The give-way to traffic from the right rule on roundabouts in the UK - was it ever different?

[NY]

Has the rule on roundabouts in the UK always been to give way to traffic
from your right and that traffic on the roundabout has priority over all
traffic waiting to join? I'm excluding roundabouts (eg the one on the
outskirts of Ryde on the Isle of Wight) where opposite priorities are
clearly signposted.

I ask because I was watching a 1963 film

in which an Institute of Advanced
Motorists driver was commenting on the road ahead and he approached a
roundabout, the car in front of him stopped to let several vehicles pull out
from the left onto the roundabout, then the commentator said "there's a
driver signalling me to go, so I shall proceed" as if this was an unusual
situation; he doesn't say "WTF is the car in front of me stopping to let
cars join the roundabout from his left".

Later http://youtu.be/YIgskqk5PB4 when he's on a major road and a
side road joins, he comments that "[the driver on the side road] is waiting
for me so I will accept his courtesy and proceed" as if it was a matter of
courtesy rather than normal rules of the road that the driver should wait.

In both cases, you should never *assume* that other drivers will do what
they should do, but this guy goes a bit too much the other way and sounds as
if drivers doing what they should so is a courtesy to him :-)

[Nightjar]

Post by NY
Has the rule on roundabouts in the UK always been to give way to traffic
from your right and that traffic on the roundabout has priority over all
traffic waiting to join? I'm excluding roundabouts (eg the one on the
outskirts of Ryde on the Isle of Wight) where opposite priorities are
clearly signposted.
I ask because I was watching a 1963 film
http://youtu.be/YIgskqk5PB4 in which an Institute of Advanced
Motorists driver was commenting on the road ahead and he approached a
roundabout, the car in front of him stopped to let several vehicles pull
out from the left onto the roundabout, then the commentator said
"there's a driver signalling me to go, so I shall proceed" as if this
was an unusual situation; he doesn't say "WTF is the car in front of me
stopping to let cars join the roundabout from his left".
Later http://youtu.be/YIgskqk5PB4 when he's on a major road and
a side road joins, he comments that "[the driver on the side road] is
waiting for me so I will accept his courtesy and proceed" as if it was a
matter of courtesy rather than normal rules of the road that the driver
should wait.
In both cases, you should never *assume* that other drivers will do what
they should do, but this guy goes a bit too much the other way and
sounds as if drivers doing what they should so is a courtesy to him :-)

The rule has always been that, unless otherwise indicated, both roads
meeting at a junction have an equal priority. It is just that today it
is rare to find junctions that are not marked. It used to be a lot more
common.

'Slow at major road ahead' (equivalent to give way today) and 'halt at
major road ahead' (equivalent to today's stop signs) signs were both
introduced in the 1930s. These remained the only priority indications
until the Traffic Sign Regulations and General Directions 1964, which
implemented the Worboys report. That introduced traffic signs in the
form we use today. It also introduced a lot of road markings, including
give way and stop lines. In the next couple of years our roads suddenly
became covered in a lot more white paint.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Nightjar

Post by NY
Has the rule on roundabouts in the UK always been to give way to traffic
from your right and that traffic on the roundabout has priority over all
traffic waiting to join? I'm excluding roundabouts (eg the one on the
outskirts of Ryde on the Isle of Wight) where opposite priorities are
clearly signposted.
I ask because I was watching a 1963 film
http://youtu.be/YIgskqk5PB4 in which an Institute of Advanced
Motorists driver was commenting on the road ahead and he approached a
roundabout, the car in front of him stopped to let several vehicles pull
out from the left onto the roundabout, then the commentator said
"there's a driver signalling me to go, so I shall proceed" as if this
was an unusual situation; he doesn't say "WTF is the car in front of me
stopping to let cars join the roundabout from his left".
Later http://youtu.be/YIgskqk5PB4 when he's on a major road and
a side road joins, he comments that "[the driver on the side road] is
waiting for me so I will accept his courtesy and proceed" as if it was a
matter of courtesy rather than normal rules of the road that the driver
should wait.
In both cases, you should never *assume* that other drivers will do what
they should do, but this guy goes a bit too much the other way and
sounds as if drivers doing what they should so is a courtesy to him :-)

The rule has always been that, unless otherwise indicated, both roads
meeting at a junction have an equal priority. It is just that today it
is rare to find junctions that are not marked. It used to be a lot more
common.

Indeed. The first edition of the Highway Code in 1931 introduced a
duty on drivers on the minor road to "go dead slow" and "give way to
traffic on the major road", but this was not a statutory requirement -
which the HC 1931 points out, by stating that no "vehicle has 'right
of way' at cross roads".

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:The_Highway_Code_1931.djvu

In the absence of any markings or signs, precedence at a roundabout
simply followed the HC principle that users of the minor road should
defer to users of the major. There was (and still is) no absolute
"give way to the right" rule.

In the two specific examples in the video, it's hard to tell on the
roundabout which road is considered "major" at that point (and it
wouldn't necessarily be the through route, the A4), and it's quite
possible that there wasn't really one in traffic terms. So users would
be expected to follow a self-regulating pattern of taking it in turns
- which is what we see on the video.

In the second case, the driver on the minor road is correctly
following the HC principle of giving way to the major road, but the
narrator, rightly, doesn't presume that this is necessarily the case -
he watches the movement (or lack of it) of the other vehicle before
concluding that he is being given precedence.

Mark

[NY]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Nightjar
The rule has always been that, unless otherwise indicated, both roads
meeting at a junction have an equal priority. It is just that today it
is rare to find junctions that are not marked. It used to be a lot more
common.

It must have been hell to drive in a situation where two streams of traffic
have equal priority. At every junction now, one road is designated major and
the other minor, with suitable give way signs / lines on the minor road and
a warning sign (eg cross roads ahead) on the major road. Or else there is a
defined position rule on roundabouts: that all the roads are equal but each
gives way to traffic coming from the right (ie which is already on the
roundabout).

Post by Mark Goodge
Indeed. The first edition of the Highway Code in 1931 introduced a
duty on drivers on the minor road to "go dead slow" and "give way to
traffic on the major road", but this was not a statutory requirement -
which the HC 1931 points out, by stating that no "vehicle has 'right
of way' at cross roads".

Whereas now at almost every cross roads (in the UK) there is a defined major
road and defined minor road, so everyone knows which stream of traffic has
priority. Much safer and much clearer - no ambiguity.

Post by Mark Goodge
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:The_Highway_Code_1931.djvu
In the absence of any markings or signs, precedence at a roundabout
simply followed the HC principle that users of the minor road should
defer to users of the major. There was (and still is) no absolute
"give way to the right" rule.

Yes there is. Maybe it's phrased as "give way to traffic that is already on
the roundabout", but that's what it amounts to. From what you and the
previous poster are saying, it sounds as if it wasn't always the case from
the beginning of roundabouts.

Post by Mark Goodge
In the two specific examples in the video, it's hard to tell on the
roundabout which road is considered "major" at that point (and it
wouldn't necessarily be the through route, the A4), and it's quite
possible that there wasn't really one in traffic terms. So users would
be expected to follow a self-regulating pattern of taking it in turns
- which is what we see on the video.

Ah, the old "adjust speed and weave" approach where cars were expected to
slow to a halt and then intermingle alternately. It was hell: I remember a
junction like that in Wakefield and my parents always cursed this a slow,
confusing, free for all junction - this is a few years before I started to
drive but even then I was learning about driving as a theoretical skill.

So I was right in my initial question: in those days, there wasn't a default
priority from the right / priority to traffic already on the roundabout
rule. Interesting to see how different it was.

Post by Mark Goodge
In the second case, the driver on the minor road is correctly
following the HC principle of giving way to the major road, but the
narrator, rightly, doesn't presume that this is necessarily the case -
he watches the movement (or lack of it) of the other vehicle before
concluding that he is being given precedence.

Yes, maybe its his phrasing that is a bit quaint and submissive: I'd have
said something like "Minor road ahead. I have priority over the other car.
Check that he really *is* stationary - yes, his wheels are not turning so
I'm safe."


The chap is an interesting mixture of sounding over-submissive and
over-courteous "letting" people do what the rules of the road allow them to
do anyway, and being downright aggressive.

There's a scene on the M4 near Heathrow http://youtu.be/YIgskqk5PB4
where there's a slower car ahead of him in Lane 2 (of two lanes in those
days) and he flashes and hoots the driver. OK, a lot of people do that - but
they would rightly be regarded as aggressive and rude, and I wouldn't expect
an IAM driver to demonstrate it as *good* practice. In that situation, I
might give a single flash to say "I'd really like to get past - are you able
to go faster that the vehicle you're overtaking" but if that produced no
results, I'd accept it - fume inwardly but not let it rile me. I'd never
flash repeatedly and use my horn. OK, so the other driver was probably in a
world of his own, hogging Lane 2 when there was no traffic at all in Lane 1,
but our driver does come across as very aggressive.


The other interesting thing is the bus conductor who hangs off the back of
the bus to give a "right turn" hand signal to supplement the driver's
perfectly good "trafficator" signal. H&S wouldn't allow that nowadays - even
on an old bus with an open platform at the back.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by NY

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Nightjar
The rule has always been that, unless otherwise indicated, both roads
meeting at a junction have an equal priority. It is just that today it
is rare to find junctions that are not marked. It used to be a lot more
common.

It must have been hell to drive in a situation where two streams of traffic
have equal priority. At every junction now, one road is designated major and
the other minor, with suitable give way signs / lines on the minor road and
a warning sign (eg cross roads ahead) on the major road. Or else there is a
defined position rule on roundabouts: that all the roads are equal but each
gives way to traffic coming from the right (ie which is already on the
roundabout).

Back then, average speeds were lower and traffic volumes were a lot
lower. For a long time, it didn't really matter too much. When it did
begin to be an issue, it was addressed via the Warboys Commission and
the subsequent recommendations.

Post by NY

Post by Mark Goodge
In the absence of any markings or signs, precedence at a roundabout
simply followed the HC principle that users of the minor road should
defer to users of the major. There was (and still is) no absolute
"give way to the right" rule.

Yes there is. Maybe it's phrased as "give way to traffic that is already on
the roundabout", but that's what it amounts to. From what you and the
previous poster are saying, it sounds as if it wasn't always the case from
the beginning of roundabouts.

It's still not a general rule. The "give way to traffic already on a
roundabout" rule is not the same as a rule which always requires
people to give way to the right. It does not apply, for example, at
unmarked crossroads and t-junctions, which do still exist in some
places. If there was a car coming from the road on the right here, for
example, would it have precedence over Google's streetview car
(assuming the latter is heading in the direction of view):

https://goo.gl/maps/wkAgS3m6hXU2

Post by NY
So I was right in my initial question: in those days, there wasn't a default
priority from the right / priority to traffic already on the roundabout
rule. Interesting to see how different it was.

There never was, and there still isn't. Even in the current Highway
Code, the "give way to traffic already on the roundabout" rule is a
"should", not a "must", indicating that it isn't backed up by statute.
It's just that there are very few roundabouts where there are no
markings at all, these days.

Post by NY
There's a scene on the M4 near Heathrow http://youtu.be/YIgskqk5PB4
where there's a slower car ahead of him in Lane 2 (of two lanes in those
days) and he flashes and hoots the driver. OK, a lot of people do that - but
they would rightly be regarded as aggressive and rude, and I wouldn't expect
an IAM driver to demonstrate it as *good* practice. In that situation, I
might give a single flash to say "I'd really like to get past - are you able
to go faster that the vehicle you're overtaking" but if that produced no
results, I'd accept it - fume inwardly but not let it rile me. I'd never
flash repeatedly and use my horn. OK, so the other driver was probably in a
world of his own, hogging Lane 2 when there was no traffic at all in Lane 1,
but our driver does come across as very aggressive.

At that time, though, dual carriagways were rare and it's entirely
plausible that the driver in front really didn't understand how he was
supposed to use them. Beware of making assumptions based on current
expectations. The past is a foreign country, they do things
differently there.

Mark

[NY]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by NY

Post by Mark Goodge
In the absence of any markings or signs, precedence at a roundabout
simply followed the HC principle that users of the minor road should
defer to users of the major. There was (and still is) no absolute
"give way to the right" rule.

Yes there is. Maybe it's phrased as "give way to traffic that is already on
the roundabout", but that's what it amounts to. From what you and the
previous poster are saying, it sounds as if it wasn't always the case from
the beginning of roundabouts.

It's still not a general rule. The "give way to traffic already on a
roundabout" rule is not the same as a rule which always requires
people to give way to the right. It does not apply, for example, at
unmarked crossroads and t-junctions, which do still exist in some
places. If there was a car coming from the road on the right here, for
example, would it have precedence over Google's streetview car
https://goo.gl/maps/wkAgS3m6hXU2

Post by NY
So I was right in my initial question: in those days, there wasn't a default
priority from the right / priority to traffic already on the roundabout
rule. Interesting to see how different it was.

There never was, and there still isn't. Even in the current Highway
Code, the "give way to traffic already on the roundabout" rule is a
"should", not a "must", indicating that it isn't backed up by statute.
It's just that there are very few roundabouts where there are no
markings at all, these days.

Sorry, you may have misunderstood me: when I talked about give way to
traffic from the right, I was meaning specifically at a roundabout, not in
all other situations - sorry for the confusion. I'm surprised that even now
it's a "should" rather than a "must". Is that different from traffic on a
minor road which faces a stop or give way sign / road markings - are those
"should" or "must"; is "give way" a "should" and "stop" a "must"?

The difference between should and must seems a bit arbitrary, given that
it's a rule which nowadays everyone follows: if you stopped on a roundabout
to let several car join (*), you'd be very unpopular. "Everyone does it
because that's what they are taught" is close enough to a "must" for me.
Yes, cars do pull out ahead of you, but hopefully in such as way as to not
force you to slow down or alter course to avoid them.

Given that the HC is so forceful on some things, I wonder why the priority
to cars on the roundabout has never been made a "must". I suppose "must" is
a bit inflexible given that both at roundabouts and T junctions it may be
safe to full out in front of someone providing you do it sufficiently
quickly as to be safe and not cause the other drover to slow down. But it's
a rule in the sense of "if you do it and are hit, it's *your* fault not
his".

I suppose even a "should" is enough to ascribe blame in the event of a
collision when insurance companies are determining whose policy should
suffer loss of no-claims, and may be enough for a "without due care" charge
by the police.

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by NY
There's a scene on the M4 near Heathrow
http://youtu.be/YIgskqk5PB4
where there's a slower car ahead of him in Lane 2 (of two lanes in those
days) and he flashes and hoots the driver. OK, a lot of people do that - but
they would rightly be regarded as aggressive and rude, and I wouldn't expect
an IAM driver to demonstrate it as *good* practice. In that situation, I
might give a single flash to say "I'd really like to get past - are you able
to go faster that the vehicle you're overtaking" but if that produced no
results, I'd accept it - fume inwardly but not let it rile me. I'd never
flash repeatedly and use my horn. OK, so the other driver was probably in a
world of his own, hogging Lane 2 when there was no traffic at all in Lane 1,
but our driver does come across as very aggressive.

At that time, though, dual carriagways were rare and it's entirely
plausible that the driver in front really didn't understand how he was
supposed to use them. Beware of making assumptions based on current
expectations. The past is a foreign country, they do things
differently there.

Very true. I think I might have been a little bit less forceful and
aggressive, and maybe waited a bit longer between the first and second
flash/horn, but I take your point about dual carriageways being less common.
If I'd been commentating I might have made the point "perhaps he doesn't
know about these new dual carriageways". Interesting that in those days,
almost certainly the driver would have had to take one hand off the wheel,
find the lights switch from the long row of switches (and the Jag Mark 2,
which he's driving has a looong row!) and move it though side lights to
dipped headlights - very few cars in those days had a headlamp flasher on
the indicator stalk, even assuming that it had a stalk rather than a thumb
switch on the centre of the wheel for indicators like the Ford Popular etc
had. VWs (and Seats and Skoda, which are VW-owned) still don't have lights
on the indicator but at least it's closer to the steering wheel and doesn't
require you to reach across for the switch, and is the only switch so
there's no need to look to see you've got the correct one.

It's scary to hear of people stopping for picnics on motorways, as happened
when the first motorways opened. I think the 70 mph limit had only just come
into effect in 1963 when this film was shot; before that cars were
unlimited, though far fewer were physically able to reach 70 and probably
couldn't keep it up for long without overheating or otherwise suffering.


(*) Except in the case that your exit is blocked by cars queuing just beyond
the roundabout, in which case common sense prevails and you think "if I
can't go anywhere I may as well let other cars cross my path to take a
different exit".

[Mark Goodge]

Post by NY

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by NY

Post by Mark Goodge
In the absence of any markings or signs, precedence at a roundabout
simply followed the HC principle that users of the minor road should
defer to users of the major. There was (and still is) no absolute
"give way to the right" rule.

Yes there is. Maybe it's phrased as "give way to traffic that is already on
the roundabout", but that's what it amounts to. From what you and the
previous poster are saying, it sounds as if it wasn't always the case from
the beginning of roundabouts.

It's still not a general rule. The "give way to traffic already on a
roundabout" rule is not the same as a rule which always requires
people to give way to the right. It does not apply, for example, at
unmarked crossroads and t-junctions, which do still exist in some
places. If there was a car coming from the road on the right here, for
example, would it have precedence over Google's streetview car
https://goo.gl/maps/wkAgS3m6hXU2

Post by NY
So I was right in my initial question: in those days, there wasn't a default
priority from the right / priority to traffic already on the roundabout
rule. Interesting to see how different it was.

