Prev: Fellow cyclists, are you suffering from air pollution caused by cars?
Next: High Way Code omission
From: Nick Finnigan on 9 Jun 2010 15:12
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:31:02 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk>
>> However, there is no law against parking on pavements outside London.
> There is.
No there isn't.
> It is called obstruction and the local plod use it a few
You can park on a pavement without obstructing. You can obstruct a road
by parking on the carriageway.,
> times a week at the end of our road. But only after a couple of years
> complaining from residents. I noticed one this morning with a FPN on
> the screen. Now if only they would getback to ticketing the cars that
> park too close to the junctions :(
There is no law against parking too close to the junction.
From: McKevvy on 9 Jun 2010 15:15
On 9 June, 12:29, Chris Hills <c...(a)chaz6.com> wrote:
> Near where I live a mobile police speed camera van frequently parks on a
> grass verge, on public property. Would it be legal to protest in the
> form of holding a sign or banner, perhaps with the words "Speed kills",
> deliberately behind the van to block the view of the camera?
Gently hammer in some nails (pointy side up) into the verge late at
night. My guess is that the driver wont park there many times after
From: Clot on 9 Jun 2010 18:13
> Chris Hills <chaz(a)chaz6.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>> The aim of the cameras is to make people drive safely.
> Is it? I thought it was to make people drive at a legal speed. You're
> not confusing the two, are you?
Point well made. I regularly try to drum this point home.
Today, driving through heavy rain on the motorway that could have a driver
aquaplaning, too many were driving too fast but braked when they saw
>> I would disagree that helping that aim by warning people to watch
>> their speed is obstructing justice.
> Deliberately standing so that the banner blocks the view of the camera
> certainly would be.
From: Clot on 9 Jun 2010 18:26
> "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>> bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like
>> they were saying:
> Better still is a sign that lights up if you are over the limit to
> remind you that the limit is lower than you have judged to be a safe
> speed based on the road conditions at the time.
I like those. If one flashes at me, then I don't slam on the brakes. I might
look at the speedometer and lift my foot off the accelerator. It's 5.00 a.m.
on a clear summer morning with no pedestrians, cyclists or other vehicles on
a wide clear road and I happen to be doing 36 mph. So?
Why are we not tackling folk doing 30 mph on the same road at rush hour when
there is black ice about? I've seen the consequences of two accidents today
when people were driving too fast in very wet conditions. The state of the
vehicles involved suggested that they were not speeding but were travelling
too fast for the conditions.
> There are a few roads near me which carry absurdly low limits for the
> road layout etc, and I welcome anything which reminds me (and keeps
> reminding me) to keep down to the limit. I find that I say to myself
> "the limit is 30... it's still 30... it's still 30" to prevent me
> subconsciously increasing back to a sensible speed for those road
Not snipped as I agree with the above comment; not meaning that I disagreed
with the snip.
From: Clot on 9 Jun 2010 18:27
> "Mortimer" <me(a)privacy.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>> I find that I say to myself "the limit is 30... it's still 30... it's
>> still 30" to prevent me subconsciously increasing back to a sensible
>> speed for those road conditions.
> Is the signage not sufficient?
Signage is secondary to me. I drive according to my perception of the road