Prev: Severed arm' brings m-way to halt
Next: Italian Tuneups
From: Ian Smith on 4 Jul 2010 16:37 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 19:46:22 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: > Ian Jackson wrote: > > > > Digressing slightly, do temporary traffic lights - the type erected by > > contractors mending the roads - have any legal force? > > Yes. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#35 > > > In such circumstances, are temporary traffic lights essentially > > advisory, or do they have the same standing in law as 'normal' lights? > > They have the same standing in real life as 'normal' speed limits. Normal speed limits do not apply to bicycles, so such a statement is confusing in context. Temporary traffic lights have the same standing as permanent ones. If there's no painted line, the red "when red light shows..." sign defines the stop line. If there isn't one of them, the signals themselves (the box with lights in) define the line. Regarding the detectors on temporary lights - most contractors I've worked with prefer to turn them off, because they are flaky at the best of times. Yes, that sometimes means a car waits most of a light cycle to get through even when there's nothing coming the other way, but at least they get through in one timed cycle. If you run on the detectors and the detector hasn't noticed, you'll be sat there much longer than one timed cycle of the lights. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \|
From: Nick Finnigan on 4 Jul 2010 17:42 Ian Smith wrote: > On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 19:46:22 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: >> Ian Jackson wrote: >>> Digressing slightly, do temporary traffic lights - the type erected by >>> contractors mending the roads - have any legal force? >> Yes. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#35 >> >>> In such circumstances, are temporary traffic lights essentially >>> advisory, or do they have the same standing in law as 'normal' lights? >> They have the same standing in real life as 'normal' speed limits. > > Normal speed limits do not apply to bicycles, Well spotted. > so such a statement is confusing in context. I hope most readers can see the meaning.
From: Derek C on 5 Jul 2010 01:05 On Jul 5, 5:20 am, Doug <smi...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > On 3 July, 08:07, FrengaX <hnkjqr...(a)sneakemail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 3, 7:16 am, Doug <smi...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > On 3 July, 01:41, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote:> Apparently some Lexus (offshoot of Toyota) models have a fault that > > > > may cause the engine to stall or run erratically. > > > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/01/toyota-faces-lexus-saf... > > > > > A recall is being arranged to fix the fault. > > > > > I just thought I would get in before Doug comes out with another > > > > 'killer car' posting! > > > > Thanks but I had spotted it and realised that there are now so many > > > faulty cars on our roads that it must be obvious to everyone by now > > > and the serious danger they present to vulnerable road users like > > > myself all too obvious.. > > > But the issue here is that the car might stall. Hardly something that > > poses a great danger. > > No the driver might dangerously lose control due to a sudden lack of > engine power. Only if he is in the middle of a maximum Jeremy Clarkson type power slide round a corner. Otherwise it will just gently roll to a halt. > > > Anyway, here's another one for you. Have you been on the YourFreedom > > web site? Here's a barmy idea thats right up your street:http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/to-re-balance... > > It is an idea that I completely agree with. It has been mooted many > times in the EU but is yet to be implemented here, unfortunately. Due > no doubt to the political clout of the car culture. > > -- . Yes that is a fine idea Doug, but would you like to be held responsible for injuring a pedestrian who unexpectedly steps out onto the road in front of your electric bike without looking, when he is at fault.
From: Ian Smith on 5 Jul 2010 02:05 On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 02:22:07 +0100, Phil W Lee <phil(a)lee-family.me.uk> wrote: > Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> considered Sun, 04 Jul 2010 19:46:22 > > > > Yes. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#35 > > While they may or may not have legal force, the regulation linked to > only describes the standards they are required to meet. And you didn't think to read the next regulation too? The one that is titled "Significance of light signals prescribed by regulations 33 to 35"? Here, just for you: Yes. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#35 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#36 -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \|
From: Brimstone on 5 Jul 2010 03:05 "Derek C" <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message news:584ed54a-a1bf-4c8b-b480-b152e972b176(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 5, 5:20 am, Doug <smi...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> On 3 July, 08:07, FrengaX <hnkjqr...(a)sneakemail.com> wrote: >> > Anyway, here's another one for you. Have you been on the YourFreedom >> > web site? Here's a barmy idea thats right up your >> > street:http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/to-re-balance... >> >> It is an idea that I completely agree with. It has been mooted many >> times in the EU but is yet to be implemented here, unfortunately. Due >> no doubt to the political clout of the car culture. >> .. > Yes that is a fine idea Doug, but would you like to be held > responsible for injuring a pedestrian who unexpectedly steps out onto > the road in front of your electric bike without looking, when he is at > fault. I think you're overlooking the point that Doug always practices what he preaches and therefore is always travelling at a speed from which he can stop before hitting anyone who is feeling unwell and loses their balance causing them to step in to Doug's path. I only phrase it like that because Doug has told us that pedestrians and cyclists never, ever do any wrong whilst out and about.
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: Severed arm' brings m-way to halt Next: Italian Tuneups |