There never was, and there still isn't. Even in the current Highway
Code, the "give way to traffic already on the roundabout" rule is a
"should", not a "must", indicating that it isn't backed up by statute.
It's just that there are very few roundabouts where there are no
markings at all, these days.

Sorry, you may have misunderstood me: when I talked about give way to
traffic from the right, I was meaning specifically at a roundabout, not in
all other situations - sorry for the confusion. I'm surprised that even now
it's a "should" rather than a "must". Is that different from traffic on a
minor road which faces a stop or give way sign / road markings - are those
"should" or "must"; is "give way" a "should" and "stop" a "must"?

If there are signs and/or markings then whatever those represent is
what applies. There is no statutory rule about what to do if there are
no signs or markings, but the Highway Code includes some non-mandatory
rules for various situations.

Post by NY
Given that the HC is so forceful on some things, I wonder why the priority
to cars on the roundabout has never been made a "must". I suppose "must" is
a bit inflexible given that both at roundabouts and T junctions it may be
safe to full out in front of someone providing you do it sufficiently
quickly as to be safe and not cause the other drover to slow down. But it's
a rule in the sense of "if you do it and are hit, it's *your* fault not
his".

As far as the Highway Code is concerned, "must" indicates soemthing
that is mandated by legislation, and "should" indicates something that
is merely a rule imposed by the Highway Code.

Post by NY
I suppose even a "should" is enough to ascribe blame in the event of a
collision when insurance companies are determining whose policy should
suffer loss of no-claims, and may be enough for a "without due care" charge
by the police.

Yes, indeed. If there is an accident, and one vehicle was following
the HC rules and one was not, then the one that was not is, usually,
the one that will liable as far as insurance is concerned. And that
may be evidence in support of a charge of dangerous or careless
driving. But it does not, otherwise, amount to a moving traffic
offence, whereas failing to obey signs and markings does.

Mark

[Nightjar]

On 13-Nov-17 12:10 PM, NY wrote:
...

Post by NY
It's scary to hear of people stopping for picnics on motorways, as
happened when the first motorways opened.

Traffic was very light in those days. I recall a trip from London to
Whipsnade Zoo along the M10 and M1 on a fine clear day where we didn't
see a single car travelling in the same direction.

Post by NY
I think the 70 mph limit had
only just come into effect in 1963 when this film was shot;

The 70mph limit was introduced on motorways in December 1965, initially
for a four month trial period. Memory tells me that it was introduced
earlier in the year on other roads, but I can't find any verification of
this.

Post by NY
before that
cars were unlimited, though far fewer were physically able to reach 70
and probably couldn't keep it up for long without overheating or
otherwise suffering.

That was the main justification for trialling the limit; the speed
differential between the fastest cars and the average car had been
identified as a significant factor in high speed accidents.

[AnthonyL]

Post by NY
Very true. I think I might have been a little bit less forceful and
aggressive, and maybe waited a bit longer between the first and second
flash/horn, but I take your point about dual carriageways being less common.
If I'd been commentating I might have made the point "perhaps he doesn't
know about these new dual carriageways". Interesting that in those days,
almost certainly the driver would have had to take one hand off the wheel,
find the lights switch from the long row of switches (and the Jag Mark 2,
which he's driving has a looong row!) and move it though side lights to
dipped headlights - very few cars in those days had a headlamp flasher on
the indicator stalk,

indeed the main/dip switch was on the floor next to the clutch on my
Mini

Post by NY
even assuming that it had a stalk rather than a thumb
switch on the centre of the wheel for indicators like the Ford Popular etc
had. VWs (and Seats and Skoda, which are VW-owned) still don't have lights
on the indicator but at least it's closer to the steering wheel and doesn't
require you to reach across for the switch, and is the only switch so
there's no need to look to see you've got the correct one.
It's scary to hear of people stopping for picnics on motorways, as happened
when the first motorways opened. I think the 70 mph limit had only just come
into effect in 1963 when this film was shot; before that cars were
unlimited, though far fewer were physically able to reach 70 and probably
couldn't keep it up for long without overheating or otherwise suffering.

Well neither of my cars, an A35 van and an 848cc Mini were capable on
the flat of reaching 70mph and by the time I could afford something
that moved the limits had been introduced. However prior to that it
was quite disconcerting to see a spec in the mirror and then a couple
of seconds later a Jag or RR or Mercedes just glide by at twice your
speed.

We took turns to drive, four of us, the 20miles to work, mine being
the van (yes, padded bench seats along the sides!), another having a
Renault 4, and then one with a big Ford Zodiac (?) which overtook just
about everything on the dual carriageways at not far from 100mph
(c1969). A very comfortable way to commute.

[JNugent]

Post by NY

Post by Nightjar
The rule has always been that, unless otherwise indicated, both roads
meeting at a junction have an equal priority. It is just that today it
is rare to find junctions that are not marked. It used to be a lot more
common.

It must have been hell to drive in a situation where two streams of
traffic have equal priority. At every junction now, one road is
designated major and the other minor, with suitable give way signs /
lines on the minor road and a warning sign (eg cross roads ahead) on the
that all the roads are equal but each gives way to traffic coming from
the right (ie which is already on the roundabout).

The American 4-way stop works very well.

http://www.vdriveusa.com/resources/how-a-4-way-stop-works.php

[NY]

Post by JNugent

Post by NY

Post by Nightjar
The rule has always been that, unless otherwise indicated, both roads
meeting at a junction have an equal priority. It is just that today it
is rare to find junctions that are not marked. It used to be a lot more
common.

It must have been hell to drive in a situation where two streams of
traffic have equal priority. At every junction now, one road is
designated major and the other minor, with suitable give way signs /
lines on the minor road and a warning sign (eg cross roads ahead) on the
major road. Or else there is a defined position rule on roundabouts: that
all the roads are equal but each gives way to traffic coming from the
right (ie which is already on the roundabout).

The American 4-way stop works very well.
http://youtu.be/qOQ9FVYf2-8
http://www.vdriveusa.com/resources/how-a-4-way-stop-works.php

I found 4-way-stop a real PITA because the rules were determined by the
*order* in which you applied (time-based) rather than your position on the
road (position-based). I found it difficult to remember whether I'd arrived
just before or just after someone who arrived at almost the same time as me,
so it was difficult to decide "do I have priority over him or does he have
priority over me", whereas with roundabouts you simply say "is he on my
right [left in US or mainland Europe] - OK, he has priority over me". It's
bad enough in the UK where two minor roads approach at a crossroads,
remembering who go there first and therefore has priority over the other if
both want to turn to their right.

Also, they are inefficient because you have to come to a dead halt even if
you can see in advance that you are the only car, whereas with a roundabout
or a T junction you can keep rolling and accelerate away from slow speed
rather than complete stop once you are certain that your way is clear, and
if you are on the major road at a T junction you may not even need to reduce
speed at all as long as you can see that the driver on the minor road has
safely stopped for you.


Roundabouts in the US were fun because there are so few of them that
Americans are flummoxed by them, whereas I just applied the rules that I
know, except as a mirror-image. When I was visiting my sister who lived near
Boston, about the only roundabout I encountered was a big multi-exit one as
you go onto the Cape Cod peninsula. This held no terrors for me: I drove up,
applied "priority from left" rules and appropriate choice of lane (left
lane, closer to centre because I was going more than half way round, then
indicate right to change to right lane as I was about to come off). I
stopped a little while later and another car also stopped. He treated me as
a super-human and was virtually kowtowing to me because he'd been behind me
on the roundabout and I'd known exactly what to do whereas he had been
bewildered but had followed me as I seemed to know what I was doing. We had
a laugh about it, especially when he realised I was British so I was driving
on "the wrong side" for me, and I admitted that 4-way-stops held the same
terror for me as roundabouts (they often call them "rotaries" or "traffic
circles") did for him - it's a case of what you're used to. He was intrigued
by the concept of every cross roads having one road defined to have priority
over the other, rather than both roads being the same and therefore having
to have "everybody stop" rules. Everyone solves the same problems, but in
different ways.

Presumably in the past, more cross roads in the UK had US "everyone stop"
rules before they more or less eliminated situations where no-one had
automatic priority - either permanent major/minor cross roads / T-junction
rules or changing "priority to traffic on your right" roundabout rules.

[JNugent]

Post by NY

Post by JNugent

Post by NY

Post by Nightjar
The rule has always been that, unless otherwise indicated, both roads
meeting at a junction have an equal priority. It is just that today it
is rare to find junctions that are not marked. It used to be a lot more
common.

It must have been hell to drive in a situation where two streams of
traffic have equal priority. At every junction now, one road is
designated major and the other minor, with suitable give way signs /
lines on the minor road and a warning sign (eg cross roads ahead) on
the major road. Or else there is a defined position rule on
roundabouts: that all the roads are equal but each gives way to
traffic coming from the right (ie which is already on the roundabout).

The American 4-way stop works very well.
http://youtu.be/qOQ9FVYf2-8
http://www.vdriveusa.com/resources/how-a-4-way-stop-works.php

I found 4-way-stop a real PITA because the rules were determined by the
*order* in which you applied (time-based) rather than your position on
the road (position-based). I found it difficult to remember whether I'd
arrived just before or just after someone who arrived at almost the same
time as me, so it was difficult to decide "do I have priority over him
or does he have priority over me", whereas with roundabouts you simply
say "is he on my right [left in US or mainland Europe] - OK, he has
priority over me". It's bad enough in the UK where two minor roads
approach at a crossroads, remembering who go there first and therefore
has priority over the other if both want to turn to their right.
Also, they are inefficient because you have to come to a dead halt even
if you can see in advance that you are the only car, whereas with a
roundabout or a T junction you can keep rolling and accelerate away from
slow speed rather than complete stop once you are certain that your way
is clear, and if you are on the major road at a T junction you may not
even need to reduce speed at all as long as you can see that the driver
on the minor road has safely stopped for you.
Roundabouts in the US were fun because there are so few of them that
Americans are flummoxed by them, whereas I just applied the rules that I
know, except as a mirror-image. When I was visiting my sister who lived
near Boston, about the only roundabout I encountered was a big
multi-exit one as you go onto the Cape Cod peninsula. This held no
terrors for me: I drove up, applied "priority from left" rules and
appropriate choice of lane (left lane, closer to centre because I was
going more than half way round, then indicate right to change to right
lane as I was about to come off). I stopped a little while later and
another car also stopped. He treated me as a super-human and was
virtually kowtowing to me because he'd been behind me on the roundabout
and I'd known exactly what to do whereas he had been bewildered but had
followed me as I seemed to know what I was doing. We had a laugh about
it, especially when he realised I was British so I was driving on "the
wrong side" for me, and I admitted that 4-way-stops held the same terror
for me as roundabouts (they often call them "rotaries" or "traffic
circles") did for him - it's a case of what you're used to. He was
intrigued by the concept of every cross roads having one road defined to
have priority over the other, rather than both roads being the same and
therefore having to have "everybody stop" rules. Everyone solves the
same problems, but in different ways.
Presumably in the past, more cross roads in the UK had US "everyone
stop" rules before they more or less eliminated situations where no-one
had automatic priority - either permanent major/minor cross roads /
T-junction rules or changing "priority to traffic on your right"
roundabout rules.

Nevertheless, the 4-way stop works well in practice. Drivers learn
naturally, as part of their qualification for a license [sic], that
watching out for arrival order is crucial. And they stick to it.

The system is far better than the UK system of designating one road
(usually the busier of the two) as the major road, which can cause long
queues of traffic trying to emerge from the allegedly minor road.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 14:21:52 +0000

Post by JNugent
Nevertheless, the 4-way stop works well in practice. Drivers learn
naturally, as part of their qualification for a license [sic], that
watching out for arrival order is crucial. And they stick to it.
The system is far better than the UK system of designating one road
(usually the busier of the two) as the major road, which can cause long
queues of traffic trying to emerge from the allegedly minor road.

If you want to know how that'll end up drive on the section of the A1 north
of welyn garden city where virtually every sodding B road joins the A1 at
a roundabout. The queues on the A1 can be epic, and with 4 way junctions
the road would probably become unusable.

[NY]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 14:21:52 +0000

Post by JNugent
Nevertheless, the 4-way stop works well in practice. Drivers learn
naturally, as part of their qualification for a license [sic], that
watching out for arrival order is crucial. And they stick to it.
The system is far better than the UK system of designating one road
(usually the busier of the two) as the major road, which can cause long
queues of traffic trying to emerge from the allegedly minor road.

If you want to know how that'll end up drive on the section of the A1 north
of welyn garden city where virtually every sodding B road joins the A1 at
a roundabout. The queues on the A1 can be epic, and with 4 way junctions
the road would probably become unusable.

I live in Yorkshire and I remember the last few roundabouts on the A1
(Blyth, and a few around the Wetherby/Ripon/Thirsk area) being removed and
converted to grade-separated junctions about 10-20 years ago. I don't think
there are any for a couple of hundred miles. So it was quite a shock to
drive down south on the A1 to the M25 and hit all those roundabouts around
Biggleswade , together with ever-changing speed limits depending on how many
roads and people's driveways fronted onto the A1 and the nasty reverse curve
northbound at Roxton to go over the old river bridge. I suppose there isn't
any land to divert the A1 around the communities that originally fronted
onto the Great North Road, whereas it was easier to divert further north
where there was more farmland.

It's a shame that the Elkesley 50 mph limit still remains. I thought after
they remodelled the junctions and got rid of side road traffic being allowed
to cross the central reservation to turn right, that the limit might be
removed. But now. Thank goodness for speed limiters and cruise control when
you come to slow speed limits after driving for ages at 70 :-)

I can remember somewhere around Leeming Bar that tractors were still allowed
to turn right until fairly recently, so you'd suddenly encounter a tractor
and trailer creeping into your path from the central reservation or else his
back end would overhang into Lane 2.

Some of the on-slip roads were exceptionally short. I remember one at
Sinderby (where the Masham-Thirsk road passes under the A1, before the A1
itself was upgraded to motorway with non-motorway alongside) where the only
safe way to negotiate it in heavy traffic was to stop as far back as
possible and then engage first gear with afterburn, turbo, rocket motors,
worp drive and everything your car had when there was a big enough gap, to
have any chance of getting up to 70 before you hit Lane 1. Lorry drivers are
usually the best at moving to Lane 2 to let you out, but there's always some
plonker in a car who stays in Lane 1 when everyone else has courteously
moved across and whom you don't see until the lorry in front of him has
moved to Lane 2. Bloody scary, some of those junctions; likewise for
rejoining after stopping for fuel at some of the garages right by the A1 -
virtually no acceleration lane.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:10:05 -0000

Post by NY
Biggleswade , together with ever-changing speed limits depending on how many
roads and people's driveways fronted onto the A1 and the nasty reverse curve
northbound at Roxton to go over the old river bridge. I suppose there isn't

The curves leading up to that bridge on both sides are severe and there's
very little warning. No doubt a few must have been caught out and ended up
decorating their car over the armco.

Post by NY
Some of the on-slip roads were exceptionally short. I remember one at

I don't know how people in some gutless cars manage to use some of those
sliproads when the road is busy. Its dodgy even in my car which does 60 in
7 secs.

[NY]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:10:05 -0000

Post by NY
Biggleswade , together with ever-changing speed limits depending on how many
roads and people's driveways fronted onto the A1 and the nasty reverse curve
northbound at Roxton to go over the old river bridge. I suppose there isn't

The curves leading up to that bridge on both sides are severe and there's
very little warning. No doubt a few must have been caught out and ended up
decorating their car over the armco.

I knew about the northbound one, having seen it on the map, but I hadn't
realised that the newer southbound bridge is also sharper than it looks - I
first found out when I saw the car in front of me brake sharply, wiggle a
bit and then recover - which gave me warning enough to slow down before I
got to the bend. On the way north my wife was driving and I gave her plenty
of warning.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by NY
Some of the on-slip roads were exceptionally short. I remember one at

I don't know how people in some gutless cars manage to use some of those
sliproads when the road is busy. Its dodgy even in my car which does 60 in
7 secs.

Some of those slip roads were probably designed when traffic generally was
only going about 40-50, though slower cars probably had worse acceleration
so there wasn't as much benefit as you'd think - it must still have been
very tight for many cars to avoid them being rear-ended.

It's bad enough on a motorway (with proper motorway-standard slip roads) if
you are following a car which suddenly decides that it doesn't have enough
acceleration to join at the speed traffic in Lane 1 is going and decides to
slam on the anchors with almost no slip road left in which to accelerate. I
stopped short to give me as much acceleration lane as possible once my way
was clear, and some silly sod swerved round me and took my space and then
was in the same boat as the guy ahead of me - no room to accelerate. There
was a lot of black smoke coming from the cars as they floored the
accelerator and tried to join, whereas from further back I had more room to
do it at least a bit more gradually. Usually you can spot those who are
going to chicken out at the last minute, but this guy was in a powerful car
and had an nice big gap ahead of a lorry to get into, and I'd worked out
that there was another gap immediately behind the lorry - but even when you
plan it right, it only takes one silly sod to foul things up :-(

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:04:34 -0000

Post by NY
It's bad enough on a motorway (with proper motorway-standard slip roads) if
you are following a car which suddenly decides that it doesn't have enough
acceleration to join at the speed traffic in Lane 1 is going and decides to
slam on the anchors with almost no slip road left in which to accelerate. I

You can usually spot those people , they'll be in some POS like a micra or
bottom of the range fiesta.

