"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 13:17:12
on Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Portsmouth Rider
remarked:
See Highway Code Rule 243.

That's a "Do Not", rather than a "MUST NOT".

I just KNEW you were going to come out with that. Now... why do you think
it
says "Do Not" and not "MUST NOT"?

(I know the answer to that, I just want to see if YOU do.)

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, but 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.
--
Roland Perry

Ah, we see.

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

Imagine you are two years old (not a difficult exersize, I would have
thought.....). Your Mummy says "Do not put your fingers in the electric
socket, Roland dear". Given that it is not actually ILLEGAL for you to stick
your fingers in the electric socket, why do you not go ahead and do it
anyway? I'll save you the answer: it is because someone else - in this case
your mother - actually KNOWS better than you.

Here is a clue: The Highway Code is essentially a Code of Practice for road
users. Other road users drive according to the Highway Code, and expext all
those they come into contact with to do likewise - so that their behaviour
becomes predictable. It is written by people who actually do KNOW better
than you about driving habits, accident statistics, road and vehicle
limitations, etc.. ( I think I can see the flaw, here, in your reasoning).

Now let's take the specific instance (which you have tried to mitigate by
introducing the lateness of hour/ infrequency of service.)

Fact 1: In some areas (not all, I know), there is a service all night. How
do you KNOW such a bus is not going to need the stop?
Fact 2: Some buses other than Local Buses as defined by the legislation, to
operate on an entirely casual basis - I am thinking particularly of Access
buses operated by Local Authorities, Social Services and the like. They in
particular need to be able to get in to a bus stop so that the doors can be
positioned right next to the (often raised for the purpose) kerb - so the
users, usually disabled, can get off. And that can happen at any time. (And
don't try arguing about those buses usually being small and based on
minibuses - they need just as much clear space, because the front steering
wheels are usually at the very front, with the door aft of those wheels,
which means a shallow angle of approach; at least a service bus with the
door at the very front can usually get in with the doors overhanging the
kerb, if some ****head has stopped his car inside the busstop area, even if
the arse end of the bus IS left sticking out inconveniencing everyone else).

So we actually have an implied admission from Roland - The contents of the
Highway Code are a "menu" from which he can pick and choose what bits to
obey, and what bits to disregard.

Pillock.

--
PR

On 25/11/2012 16:49, Portsmouth Rider wrote:


Imagine you are two years old (not a difficult exersize, I would have
thought.....). Your Mummy says "Do not put your fingers in the electric
socket, Roland dear". Given that it is not actually ILLEGAL for you to stick
your fingers in the electric socket, why do you not go ahead and do it
anyway? I'll save you the answer: it is because someone else - in this case
your mother - actually KNOWS better than you.

Should transport systems make allowance for strange old men travelling
with the aid of flying reindeer?

Here is a clue: The Highway Code is essentially a Code of Practice for road
users. Other road users drive according to the Highway Code, and expext all
those they come into contact with to do likewise - so that their behaviour
becomes predictable.

Personally, when I am using the roads I expect all other users to be
stupid blind deaf lunatics with suicidal tendencies and an ambition to
take everyone else with them. Admittedly this is based on empirical
evidence, rather than any written document.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 25/11/2012 18:30, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 25/11/2012 16:49, Portsmouth Rider wrote:


Imagine you are two years old (not a difficult exersize, I would have
thought.....). Your Mummy says "Do not put your fingers in the electric
socket, Roland dear". Given that it is not actually ILLEGAL for you to
stick
your fingers in the electric socket, why do you not go ahead and do it
anyway? I'll save you the answer: it is because someone else - in this
case
your mother - actually KNOWS better than you.

Should transport systems make allowance for strange old men travelling
with the aid of flying reindeer?

I am reliably informed he files a flight-plan with ATC every Christmas.


Here is a clue: The Highway Code is essentially a Code of Practice for
road
users. Other road users drive according to the Highway Code, and
expext all
those they come into contact with to do likewise - so that their
behaviour
becomes predictable.

Personally, when I am using the roads I expect all other users to be
stupid blind deaf lunatics with suicidal tendencies and an ambition to
take everyone else with them. Admittedly this is based on empirical
evidence, rather than any written document.


I think you underestimate them.


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

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 25/11/2012 18:30, Arthur Figgis wrote:
Should transport systems make allowance for strange old men travelling
with the aid of flying reindeer?

I am reliably informed he files a flight-plan with ATC every Christmas.

And his track is displayed in real time on a publicly accessible radar
display, to help other fliers avoid him.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 25/11/2012 22:11, John Williamson wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 25/11/2012 18:30, Arthur Figgis wrote:
Should transport systems make allowance for strange old men travelling
with the aid of flying reindeer?

I am reliably informed he files a flight-plan with ATC every Christmas.

And his track is displayed in real time on a publicly accessible radar
display, to help other fliers avoid him.


On the other hand the police want him on several million counts of
breaking and entering.

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

"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 25/11/2012 16:49, Portsmouth Rider wrote:


Imagine you are two years old (not a difficult exersize, I would have
thought.....). Your Mummy says "Do not put your fingers in the electric
socket, Roland dear". Given that it is not actually ILLEGAL for you to
stick
your fingers in the electric socket, why do you not go ahead and do it
anyway? I'll save you the answer: it is because someone else - in this
case
your mother - actually KNOWS better than you.

Should transport systems make allowance for strange old men travelling
with the aid of flying reindeer?


???????? dunno what your on.... probably the same as Roland.


Here is a clue: The Highway Code is essentially a Code of Practice for
road
users. Other road users drive according to the Highway Code, and expext
all
those they come into contact with to do likewise - so that their
behaviour
becomes predictable.

Personally, when I am using the roads I expect all other users to be
stupid blind deaf lunatics with suicidal tendencies and an ambition to
take everyone else with them.

