15mph tractors on 60mph single carriageways in rush hour

[Phil]

Last night I was in a convoy that stretched as far as the eye could see, stuck behind a tractor going at 15mph during rush hour. From where I joined to convoy to where I left, it was several miles. Needless to say during this time there was no opportunity to overtake safely.

Over this distance, we passed a number of empty lay bys. Meanwhile I was witness to some of the most dangerous convoy queue jumping and overtaking at junctions (where the road broadens to permit turning traffic to not obstruct others), across hatched lines and so on.

Apart from "common sense" of not being an inconvenience to other drivers, is there any road legislation that requires slow moving vehicles to pull over at the first opportunity to let other drivers pass?

If so what is the legal "threshold" slow speed? If no what speed would you consider an acceptable lower limit under normal road conditions?

[Hugh - in either England or Spain]

ISTR the highway code says someting about slow vehicles pulling over but
I am unaware of any legislation requiring it. A414 from Chelmsford to
Harlow is a nightmare. Tractors and horseboxes and very limited safe
overtaking opportunities.

[Lordgnome]

I have to say that the farmers in N. Wales - Anglesey in particular, are
real gentlemen, who will frequently pull over if there is just one car
behind. I have noticed in Wiltshire/Dorset that they seem to enjoy
building up the largest possible jam.

Les.

[Nightjar]

On 14/11/2012 10:15, Phil wrote:

> Last night I was in a convoy that stretched as far as the eye could see, stuck behind a tractor going at 15mph during rush hour. From where I joined to convoy to where I left, it was several miles. Needless to say during this time there was no opportunity to overtake safely.
>
> Over this distance, we passed a number of empty lay bys. Meanwhile I was witness to some of the most dangerous convoy queue jumping and overtaking at junctions (where the road broadens to permit turning traffic to not obstruct others), across hatched lines and so on.
>
> Apart from "common sense" of not being an inconvenience to other drivers, is there any road legislation that requires slow moving vehicles to pull over at the first opportunity to let other drivers pass?

Not specifically to require anyone to pull over, although I think the
Swiss have a law to that effect if the queue behind is more than a
certain length. However, the relevant legislation in the UK would be
Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980:

'If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully
obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence'

> If so what is the legal "threshold" slow speed? If no what speed would you consider an acceptable lower limit under normal road conditions?

It will depend upon the circumstances. AIUI, drivers have been convicted
of causing an obstruction at speeds of up to 50mph.

Colin Bignell

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Phil" <philmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0f09bdcb-ee18-4615...@googlegroups.com...

> Apart from "common sense" of not being an inconvenience to other drivers,
> is there any road legislation that requires slow >moving vehicles to pull
> over at the first opportunity to let other drivers pass?

http://www.jsbni.com/Publications/sentencing-guides-magistrates-court/Documents/Templates/Careless%20Driving.pdf

Specifically

"If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other
public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable
consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an
offence."

and

"A person is to be regarded as driving without reasonable consideration for
other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his driving."
--
Alex

[Roland Perry]

In message <k80hk6$tpe$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:45:01 on Wed, 14 Nov
2012, Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> remarked:

>Specifically
>
>"If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other
>public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable
>consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty
>of an offence."
>
>and
>
>"A person is to be regarded as driving without reasonable consideration
>for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his
>driving."

That's another offence that isn't enforced very often then, almost every
tractor driver in my part of the country is guilty of it. I wouldn't
mind so much if they were moving the tractor and a plough from one field
to another, but they routinely use them as tugs for implausibly large
trailers, and tow them for miles and miles.
--
Roland Perry

[Fredxx]

There was a veiled threat made by a number of police forces that if
there was a long queue behind a tractor, they would prosecute for due
care and attention. Thus I'm surprised at this occurrence. I find it
relatively rare where I live where it's not difficult to pull into
occasional laybies.

[Phil Mcbride]

I have seen a police car overtake a slow tractor before. The police
car wasn't blue lighting so they weren't in an emergency. If the
police wanted to stop them for being an obstruction or DWDCAA they
would've.

[D.M. Procida]

What on earth are they supposed to do? Keep ducking embarrassedly into
the side of the road because someone more important's behind them? I
don't suppose that people who have to tow huge loads for miles and miles
are doing it on some sort of whim.

Daniele

[Percy Picacity]

Yes!! And in my part of the world they do. The same should apply to
those car trailer users who stick to 50mph and slow lorries, and in my
experience both do so. I certainly have when pulling a rather fragile
trailer at rather slow speeds.

