (eg by stopping the traffic). It also reflects badly on the drivers who were passing that not one of them gave way to the reversing driver and let him make his manoeuvre - assuming he actually had his reversing lights on so they knew what he wanted to do. I think I'd probably have driven into the drive and reversed out (with a "banksman" to stop the traffic), but then I much prefer to drive forwards into a confined space and reverse out into a wide space where precision of position is less critical.
From: Harry Bloomfield on 28 Apr 2010 17:25 Ian Jackson explained : > No. What they could have done was to point out to him that, if he continued > to do what he was doing, they would have no alternative but to issue a > penalty (if necessary, pointing out why this law had been made). They then > should have discussed the problem with him, and helped him find a practical > solution which didn't involve him reversing into the road (which is probably > just as dangerous). I cannot think of why any such maneuver should take such a long time, because someone always does realise what is going on and stops the flow. I would suggest the driver was one of those very timid types, who would trouble with any sort of maneuver hence the problem he was causing. -- Regards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk
From: Ian Jackson on 28 Apr 2010 18:06 In message <mn.e5417da45557d73e.106911(a)NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk>, Harry Bloomfield <harry.m1byt(a)NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> writes >Ian Jackson explained : >> No. What they could have done was to point out to him that, if he >>continued to do what he was doing, they would have no alternative but >>issue a penalty (if necessary, pointing out why this law had been >>made). They then should have discussed the problem with him, and >>helped him find a practical solution which didn't involve him >>reversing into the road (which is probably just as dangerous). > >I cannot think of why any such maneuver should take such a long time, >because someone always does realise what is going on and stops the >flow. I would suggest the driver was one of those very timid types, who >would trouble with any sort of maneuver hence the problem he was causing. > The Daily Mail report says he was still there when the police returned (after they had driven a mile up the road, turned around, and had come back). Mr Cannon must therefore have been there for quite some time. Maybe he was rather timid, and was waiting until absolutely no traffic was coming (presumably from behind). But the report does say that the traffic was heavy, so it was probably coming past him continuously, and not giving him any opportunity to make his reversing manoeuvre (which would have inevitably resulted in the front end of his car swinging out into the passing traffic). Looking at the photographs, it's pretty obvious that the house is fairly old (1920s or 30s?). If so, the zig-zag lines are very much a late-comer. It seems unreasonable that their addition should prevent anyone from using their driveway as normal. And where is the crossing? I can't see it in the second photo. Unless it's hidden by the bus, I guess it's behind the camera. If so, Mr Cannon must have stopped 'downstream' from the crossing. This poses far, far less of a danger than if he had stopped 'upstream'. -- Ian
From: Mike P on 28 Apr 2010 18:53
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:15:05 +0100, Brimstone sang, in the style of Bill Bailey: > "Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVETHISjackson(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:RLuYI+OndF2LFwVK(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk... >> In message <83r289Ffg5U3(a)mid.individual.net>, Adrian >> <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> writes >>>Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, >>>sounding much like they were saying: >>> >>>> However, rather than fine him, I'm sure that there was a more >>>> sensible solution to the problem. >>> >>>Indeed. >>> >>>They could have stopped, advised him of the problem, and requested him >>>to move on. >>> >>>Oh, wait. They did. He didn't. >> >> No. What they could have done was to point out to him that, if he >> continued to do what he was doing, they would have no alternative but >> to issue a penalty (if necessary, pointing out why this law had been >> made). They then should have discussed the problem with him, and helped >> him find a practical solution which didn't involve him reversing into >> the road (which is probably just as dangerous). -- > Indeed, they could have stopped the oncoming traffic for him and allowed > him to reverse into his driveway. A lot cheaper and more likely to make > a "friend" than prosecuting him. Sadly such a common sense action seems > to be beyond the wit of many in authority these days. Why should they? What happens tomorrow when he needs to do it again, and the day after that? He should read a highway code and learn about road markings for a start. They asked him to move on, he didn't, he got a fine. Serves him right. Mike P |