My bugbear is horse boxes. They're almost always knackered 15-20 old lorries
that should have been scrapped years ago, driven by some woman at 30mph
regardless of the road until she hits a hill where the lump of ancient pig iron
under the cab can barely make double figures while blowing black smoke out
of the exhaust. I often wonder how the hell the drivers of these passed their
class 2 since they seem to be utterly oblivious to the quarter mile queue
behind them.

[NY]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:04:34 -0000

Post by NY
It's bad enough on a motorway (with proper motorway-standard slip roads) if
you are following a car which suddenly decides that it doesn't have enough
acceleration to join at the speed traffic in Lane 1 is going and decides to
slam on the anchors with almost no slip road left in which to accelerate. I

You can usually spot those people , they'll be in some POS like a micra or
bottom of the range fiesta.

Yes, my case was an exception: a supposedly fast modern car, so not a "POS
like a micra or bottom of the range fiesta".

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
My bugbear is horse boxes. They're almost always knackered 15-20 old lorries
that should have been scrapped years ago, driven by some woman at 30mph
regardless of the road until she hits a hill where the lump of ancient pig iron
under the cab can barely make double figures while blowing black smoke out
of the exhaust. I often wonder how the hell the drivers of these passed their
class 2 since they seem to be utterly oblivious to the quarter mile queue
behind them.

Near where I live is Sutton Bank, a long 1:4 hill with hairpin bends.
Caravans are banned, but HGVs (rigid or articulated) are allowed, probably
because there is no other road nearby which could take the size of an artic.

The other day I was approaching from the bottom, a few vehicles behind a
large lorry for transporting live animals. It had been going at a fairly
good speed, given the bends on the road as you approach from Thirsk. Then it
started on the hill, and it slowed down to about 10 mph, stopped for a
minute on the hairpin bend, set off again on the long straight steep part
and stopped several times. Evidently it had insufficient torque to set off
on the hill and to keep moving without stalling. I'd visions of everyone
having to turn round as he was blocking the road, but eventually after
several minutes he managed to get going again and made it to the top, albeit
at a slower speed than my car would do in first with my foot off the
throttle. Once he was at the top he set off again at a fair old speed - he
probably got up to about 60.

So here was a vehicle that was generally in good condition, capable of
keeping up with the general flow of traffic, and yet unable to make it up
the hill. Should that vehicle have tried to use that road? I bet your
average car towing a caravan would have had much less difficulty on the hill
than that lorry :-)

I think the lorry was empty. I doubt it would have got up if it had been
laden with pigs, sheep or calves.



Another hill near me, Rosedale Chimney, is even steeper at 1:3. I've never
seen anything much larger than a car try to go up, but I've seen several
cars get stuck. I was behind one which suddenly stopped on the steepest part
of the hill on one of the hairpins. Luckily I'd left plenty of gap ahead of
me, as I always do - just in case! He seemed unable to get going, and every
time he tried to set off, engine screaming away, he rolled a bit further
back towards me. Eventually I got out and offered to help. He asked me if I
could drive his car to the top of the hill for him, which I did, having put
my hazard lights on and put my warning triangle behind. I think he was a bit
stunned when I got in his car and set off from rest on a 1:3 hill on my
second attempt - I slightly misjudged how much power I'd need so I stalled
the first time. By the time I got back to the car, there was a farmer in an
ancient 4x4. "These tourists!" he said scathingly, with a knowing wink.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:58:48 -0000

Post by NY
So here was a vehicle that was generally in good condition, capable of
keeping up with the general flow of traffic, and yet unable to make it up
the hill. Should that vehicle have tried to use that road? I bet your

No, and the driver/operator should have been fined for using a vehicle not
up to the task.

Post by NY
average car towing a caravan would have had much less difficulty on the hill
than that lorry :-)

The caravan rule is probably for coming down the hill where its pretty easily
to lose control. I'd be interested to know if wagon & drags are banned too.

Post by NY
me, as I always do - just in case! He seemed unable to get going, and every
time he tried to set off, engine screaming away, he rolled a bit further
back towards me. Eventually I got out and offered to help. He asked me if I
could drive his car to the top of the hill for him, which I did, having put
my hazard lights on and put my warning triangle behind. I think he was a bit
stunned when I got in his car and set off from rest on a 1:3 hill on my
second attempt - I slightly misjudged how much power I'd need so I stalled
the first time. By the time I got back to the car, there was a farmer in an
ancient 4x4. "These tourists!" he said scathingly, with a knowing wink.

I've no time for clowns like that. If you can't use a clutch properly buy
an auto or get the bus.

[NY]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:58:48 -0000

Post by NY
So here was a vehicle that was generally in good condition, capable of
keeping up with the general flow of traffic, and yet unable to make it up
the hill. Should that vehicle have tried to use that road? I bet your

No, and the driver/operator should have been fined for using a vehicle not
up to the task.

Post by NY
average car towing a caravan would have had much less difficulty on the hill
than that lorry :-)

The caravan rule is probably for coming down the hill where its pretty easily
to lose control. I'd be interested to know if wagon & drags are banned too.

HGVs (including articulated) are allowed down as well as up. They cause
problems in both directions because they have to swing wide onto the
opposite side of the road on one tight bend
https://goo.gl/maps/63RJzNMhnWQ2. It was on this bend and going uphill from
there behind the camera https://goo.gl/maps/muoGKbLnZwQ2 where the animal
lorry ground to a halt and had to make several attempts to set off again.

There is a sign at the bottom of the hill https://goo.gl/maps/gRpRfzkvNs32
counting the number of blockages last year, but it's read 74 for as long as
I can remember for several years.

There are plenty of signs warning caravan drivers not to use the road, but
the first prohibition sign is *after* they've already started to turn at the
roundabout in Thirsk, and there is no signed place after that for them to
turn round if they saw the sign just too late. I suspect that some caravan
drivers decide to continue as being the lesser evil than blocking the road
while they turn round. The only sign in advance of the last turning is
https://goo.gl/maps/VuEiZsAvY1p which shows a caravan route straight on (ie
not up Sutton Bank) but it looks as if it is advisory because it does not
say "no caravans on the left-turn road". If you are turning left from the
previous photo, it's a bit late to be told "Police Notice: Caravans
Prohibited" as you've started to turn https://goo.gl/maps/NtQsWtmFbKG2.

I once came down the hill and was met by a caravan broadside on in the
foothills, reversing into a driveway to avoid going up. He complied with the
law, but probably caused a lot more disruption than if he'd just carried on
up. It's a very good point about coming down, when I can imagine articulated
vehicles are more likely to get out of control if the brakes on the trailer
are less powerful than those on the towing vehicle, causing overrun.
Nowadays most caravans have electric brakes, but when my parents had a
caravan in the early 70s the only brake on the caravan was an overrun brake
which used the movement of the towing hitch to apply the brakes - I think by
cable rather than hydraulically. Dad always kept that slide mechanism well
greased to make sure it wouldn't seize up and prevent the caravan brake
operating.

The irony is that the signed caravan diversion goes along some very narrow
twisty roads with lots of parked cars in villages, but it's a gentler climb
so they are less likely to get into difficulties *due to the gradient*, even
if they get stuck on the narrow roads.

[TMS320]

On 15/11/17 17:04, NY wrote:
.

Post by NY
It's bad enough on a motorway (with proper motorway-standard slip roads)
if you are following a car which suddenly decides that it doesn't have
enough acceleration to join at the speed traffic in Lane 1 is going and
decides

That's the driver not the car. Any car made in the last 25 years more
provides the ability.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 16:42:26 +0000

Post by TMS320
..

Post by NY
It's bad enough on a motorway (with proper motorway-standard slip roads)
if you are following a car which suddenly decides that it doesn't have
enough acceleration to join at the speed traffic in Lane 1 is going and
decides

That's the driver not the car. Any car made in the last 25 years more
provides the ability.

You're joking. Anything that gets to 60 in more than 15 secs IMO should be
banned from motorways and fast A roads as they simply can't get up to speed
fast enough if the cheapskate at the wheel cocks it up.

[TMS320]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 16:42:26 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by NY
It's bad enough on a motorway (with proper motorway-standard slip roads)
if you are following a car which suddenly decides that it doesn't have
enough acceleration to join at the speed traffic in Lane 1 is going and
decides

That's the driver not the car. Any car made in the last 25 years more
provides the ability.

You're joking. Anything that gets to 60 in more than 15 secs IMO should be
banned from motorways and fast A roads as they simply can't get up to speed
fast enough if the cheapskate at the wheel cocks it up.

I don't find that everything going slowly up a slip road is always
something small and low powered. Driver ability has no correlation to
the car they drive and 15 seconds is more than adequate for a capable
one. eg, my son-in-law has no problem with their 19 second car.

Can large vans, buses and lorries, many with less than half the power to
weight ratio of a 2CV (*), do it?

(*) The slowest car I can think of, off hand, last made 27 years ago,
with 3000 still running in Britain, apparently. I stand my ground with
25 years (or more).

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 23:02:32 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 16:42:26 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by NY
It's bad enough on a motorway (with proper motorway-standard slip roads)
if you are following a car which suddenly decides that it doesn't have
enough acceleration to join at the speed traffic in Lane 1 is going and
decides

That's the driver not the car. Any car made in the last 25 years more
provides the ability.

You're joking. Anything that gets to 60 in more than 15 secs IMO should be
banned from motorways and fast A roads as they simply can't get up to speed
fast enough if the cheapskate at the wheel cocks it up.

I don't find that everything going slowly up a slip road is always
something small and low powered. Driver ability has no correlation to
the car they drive and 15 seconds is more than adequate for a capable
one. eg, my son-in-law has no problem with their 19 second car.

Where does he drive it? Good luck to him getting that out from a slip road
on the A1 in the rush hour. And on a related note why would you buy a car
so underpowered? Its not like there arn't boatloads of decent 2nd hand cars
going for a reasonable price that are a lot quicker.

Post by TMS320
Can large vans, buses and lorries, many with less than half the power to
weight ratio of a 2CV (*), do it?

Large vehicles can bully their way out. You can't do that in a 2CV or a micra.

[TMS320]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by NY
It's bad enough on a motorway (with proper motorway-standard
slip roads) if you are following a car which suddenly decides
that it doesn't have enough acceleration to join at the speed
traffic in Lane 1 is going and decides

That's the driver not the car. Any car made in the last 25
years more provides the ability.

You're joking. Anything that gets to 60 in more than 15 secs IMO
should be banned from motorways and fast A roads as they simply
can't get up to speed fast enough if the cheapskate at the wheel
cocks it up.

I don't find that everything going slowly up a slip road is always
something small and low powered. Driver ability has no correlation
to the car they drive and 15 seconds is more than adequate for a
capable one. eg, my son-in-law has no problem with their 19 second
car.

Where does he drive it? Good luck to him getting that out from a slip
road on the A1 in the rush hour.

I know the type of slip road you mean but what a strange "rush hour" if
it is moving so fast. Whenever I see roads at busy times acceleration is
usually restricted by the car in front... and the car in front of that...

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
And on a related note why would you buy a car so underpowered? Its
not like there arn't boatloads of decent 2nd hand cars going for a
reasonable price that are a lot quicker.

I was mistaken. It is 15 seconds. Nevertheless, it is faster than a slow
driver in a more powerful car.

My daughter exchanged her 12 second car in scrappage 8 years ago. (It's
not their only car, btw.)

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
Can large vans, buses and lorries, many with less than half the
power to weight ratio of a 2CV (*), do it?

Large vehicles can bully their way out. You can't do that in a 2CV or a micra.

Slow vehicles are allowed because they can bully... that would make an
interesting piece of legislation.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 10:13:23 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Where does he drive it? Good luck to him getting that out from a slip
road on the A1 in the rush hour.

I know the type of slip road you mean but what a strange "rush hour" if
it is moving so fast. Whenever I see roads at busy times acceleration is
usually restricted by the car in front... and the car in front of that...

Ok, rush hour where the traffic is moving at a reasonable speed.

Post by TMS320
Slow vehicles are allowed because they can bully... that would make an
interesting piece of legislation.

Good luck arguing the finer points of traffic law with the 44 tonner thats
cutting you up from a slip road. Its probably happened to most drivers at
some point.

[TMS320]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 10:13:23 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Where does he drive it? Good luck to him getting that out from a slip
road on the A1 in the rush hour.

I know the type of slip road you mean but what a strange "rush hour" if
it is moving so fast. Whenever I see roads at busy times acceleration is
usually restricted by the car in front... and the car in front of that...

Ok, rush hour where the traffic is moving at a reasonable speed.

45mph?

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
Slow vehicles are allowed because they can bully... that would make an
interesting piece of legislation.

Good luck arguing the finer points of traffic law with the 44 tonner thats
cutting you up from a slip road.

You were talking (in effect) about some sort of legislation that makes
bullying acceptable.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Its probably happened to most drivers at
some point.

More likely those drivers have put themselves in a predicament.

[NY]

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
Slow vehicles are allowed because they can bully... that would make an
interesting piece of legislation.

Good luck arguing the finer points of traffic law with the 44 tonner thats
cutting you up from a slip road.

You were talking (in effect) about some sort of legislation that makes
bullying acceptable.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Its probably happened to most drivers at
some point.

More likely those drivers have put themselves in a predicament.

There's only so far you can go with defensive driving before it becomes
annoying to everyone behind.

When I'm on a road with grade-sep junctions, I usually try to move over into
Lane 2 to allow traffic to join from the slip road. Sometimes it's not
possible because of traffic in Lane 2, so in that case I look out for
traffic on the slip road and *try* to adjust my speed and position relative
to the vehicle that's about to join, so as to position myself clearly ahead
or behind it, and if I remain behind it and let it join ahead of me, I give
a double flash (*) to acknowledge positively that I have seen him and am
letting him go ahead of me. But sometimes it's not possible if there dense
traffic ahead and behind me. In that circumstance, is it better to keep
going so the joining vehicle has to stop if he runs out of slip road, or to
brake so as to create a gap ahead of me to move into?

If the traffic is so dense that I can't change lanes or accelerate to go
ahead of the joining vehicle, especially if it a big HGV, I tend to let him
pull in ahead of me, and plan for that happening, on the grounds that while
he's moving, he's less of a hazard than if he has to set off from stationary
once a gap appears in Lane 1.

The bigger problem that I find is lorries that bully their way from Lane 1
to Lane 2 as you are overtaking them and are actually alongside. Joing
traffic *has* to join or else grind to a halt if no-one will let them in;
traffic that is already on the motorway is more flexible: it can wait a few
seconds until anything alongside has passed them. If I can see a slow
vehicle ahead of a lorry, I can presume he'll want to overtake so I will
hold off overtaking him, but sometimes you can't even see the road ahead of
an HGV as you start to pass the back end of the trailer, or you can't tell
that the vehicle ahead of him may be doing 0.1 mph slower than the vehicle
you're overtaking and that he will therefore feel honour bound (!) to
overtake him.

HGVs tend to indicate, wait a few microseconds and then move, without
checking whether there's anything alongside. Cars usually indicate and wait
for a gap to appear or for traffic in the next lane to create a gap for
them.


The other big problem on any multi-lane road is the cars that slow right
down as they overtake a lorry. Very commonly I will be following a stream of
cars in Lane 2, and as each car approaches the lorry, it will slow down from
70+ to about 60, take ages to pass the lorry and then accelerate back up to
70. It happens so often than I've grown to expect it and to be prepared to
reduce power or brake in case it happens. For some reason, people are scared
of remaining at their normal speed as they pass a lorry on a motorway -
what's that all about?



(*) I reckon that a positive signal is better than an absence of a signal
which leaves him in doubt as to my intentions, *as long as my signal is
unambiguous* - hence two quick flashes rather than a single long flash "I am
here". Ideally the HC would define a signal that is different to a "visible
horn", but since it hasn't, motorists have devised their own to fill the gap
in the range of signals available.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 11:59:45 -0000

Post by NY
The other big problem on any multi-lane road is the cars that slow right
down as they overtake a lorry. Very commonly I will be following a stream of
cars in Lane 2, and as each car approaches the lorry, it will slow down from
70+ to about 60, take ages to pass the lorry and then accelerate back up to
70. It happens so often than I've grown to expect it and to be prepared to
reduce power or brake in case it happens. For some reason, people are scared
of remaining at their normal speed as they pass a lorry on a motorway -
what's that all about?

Christ knows. There are a lot of pillocks with licenses. I always speed up
when passing a lorry if I can, the less time I spend in that risky position
right next to his vehicle the better IMO.

[TMS320]

Post by NY

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
Slow vehicles are allowed because they can bully... that would
make an interesting piece of legislation.

Good luck arguing the finer points of traffic law with the 44
tonner thats cutting you up from a slip road.

You were talking (in effect) about some sort of legislation that
makes bullying acceptable.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Its probably happened to most drivers at some point.

More likely those drivers have put themselves in a predicament.

There's only so far you can go with defensive driving before it
becomes annoying to everyone behind.

You paint a picture of you in a busy L1 when a lorry on the slip road
matches you. You're seemingly worrying about everybody behind and do
nothing until the lorry "bullies" its way out. OK, then what?