That is probably rather sensible. You might meet Roland coming the other
way.

Admittedly this is based on empirical
evidence, rather than any written document.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

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 , at
16:49:52 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, but 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 is not",
then.

If it's not acceptable behaviour then there will be a "Must Not",
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. The one
that people seem to infringe the most is "stopping within 32ft of an
intersection", closely followed by "near a school entrance" (the latter
being another of those cases where if they want you to desist at all
times they bump it up to a local "Must Not", viz paint yellow zigzags.

The Highway Code is essentially a Code of Practice for road users.
Other road users drive according to the Highway Code, and expext all
those they come into contact with to do likewise - so that their
behaviour becomes predictable. It is written by people who actually do
KNOW better than you about driving habits, accident statistics, road
and vehicle limitations, etc..

If only it was. It's actually written by a committee that's influenced
by numerous lobbying bodies, and is full of deliberate "white lies" in
order to dumb it down to their perceived audience.

In some areas (not all, I know), there is a service all night. How
do you KNOW such a bus is not going to need the stop?

Local knowledge. If you don't know, and in the absence of observing
whether there are any buses around, stop somewhere else (remember, this
is ordinary motorists, not Rail Replacement buses).

Fact 2: Some buses other than Local Buses as defined by the legislation, to
operate on an entirely casual basis - I am thinking particularly of Access
buses operated by Local Authorities, Social Services and the like. They in
particular need to be able to get in to a bus stop so that the doors can be
positioned right next to the (often raised for the purpose) kerb - so the
users, usually disabled, can get off.

And those are exactly the circumstances where none of the enforcers
where I used to live take any notice at all. Cars parked all day every
day obscuring the raised kerbs put in place for the frequent flow of
buses (at least one every ten minutes).

But two wrongs don't make a right, I know.

And that can happen at any time.

How does that happen when there's already another service bus waiting at
the stop, a queue of people fumbling for their change? Ah yes, it has to
wait a few moments.

(And don't try arguing about

Yes, I know, hence my remarks above.

those buses usually being small and based on minibuses - they need just
as much clear space, because the front steering wheels are usually at
the very front, with the door aft of those wheels, which means a
shallow angle of approach; at least a service bus with the door at the
very front can usually get in with the doors overhanging the kerb, if
some ****head has stopped his car inside the busstop area,

If he's stopped (that means "to let someone in or out, nothing to do
with waiting; loading or parking) he'll only be there for a few seconds.

Your evident frustration is possibly on account of people *parking* in
bus stops? Which I agree is not a good idea.

even if the arse end of the bus IS left sticking out inconveniencing
everyone else).

So we actually have an implied admission from Roland - The contents of the
Highway Code are a "menu" from which he can pick and choose what bits to
obey, and what bits to disregard.

It's a mixture of recommendations and law. I apply the recommendations
whenever the circumstances require it, and obey the "MUST" ones at all
times.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 16:49:52
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, but
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 is
not",
then.

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

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




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"

The one
that people seem to infringe the most is "stopping within 32ft of an
intersection", closely followed by "near a school entrance" (the latter
being another of those cases where if they want you to desist at all times
they bump it up to a local "Must Not", viz paint yellow zigzags.

Just because people infringe things does not make them acceptable. Or even
legal.

The Highway Code is essentially a Code of Practice for road users. Other
road users drive according to the Highway Code, and expext all those they
come into contact with to do likewise - so that their behaviour becomes
predictable. It is written by people who actually do KNOW better than you
about driving habits, accident statistics, road and vehicle limitations,
etc..

If only it was. It's actually written by a committee that's influenced by
numerous lobbying bodies, and is full of deliberate "white lies" in order
to dumb it down to their perceived audience.

In some areas (not all, I know), there is a service all night. How
do you KNOW such a bus is not going to need the stop?

Local knowledge. If you don't know, and in the absence of observing
whether there are any buses around, stop somewhere else (remember, this is
ordinary motorists, not Rail Replacement buses).

Fact 2: Some buses other than Local Buses as defined by the legislation,
to
operate on an entirely casual basis - I am thinking particularly of Access
buses operated by Local Authorities, Social Services and the like. They in
particular need to be able to get in to a bus stop so that the doors can
be
positioned right next to the (often raised for the purpose) kerb - so the
users, usually disabled, can get off.

And those are exactly the circumstances where none of the enforcers where
I used to live take any notice at all. Cars parked all day every day
obscuring the raised kerbs put in place for the frequent flow of buses (at
least one every ten minutes).

But two wrongs don't make a right, I know.

And that can happen at any time.

How does that happen when there's already another service bus waiting at
the stop, a queue of people fumbling for their change? Ah yes, it has to
wait a few moments.

(And don't try arguing about

Yes, I know, hence my remarks above.

those buses usually being small and based on minibuses - they need just as
much clear space, because the front steering wheels are usually at the
very front, with the door aft of those wheels, which means a shallow angle
of approach; at least a service bus with the door at the very front can
usually get in with the doors overhanging the kerb, if some ****head has
stopped his car inside the busstop area,

If he's stopped (that means "to let someone in or out, nothing to do with
waiting; loading or parking) he'll only be there for a few seconds.

Your evident frustration is possibly on account of people *parking* in bus
stops? Which I agree is not a good idea.

even if the arse end of the bus IS left sticking out inconveniencing
everyone else).

So we actually have an implied admission from Roland - The contents of the
Highway Code are a "menu" from which he can pick and choose what bits to
obey, and what bits to disregard.

It's a mixture of recommendations and law. I apply the recommendations
whenever the circumstances require it, and obey the "MUST" ones at all
times.
--
Roland Perry

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.

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

--

PR

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").

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.
--
Roland Perry