"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 21:49:51
on Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Portsmouth Rider
remarked:

It says "Do Not" rather than "Must Not", because it's a statement
about
driving behaviour and not the law.

Some driving behaviour is so bad that it's also against the law, much
of what the Highway Code recommends needs to take the local
circumstances into account and is therefore not subject to a blanket
legal prohibition.

So, for example, it's not that bad to block a bus stop to drop someone
off, if there's only one bus an hour, and the last one that day ran
several hours previously.

Ah, we see.

Nothing to do with "what's actually acceptable behaviour" and "what
not", then.

If it's not acceptable behaviour then there will be a "Must Not",

Wrong.

Wrong interpretation.

There are loads of things which are unacceptable behaviour, which are
not necessarily illegal.

Agreed, I specifically mentioned that there are "Do Not's" which are also
unacceptable behaviour, according to the circumstances (like dropping off
children at the school gate, even in the absence of Zigzags).

The difference with "Must not's" is they are *always* unacceptable.

because there's a vast array of laws about unacceptable behaviour.

For the behaviour marked as "Do Not", then it will sometimes be
acceptable
and sometimes not, depending on the circumstances.

"Do Not" means, ummm, "Don't"

In the Highway Code, it's ummm, Code for "Don't do it when it's
unacceptable". If it was "Don't do it ever", then society would have made
it illegal (and hence bumped it into a "Must Not").

So, to sum up, you obey the HC only so far as it suits you?

Maybe you also look for interpretations to suit you.... How about HC6
"Pedestrians MUST NOT walk on a motorway except in an emergency"..... I
suppose you would define wanting a pee as an emergengy, so would stop your
car, walk a few yards along and nip over the barrier and behind a hedge?


With a bit of luck, one day when you are deciding that a particular part
of
the HC does not apply to you, you will have a major crunch. The very fact
that you were disregarding the HC will count heavily against you in any
legal proceedings, and also as far as your insurance company is concerned.

ALL road users should try and obey the HC ALL the time. Not just when it
suits them.

I agree, but not all of the HC rules have to be blindly obeyed regardless
of the circumstances. Dropping someone off at a bus stop late in the
evening isn't a crime, not is it even inconsiderate (to other road users).




So now we have TWO examples of your being an arrogant selfish twit.

With a bit of luck, one day you'll learn how to have a debate about
issues, rather than an insult competition.
--

Not an insult competition. Merely counting up the number of times you are
demonstrating phuckwittedness.

--

PR

In message , at
08:03:23 on Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Portsmouth Rider
remarked:

So, to sum up, you obey the HC only so far as it suits you?

Your trolling is getting tiresome.

Maybe you also look for interpretations to suit you.... How about HC6
"Pedestrians MUST NOT walk on a motorway except in an emergency"..... I
suppose you would define wanting a pee as an emergengy, so would stop your
car, walk a few yards along and nip over the barrier and behind a hedge?

That's a "MUST NOT" you dimwit.

Not an insult competition. Merely counting up the number of times you are
demonstrating phuckwittedness.

Not nearly as much as you are demonstrating a severe lack of
comprehension skills.

I don't mind debating, but only about the words I put in my mouth, not
the ones you do.
--
Roland Perry

On 26/11/2012 08:26, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
08:03:23 on Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Portsmouth Rider
remarked:

So, to sum up, you obey the HC only so far as it suits you?

Your trolling is getting tiresome.

Maybe you also look for interpretations to suit you.... How about HC6
"Pedestrians MUST NOT walk on a motorway except in an emergency"..... I
suppose you would define wanting a pee as an emergengy, so would stop
your
car, walk a few yards along and nip over the barrier and behind a hedge?

That's a "MUST NOT" you dimwit.

Not an insult competition. Merely counting up the number of times you are
demonstrating phuckwittedness.

Not nearly as much as you are demonstrating a severe lack of
comprehension skills.

I don't mind debating, but only about the words I put in my mouth, not
the ones you do.

It is what you do to others.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

In message , at 08:58:54 on Mon, 26 Nov
2012, Graeme Wall remarked:

I don't mind debating, but only about the words I put in my mouth, not
the ones you do.

It is what you do to others.