Post by NY
The other big problem on any multi-lane road is the cars that slow
right down as they overtake a lorry. Very commonly I will be
following a stream of cars in Lane 2, and as each car approaches the
lorry, it will slow down from 70+ to about 60,

Have you looked beyond the car doing this? I don't start to go past a
lorry unless there is a gap (or developing gap) ahead of it, for this
reason:-

Post by NY
The bigger problem that I find is lorries that bully their way from
Lane 1 to Lane 2 as you are overtaking them and are actually
alongside.

When L1 is full of lorries and L2 is faster but not fully free flowing,
L2 tends to cog as (sensible) people wait for the next space in front of
the cab to become vacant.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 11:03:26 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 10:13:23 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Where does he drive it? Good luck to him getting that out from a slip
road on the A1 in the rush hour.

I know the type of slip road you mean but what a strange "rush hour" if
it is moving so fast. Whenever I see roads at busy times acceleration is
usually restricted by the car in front... and the car in front of that...

Ok, rush hour where the traffic is moving at a reasonable speed.

45mph?

Something like that. If there is a 2 second gap inbetween each car then there's
no way you'll get some gutless tin box with a 0-60 of 20 seconds up to speed
to be able to merge on some of the slip roads on the A1 which can be as short
as 4 or 5 car lengths IME.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
Slow vehicles are allowed because they can bully... that would make an
interesting piece of legislation.

Good luck arguing the finer points of traffic law with the 44 tonner thats
cutting you up from a slip road.

You were talking (in effect) about some sort of legislation that makes
bullying acceptable.

No, I wasn't. I was talking about legislation to keep underpowered cars off
main highways.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Its probably happened to most drivers at
some point.

More likely those drivers have put themselves in a predicament.

Not always.

[TMS320]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 11:03:26 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 10:13:23 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Where does he drive it? Good luck to him getting that out from a slip
road on the A1 in the rush hour.

I know the type of slip road you mean but what a strange "rush hour" if
it is moving so fast. Whenever I see roads at busy times acceleration is
usually restricted by the car in front... and the car in front of that...

Ok, rush hour where the traffic is moving at a reasonable speed.

45mph?

Something like that. If there is a 2 second gap inbetween each car then there's
no way you'll get some gutless tin box with a 0-60 of 20 seconds up to speed
to be able to merge on some of the slip roads on the A1 which can be as short
as 4 or 5 car lengths IME.

You've stepped some way back from 15 seconds... There are 3000 2CVs
left in this country and it's possible somebody would be able to
demonstrate how it's done.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
Slow vehicles are allowed because they can bully... that would make an
interesting piece of legislation.

Good luck arguing the finer points of traffic law with the 44 tonner thats
cutting you up from a slip road.

You were talking (in effect) about some sort of legislation that makes
bullying acceptable.

No, I wasn't. I was talking about legislation to keep underpowered cars off
main highways.

Yes, but you still need to explain how the legislators make the
exception for vehicles that have an even lower power to weight ratio.
You have forgotten what you said.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Its probably happened to most drivers at
some point.

More likely those drivers have put themselves in a predicament.

Not always.

Coming down a slip road there's a big ugly thing that's not going to
take off or turn into fairy dust. It's going to join the carriageway. If
somebody can't work that out, they're either blind or have come from Mars.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 21:42:50 +0000

Post by NY

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Where does he drive it? Good luck to him getting that out from a slip
road on the A1 in the rush hour.

I know the type of slip road you mean but what a strange "rush hour" if
it is moving so fast. Whenever I see roads at busy times acceleration is
usually restricted by the car in front... and the car in front of that...

Ok, rush hour where the traffic is moving at a reasonable speed.

45mph?

Something like that. If there is a 2 second gap inbetween each car then

there's

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
no way you'll get some gutless tin box with a 0-60 of 20 seconds up to speed
to be able to merge on some of the slip roads on the A1 which can be as short
as 4 or 5 car lengths IME.

You've stepped some way back from 15 seconds... There are 3000 2CVs
left in this country and it's possible somebody would be able to
demonstrate how it's done.

Where above is 15 seconds mentioned? Are you talking about the gap or the
0-60?

Post by NY

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No, I wasn't. I was talking about legislation to keep underpowered cars off
main highways.

Yes, but you still need to explain how the legislators make the
exception for vehicles that have an even lower power to weight ratio.
You have forgotten what you said.

Simple - vehicles are already divided into private and commercial. Different
rules would apply for commercial vehicles as they already do in other areas.

Post by NY
Coming down a slip road there's a big ugly thing that's not going to
take off or turn into fairy dust. It's going to join the carriageway. If
somebody can't work that out, they're either blind or have come from Mars.

Yes, but if you're in L1, with cars in front and behind you and in L2 blocking
you from moving out you're limited in what you can do.

[TMS320]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 21:42:50 +0000

Post by NY

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Where does he drive it? Good luck to him getting that out from a slip
road on the A1 in the rush hour.

I know the type of slip road you mean but what a strange "rush hour" if
it is moving so fast. Whenever I see roads at busy times acceleration is
usually restricted by the car in front... and the car in front of that...

Ok, rush hour where the traffic is moving at a reasonable speed.

45mph?

Something like that. If there is a 2 second gap inbetween each car then

there's

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
no way you'll get some gutless tin box with a 0-60 of 20 seconds up to speed
to be able to merge on some of the slip roads on the A1 which can be as short
as 4 or 5 car lengths IME.

You've stepped some way back from 15 seconds... There are 3000 2CVs
left in this country and it's possible somebody would be able to
demonstrate how it's done.

Where above is 15 seconds mentioned? Are you talking about the gap or the
0-60?

You previously wanted cars with 0-60 time of more than 15 seconds banned
from certain roads. You have obviously forgotten. (0-60 is a completely
stupid performance measure btw).

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by NY

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No, I wasn't. I was talking about legislation to keep underpowered cars off
main highways.

Yes, but you still need to explain how the legislators make the
exception for vehicles that have an even lower power to weight ratio.
You have forgotten what you said.

Simple - vehicles are already divided into private and commercial. Different
rules would apply for commercial vehicles as they already do in other areas.

It only applies when there is some logic to it.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by NY
Coming down a slip road there's a big ugly thing that's not going to
take off or turn into fairy dust. It's going to join the carriageway. If
somebody can't work that out, they're either blind or have come from Mars.

Yes, but if you're in L1, with cars in front and behind you and in L2 blocking
you from moving out you're limited in what you can do.

Other traffic is irrelevant. You observe and anticipate and make space
voluntarily in an unhurried way or you try to ignore and get "bullied"
into making space in a hurried way which has a much greater effect on
others. What other choice is there?

[NY]

(0-60 is a completely stupid performance measure btw).

Yes, a 0-60 *distance* rather than time might be a better statistic, because
it represents how big the gap between vehicles needs to be if you are to
join traffic travelling at 60 mph from a standing start because you've got
to the end of the slip road and haven't been able to join. Except of course
you'd want to allow a margin of error...

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 23:51:17 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
You've stepped some way back from 15 seconds... There are 3000 2CVs
left in this country and it's possible somebody would be able to
demonstrate how it's done.

Where above is 15 seconds mentioned? Are you talking about the gap or the
0-60?

You previously wanted cars with 0-60 time of more than 15 seconds banned
from certain roads. You have obviously forgotten. (0-60 is a completely
stupid performance measure btw).

It might not be the best measure but its better than nothing and from a
more or less standing start when pulling on to a busy dual carraigeway its
a lot more applicable that say the 50-70 time in 4th or whatever.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
Yes, but you still need to explain how the legislators make the
exception for vehicles that have an even lower power to weight ratio.
You have forgotten what you said.

Simple - vehicles are already divided into private and commercial. Different
rules would apply for commercial vehicles as they already do in other areas.

It only applies when there is some logic to it.

So there's no logic in splitting vehicles into private and commercial? Perhaps
share your wisdom with the DoT then.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Yes, but if you're in L1, with cars in front and behind you and in L2

blocking

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
you from moving out you're limited in what you can do.

Other traffic is irrelevant. You observe and anticipate and make space

LOL! "Other traffic is irrelevant" when manouveuring on a busy road, oh thats
priceless! :)

I bet you're one of those self righteous sods who sits in the middle lane for
miles on end with the cruise control on and never moves over for anyone or
anything.

Post by TMS320
voluntarily in an unhurried way or you try to ignore and get "bullied"
into making space in a hurried way which has a much greater effect on
others. What other choice is there?

The other choice is getting sideswiped by a vehicle weighing 40 tons. Your
choice pal.

[TMS320]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 23:51:17 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
You've stepped some way back from 15 seconds... There are 3000 2CVs
left in this country and it's possible somebody would be able to
demonstrate how it's done.

Where above is 15 seconds mentioned? Are you talking about the gap or the
0-60?

You previously wanted cars with 0-60 time of more than 15 seconds banned
from certain roads. You have obviously forgotten. (0-60 is a completely
stupid performance measure btw).

It might not be the best measure but its better than nothing and from a
more or less standing start when pulling on to a busy dual carraigeway its
a lot more applicable that say the 50-70 time in 4th or whatever.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
Yes, but you still need to explain how the legislators make the
exception for vehicles that have an even lower power to weight ratio.
You have forgotten what you said.

Simple - vehicles are already divided into private and commercial. Different
rules would apply for commercial vehicles as they already do in other areas.

It only applies when there is some logic to it.

So there's no logic in splitting vehicles into private and commercial? Perhaps
share your wisdom with the DoT then.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Yes, but if you're in L1, with cars in front and behind you and in L2

blocking

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
you from moving out you're limited in what you can do.

Other traffic is irrelevant. You observe and anticipate and make space

LOL! "Other traffic is irrelevant" when manouveuring on a busy road, oh thats
priceless! :)

In the particular circumstances you describe it is. You make other
drivers do what you want, not let them control you.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I bet you're one of those self righteous sods who sits in the middle lane for
miles on end with the cruise control on and never moves over for anyone or
anything.

It would be interesting to know whether you manage to drive more
intelligently than you post.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
voluntarily in an unhurried way or you try to ignore and get "bullied"
into making space in a hurried way which has a much greater effect on
others. What other choice is there?

The other choice is getting sideswiped by a vehicle weighing 40 tons. Your
choice pal.

The choice is that you move in an unhurried way or you move in a hurried
way. The "other choice" that you mention is fully contained in that.

[JNugent]

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 23:51:17 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

   You've stepped some way back from 15 seconds... There are 3000 2CVs
left in this country and it's possible somebody would be able to
demonstrate how it's done.

Where above is 15 seconds mentioned? Are you talking about the gap or the
0-60?

You previously wanted cars with 0-60 time of more than 15 seconds banned
from certain roads. You have obviously forgotten. (0-60 is a
completely stupid performance measure btw).

It might not be the best measure but its better than nothing and from a
more or less standing start when pulling on to a busy dual carraigeway its
a lot more applicable that say the 50-70 time in 4th or whatever.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Yes, but you still need to explain how the legislators make the
exception for vehicles that have an even lower power to weight ratio.
You have forgotten what you said.

Simple - vehicles are already divided into private and commercial. Different
rules would apply for commercial vehicles as they already do in other areas.

It only applies when there is some logic to it.

So there's no logic in splitting vehicles into private and commercial? Perhaps
share your wisdom with the DoT then.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Yes, but if you're in L1, with cars in front and behind you and in L2

blocking

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
you from moving out you're limited in what you can do.

Other traffic is irrelevant. You observe and anticipate and make space

LOL! "Other traffic is irrelevant" when manouveuring on a busy road,
oh thats priceless! :)

In the particular circumstances you describe it is. You make other
drivers do what you want, not let them control you.

Weren't you always a Highway Code stickler?

What about Rule 133?

"If you need to change lane, first use your mirrors and if necessary
take a quick sideways glance to make sure you will not force another
road user to change course or speed. When it is safe to do so, signal to
indicate your intentions to other road users and when clear, move over."

"... make sure you will *not* force another road user to change course
or speed".

And in any case, failing in that duty (if a policeman witnessed it) by
treating other road users as irrelevant would almost certainly fall foul
of Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which reads:

"If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other
public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable
*consideration* for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty
of an offence".

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I bet you're one of those self righteous sods who sits in the middle
lane for miles on end with the cruise control on and never moves over
for anyone or anything.

It would be interesting to know whether you manage to drive more
intelligently than you post.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
voluntarily in an unhurried way or you try to ignore and get "bullied"
into making space in a hurried way which has a much greater effect on
others. What other choice is there?

The other choice is getting sideswiped by a vehicle weighing 40 tons.
Your choice pal.

The choice is that you move in an unhurried way or you move in a hurried
way. The "other choice" that you mention is fully contained in that.

Actually, the choice is whether you move lawfully or unlawfully. And
forcing another road user to change course or speed is a breach of the
Highway Code and an offence in any traffic officer's book.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:25:32 +0000

Post by JNugent

Post by TMS320
The choice is that you move in an unhurried way or you move in a hurried
way. The "other choice" that you mention is fully contained in that.

Actually, the choice is whether you move lawfully or unlawfully. And
forcing another road user to change course or speed is a breach of the
Highway Code and an offence in any traffic officer's book.

True. The problem is that if someone else is breaking the rules then sticking
by the rules may actually cause an accident than prevent one. Eg: if a truck
is bullying its way out from a sliproad and clearly expects you to get out of
the way regardless, no amount of rule quoting is going to stop that and you
may have to brake harshly or cut someone up in another lane to avoid a serious
accident. This is what Mr TMS320 doesn't seem to appreciate.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 17:17:37 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
LOL! "Other traffic is irrelevant" when manouveuring on a busy road, oh thats
priceless! :)

In the particular circumstances you describe it is. You make other
drivers do what you want, not let them control you.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I bet you're one of those self righteous sods who sits in the middle lane for
miles on end with the cruise control on and never moves over for anyone or
anything.

It would be interesting to know whether you manage to drive more
intelligently than you post.

Funny, I was just going to ask you the same question.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
voluntarily in an unhurried way or you try to ignore and get "bullied"
into making space in a hurried way which has a much greater effect on
others. What other choice is there?

The other choice is getting sideswiped by a vehicle weighing 40 tons. Your
choice pal.

The choice is that you move in an unhurried way or you move in a hurried
way. The "other choice" that you mention is fully contained in that.

If by moving unhurried means an accident then I'll take the hurried way
thanks. I'm afraid physics trumps rules and regulations but feel free to
wave your copy of the highway code at the truck wheel thats about to crush
you.

[TMS320]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
LOL! "Other traffic is irrelevant" when manouveuring on a busy
road, oh thats priceless! :)

In the particular circumstances you describe it is. You make other
drivers do what you want, not let them control you.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

There is a useful skill some drivers develop. Some drivers also gain
anticipation. You seem to be one of the many that hasn't got them.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I bet you're one of those self righteous sods who sits in the
middle lane for miles on end with the cruise control on and never
moves over for anyone or anything.

It would be interesting to know whether you manage to drive more
intelligently than you post.

Funny, I was just going to ask you the same question.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
voluntarily in an unhurried way or you try to ignore and get
"bullied" into making space in a hurried way which has a much
greater effect on others. What other choice is there?

The other choice is getting sideswiped by a vehicle weighing 40
tons. Your choice pal.

The choice is that you move in an unhurried way or you move in a
hurried way. The "other choice" that you mention is fully contained
in that.

If by moving unhurried means an accident then I'll take the hurried
way thanks. I'm afraid physics trumps rules and regulations but feel
free to wave your copy of the highway code at the truck wheel thats
about to crush you.

Let's remind you of the situation you put forward. You are on a dual
carriageway with vehicles in front, behind and in the next lane. A lorry
is trying to join from a slip road.

You're obviously already uncomfortable with your situation even without
the lorry. First error. Then you approach the slip. You haven't made any
adjustment so you have left yourself in a position for the lorry to
bully you and all you've got left is to make a hurried move. You're
comfortable with that as a satisfactory version of accident avoidance?

It hasn't occurred to you that another way is not to be in a position
where the lorry can bully you?

[NY]

Post by TMS320
It hasn't occurred to you that another way is not to be in a position
where the lorry can bully you?

By doing what: reducing your speed slightly to create a gap ahead of you in
anticipation that the lorry on the slip road will want to use it?

I usually try to move out into Lane 2 to leave Lane 1 completely clear as I
approach an entry slip. The problem comes when all the traffic in Lane 2 is
going a lot faster than I would want to travel. In those circumstances, I
tend to pull out as late as I can leave it so as to inconvenience traffic in
Lane 2 for as little time as possible. Trouble is, everyone else changes
lanes much earlier than me so by the time I'm ready, Lane 2 is clogged. And
if I do pull out earlier, I'm hassled to go faster or else I get cars
overtaking me on the left and then pulling into the gap that I've left ahead
of me.

I don't drive slowly - I'd probably drive at 80 if the speed limit were
raised - but I don't want to be done for speeding. And whatever speed I
drive at, I want a minimum gap of 2 seconds ahead of me - more if the
traffic keeps braking rather going at a constant speed.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 10:00:44 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
LOL! "Other traffic is irrelevant" when manouveuring on a busy
road, oh thats priceless! :)

In the particular circumstances you describe it is. You make other
drivers do what you want, not let them control you.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

There is a useful skill some drivers develop. Some drivers also gain
anticipation. You seem to be one of the many that hasn't got them.

Making other drivers do what you want is normally called bullying. Ironic
really given the discussion.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
If by moving unhurried means an accident then I'll take the hurried
way thanks. I'm afraid physics trumps rules and regulations but feel
free to wave your copy of the highway code at the truck wheel thats
about to crush you.