> I
> don't suppose that people who have to tow huge loads for miles and miles
> are doing it on some sort of whim.
>
> Daniele

But if they've already decided to do it at 35mph, an extra ten minutes
for laybyes every few miles is no great penalty.

--

Percy Picacity

[Roland Perry]

In message
<1ktkgs0.1r8n01h1c6av5sN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk>,
at 20:35:01 on Wed, 14 Nov 2012, D.M. Procida
<real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> remarked:

>> I wouldn't
>> mind so much if they were moving the tractor and a plough from one field
>> to another, but they routinely use them as tugs for implausibly large
>> trailers, and tow them for miles and miles.
>
>What on earth are they supposed to do?

Get a proper lorry to transport the stuff.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <63tp6g....@news.alt.net>, at 21:50:01 on Wed, 14 Nov
2012, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> remarked:

>But if they've already decided to do it at 35mph, an extra ten minutes
>for laybyes every few miles is no great penalty.

Luxury, 20mph is more like it.
--
Roland Perry

[Alex Heney]

Well actually, they are not supposed to be driving tractors for miles
on the roads.

They will most likely be fuelled with Red Diesel, and the amount that
can be used on the road is very limited.

For some reason, tractors traveling miles on the roads seem to be far
more common this autumn than any previous year I can remember.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

[Phil Mcbride]

That said if it was one car being slowed down by a tractor then maybe
it is one person's right vs. another, and there is no clear *moral*
justification for the tractor pulling over.

But if it is a mile of cars behind a slow tractor that is passing
empty lay bys, then surely it is common courtesy to pull over and let
the traffic pass?

[Roland Perry]

In message
<4985c551-c4a2-49eb...@qi10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, at
18:50:02 on Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Phil Mcbride <philmc...@gmail.com>
remarked:

>I have seen a police car overtake a slow tractor before. The police
>car wasn't blue lighting so they weren't in an emergency. If the
>police wanted to stop them for being an obstruction or DWDCAA they
>would've.

No, the whole point is they often wouldn't.

Reminds me of when a delivery van pulled onto the pavement[1] on a road
in central Nottingham, double yellow lines, no stopping and no
unloading, and the two policemen walking along that very pavement just
skirted round it.

I was so put out, I took a photo (of the van):

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/dhl-no-stopping-unloading.jpg

[1] So none of the "no-one saw you do it" nonsense.
--
Roland Perry

[ne...@sylva.icuklive.co.uk]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:50:01 +0000, Percy Picacity
<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:

>But if they've already decided to do it at 35mph, an extra ten minutes
>for laybyes every few miles is no great penalty.

Trouble is that drivers don't allow one to pull out again, not a
trivial thing with an 8 tonne tractor and crash gearbox. I used to
drive tractors between sites every month or so but generally chose non
busy periods. Tractors are limited to 20mph unless they have full
suspension. Authorities tend to turn a blind eye and many tractors now
have 50kph gearboxes.

Anyway my wife would follow towards the back of any queue and allow me
to pull out again, it was one of the bits of the job I least liked and
I never towed laden trailers.

AJH

[D.M. Procida]

Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:

> > I don't suppose that people who have to tow huge loads for miles and
> > miles are doing it on some sort of whim.
>

> But if they've already decided to do it at 35mph, an extra ten minutes
> for laybyes every few miles is no great penalty.

Perhaps they are anxious about being let out again, in a vehicle with
poor acceleration on a busy road full of impatient people.

Daniele

[D.M. Procida]

I'm sure you'll be willing to chip in to help them buy one.

It's frustrating when you're in the bank or the supermarket and there's
a slow person taking ages in front of you.

It's frustrating when you're hurrying along the pavement and there's a
slow person taking ages in front of you.

It's frustrating when you're in the car and there's a slow person taking
ages in front of you.

Do you want to live in a society where everything is measured by the
speed of the swiftest, most able-bodied, most assured people, and where
they are entitled to feel impatient with others who aren't as speedy as
they are? I don't.

Daniele

[Dr Zoidberg]

"D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:1ktkgs0.1r8n01h1c6av5sN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...

That's exactly what they should do according to the law and the highway
code.

There's no absolute rule here - one car behind a tractor for a mile or two
wouldn't be a problem but tens of cars for many miles would be with a grey
area in between.

