"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

"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

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

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 23:01:56 on Sat, 24 Nov
2012, John Williamson remarked:
Head - desk The only vehicle that is allowed to stop at a bus stop
is a bus on a service licenced to use that stop.

Cars and vans are allowed to stop there as well. Only if there's a "No
Stopping" plate is a bus stop exclusively for the use of buses.

And non-registerable coach services, so long as by doing so they don't turn
their route into something that would have to become a registered local bus
route, in which case the stop and relevant section of route would need to
become a registered local bus route.

As for rail replacement, I'm pretty sure it is only exempted from needing
to register if operating a local bus route by the fact that it does only
serve railway stations.

The criteria involve an overall route length and a distance between stops,
though I forget what each bit is.

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

"Portsmouth Rider" wrote:

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.)

Because it has no specific force of law, because it is not covered by
primary legislation, like much of the Code.

Ergo it is not illegal to stop there. However, it could certainly be
considered an obstruction, or careless driving, in some circumstances.

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

"Portsmouth Rider" wrote:

(It does in theory: but the timings of a RSS are dependant on the arrival of
trains at a station, the numbers on board that train, and the availabilty of
actual busses in the station yard - they might still be on their way back
from the opposite journey.) Similarly: the departure of trains from the end
of a bustitution link is a function of the buses arrival at the station plus
time for the people to make the transfer. No pre-published timetable for a
bustitution can be RELIED ON and so it cannot really function as a LBS.

Some odd things are registered local bus services, e.g. bits of coach
routes and airport car park shuttles, mainly to claim BSOG.

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

"Portsmouth Rider" wrote:

Cars and vans are allowed to stop there as well. Only if there's a "No
Stopping" plate is a bus stop exclusively for the use of buses.
--

See Highway Code Rule 243.

As it is not a "MUST" or "MUST NOT" it has no force of law (other than in
determining whether someone may be causing an obstruction, driving
carelessly etc).

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

Dr J R Stockton wrote:

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.

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

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