Let's remind you of the situation you put forward. You are on a dual
carriageway with vehicles in front, behind and in the next lane. A lorry
is trying to join from a slip road.
You're obviously already uncomfortable with your situation even without

Where did I say that?

Post by TMS320
the lorry. First error. Then you approach the slip. You haven't made any
adjustment so you have left yourself in a position for the lorry to
bully you and all you've got left is to make a hurried move. You're
comfortable with that as a satisfactory version of accident avoidance?

Do you ever actually drive on dual carraigeways? The original road under
discussion was the A1 where on non motorway sections the "sliproads" are barely
worthy of the name. Often by the time you've seen the truck coming and
realised he has no intention of playing nice its too late to smoothly adjust
your speed to let him in.

Post by TMS320
It hasn't occurred to you that another way is not to be in a position
where the lorry can bully you?

I hasn't occured to you that this isn't always possible. Try driving long
distance in the rush hour instead of getting your Rover out of the garage every
3rd sunday and pottering a few miles down to the garden centre whilst
imagining that road conditions you experienced in 1975 are the same as now
and you might have more of a clue about real world driving.

[TMS320]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
LOL! "Other traffic is irrelevant" when manouveuring on a
busy road, oh thats priceless! :)

In the particular circumstances you describe it is. You make
other drivers do what you want, not let them control you.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

There is a useful skill some drivers develop. Some drivers also
gain anticipation. You seem to be one of the many that hasn't got
them.

Making other drivers do what you want is normally called bullying.
Ironic really given the discussion.

On the contrary. Bullying requires intimidation and invasion of space.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
If by moving unhurried means an accident then I'll take the
hurried way thanks. I'm afraid physics trumps rules and
regulations but feel free to wave your copy of the highway code
at the truck wheel thats about to crush you.

Let's remind you of the situation you put forward. You are on a
dual carriageway with vehicles in front, behind and in the next
lane. A lorry is trying to join from a slip road.
You're obviously already uncomfortable with your situation even without

Where did I say that?

It is implied. If you were comfortable with the situation it would not
be impossible for you to do anything until...

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
the lorry. First error. Then you approach the slip. You haven't
made any adjustment so you have left yourself in a position for the
lorry to bully you and all you've got left is to make a hurried
move. You're comfortable with that as a satisfactory version of
accident avoidance?

Do you ever actually drive on dual carraigeways? The original road
under discussion was the A1 where on non motorway sections the
"sliproads" are barely worthy of the name. Often by the time you've
seen the truck coming and realised he has no intention of playing
nice its too late to smoothly adjust your speed to let him in.

Post by TMS320
It hasn't occurred to you that another way is not to be in a
position where the lorry can bully you?

I hasn't occured to you that this isn't always possible.

...the lorry forces you out of the way. Why can you do something now
that supposedly couldn't be done earlier on?

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Try driving long distance in the rush hour instead of getting your
Rover out of the garage every 3rd sunday and pottering a few miles
down to the garden centre whilst imagining that road conditions you
experienced in 1975 are the same as now and you might have more of a
clue about real world driving.

If you find certain situations difficult don't assume everybody
experiences them as you do.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 20:35:33 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Making other drivers do what you want is normally called bullying.
Ironic really given the discussion.

On the contrary. Bullying requires intimidation and invasion of space.

So how would you do it then? Do bless us with your wisdom.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
You're obviously already uncomfortable with your situation even without

Where did I say that?

It is implied. If you were comfortable with the situation it would not
be impossible for you to do anything until...

So it was a strawman, glad we cleared that up.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
It hasn't occurred to you that another way is not to be in a
position where the lorry can bully you?

I hasn't occured to you that this isn't always possible.

....the lorry forces you out of the way. Why can you do something now
that supposedly couldn't be done earlier on?

The point is you didn't need to know it needed to be done earlier on - which
in the case of the A1 could be as little as 3 or 4 seconds earlier.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Try driving long distance in the rush hour instead of getting your
Rover out of the garage every 3rd sunday and pottering a few miles
down to the garden centre whilst imagining that road conditions you
experienced in 1975 are the same as now and you might have more of a
clue about real world driving.

If you find certain situations difficult don't assume everybody
experiences them as you do.

We could all avoid these situations if we pottered along at 50 in the middle
lane like you and your fellow MLOC members. Just remember never to look in
the rear view mirror to see the problems you're causing others.

[TMS320]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 20:35:33 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Making other drivers do what you want is normally called bullying.
Ironic really given the discussion.

On the contrary. Bullying requires intimidation and invasion of space.

So how would you do it then? Do bless us with your wisdom.

I am not articulate enough. Besides, there are many things that are hard
to explain - for instance, try explaining how to catch a ball.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
You're obviously already uncomfortable with your situation even without

Where did I say that?

It is implied. If you were comfortable with the situation it would not
be impossible for you to do anything until...

So it was a strawman, glad we cleared that up.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
It hasn't occurred to you that another way is not to be in a
position where the lorry can bully you?

I hasn't occured to you that this isn't always possible.

....the lorry forces you out of the way. Why can you do something now
that supposedly couldn't be done earlier on?

The point is you didn't need to know it needed to be done earlier on - which
in the case of the A1 could be as little as 3 or 4 seconds earlier.

A slip road never joins by surprise.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Try driving long distance in the rush hour instead of getting your
Rover out of the garage every 3rd sunday and pottering a few miles
down to the garden centre whilst imagining that road conditions you
experienced in 1975 are the same as now and you might have more of a
clue about real world driving.

If you find certain situations difficult don't assume everybody
experiences them as you do.

We could all avoid these situations if we pottered along at 50 in the middle
lane like you and your fellow MLOC members. Just remember never to look in
the rear view mirror to see the problems you're causing others.

Are you describing yourself?

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 00:01:31 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 20:35:33 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Making other drivers do what you want is normally called bullying.
Ironic really given the discussion.

On the contrary. Bullying requires intimidation and invasion of space.

So how would you do it then? Do bless us with your wisdom.

I am not articulate enough. Besides, there are many things that are hard
to explain - for instance, try explaining how to catch a ball.

Err, predict where ball will be, place hand(s) there. Catch ball.

If you find that hard to explain then no surprise you're all a bit at sea
when it comes to driving.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
The point is you didn't need to know it needed to be done earlier on - which
in the case of the A1 could be as little as 3 or 4 seconds earlier.

A slip road never joins by surprise.

No, but the traffic can.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
We could all avoid these situations if we pottered along at 50 in the middle
lane like you and your fellow MLOC members. Just remember never to look in
the rear view mirror to see the problems you're causing others.

Are you describing yourself?

Hardly. I tend to stick to the inside lane unless there's a lorry ahead. I
undertook at least 4 MLOC idiots on the A1 yesterday. Only one of them got
the hint and moved over afterwards.

[TMS320]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Making other drivers do what you want is normally called
bullying. Ironic really given the discussion.

On the contrary. Bullying requires intimidation and invasion of space.

So how would you do it then? Do bless us with your wisdom.

I am not articulate enough. Besides, there are many things that
are hard to explain - for instance, try explaining how to catch a
ball.

Err, predict where ball will be,

Err... please explain.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
place hand(s) there. Catch ball.
If you find that hard to explain then no surprise you're all a bit
at sea when it comes to driving.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
The point is you didn't need to know it needed to be done
earlier on - which in the case of the A1 could be as little as 3
or 4 seconds earlier.

A slip road never joins by surprise.

No, but the traffic can.

A1, heh? Down here in the over populated south it is a surprise when
there is no joining traffic.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
We could all avoid these situations if we pottered along at 50
in the middle lane like you and your fellow MLOC members. Just
remember never to look in the rear view mirror to see the
problems you're causing others.

Are you describing yourself?

Hardly. I tend to stick to the inside lane unless there's a lorry
ahead. I undertook at least 4 MLOC idiots on the A1 yesterday. Only
one of them got the hint and moved over afterwards.

Woosh.

You take the attitude that if you find a situation (eg, you get bullied
by lorries), it is something that is inevitable and that if another
argues with you, that person is necessarily oblivious. Survival requires
more than blind luck; you can't accept there could be more to it.

(Oh and btw, the only proper way to go to a garden centre for Sunday
coffee and cake is by bicycle.)

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 10:52:03 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Making other drivers do what you want is normally called
bullying. Ironic really given the discussion.

On the contrary. Bullying requires intimidation and invasion of space.

So how would you do it then? Do bless us with your wisdom.

I am not articulate enough. Besides, there are many things that
are hard to explain - for instance, try explaining how to catch a
ball.

Err, predict where ball will be,

Err... please explain.

Playing dumb never helped win an argument. Unless of course you really are
so dumb you don't know how its done. Were you always picked last at school
for the cricket team?

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
The point is you didn't need to know it needed to be done
earlier on - which in the case of the A1 could be as little as 3
or 4 seconds earlier.

A slip road never joins by surprise.

No, but the traffic can.

A1, heh? Down here in the over populated south it is a surprise when
there is no joining traffic.

I'm in the south. Obviously you don't drive along the A1 north of letchworth
much.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
in the middle lane like you and your fellow MLOC members. Just
remember never to look in the rear view mirror to see the
problems you're causing others.

Are you describing yourself?

Hardly. I tend to stick to the inside lane unless there's a lorry
ahead. I undertook at least 4 MLOC idiots on the A1 yesterday. Only
one of them got the hint and moved over afterwards.

Woosh.

Hardly. Its a lot safer to undertake some MLOC idiot who clearly has no
intention of moving over than it is to pull out 2 lanes into faster traffic
then pull back in 2 lanes. Plenty of people do it now, even trucks.

Post by TMS320
You take the attitude that if you find a situation (eg, you get bullied
by lorries), it is something that is inevitable and that if another

I never said it was invitable, just sometimes unavoidable. There is a
difference.

Post by TMS320
argues with you, that person is necessarily oblivious. Survival requires
more than blind luck; you can't accept there could be more to it.

If you find yourself "surviving" on a road then you're driving skills clearly
arn't up to much.

Post by TMS320
(Oh and btw, the only proper way to go to a garden centre for Sunday
coffee and cake is by bicycle.)

No doubt sitting in the middle of the road cursing at drivers who have the
temerity to pass you leaving less than 2 metres of space.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 10:52:03 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
I am not articulate enough. Besides, there are many things that
are hard to explain - for instance, try explaining how to catch a
ball.

Err, predict where ball will be,

Err... please explain.

Playing dumb never helped win an argument. Unless of course you really are
so dumb you don't know how its done. Were you always picked last at school
for the cricket team?

He's not playing dumb. He's asking you to explain how you predict
where the ball will be.

Mark

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 14:41:21 +0000

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 10:52:03 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
I am not articulate enough. Besides, there are many things that
are hard to explain - for instance, try explaining how to catch a
ball.

Err, predict where ball will be,

Err... please explain.

Playing dumb never helped win an argument. Unless of course you really are
so dumb you don't know how its done. Were you always picked last at school
for the cricket team?

He's not playing dumb. He's asking you to explain how you predict
where the ball will be.

If he wants a detailed neurological answer then I doubt anyone knows and
he might as well demand an explanation of Boyles Law when talking about how to
pump up a tyre, it has about the same relevance to this group.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 14:41:21 +0000

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 10:52:03 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
I am not articulate enough. Besides, there are many things that
are hard to explain - for instance, try explaining how to catch a
ball.

Err, predict where ball will be,

Err... please explain.

Playing dumb never helped win an argument. Unless of course you really are
so dumb you don't know how its done. Were you always picked last at school
for the cricket team?

He's not playing dumb. He's asking you to explain how you predict
where the ball will be.

If he wants a detailed neurological answer then I doubt anyone knows and
he might as well demand an explanation of Boyles Law when talking about how to
pump up a tyre, it has about the same relevance to this group.

Which is, if you read back up the thread, precisely the point!

Mark

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 17:12:53 +0000

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 14:41:21 +0000

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 10:52:03 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
I am not articulate enough. Besides, there are many things that
are hard to explain - for instance, try explaining how to catch a
ball.

Err, predict where ball will be,

Err... please explain.

Playing dumb never helped win an argument. Unless of course you really are
so dumb you don't know how its done. Were you always picked last at school
for the cricket team?

He's not playing dumb. He's asking you to explain how you predict
where the ball will be.

If he wants a detailed neurological answer then I doubt anyone knows and
he might as well demand an explanation of Boyles Law when talking about how

to

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
pump up a tyre, it has about the same relevance to this group.

Which is, if you read back up the thread, precisely the point!

No, it wasn't. He was using the old wood for the trees style of argument
to divert attention from his lame points.

[TMS320]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Making other drivers do what you want is normally called
bullying. Ironic really given the discussion.

On the contrary. Bullying requires intimidation and
invasion of space.

So how would you do it then? Do bless us with your wisdom.

I am not articulate enough. Besides, there are many things
that are hard to explain - for instance, try explaining how to
catch a ball.

Err, predict where ball will be,

Err... please explain.

Playing dumb never helped win an argument. Unless of course you
really are so dumb you don't know how its done. Were you always
picked last at school for the cricket team?

Just accept that catching a ball is a familiar example of something that
cannot be explained. It does you no good to insult the other person and
try to pretend it can be explained.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
The point is you didn't need to know it needed to be done
earlier on - which in the case of the A1 could be as little
as 3 or 4 seconds earlier.

A slip road never joins by surprise.

No, but the traffic can.

A1, heh? Down here in the over populated south it is a surprise
when there is no joining traffic.

I'm in the south. Obviously you don't drive along the A1 north of
letchworth much.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
in the middle lane like you and your fellow MLOC members.
Just remember never to look in the rear view mirror to see
the problems you're causing others.

Are you describing yourself?

Hardly. I tend to stick to the inside lane unless there's a
lorry ahead. I undertook at least 4 MLOC idiots on the A1
yesterday. Only one of them got the hint and moved over
afterwards.

Woosh.

Hardly. Its a lot safer to undertake some MLOC idiot who clearly has
no intention of moving over than it is to pull out 2 lanes into
faster traffic then pull back in 2 lanes. Plenty of people do it now,
even trucks.

You really don't get it.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
You take the attitude that if you find a situation (eg, you get
bullied by lorries), it is something that is inevitable and that if
another

I never said it was invitable, just sometimes unavoidable. There is
a difference.

You experience a particular situation, therefore you believe it is
inevitable that others must experience it.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
argues with you, that person is necessarily oblivious. Survival
requires more than blind luck; you can't accept there could be more
to it.

If you find yourself "surviving" on a road then you're driving skills
clearly arn't up to much.

Surviving hazardous situations is normally considered a good thing and
usually has something to do with skill. Curious that you think driving
is different.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
(Oh and btw, the only proper way to go to a garden centre for
Sunday coffee and cake is by bicycle.)

No doubt sitting in the middle of the road cursing at drivers who
have the temerity to pass you leaving less than 2 metres of space.

... so says the person that needs to be bullied out of the way by lorry
drivers.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:21:21 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Playing dumb never helped win an argument. Unless of course you
really are so dumb you don't know how its done. Were you always
picked last at school for the cricket team?

Just accept that catching a ball is a familiar example of something that
cannot be explained. It does you no good to insult the other person and
try to pretend it can be explained.

It can be explained down to certain levels. You clearly want to go down to
a level that can't simply to make some fatuous point. If it was explained
down to the level of the neurons you'd come along and ask for a quantum
mechanical explanation. However I think "eye follows ball, brain figures out
trajectory and places hand to intercept" works fine in this context, don't
you?

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
Woosh.

Hardly. Its a lot safer to undertake some MLOC idiot who clearly has
no intention of moving over than it is to pull out 2 lanes into
faster traffic then pull back in 2 lanes. Plenty of people do it now,
even trucks.

You really don't get it.

Look in the mirror pal.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I never said it was invitable, just sometimes unavoidable. There is
a difference.

You experience a particular situation, therefore you believe it is
inevitable that others must experience it.

No, I'm just saying there are certain situations that no one can predict
fast enough and there arn't any easy solutions. If you think otherwise then
you're just arrogant and probably dangerous behind the wheel as clearly you
have an overrated sense of your own driving abilities.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
If you find yourself "surviving" on a road then you're driving skills
clearly arn't up to much.

Surviving hazardous situations is normally considered a good thing and
usually has something to do with skill. Curious that you think driving
is different.

See above.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No doubt sitting in the middle of the road cursing at drivers who
have the temerity to pass you leaving less than 2 metres of space.

.... so says the person that needs to be bullied out of the way by lorry
drivers.

No, this is the person that doesn't want to end up in a pile up possibly dead.
If something weighing 44 tons is going to push its way out I don't plan on
arguing the toss in something that weighs 1.5 tons. But you feel free. No
doubt we'll hear about you in the traffic news one day being cut out of your
vehicle.

[TMS320]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Playing dumb never helped win an argument. Unless of course you
really are so dumb you don't know how its done. Were you always
picked last at school for the cricket team?

Just accept that catching a ball is a familiar example of something
that cannot be explained. It does you no good to insult the other
person and try to pretend it can be explained.

It can be explained down to certain levels. You clearly want to go
down to a level that can't simply to make some fatuous point. If it
was explained down to the level of the neurons you'd come along and
ask for a quantum mechanical explanation. However I think "eye
follows ball, brain figures out trajectory and places hand to
intercept" works fine in this context, don't you?

To define what software has to do does not require detailed knowledge of
the mechanics or the physics of the hardware; "brain figures out" is not
sufficient.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320
Woosh.

