"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

"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

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

"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

"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

In message , at
09:29:26 on Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Portsmouth Rider
remarked:

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.

Oh, I see. The goalposts are moving a bit fast for me this time of the
morning. If you want to start a debate about "what is an emergency", and
my interpretation of that (rather than the "Do Not" paragraphs of the
HC, which is what I was taking about) then go ahead.

My own definition is "car has broken down/struck an object in the road
etc, or the road has become impassable; (so as to reach an emergency
phone). And for completeness - if instructed by emergency services".
Even then, I'd be very wary of walking *along* a motorway, rather than
away from it.
--
Roland Perry