Brimstone wrote:

Joanne wrote:
John Rowland says...

Hi all,.
At the north end of South Grove in Highgate, North London, are
no-entry signs with text beneath reading "No Entry Except From
East". In effect they are saying that you can do a left-turn into
South Grove but you can't do a right-turn into it.

Is there such a sign in the highway code? IIRC the rules are slightly
more complex and the HC is not the definitive guide, and "temporary"
signs are allowed for a testing period.
Having said that it is taking the **** to expect people to follow a
sign that's not in the HC..

Why? As long as ots meaning and intention are plain why can't people
be expected to comply?

If the sign said "Post a cheque for £10 to [insert name of your hate
figure]", would you still expect people to "comply"?

If not, why not?

This is yet another example of the attitude that leads to the kind of
petty rules that so many people complain about.

Let's get this straight...

You say that people should obey petty rules without compulsion, and that if
they don't, the authorities are justified in setting the petty rules in law?




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.752 / Virus Database: 503 - Release Date: 03/09/04

In article , Brimstone says...

Joanne wrote:
In article , John Rowland
says...

Hi all,.

At the north end of South Grove in Highgate, North London, are
no-entry
signs with text beneath reading "No Entry Except From East". In
effect they are saying that you can do a left-turn into South Grove
but you can't do a right-turn into it.

Is there such a sign in the highway code? IIRC the rules are slightly
more complex and the HC is not the definitive guide, and "temporary"
signs are allowed for a testing period.

Having said that it is taking the **** to expect people to follow a
sign that's not in the HC..

Why? As long as ots meaning and intention are plain why can't people be
expected to comply?

2 points

(1) What's the point if having a HC if local authorities can go round sticking
up any old sign? In general signs such be graphic and follow international
rules. It can be difficult to read qualifying text under a sign (we do have to
look out for other road users too) and also what about foreign drivers?

(2) I would assume fact a sign has some sort of legal status gives it protection
against being copied. In the extreme you'd never know if a sign was put up by
appropriate authorties or if any tom, dick or harry had stuck it there.

Richard J. wrote:

Joanne wrote:
Having said that it is taking the **** to expect people to
follow a sign that's not in the HC..

The Highway Code does show the no-entry sign, and has a general comment
"plates below signs qualify their message". Anyway, the HC shows "many
of the signs commonly in use", but not all of them.

And if you look at the manual used by people who put up the signs, you
find the only exception allowed with 'no entry' is buses. A much wider
range is allowed with 'no right (or left) turn'.

I looked at a road yesterday with a view to exempting cyclists from a
banned turn. Only one car came along while I was there - and it
disobeyed the ban.

Colin McKenzie

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 14:08:31 +0100 someone who may be Colin McKenzie
wrote this:-

The Highway Code does show the no-entry sign, and has a general comment
"plates below signs qualify their message". Anyway, the HC shows "many
of the signs commonly in use", but not all of them.

And if you look at the manual used by people who put up the signs, you
find the only exception allowed with 'no entry' is buses.

There are plenty of no-entry signs in Edinburgh, with plates below
them saying things like "Except for buses, cycles and taxis". A few
years ago there was mention in the paper of someone claiming these
signs were invalid. However, I have not heard more and imagine that
is because the someone has discovered their assertion is incorrect.
If their assertion had been shown to be correct you may be sure that
the paper would have made a fuss about it.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

..

I looked at a road yesterday with a view to exempting cyclists from a
banned turn.

Isn't that rather pointless as they'd do it whether or not is banned?

"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
...
Richard J. wrote:

Joanne wrote:
Having said that it is taking the **** to expect people to
follow a sign that's not in the HC..

The Highway Code does show the no-entry sign, and has a general comment
"plates below signs qualify their message". Anyway, the HC shows "many
of the signs commonly in use", but not all of them.

And if you look at the manual used by people who put up the signs, you
find the only exception allowed with 'no entry' is buses. A much wider
range is allowed with 'no right (or left) turn'.

I looked at a road yesterday with a view to exempting cyclists from a
banned turn. Only one car came along while I was there - and it
disobeyed the ban.

The regulations say a 'except cycles' is a permitted variant
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2002/023113ab.gif

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

At the north end of South Grove in Highgate, North London, are no-entry
signs with text beneath reading "No Entry Except From East". In effect they
are saying that you can do a left-turn into South Grove but you can't do a
right-turn into it. There are none of the normal right-turn-banned signs at
all. Since drivers are not legally required to carry a compass or know the
direction in which they are travelling at a particular moment, I don't see
how anyone could be successfully prosecuted for doing a right turn here. I
also don't see why they didn't just mount a right-turn-banned sign.

'No right turn' is not a strict offence, whereas 'no entry' is.
However, it would be interesting to see what the traffic
order says

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 14:08:31 +0100 someone who may be Colin McKenzie
wrote this:-

The Highway Code does show the no-entry sign, and has a general comment
"plates below signs qualify their message". Anyway, the HC shows "many
of the signs commonly in use", but not all of them.

And if you look at the manual used by people who put up the signs, you
find the only exception allowed with 'no entry' is buses.

There are plenty of no-entry signs in Edinburgh, with plates below
them saying things like "Except for buses, cycles and taxis". A few
years ago there was mention in the paper of someone claiming these
signs were invalid. However, I have not heard more and imagine that
is because the someone has discovered their assertion is incorrect.
If their assertion had been shown to be correct you may be sure that
the paper would have made a fuss about it.

How few years ago? They get a special mention in
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#sch19pII2
21 (Plates to be placed only...)
(2) A plate shown...

Diagram 616 is 'No Entry'; 954.6 and 954.7 are
'Except buses and cycles' & 'Except buses cycles and taxis'.

Brimstone wrote to uk.transport.london on Sun, 5 Sep 2004:


Are you
seriously suggesting that most people don't know which compass direction a
road lies along?


Dammit, I don't usually know whether I'm turning left or right!
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/

On 5 Sep 2004 06:52:40 -0700 someone who may be Joanne
wrote this:-

I looked at a road yesterday with a view to exempting cyclists from a
banned turn.

Isn't that rather pointless as they'd do it whether or not is banned?

Nice try, but rather boring.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.