Hardly. Its a lot safer to undertake some MLOC idiot who clearly
has no intention of moving over than it is to pull out 2 lanes
into faster traffic then pull back in 2 lanes. Plenty of people
do it now, even trucks.

You really don't get it.

Look in the mirror pal.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I never said it was invitable, just sometimes unavoidable. There
is a difference.

You experience a particular situation, therefore you believe it is
inevitable that others must experience it.

No, I'm just saying there are certain situations that no one can
predict fast enough and there arn't any easy solutions. If you think
otherwise then you're just arrogant and probably dangerous behind
the wheel as clearly you have an overrated sense of your own driving
abilities.

That you all you can say to somebody that argues with you that their
observation and awareness of other traffic must be inferior to yours
says much about you.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
If you find yourself "surviving" on a road then you're driving
skills clearly arn't up to much.

Surviving hazardous situations is normally considered a good thing
and usually has something to do with skill. Curious that you think
driving is different.

See above.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No doubt sitting in the middle of the road cursing at drivers
who have the temerity to pass you leaving less than 2 metres of
space.

.... so says the person that needs to be bullied out of the way by
lorry drivers.

No, this is the person that doesn't want to end up in a pile up
possibly dead. If something weighing 44 tons is going to push its way
out I don't plan on arguing the toss in something that weighs 1.5
tons.

This situation that you couldn't predict requires you make a
change of course or speed, doesn't it? You said << but if you're in L1,
with cars in front and behind you and in L2 blocking you from moving out
you're limited in what you can do >>. So having waited until the point
the lorry begins to bully you, how come this space that you now suddenly
need is available?

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
But you feel free. No doubt we'll hear about you in the traffic news
one day being cut out of your vehicle.

Assuming I argue with it. Or am unaware of anything and just sit
reactionless.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 18:32:09 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
It can be explained down to certain levels. You clearly want to go
down to a level that can't simply to make some fatuous point. If it
was explained down to the level of the neurons you'd come along and
ask for a quantum mechanical explanation. However I think "eye
follows ball, brain figures out trajectory and places hand to
intercept" works fine in this context, don't you?

To define what software has to do does not require detailed knowledge of
the mechanics or the physics of the hardware; "brain figures out" is not
sufficient.

Well feel free to post to some neuroscience group or web page to ask them
how the brain does it. Somehow I suspect it doesn't do it using trigonometry
and other maths like the robotic ball spotters used at tennis matches.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No, I'm just saying there are certain situations that no one can
predict fast enough and there arn't any easy solutions. If you think
otherwise then you're just arrogant and probably dangerous behind
the wheel as clearly you have an overrated sense of your own driving
abilities.

That you all you can say to somebody that argues with you that their
observation and awareness of other traffic must be inferior to yours
says much about you.

You seem to think you have the answer to every driving situation. In my view
that makes you arrogant and dangerous.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No, this is the person that doesn't want to end up in a pile up
possibly dead. If something weighing 44 tons is going to push its way
out I don't plan on arguing the toss in something that weighs 1.5
tons.

This situation that you couldn't predict requires you make a
change of course or speed, doesn't it? You said << but if you're in L1,
with cars in front and behind you and in L2 blocking you from moving out
you're limited in what you can do >>. So having waited until the point
the lorry begins to bully you, how come this space that you now suddenly
need is available?

I didn't say it was. Sometimes truckers don't follow the rules and you just
have to brake hard and hope for the best. I'm not going to do what you'd do
which is apparently to just sit there because "I'm in the right!" and end up
in an accident.

[TMS320]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 18:32:09 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
It can be explained down to certain levels. You clearly want to go
down to a level that can't simply to make some fatuous point. If it
was explained down to the level of the neurons you'd come along and
ask for a quantum mechanical explanation. However I think "eye
follows ball, brain figures out trajectory and places hand to
intercept" works fine in this context, don't you?

To define what software has to do does not require detailed knowledge of
the mechanics or the physics of the hardware; "brain figures out" is not
sufficient.

Well feel free to post to some neuroscience group or web page to ask them
how the brain does it. Somehow I suspect it doesn't do it using trigonometry
and other maths like the robotic ball spotters used at tennis matches.

You have obviously forgotten the context. At last you accept there are
things that are difficult to explain.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No, I'm just saying there are certain situations that no one can
predict fast enough and there arn't any easy solutions. If you think
otherwise then you're just arrogant and probably dangerous behind
the wheel as clearly you have an overrated sense of your own driving
abilities.

That you all you can say to somebody that argues with you that their
observation and awareness of other traffic must be inferior to yours
says much about you.

You seem to think you have the answer to every driving situation. In my view
that makes you arrogant and dangerous.

The discussion is about your problem of being bullied by lorries, not
"every situation".

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No, this is the person that doesn't want to end up in a pile up
possibly dead. If something weighing 44 tons is going to push its way
out I don't plan on arguing the toss in something that weighs 1.5
tons.

This situation that you couldn't predict requires you make a
change of course or speed, doesn't it? You said << but if you're in L1,
you're limited in what you can do >>. So having waited until the point
the lorry begins to bully you, how come this space that you now suddenly
need is available?

I didn't say it was. Sometimes truckers don't follow the rules and you just
have to brake hard and hope for the best.

...hope for the best, heh?

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I'm not going to do what you'd do
which is apparently to just sit there because "I'm in the right!" and end up
in an accident.

Previously you had me driving down the middle lane in a Rover completely
oblivious to anything. It is good to know I have been promoted to being
able to make a decision.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 21:19:15 +0000

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
You seem to think you have the answer to every driving situation. In my view
that makes you arrogant and dangerous.

The discussion is about your problem of being bullied by lorries, not
"every situation".

Well you certainly seem to think that a lorry barging in on someone on a busy
dual carraigeway isn't an issue and should easily avoided by the car driver.
Unless thats some specific scenario you've trained for then you probably think
every other potentially hazardous situation is also easily overcome which makes
you at best complacent.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I didn't say it was. Sometimes truckers don't follow the rules and you just
have to brake hard and hope for the best.

....hope for the best, heh?

Yup. Well unless of course you're a driving god like you whereupon no doubt
you'd wave your copy of the highway code in an annoyed manner at the trucker
and he'd immediately back off in awe of your driving-foo skills.

[TMS320]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
You seem to think you have the answer to every driving situation.
In my view that makes you arrogant and dangerous.

The discussion is about your problem of being bullied by lorries,
not "every situation".

Well you certainly seem to think that a lorry barging in on someone
on a busy dual carraigeway isn't an issue and should easily avoided
by the car driver. Unless thats some specific scenario you've trained
for then you probably think every other potentially hazardous
situation is also easily overcome which makes you at best
complacent.

Post by TMS320

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I didn't say it was. Sometimes truckers don't follow the rules
and you just have to brake hard and hope for the best.

....hope for the best, heh?

Yup. Well unless of course you're a driving god like you whereupon no
doubt you'd wave your copy of the highway code in an annoyed manner
at the trucker and he'd immediately back off in awe of your
driving-foo skills.

The drivers supplying your hope that they give you their best as you
barge towards them aren't waving their copy of the Highway Code at you?
It looks like you have reason to be thankful for the skills of oblivious
drivers in Rovers.

[JNugent]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by JNugent
Nevertheless, the 4-way stop works well in practice. Drivers learn
naturally, as part of their qualification for a license [sic], that
watching out for arrival order is crucial. And they stick to it.
The system is far better than the UK system of designating one road
(usually the busier of the two) as the major road, which can cause long
queues of traffic trying to emerge from the allegedly minor road.

If you want to know how that'll end up drive on the section of the A1 north
of welyn garden city where virtually every sodding B road joins the A1 at
a roundabout. The queues on the A1 can be epic, and with 4 way junctions
the road would probably become unusable.

Roundabouts and 4-way stop crossroads are completely different things.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 17:50:04 +0000

Post by JNugent

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by JNugent
Nevertheless, the 4-way stop works well in practice. Drivers learn
naturally, as part of their qualification for a license [sic], that
watching out for arrival order is crucial. And they stick to it.
The system is far better than the UK system of designating one road
(usually the busier of the two) as the major road, which can cause long
queues of traffic trying to emerge from the allegedly minor road.

If you want to know how that'll end up drive on the section of the A1 north
of welyn garden city where virtually every sodding B road joins the A1 at
a roundabout. The queues on the A1 can be epic, and with 4 way junctions
the road would probably become unusable.

Roundabouts and 4-way stop crossroads are completely different things.

They serve the same purpose, except with a roundabout you can usually see if
its clear from a distance away and can often just go straight onto it without
stopping. Thats probably not the case with a 4 way stop.

[JNugent]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by JNugent

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by JNugent
Nevertheless, the 4-way stop works well in practice. Drivers learn
naturally, as part of their qualification for a license [sic], that
watching out for arrival order is crucial. And they stick to it.
The system is far better than the UK system of designating one road
(usually the busier of the two) as the major road, which can cause long
queues of traffic trying to emerge from the allegedly minor road.

If you want to know how that'll end up drive on the section of the A1 north
of welyn garden city where virtually every sodding B road joins the A1 at
a roundabout. The queues on the A1 can be epic, and with 4 way junctions
the road would probably become unusable.

Roundabouts and 4-way stop crossroads are completely different things.

They serve the same purpose, except with a roundabout you can usually see if
its clear from a distance away and can often just go straight onto it without
stopping. Thats probably not the case with a 4 way stop.

Indeed. You have to stop.

The 4-way can be better than a roundabout (ie, better at giving all
directions a fair chance).

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:21:51 +0000

Post by JNugent

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
They serve the same purpose, except with a roundabout you can usually see if
its clear from a distance away and can often just go straight onto it without
stopping. Thats probably not the case with a 4 way stop.

Indeed. You have to stop.

No, you don't on a roundabout. If its clear you can keep going straight onto it.

Post by JNugent
The 4-way can be better than a roundabout (ie, better at giving all
directions a fair chance).

Depends on how much traffic their is on each incoming road. I imagine however
that on an intersection between a minor road and a major road a 4 way stop
could be a royal PITA and cause unnecessary queues on the major.

[JNugent]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by JNugent

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
They serve the same purpose, except with a roundabout you can usually see if
its clear from a distance away and can often just go straight onto it without
stopping. Thats probably not the case with a 4 way stop.

Indeed. You have to stop.

No, you don't on a roundabout.

But you do with a 4-way stop intersection, which is what the question
was about.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
If its clear you can keep going straight onto it.

Correct. With any junction with a mere "Give Way" ("Yield") sign, you
can keep moving across the line if doing so will not cause conflict with
other traffic with priority.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by JNugent
The 4-way can be better than a roundabout (ie, better at giving all
directions a fair chance).

Depends on how much traffic their is on each incoming road. I imagine however
that on an intersection between a minor road and a major road a 4 way stop
could be a royal PITA and cause unnecessary queues on the major.

Possibly.

[NY]

Post by JNugent
Nevertheless, the 4-way stop works well in practice. Drivers learn
naturally, as part of their qualification for a license [sic], that
watching out for arrival order is crucial. And they stick to it.
The system is far better than the UK system of designating one road
(usually the busier of the two) as the major road, which can cause long
queues of traffic trying to emerge from the allegedly minor road.

Presumably if there are queues of traffic on several of the roads, the roads
carry on in the initial arrival order for successive cars:

If the roads are 1, 2, 3 and 4 (numbered clockwise) and cars initially
arrive in order 2314 then (in order of time):

A car in 2 leaves and the one behind him arrives at the head of its queue.

A car in 3 leaves and the one behind him arrives at the head of its queue

A car in 1 leaves and the one behind him arrives at the head of its queue

A car in 4 leaves and the one behind him arrives at the head of its queue

So the order of arrival of those second cars is still 2314 which determines
how they pull out - and so on until queues are exhausted.

I suppose if you do it a lot, it becomes second nature to note what order
you all arrived in. How much abuse of the system is there - people pulling
out when it's not their turn, possibly colliding with the one car whose turn
it really was?


I suppose it avoids one direction hogging the roundabout: if roads 2, 3 and
4 have queues but 1 is clear than cars in queue 2 have priority over
everyone else because they never need to stop for a car coming from their
right. That's at a mini roundabout where there's not room for more than one
car on the roundabout. It's surprising that this situation doesn't arise
more often.

[JNugent]

Post by NY

Post by JNugent
Nevertheless, the 4-way stop works well in practice. Drivers learn
naturally, as part of their qualification for a license [sic], that
watching out for arrival order is crucial. And they stick to it.
The system is far better than the UK system of designating one road
(usually the busier of the two) as the major road, which can cause
long queues of traffic trying to emerge from the allegedly minor road.

Presumably if there are queues of traffic on several of the roads, the
If the roads are 1, 2, 3 and 4 (numbered clockwise) and cars initially
A car in 2 leaves and the one behind him arrives at the head of its queue.
A car in 3 leaves and the one behind him arrives at the head of its queue
A car in 1 leaves and the one behind him arrives at the head of its queue
A car in 4 leaves and the one behind him arrives at the head of its queue
So the order of arrival of those second cars is still 2314 which
determines how they pull out - and so on until queues are exhausted.

That is exactly what happens.

Post by NY
I suppose if you do it a lot, it becomes second nature to note what
order you all arrived in. How much abuse of the system is there - people
pulling out when it's not their turn, possibly colliding with the one
car whose turn it really was?

It does happen from time to time, but there is no officious hooting or
tantrums from the driver whose turn was pre-empted. Everyone at the
junction instinctively understands that everyone (including they
themself) has to be extra careful.

Post by NY
I suppose it avoids one direction hogging the roundabout: if roads 2, 3
and 4 have queues but 1 is clear than cars in queue 2 have priority over
everyone else because they never need to stop for a car coming from
their right. That's at a mini roundabout where there's not room for more
than one car on the roundabout. It's surprising that this situation
doesn't arise more often.

You have clearly identified the central problem with roundabouts in busy
traffic conditions. It can, unfortunately, only be remedied with the
addition of a set of traffic lights on one or more approaches to the island.

[NY]

Post by JNugent

Post by NY
I suppose if you do it a lot, it becomes second nature to note what order
you all arrived in. How much abuse of the system is there - people
pulling out when it's not their turn, possibly colliding with the one car
whose turn it really was?

It does happen from time to time, but there is no officious hooting or
tantrums from the driver whose turn was pre-empted. Everyone at the
junction instinctively understands that everyone (including they themself)
has to be extra careful.

Post by NY
I suppose it avoids one direction hogging the roundabout: if roads 2, 3
and 4 have queues but 1 is clear than cars in queue 2 have priority over
everyone else because they never need to stop for a car coming from their
right. That's at a mini roundabout where there's not room for more than
one car on the roundabout. It's surprising that this situation doesn't
arise more often.

You have clearly identified the central problem with roundabouts in busy
traffic conditions. It can, unfortunately, only be remedied with the
addition of a set of traffic lights on one or more approaches to the island.

Yes. Roundabouts work best either with very sparse traffic or else traffic
that is fairly equally distributed about all the exits, so everyone gets an
equal share. If the anomaly that I have identified happens to give priority
at that moment to a minor road, then you get the major road having to give
way to the minor road, which goes against the spirit of what was intended.

Maybe the only improvement to a 4-way stop would be to make it a
4-way-yield, so at very quiet times when you can see clearly that all the
other ways are clear, you can continue without having to come to a dead
halt. I gather that many states' police forces are fairly draconian about
applying the stop rule, and are inflexible about punishing drivers who
almost come to a halt but whose wheels aren't actually stationary for a
fraction of a second.

Surprisingly, when I was driving around the small towns north of Boston, and
the suburbs of Boston near the airport (I took a wrong turning off a main
road and struggled to find my way back to it!) I never encountered a
4-way-stop junction.

The one problem I found in small-town driving was judging where to stop when
I was on a minor road at a T junction, because they often don't have a
dashed line across the road. It's easy enough when the major road is
straight and you just imagine a line that continues along the kerb of the
main road, but it's more difficult judging it when the junction is on a bend
in the major road. I got hooted at a few times, either for stopping a bit
too far forward into the major road, or else stopping too far back and the
car behind expected me to move forward.

[JNugent]

[4-way stop junctions]

Post by NY

Post by JNugent

Post by NY
I suppose it avoids one direction hogging the roundabout: if roads 2,
3 and 4 have queues but 1 is clear than cars in queue 2 have priority
over everyone else because they never need to stop for a car coming
from their right. That's at a mini roundabout where there's not room
for more than one car on the roundabout. It's surprising that this
situation doesn't arise more often.

You have clearly identified the central problem with roundabouts in
busy traffic conditions. It can, unfortunately, only be remedied with
the addition of a set of traffic lights on one or more approaches to
the island.

Yes. Roundabouts work best either with very sparse traffic or else
traffic that is fairly equally distributed about all the exits, so
everyone gets an equal share. If the anomaly that I have identified
happens to give priority at that moment to a minor road, then you get
the major road having to give way to the minor road, which goes against
the spirit of what was intended.
Maybe the only improvement to a 4-way stop would be to make it a
4-way-yield, so at very quiet times when you can see clearly that all
the other ways are clear, you can continue without having to come to a
dead halt. I gather that many states' police forces are fairly draconian
about applying the stop rule, and are inflexible about punishing drivers
who almost come to a halt but whose wheels aren't actually stationary
for a fraction of a second.

Ah yes... the much-vaunted California Stop...

Post by NY
Surprisingly, when I was driving around the small towns north of Boston,
and the suburbs of Boston near the airport (I took a wrong turning off a
main road and struggled to find my way back to it!) I never encountered
a 4-way-stop junction.