Even if I did (which I dispute - the problems I have with your postings
are they are often vague and ambiguous, leading to misunderstandings)
then two wrongs don't make a right.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
21:51:56 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Portsmouth Rider
remarked:

You might meet Roland coming the other way.

But I'm parked at a bus stop...
--
Roland Perry

In message
.
net, at 23:30:55 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Neil Williams
remarked:
An intelligent Rail Replacement system would have, defined in the
contract, a limited number of additional non-railway-station stops, at
existing major transport interchanges, where such existed on the best
route from station to station or another route almost as good. The
stops would be chosen to maximise the expected overall customer
satisfaction.

This seems a good idea. Also, stops often used for rail replacement should
have permanent flags. I think in the GMPTE area they often do, and I think
I have seen such things in London as well.

A lot of rail replacement buses work from station forecourts, which
presumably means they can stop wherever they like. But not always; the
frequent ones at Nottingham station line up in the taxi rank over-flow
down the side of the station.

I wonder how legal that is? (The signs say "No Waiting, except Taxis",
and those buses are definitely waiting, rather than stopping.)
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 08:03:23
on Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Portsmouth Rider
remarked:

So, to sum up, you obey the HC only so far as it suits you?

Your trolling is getting tiresome.

Not trolling. Unless, of course, you have redefined "trolling" to mean
"Saying something Roland disagrees with".


Maybe you also look for interpretations to suit you.... How about HC6
"Pedestrians MUST NOT walk on a motorway except in an emergency"..... I
suppose you would define wanting a pee as an emergengy, so would stop your
car, walk a few yards along and nip over the barrier and behind a hedge?

That's a "MUST NOT" you dimwit.

Not an insult competition. Merely counting up the number of times you are
demonstrating phuckwittedness.

Not nearly as much as you are demonstrating a severe lack of comprehension
skills.

I think that YOU have demonstrated the lack of comprehension skills. I KNOW
(and I rather suspect you do, too) that the MUST NOT is qualified by the
concept of "except in an emergency" - and it is THAT qualified requirement
that I was (and still am, since you have declined to answer it) questioning
on how loosely you interpret "emergency" if it can be defined to suit YOU.

I don't mind debating, but only about the words I put in my mouth, not the
ones you do.

Pity you don't think about them before you post them, then.

--


PR

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 26/11/2012 08:26, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
08:03:23 on Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Portsmouth Rider
remarked:

So, to sum up, you obey the HC only so far as it suits you?

Your trolling is getting tiresome.

Maybe you also look for interpretations to suit you.... How about HC6
"Pedestrians MUST NOT walk on a motorway except in an emergency"..... I
suppose you would define wanting a pee as an emergengy, so would stop
your
car, walk a few yards along and nip over the barrier and behind a hedge?

That's a "MUST NOT" you dimwit.

Not an insult competition. Merely counting up the number of times you
are
demonstrating phuckwittedness.

Not nearly as much as you are demonstrating a severe lack of
comprehension skills.

I don't mind debating, but only about the words I put in my mouth, not
the ones you do.

It is what you do to others.

A thought has occurred to me ..... Roland is Duhg posting under an
alias?????

--
PR

On 26/11/2012 09:13, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:58:54 on Mon, 26 Nov
2012, Graeme Wall remarked:

I don't mind debating, but only about the words I put in my mouth, not
the ones you do.

It is what you do to others.

Even if I did (which I dispute - the problems I have with your postings
are they are often vague and ambiguous, leading to misunderstandings)
then two wrongs don't make a right.

Nothing vague or ambiguous about the facts of operating a rail
replacement bus service and the contractual restrictions thereof. Just
because they don't accord with your prejudices is not my problem.

And if you will trim posts to the point that all context is lost then I
can't be bothered to trace back through the thread(s) to find what the
devil you are rabbiting on about this time.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Roland Perry wrote:
work from station forecourts, which presumably means they can stop
wherever they like. But not always; the frequent ones at Nottingham station
line up in the taxi rank over-flow down the side of the station.

I wonder how legal that is? (The signs say "No Waiting, except Taxis",
and those buses are definitely waiting, rather than stopping.)

Is the forecourt private land? If so its owners have the right to waive or
change the restrictions if they wish.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.