Has someone added the words "Except Buses" after everything in the
highway code?
--
To reply direct, remove NOSPAM and replace with railwaysonline

"Joe" wrote in message
...
Has someone added the words "Except Buses" after everything in the highway
code?
--
Okay who cut you up/what did you see?

"David B" wrote in message
...

"Joe" wrote in message
...
Has someone added the words "Except Buses" after everything in the
highway code?
--
Okay who cut you up/what did you see?

I think it's the same exclusion clause as the one for bicycles: the one
which says that they are allowed to go through red traffic lights and across
occupied zebra crossings with impunity ;-)

Lest you think that I'm being "bicylist", let me say that I do cycle, but I
NEVER go through red traffic lights (as I don't when I'm driving a car) and
NEVER overtake cars/lorries on the left on the approach to a junction where
one might be turning left into a minor road. (As a car driver I drive
defensively in the latter situation and move close to the kerb if I'm
turning left to block cyclists from overtaking in this reckless and
dangerous circumstance.)

The other day, on my bike, I was slowing down for a zebra crossing in Oxford
that was packed with tourists crossing, when I was overtaken by a cyclist
who barged straight through the middle of them, parting them like Moses
parted the Red Sea!

The majority of times that I see a vehicle go through red traffic lights (*)
it's a bicycle.

(*) Apart from squeezing through just after the lights have turned red or
just before they go green - I'm talking about really blatant horn-blasting
red-light offences where the cars that are "in the right" have to brake.

Martin Underwood wrote:

The majority of times that I see a vehicle go through red traffic lights (*)
it's a bicycle.

Today I saw no bikes going through red lights.
I did however see two lorries go through bang in the middle of the red
phase, having been prevented from going through on green by a traffic
jam. And no, they hadn't already crossed the line.

All times that I see a vehicle disobeying the speed limit, it has an
engine. Most road users, whatever their vehicle, do what they can get
away with. This is why so many drivers are so against speed cameras -
they can now not always get away with speeding. The solution is
enforcement, prioritising the offences that cause most danger to other
road users. At the moment that means offences committed by users of
motor vehicles.


Blocking off cyclists undertaking you when signalling left is a good
thing to do if you drive a long vehicle. But a stationary car can be
passed quickly, in less time than a red/amber phase, and the biggest
danger to the undertaking cyclist is opening car doors.

Colin McKenzie

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

"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
...
Martin Underwood wrote:

All times that I see a vehicle disobeying the speed limit, it has an
engine. Most road users, whatever their vehicle, do what they can get
away with. This is why so many drivers are so against speed cameras -
they can now not always get away with speeding. The solution is
enforcement, prioritising the offences that cause most danger to other
road users. At the moment that means offences committed by users of
motor vehicles.

The only time recently that I've seen a car blatantly run through red lights
was a few weeks ago: late one night I was stopped at a red light and a car
came up behind me, flashed me several times, overtook and then slammed his
brakes on just in front of me. I think he may have missed the red lights and
only seen the green lights for a second set of lights about 100 yards ahead,
then realised his mistake as he overtook.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to break any normal speed limit on a bike -
apart from a 20 mph limit, or maybe a 30 on a steep hill.

I think the traffic police should spend more time targetting the
drivers/cyclists/pedestrians who CAUSE accidents (eg those that pull out
from side roads) rather than going for the easy target of the driver who has
priority because he's on the major road but who may be exceeding the speed
limit and so can't avoid being involved in an accident that is caused by
someone else. Everyone can make mistakes, but the right people shoudl be
punished when they do so.

Blocking off cyclists undertaking you when signalling left is a good thing
to do if you drive a long vehicle. But a stationary car can be passed
quickly, in less time than a red/amber phase, and the biggest danger to
the undertaking cyclist is opening car doors.

I do it because if I'm turning left, I can't afford to take my eyes off the
road ahead to check my left mirror or look over my left shoulder to look for
cyclists who are ILLEGALLY overtaking me. That would apply no matter whether
I was driving a car or an HGV. I get shouted at a lot by cyclists, but I
know I'm only doing it for their
(and my car's!) protection.

Martin Underwood wrote:
I do it because if I'm turning left, I can't afford to take my eyes off the
road ahead to check my left mirror or look over my left shoulder to look for
cyclists who are ILLEGALLY overtaking me. That would apply no matter whether
I was driving a car or an HGV. I get shouted at a lot by cyclists, but I
know I'm only doing it for their
(and my car's!) protection.

I think you're talking about illegally overtaking on the inside
(sometimes known as 'undertaking' for the obvious danger element), which
is indeed illegal whatever form of transport you are controlling (even a
horse).. Unless of course, there's filter lanes.

I'm sure that all road users will have scare stories about people not
looking to see if there's something there before pulling out to
overtake. (Highway code section 112) It happened to me the other day - a
Volkswagen driver late on a school run pulled out into the adjacent lane
without noticing that I was there. Thankfully, we were both moving
relatively slowly, and no lasting damage was caused.

--
Simon Hewison

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
The only time recently that I've seen a car blatantly run through red
lights
was a few weeks ago:

Okay, I've seen it done twice in the last two days, with identical
circumstances in both cases. First case was in Hitchin, where a line of cars
stopped at a red light protecting roadworks - a taxi several cars behind the
one at the front pulls out, passes the stopped ones and proceeds through the
roadworks. Only problem was that the traffic coming the other way had
started by this time, and the lead vehicle was a bus, meaning the said
taxi - with nowhere to reverse - ended up on the pavement.

The second case was earlier today on York Way, at the roadworks beneath the
North London Line bridge. Identical incident, though sadly this time there
wasn't a bus coming the other way. How anyone can have the stupidity to do
this on a completely blind bend is beyond me.


I think you'd be hard-pressed to break any normal speed limit on a bike -
apart from a 20 mph limit, or maybe a 30 on a steep hill.

I can claim over 40 going down Archway Road beneath the bridge; always fun
doing it down there overtaking everything slowing for the GATSO!


I do it because if I'm turning left, I can't afford to take my eyes off
the
road ahead to check my left mirror or look over my left shoulder to look
for
cyclists who are ILLEGALLY overtaking me.

Fine, but don't do it if you're in a queue that's obviously not going to
move for a while. That's just needless obstruction of traffic.

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message ...

I think the traffic police should spend more time targetting the
drivers/cyclists/pedestrians who CAUSE accidents (eg those that pull out
from side roads) ...

I was working in Minneapolis a couple of summers ago. The main street
there, Nicollet Mall, is open only to buses. But cyclists would often
use it as it probably saved them 1 minute or so from the alternative
route. One day when we were sitting outside having lunch there were a
group of cops around the corner pulling over every single bike that
came out from the road and gave each and every one a ticket. I'm not
sure quite why, but a few of them had their bikes confiscated.

It was hilarious!

D.

David B wrote:
Okay who cut you up/what did you see?

Buses causing congestion outside that greasy cafe near Farringdon.
--
To reply direct, remove NOSPAM and replace with railwaysonline
For railway information, news and photos see http://www.railwaysonline.co.uk
"You love railways online"

"David FitzGerald" wrote in message
om...
[Snip]
It was hilarious!

Why?