I've never been to Boston unless you count changing planes at the
airport. What method do they use? "Yield" as the equivalent to our "Give
Way"?

Post by NY
The one problem I found in small-town driving was judging where to stop
when I was on a minor road at a T junction, because they often don't
have a dashed line across the road. It's easy enough when the major road
is straight and you just imagine a line that continues along the kerb of
the main road, but it's more difficult judging it when the junction is
on a bend in the major road. I got hooted at a few times, either for
stopping a bit too far forward into the major road, or else stopping too
far back and the car behind expected me to move forward.

:-)

[NY]

Post by NY
Surprisingly, when I was driving around the small towns north of Boston,
and the suburbs of Boston near the airport (I took a wrong turning off a
main road and struggled to find my way back to it!) I never encountered a
4-way-stop junction.

I've never been to Boston unless you count changing planes at the airport.
What method do they use? "Yield" as the equivalent to our "Give Way"?

I don't actually remember how the signs and the road markings are shown. I
remember it being fairly obvious: something that either said "Give Way" or
else was very obviously the equivalent. There were a few T junctions that
had STOP signs (the same white-on-red octagonal signs that we use), but I
don't remember seeing any cross roads where all four roads roads had a STOP
sign - and when I was stopped at a cross roads I looked left and right out
of curiosity to see what shape sign they had; I don't remember what it was,
but it wasn't octagonal and therefore probably not STOP.

[JNugent]

Post by NY

Post by JNugent

Post by NY
Surprisingly, when I was driving around the small towns north of
Boston, and the suburbs of Boston near the airport (I took a wrong
turning off a main road and struggled to find my way back to it!) I
never encountered a 4-way-stop junction.

I've never been to Boston unless you count changing planes at the
airport. What method do they use? "Yield" as the equivalent to our
"Give Way"?

I don't actually remember how the signs and the road markings are shown.
I remember it being fairly obvious: something that either said "Give
Way" or else was very obviously the equivalent. There were a few T
junctions that had STOP signs (the same white-on-red octagonal signs
that we use), but I don't remember seeing any cross roads where all four
roads roads had a STOP sign - and when I was stopped at a cross roads I
looked left and right out of curiosity to see what shape sign they had;
I don't remember what it was, but it wasn't octagonal and therefore
probably not STOP.

Not "stop" unless octagonal.

<Loading Image...>

[Nightjar]

Post by NY

Post by Nightjar
The rule has always been that, unless otherwise indicated, both roads
meeting at a junction have an equal priority. It is just that today it
is rare to find junctions that are not marked. It used to be a lot more
common.

It must have been hell to drive in a situation where two streams of
traffic have equal priority...

Forget about streams of traffic. In London in the 1950s, if we saw one
car in our street it was an event. Main roads would have the side roads
marked with Halt at major road ahead signs, but elsewhere, it was rare
for two cars to be at the same junction at the same time.

...

Post by NY
The other interesting thing is the bus conductor who hangs off the back
of the bus to give a "right turn" hand signal to supplement the driver's
perfectly good "trafficator" signal. H&S wouldn't allow that nowadays -
even on an old bus with an open platform at the back.

Trafficators were notoriously difficult to see, especially on large
vehicles. The practice was probably born out of past experience.

[NY]

Post by NY

Post by Nightjar
The rule has always been that, unless otherwise indicated, both roads
meeting at a junction have an equal priority. It is just that today it
is rare to find junctions that are not marked. It used to be a lot more
common.

It must have been hell to drive in a situation where two streams of
traffic have equal priority...

Forget about streams of traffic. In London in the 1950s, if we saw one car
in our street it was an event. Main roads would have the side roads marked
with Halt at major road ahead signs, but elsewhere, it was rare for two
cars to be at the same junction at the same time.

Yes, from a modern perspective, it is hard to get your brain around the lack
of traffic in those days. I was born in 1963 and cars were not rare by the
first time I can remember - probably 1966. I can vaguely remember the time
before we moved from Maidenhead to Leeds in 1967, though oddly I have no
memory whatsoever of my sister being born the previous October - maybe my
subconscious blocking out the "competition" and the reduced attention of no
longer being an only child!

Post by NY
The other interesting thing is the bus conductor who hangs off the back
of the bus to give a "right turn" hand signal to supplement the driver's
perfectly good "trafficator" signal. H&S wouldn't allow that nowadays -
even on an old bus with an open platform at the back.

Trafficators were notoriously difficult to see, especially on large
vehicles. The practice was probably born out of past experience.

In the video, it was actually a "modern" flashing light rather than an
illuminated arm, so it was perfectly visible. But old habits die hard and
the conductor had probably been trained long ago to hang off the platform
and give a right-turn arm signal with his arm against the back of the bus,
and had never got out of the habit. The IAM man refers to the flashing light
as the trafficator - again, old habits...

When did flashing indicators start to be introduced? My mum's 1959 Morris
Minor had trafficators but when she bought the car in 1966/7, flashing
indicators had been fitted. The trafficators in the B pillar continued to
work until the jammed up and dad unwired them to prevent them drawing lots
of current in the transitional state of neither being fully retracted nor
fully extended.

I remember well into the late 60s, some cars had flashing white sidelights
and red tail lights as indicators, instead of amber ones. I think the
original Consul Cortina (pre-Aeroflow) was one of those - certainly as
regards the front indicators - it may always have had amber in the iconic
"CND" tail-lights. That changed in revised Construction and Use legislation
in the late 60s I believe. Of course many US states still have white and red
indicators, especially on US-made as opposed to imported cars.

[Nightjar]

On 13-Nov-17 9:54 PM, NY wrote:
...

Post by NY
When did flashing indicators start to be introduced?

...

I suspect it was part of the Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1959. The Mini
and the Triumph Herald both came out that year and both had flashing
indicators from the beginning.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:36:13 +0000

Post by Nightjar
....

Post by NY
When did flashing indicators start to be introduced?

....
I suspect it was part of the Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1959. The Mini
and the Triumph Herald both came out that year and both had flashing
indicators from the beginning.

Its a shame someone has yet to tell the yanks that using the rear brake
lights as indicators is a bloody stupid and dangerous idea. You'd think for
a country so hung up on health and safety this would have gone out the window
decades ago.

[NY]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:36:13 +0000

Post by Nightjar
....

Post by NY
When did flashing indicators start to be introduced?

....
I suspect it was part of the Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1959. The Mini
and the Triumph Herald both came out that year and both had flashing
indicators from the beginning.

Its a shame someone has yet to tell the yanks that using the rear brake
lights as indicators is a bloody stupid and dangerous idea. You'd think for
a country so hung up on health and safety this would have gone out the window
decades ago.

When my sister lived in Boston for a few years, they had two cars: a US-made
Dodge Caravan people carrier and a Korean-import Hyundai hatchback. The
Dodge was US spec:flashing sidelights and brake lights. The Hyundai was more
similar to what you'd find in Europe: amber indicators all round.

When she was stopped in the middle of the road waiting to turn left in the
Dodge, with her foot on the brake and the left indicator flashing, she was
hit a glancing blow by the car behind. The driver said in his statement to
the police that he thought she was just slowing down and was not actually
stationary: he hadn't seen that one of the rear lights at the back was
flashing red rather than steady red. My dad, who was in the car at the time,
wrote to the local paper, partly to thank the people that rescued them, and
partly to point out that in Europe this sort of accident might have been
less likely because the indicator would have been a different colour and
perhaps in a different location to the brake light, which started quite a
bit of debate and correspondence from people who said "yes it is stupid" and
"hey, maybe we can learn something from these Brits".


(*) Though in practice cars such as the VW Golf do their best to make the
indicator invisible by putting it in the centre of a red ring for a brake
light, rather than trying to space the indicator as far as possible from the
brake and fog lights.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:19:53 -0000

Post by NY
flashing red rather than steady red. My dad, who was in the car at the time,
wrote to the local paper, partly to thank the people that rescued them, and
partly to point out that in Europe this sort of accident might have been
less likely because the indicator would have been a different colour and
perhaps in a different location to the brake light, which started quite a
bit of debate and correspondence from people who said "yes it is stupid" and
"hey, maybe we can learn something from these Brits".

Sadly yet to happen it would seem.

Post by NY
(*) Though in practice cars such as the VW Golf do their best to make the
indicator invisible by putting it in the centre of a red ring for a brake
light, rather than trying to space the indicator as far as possible from the
brake and fog lights.

VW arn't the only company guilty of putting style over safety. The fashion
for just orange bulbs which are hard to see instead of full orange glass is
annoying and dangerous. And putting these close to the headlight renders them
all but invisible when the headlight is on.

[NY]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:19:53 -0000

Post by NY
flashing red rather than steady red. My dad, who was in the car at the time,
wrote to the local paper, partly to thank the people that rescued them, and
partly to point out that in Europe this sort of accident might have been
less likely because the indicator would have been a different colour and
perhaps in a different location to the brake light, which started quite a
bit of debate and correspondence from people who said "yes it is stupid" and
"hey, maybe we can learn something from these Brits".

Sadly yet to happen it would seem.

Post by NY
(*) Though in practice cars such as the VW Golf do their best to make the
indicator invisible by putting it in the centre of a red ring for a brake
light, rather than trying to space the indicator as far as possible from the
brake and fog lights.

VW arn't the only company guilty of putting style over safety. The fashion
for just orange bulbs which are hard to see instead of full orange glass is
annoying and dangerous. And putting these close to the headlight renders them
all but invisible when the headlight is on.

Yes. I can remember when I was growing up in the 1960s and 70s, that almost
all cars had indicator and side lights which were totally separate from the
headlights - on some cars they were under or within the bumpers, or else
several inches away from the headlights. And they were good intense orange.
Rear lights often had indicators at one end of the cluster, tail lights /
reflector in the middle and brake light at the other, so brake and indicator
(the brightest lights) were separated.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 18:39:51 -0000

Post by NY
Yes. I can remember when I was growing up in the 1960s and 70s, that almost
all cars had indicator and side lights which were totally separate from the
headlights - on some cars they were under or within the bumpers, or else
several inches away from the headlights. And they were good intense orange.
Rear lights often had indicators at one end of the cluster, tail lights /
reflector in the middle and brake light at the other, so brake and indicator
(the brightest lights) were separated.

Indeed. A much more sensible system. But it seems these days its more style
over substance, plus it wouldn't surprise me if they deliberately put all the
lights into one unit so they can clean up on spare parts. Indicator gone? Oh
dear, that'll be 300 quid for an entire new cluster for you sir! Change the
bulb? Ha! Its LED, didn't you know?

[NY]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 18:39:51 -0000

Post by NY
Yes. I can remember when I was growing up in the 1960s and 70s, that almost
all cars had indicator and side lights which were totally separate from the
headlights - on some cars they were under or within the bumpers, or else
several inches away from the headlights. And they were good intense orange.
Rear lights often had indicators at one end of the cluster, tail lights /
reflector in the middle and brake light at the other, so brake and indicator
(the brightest lights) were separated.

Indeed. A much more sensible system. But it seems these days its more style
over substance, plus it wouldn't surprise me if they deliberately put all the
lights into one unit so they can clean up on spare parts. Indicator gone? Oh
dear, that'll be 300 quid for an entire new cluster for you sir! Change the
bulb? Ha! Its LED, didn't you know?

Even changing a replaceable tungsten bulb can require very agile, narrow
fingers. There is very little clearance between the headlamp housing and the
metal stand for the battery on my car. The first time I had to do it, I
found the best thing to do was to put my compact camera in the narrow gap
and take a photo that I could then study as I was feeling for the wire
release clamp that holds the bulb in place - you then have to squeeze that
clamp together to free the wire from two bayonet lugs, and then do the same
again after fitting the new bulb to lock the clamp back in place. Not easy
when you need to do it in the dark on your own, holding a torch in your
mouth. I once had two headlamp bulbs blow within five minutes of each other:
one went out but the other still it the road well enough that I was only
*certain* when I only saw one reflection from the back of the car ahead.
Before I could find somewhere safe to pull of the road to stop and change
the bulb, the other one blew: and it is bloody scary driving along an unlit
road with only side lights and hazard lights to illuminate the road. I
should have though of using the front foglights to show me the way to a
pulling-off place, but I didn't think at the time. I then had to change one
of the bulbs (I only had one spare) and try to find a garage that was still
open - even the motorway service station only had 24V ones for lorries and
no 12V ones for cars. Luckily I made it home without being stopped by the
police - I suppose you are required not only to carry spare bulbs (which I
do) but also have enough for the very rare case that more than one bulb
blows at the same time.

The fix for this was to buy better bulbs: I found that the cheap
car-accessory-store ones lasted about 6 months, whereas the more expensive
Osram ones last a couple of years - cheaper in the long run and less chance
of dents in your finger-ends from the lethal spring clips! I'm not sure why
this car (Peugeot 308) is so much more prone to blown headlight bulbs than
any of my previous cars (VW Golf, Peugeot 306). Maybe harsher, more
pot-holed roads where I now live, maybe stiffer suspension, maybe poorer
voltage regulation, although the regulator has been checked by the garage
and is within normal range at all engine speeds.


Design of car lights is definitely style over function. I'm surprised that
the Construction and Use legislation allows indicators right next to the
headlight or the brake/fog lights. I always have to check on a roundabout at
night that a car which is approaching from the opposite direction to me is
not turning right (ie with right indicator on) rather than going straight on
towards me (no indicator). I usually err on the side of caution...

The other thing that surprises me is that rear fog lights and reversing
lights don't by law have to be in pairs. Many cars that I have owned in the
past have had bulb housings wired up on both sides but only a bulb in the
offside foglight (easily rectified), but my latest car (the Pug 308) only
has a foglight housing on the offside and a reversing light housing on the
nearside, so I can't do a thing about it. Reversing into the drive is a pain
with only one gatepost illuminated (I use hazard lights and brake light to
illuminate the other gatepost). And I've had to join the throng of one-eyed
cars in fog, which look like a motorbike when you first see it through the
fog, and only "become" a car as you get close enough to see the ordinary
tail lights. To my mind, the fog lights perform the same function in fog as
the tail lights in normal darkness - defining the width of the car and
therefore helping you judge how far away from it you are. And before anyone
says, yes I *do* turn the foglight off whenever I see a car's headlights
behind me so as not to dazzle him once he gets closer to me; embarrassingly
on one car (Golf Mark II, I think), I did this religiously on one journey
just after I'd bought it, and only later realised I'd been turning on and
off the heated rear window rather than the fog light which was on the next
switch :-)

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 12:45:41 -0000

Post by NY
Design of car lights is definitely style over function. I'm surprised that
the Construction and Use legislation allows indicators right next to the
headlight or the brake/fog lights. I always have to check on a roundabout at
night that a car which is approaching from the opposite direction to me is
not turning right (ie with right indicator on) rather than going straight on
towards me (no indicator). I usually err on the side of caution...
The other thing that surprises me is that rear fog lights and reversing
lights don't by law have to be in pairs. Many cars that I have owned in the

I'm hoping that after Brexit (if it ever happens) we might slowly see some
changes to vehicle rules here including such as the above. I'm also hoping a
return to limiters set to 60mph and 70mph for lorries and buses respectively to
speed up traffic on motorways and dual carraigeways a bit.

[Nightjar]

On 15-Nov-17 3:33 PM, ***@cylonHQ.com wrote:

...

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I'm hoping that after Brexit (if it ever happens) we might slowly see some
changes to vehicle rules here including such as the above. I'm also hoping a
return to limiters set to 60mph and 70mph for lorries and buses respectively to
speed up traffic on motorways and dual carraigeways a bit.

The limits are likely to remain the same as the EU, simply because a lot
of our vehicles will still be travelling there. It would be unworkable
to have one set of rules for them and another for ones that stay
entirely within the UK.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:55:50 +0000

Post by Nightjar
....

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I'm hoping that after Brexit (if it ever happens) we might slowly see some
changes to vehicle rules here including such as the above. I'm also hoping a
return to limiters set to 60mph and 70mph for lorries and buses respectively

to

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
speed up traffic on motorways and dual carraigeways a bit.

The limits are likely to remain the same as the EU, simply because a lot
of our vehicles will still be travelling there. It would be unworkable
to have one set of rules for them and another for ones that stay
entirely within the UK.

Why would there have to be 2 rules? Let the owners decide where to set their
limiters. If they set it to 60 and head off in it to the EU thats their lookout,
its not for DoT to worry about.

[Nightjar]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:55:50 +0000

Post by Nightjar
....

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I'm hoping that after Brexit (if it ever happens) we might slowly see some
changes to vehicle rules here including such as the above. I'm also hoping a
return to limiters set to 60mph and 70mph for lorries and buses respectively

to

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
speed up traffic on motorways and dual carraigeways a bit.

The limits are likely to remain the same as the EU, simply because a lot
of our vehicles will still be travelling there. It would be unworkable
to have one set of rules for them and another for ones that stay
entirely within the UK.

Why would there have to be 2 rules? Let the owners decide where to set their
limiters. If they set it to 60 and head off in it to the EU thats their lookout,
its not for DoT to worry about.

In fact it seems that the speed limits for LGVs are already 60mph on
motorways and dual carriageways in England and Wales and on motorways in
Scotland. The limit for coaches is 70mph on all motorways. Whether any
owners choose to take advantage of that after we leave the EU remains to
be seen.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:50:50 +0000

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:55:50 +0000

Post by Nightjar
....

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I'm hoping that after Brexit (if it ever happens) we might slowly see some
changes to vehicle rules here including such as the above. I'm also hoping

a

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by Nightjar

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
return to limiters set to 60mph and 70mph for lorries and buses

respectively

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by Nightjar
to

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
speed up traffic on motorways and dual carraigeways a bit.

The limits are likely to remain the same as the EU, simply because a lot
of our vehicles will still be travelling there. It would be unworkable
to have one set of rules for them and another for ones that stay
entirely within the UK.

Why would there have to be 2 rules? Let the owners decide where to set their
limiters. If they set it to 60 and head off in it to the EU thats their

lookout,

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
its not for DoT to worry about.

In fact it seems that the speed limits for LGVs are already 60mph on
motorways and dual carriageways in England and Wales and on motorways in
Scotland. The limit for coaches is 70mph on all motorways. Whether any
owners choose to take advantage of that after we leave the EU remains to
be seen.

The *speed limits* haven't changed, but the maximum speed *limiters* can be
set to was homologised with the EU back in the day. Its no good having a
speed limit of 60 if on the level the truck will only allow you to do 56.
Going downhill of course is another matter...

[Nick Finnigan]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Indeed. A much more sensible system. But it seems these days its more style
over substance, plus it wouldn't surprise me if they deliberately put all the
lights into one unit so they can clean up on spare parts. Indicator gone? Oh
dear, that'll be 300 quid for an entire new cluster for you sir! Change the
bulb? Ha! Its LED, didn't you know?

£10 for a non-new replacement cluster, with all the bulbs still in.

[AnthonyL]

Post by NY
Yes, from a modern perspective, it is hard to get your brain around the lack
of traffic in those days. I was born in 1963 and cars were not rare by the
first time I can remember - probably 1966.

You missed out on the width of the road being suitable for cricket
with the neighbour's gate being the wicket, or playing marbles in the
gutter from the top of the road to the bottom. Football could be
played either across or up-down. Hop scotch drawn out on the pavement
even in days when pavements were used.

And what were those carts called, wheels usually from prams and
pushchairs, and a rope steerable front axle? Often had to crash into
a hedge to stop.

Roundabouts were on the dual carriage ring road - again no speed limit
and great fun in the Mini especially if favourable camber.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 18:30:14 -0000

Post by NY
Has the rule on roundabouts in the UK always been to give way to traffic
from your right and that traffic on the roundabout has priority over all
traffic waiting to join? I'm excluding roundabouts (eg the one on the
outskirts of Ryde on the Isle of Wight) where opposite priorities are
clearly signposted.

Don't know, but wasn't it France that used to have a daft rule that traffic
joining a roundabout had right of way over traffic on it? I know they had
that other rule that traffic joing a road had priority over traffic already
on it which thank god they ditched years back, presumably after the number of
accidents reached stratospheric levels.

[NY]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 18:30:14 -0000

Post by NY
Has the rule on roundabouts in the UK always been to give way to traffic
from your right and that traffic on the roundabout has priority over all
traffic waiting to join? I'm excluding roundabouts (eg the one on the
outskirts of Ryde on the Isle of Wight) where opposite priorities are
clearly signposted.

Don't know, but wasn't it France that used to have a daft rule that traffic
joining a roundabout had right of way over traffic on it? I know they had
that other rule that traffic joing a road had priority over traffic already
on it which thank god they ditched years back, presumably after the number of
accidents reached stratospheric levels.

I think it's the Netherlands that had/has the opposite rule to us on
roundabouts: that traffic already on the roundabout has to give way to
traffic joining at each entry road - which leads to roundabouts getting
clogged with traffic that cannot get off because its exit is blocked by
joining traffic. With our rule, roundabouts are self-emptying; with their
rule, they are self-filling.

Mind you, the Netherlands has some strange rules: they like these shared
spaces where cars, cyclists and pedestrians have equal priority so you can
be driving on a road and find a cyclist or pedestrian tries to cross your
path. They also have some junctions where cyclists have priority over motor
vehicles, instead of cyclists being subject to the same rules as all other
vehicles. Scary: you see a queue of traffic stopped at a junction to wait
for you because you have priority, but still have to be prepared to stop if
a cyclist appears from behind a lorry/car on its nearside and has priority
over you.

France has the priority from the right rule (and New Zealand has an
equivalent from-the-left rule) which means that traffic on a busy main road
may have to stop for a tractor waiting to pull out from a farm track. France
is gradually eliminating those junctions (they've finally realised that they
cause accidents and are illogical), and use a special sign which means
"normal priority from the right does not apply for x metres".

I'm not sure whether NZ's rule applies to traffic pulling out of a side road
or to oncoming traffic on the major road waiting to turn right across the
traffic. Either way, it's "different" :-) I'm being very diplomatic there.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:44:45 -0000

Post by NY
Mind you, the Netherlands has some strange rules: they like these shared
spaces where cars, cyclists and pedestrians have equal priority so you can
be driving on a road and find a cyclist or pedestrian tries to cross your
path. They also have some junctions where cyclists have priority over motor
vehicles, instead of cyclists being subject to the same rules as all other
vehicles. Scary: you see a queue of traffic stopped at a junction to wait
for you because you have priority, but still have to be prepared to stop if
a cyclist appears from behind a lorry/car on its nearside and has priority
over you.

I've not driven in the netherlands, but their rules about bikes I have read
about, along with the assumption that the driver is always guilty in an
accident involving a bike. Which was either a rule drafted by cretins or its
an underhand way of getting cars off the road so the plebs end up cycling
everywhere (tho not of course people in government who'll no doubt still be
whisked about in limos).

Post by NY
cause accidents and are illogical), and use a special sign which means
"normal priority from the right does not apply for x metres".

"Voux n'avex pas le prioritee" or similar is a sign thats pretty much
everywhere at junctions these days in france. Presumably to remind pensioners
the rules have changed.

[NY]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
"Voux n'avex pas le prioritee" or similar is a sign thats pretty much
everywhere at junctions these days in france. Presumably to remind pensioners
the rules have changed.

The problem is that it applied (as I understand it) even at farm tracks and
people's driveways - not just at clearly-identifiable roads where nowadays
there could be a "Voux n'avex pas le prioritee" sign. Educating older
drivers that they must wait for a safe gap when reversing/driving out of a
driveway must be very difficult - having once had such a perverse law, it
takes time to retrain people. It's like their silly yellow headlights which
I find horrible, both when you see them on oncoming traffic and if you are
trying to see the road ahead by them. Likewise for yellow low-pressure
sodium lights: I much prefer high-pressure sodium lights and LED lights
which give a whiter, less monochromatic light so there's more chance of
using colour vision providing there's enough light for your eyes to see in
colour (I forget whether it's the rods or the cones which are less sensitive
but see in colour as opposed to the others which are more sensitive but
monochrome).


I agree about the assumption that the motor vehicle is always in the wrong.
It is a licence for pedestrians and cyclists to disobey the rules of the
road because they know that (as long as they survive) they will never be
held responsible. Similarly for the convention that the smaller motor
vehicle is the innocent party, as practiced in some countries. Every
accident should be judged on the precise circumstances, with no automatic
pre-judgement based on what type of road user you are - except at zebra
crossings where pedestrians have priority over everyone - and that includes
bicycles!

I firmly believe that cyclists should have to obey all the same rules as
motor vehicle drivers, as regards speed, stopping at occupied zebra
crossings, one way streets, red traffic lights - they should get no special
treatment whatsoever. And I would like to see cyclists prosecuted whenever
they are caught, the same as car drivers, irrespective of whether or not it
was actually dangerous on that specific occasion - red lights etc are an
absolute offence, not defendable by "it was safe". The one rule I would like
to see strictly enforced is overtaking on the left within n-hundred yards of
a junction - especially when cyclists overtake to go straight ahead and a
left-turning vehicle has to give way to them because the stupid
cycle-friendly lane requires the car to position itself in a stupid position
(ie not as far left as possible for turning left).

I do cycle, so I'm not anti-car. But I cycle as if I was a human-powered car
in the sense of obeying all the same rules and not taking advantage of the
fact that I have no number plate so cannot be traced/reported. And I NEVER
overtake on the left: if there's a long queue of traffic I either do what I
would do in a car, which is wait (patiently or otherwise!) or else in
extreme cases I dismount and walk past the queue and then remount.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:33:47 -0000

Post by NY
takes time to retrain people. It's like their silly yellow headlights which

TBH they're mostly gone in france. I don't remember seeing any last time I
was over there.

Post by NY
trying to see the road ahead by them. Likewise for yellow low-pressure
sodium lights: I much prefer high-pressure sodium lights and LED lights

The problem with the bright white lights is they upset the local wildlife
more than the dimmer yellow ones plus if you have one nearby your bedroom
window they're a right PITA. I speak from experience.

Post by NY
I firmly believe that cyclists should have to obey all the same rules as
motor vehicle drivers, as regards speed, stopping at occupied zebra
crossings, one way streets, red traffic lights - they should get no special

Indeed, but until there's some way of tracing cyclists it won't happen. The
only thing that keeps any of them to the rules of the road is self presevation
but unfortunately a significant number don't even have that attribute.

Post by NY
would do in a car, which is wait (patiently or otherwise!) or else in
extreme cases I dismount and walk past the queue and then remount.

The obvious thing to do really.

[TMS320]

Likewise for yellow low-pressure sodium lights: I much prefer
high-pressure sodium lights and LED lights which give a whiter, less
monochromatic light so there's more chance of using colour vision
providing there's enough light for your eyes to see in colour (I forget
whether it's the rods or the cones which are less sensitive but see in
colour as opposed to the others which are more sensitive but monochrome).

The problem with white light is that the energy is spread over a wider
spectrum so each individual colour has less brightness than a lamp of
single colour of same emitted power. Contrast is noticeably worse. And
the light is harsh and unpleasant.

I firmly believe that cyclists should have to obey all the same rules as
motor vehicle drivers, as regards speed, stopping at occupied zebra
crossings, one way streets, red traffic lights -

They do have to!

they should get no special treatment whatsoever.

They don't. It's an almost perfect system because if they cock it up,
they usually pay a penalty. Contrast to drivers cocking it up and
someone else usually paying the penalty.

The one rule I would like to see strictly
enforced is overtaking on the left within n-hundred yards of a junction

A simple principle is to don an imaginary cloak of invisibility and
don't aim for a patch of road if the success of reaching it depends on
being seen.

If it is on the approach to a traffic light or t-junction, it is
sufficient to not go alongside the first vehicle waiting at the
junction. ASLs are official encouragement of the wrong action.

When it is on a main road with a left turn onto a minor road and the
vehicle is stopped because there is a queue in front of it, there is no
problem because the vehicle can't move until the queue moves; it's a
very predictable situation. If the vehicle is stopped but not parked and
has a gap in front of it, that is an unpredictable condition to be wary
about.

If you want a rule about bicycles not overtaking before a junction then
it would have to be matched with a similar rule that motor vehicles
don't overtake a bicycle near a junction. It isn't fair to demand a
cyclist does not inconvenience a driver (in a queue) without demanding a
driver (in free flow) does not inconvenience the cyclist, ie, overtaking
immediately before preparing to turn, forcing the cyclist to slow down).
Clearly impractical because signs would have to be put up before every
junction showing where n is. And n involves too many variables to set a
number.

I do cycle, so I'm not anti-car. But I cycle as if I was a human-powered
car in the sense of obeying all the same rules and not taking advantage
of the fact that I have no number plate so cannot be traced/reported.

There is a big difference between taking advantage of size and
manouevrability and taking advantage of untraceability. (Car drivers are
not prevented from doing things a 44 tonner can't do.)

And I NEVER overtake on the left: if there's a long queue of traffic I
either do what I would do in a car, which is wait (patiently or
otherwise!) or else in extreme cases I dismount and walk past the queue
and then remount.

Overtaking on the left is not outlawed and there are many situations
where motor vehicles are allowed to do it.

[Nick Finnigan]

Post by NY
absolute offence, not defendable by "it was safe". The one rule I would
like to see strictly enforced is overtaking on the left within n-hundred
yards of a junction - especially when cyclists overtake to go straight
ahead and a left-turning vehicle has to give way to them because the stupid
cycle-friendly lane requires the car to position itself in a stupid
position (ie not as far left as possible for turning left).

This is the rule which would make all traffic on a major road queue up at
a crossroad where someone is trying to turn right ?

[Nick Finnigan]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:44:45 -0000

Post by NY
Mind you, the Netherlands has some strange rules: they like these shared
spaces where cars, cyclists and pedestrians have equal priority so you can
be driving on a road and find a cyclist or pedestrian tries to cross your

Cars, cyclists and pedestrians have equal priority in the UK.

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by NY
path. They also have some junctions where cyclists have priority over motor
vehicles, instead of cyclists being subject to the same rules as all other
vehicles. Scary: you see a queue of traffic stopped at a junction to wait
for you because you have priority, but still have to be prepared to stop if
a cyclist appears from behind a lorry/car on its nearside and has priority
over you.

I've not driven in the netherlands, but their rules about bikes I have read
about, along with the assumption that the driver is always guilty in an
accident involving a bike.

The driver is not assumed to be guilty. The insurance for the motor
vehicle (not the driver) is required to cover the non-motorists as well.

[NY]

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:44:45 -0000

Post by NY
Mind you, the Netherlands has some strange rules: they like these shared
spaces where cars, cyclists and pedestrians have equal priority so you can
be driving on a road and find a cyclist or pedestrian tries to cross your

Cars, cyclists and pedestrians have equal priority in the UK.

When I talk about "priority" I mean who has to stop for whom in any given
situation and who is to blame if a collision occurs. Cars and bicycles on a
road are not required to stop for pedestrians who are waiting on the kerb
and allow them to cross - except at zebra crossings and red traffic lights.
In that sense, vehicles on the road have priority over pedestrians (except
in the situations I've mentioned).

Likewise, a vehicle that is on a roundabout has priority over vehicles that
are waiting to join. And a vehicle on a major road has priority over
vehicles that are waiting to pull out from an minor road.

Obviously pedestrians do cross in front of moving vehicles when they
shouldn't and the onus is then on every (vehicle driver and pedestrian) to
avoid a collision. But if such a collision does occurs, despite everyone's
best endeavours, it should be deemed to be the fault of the person who does
not have priority.


As I understand it in shared-road schemes, there are no rules about who must
stop for whom, so everyone has to travel at a very slow speed so as to be
able to stop to avoid hitting anyone else, without any "person A must wait
for person B to pass" rule.

[Nick Finnigan]

Post by NY

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:44:45 -0000

Post by NY
Mind you, the Netherlands has some strange rules: they like these shared
spaces where cars, cyclists and pedestrians have equal priority so you can
be driving on a road and find a cyclist or pedestrian tries to cross your

 Cars, cyclists and pedestrians have equal priority in the UK.

When I talk about "priority" I mean who has to stop for whom in any given
situation and who is to blame if a collision occurs. Cars and bicycles on a
road are not required to stop for pedestrians who are waiting on the kerb
and allow them to cross - except at zebra crossings and red traffic lights.
In that sense, vehicles on the road have priority over pedestrians (except
in the situations I've mentioned).

Neither are they required to stop for vehicles waiting to cross.
*Any* passing traffic has 'priority' over *any* crossing traffic.

Post by NY
Likewise, a vehicle that is on a roundabout has priority over vehicles that
are waiting to join. And a vehicle on a major road has priority over
vehicles that are waiting to pull out from an minor road.

And pedestrians on main roads have priority too.

[NY]

Post by Nick Finnigan
And pedestrians on main roads have priority too.

You mean pedestrians walking along the pavement of a main road have priority
over vehicles on a side road waiting to pull out into the main road. That is
the one situation where as a pedestrian I am very wary about crossing if
there is traffic around, because as a driver I know that when you are
looking for cars on the main road you don't want to be bothered about
pedestrians walking in front of you. If I do cross, it's always behind the
lead car so he can set off without worrying about me, and it's only the cars
that are nudging forwards in a straight line that need to look out for me.
I'm so conditioned to stop and wait at a kerb that I find it difficult to
treat a kerb where a minor road joins a major road as being an exception to
the rule. I'm not sure why the law was made like that, rather than have a
nice simple "pedestrians wait at *every* kerb for a gap in the traffic"
without an exceptional case.

There are some places where road markings take no account of visibility.
There's a supermarket near me which has a STOP sign and white line where it
meets a main road. But line behind which you are required to stop is set
back so far than you cannot see (because of buildings and parked cars)
whether there it any traffic coming from the right. Everyone ignores the
stop line and stops instead about a car length further forward at the
boundary of the supermarket road and main road tarmac - where there is
better visibility. Someone didn't think when they drew that line.

[Nick Finnigan]

Post by NY

 And pedestrians on main roads have priority too.

You mean pedestrians walking along the pavement of a main road have
priority over vehicles on a side road waiting to pull out into the main
road. That is the one situation where as a pedestrian I am very wary about
crossing if there is traffic around, because as a driver I know that when
you are looking for cars on the main road you don't want to be bothered
about pedestrians walking in front of you. If I do cross, it's always
behind the lead car so he can set off without worrying about me, and it's
only the cars that are nudging forwards in a straight line that need to
look out for me. I'm so conditioned to stop and wait at a kerb that I find
it difficult to treat a kerb where a minor road joins a major road as being
an exception to the rule. I'm not sure why the law was made like that,
rather than have a nice simple "pedestrians wait at *every* kerb for a gap
in the traffic" without an exceptional case.

Kerbs and pavements are optional.