--
Alex

[Roland Perry]

In message
<1ktknhb.z13vuo1541fxuN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk>,
at 23:00:11 on Wed, 14 Nov 2012, D.M. Procida
<real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> remarked:

>> >What on earth are they supposed to do?
>>
>> Get a proper lorry to transport the stuff.
>
>I'm sure you'll be willing to chip in to help them buy one.
>
>It's frustrating when you're in the bank or the supermarket and there's
>a slow person taking ages in front of you.
>
>It's frustrating when you're hurrying along the pavement and there's a
>slow person taking ages in front of you.
>
>It's frustrating when you're in the car and there's a slow person taking
>ages in front of you.
>
>Do you want to live in a society where everything is measured by the
>speed of the swiftest, most able-bodied, most assured people,

We are talking about (professional) farmers using the right tools for
the job, not vulnerable people fumbling for change in their pocket.

> and where they are entitled to feel impatient with others who aren't
>as speedy as they are? I don't.

It's the equipment that isn't as speedy, not the driver.
--
Roland Perry

[GB]

On 14/11/2012 15:40, Fredxx wrote:

> There was a veiled threat made by a number of police forces that if
> there was a long queue behind a tractor, they would prosecute for due
> care and attention.

But they would have to battle their way through the queue first in order
to book him. :)

[Allan]

On 14/11/2012 10:15, Phil wrote:

Having read the other postings on this thread, my thoughts:

a) it's not about swiftest or maximising anything

b) it's about courtesy: why should one vehicle hold up a whole line

c) I tend to walk quite fast (cos I have long legs): when walking along
a busy pavement in town, people tend to look behind them and move aside
to let me past (I don't necessarily insist on moving past). What is it
about people in cars that is different from people on pavements.

d) I believe in Oregon US, there is a rule that if you are driving a
vehicle over a certain size, and there is a queue of more than 3 (?)
vehicles behind you, you are obliged to pull over (I could be wrong: it
was a few years ago that I was told this). What a good idea.

e) I live in a rural area, where a nearby stretch of (recently
detrunked) road between my village and the nearest main town (about 18
miles) is very busy, and often has HGVs and farm vehicles. There are
few opportunities to pass. One sees some terrible driving (by the
slower vehicles not letting queues pass) and some terrible driving by
people taking risks to over-take, and some bad accidents. I wonder how
long it will be before there is an accident caused by someone overtaking
an inconsiderate slow vehicle, and someone trying to prosecute the
driver of the slow vehicle for contributing to the accident.

Allan

[Steve Firth]

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <1ktknhb.z13vuo1541fxuN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk>, at 23:00:11 on Wed,
> 14 Nov 2012, D.M. Procida <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> What on earth are they supposed to do?
>>>
>>> Get a proper lorry to transport the stuff.
>>
>> I'm sure you'll be willing to chip in to help them buy one.
>>
>> It's frustrating when you're in the bank or the supermarket and there's
>> a slow person taking ages in front of you.
>>
>> It's frustrating when you're hurrying along the pavement and there's a
>> slow person taking ages in front of you.
>>
>> It's frustrating when you're in the car and there's a slow person taking
>> ages in front of you.
>>
>> Do you want to live in a society where everything is measured by the
>> speed of the swiftest, most able-bodied, most assured people,
>
> We are talking about (professional) farmers using the right tools for the
> job, not vulnerable people fumbling for change in their pocket.

They use the right tools for the job.

There is no truck made, other than specialist army vehicles. That can haul
several tonnes of grain or straw from a field.

>> and where they are entitled to feel impatient with others who aren't >as
>> speedy as they are? I don't.
>
> It's the equipment that isn't as speedy, not the driver.

A modern tractor can tow at 40 mph. Which is the same speed limit applied
to a truck on a S/C road.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Clive George]

On 15/11/2012 10:30, Allan wrote:

> c) I tend to walk quite fast (cos I have long legs): when walking along
> a busy pavement in town, people tend to look behind them and move aside
> to let me past (I don't necessarily insist on moving past). What is it
> about people in cars that is different from people on pavements.

IME people never look behind them on pavements in that manner. Do you
ring a bell or have a bad cough? :-)

I walk fairly quickly too, and just thread my way through space.

[Jethro_uk]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:30:03 +0000, Allan wrote:

> e) I live in a rural area, where a nearby stretch of (recently
> detrunked) road between my village and the nearest main town (about 18
> miles) is very
> busy, and often has HGVs and farm vehicles. There are few
> opportunities
> to pass. One sees some terrible driving (by the slower vehicles not
> letting queues pass) and some terrible driving by people taking risks to
> over-take, and some bad accidents. I wonder how long it will be before
> there is an accident caused by someone overtaking an inconsiderate slow
> vehicle, and someone trying to prosecute the driver of the slow vehicle
> for contributing to the accident.

I couldn't see that happening. If a driver chooses to overtake, then they
are responsible for their actions. It's a little bit childish to try and
say "they made me do it". The only time the vehicle being overtaken could
be at fault is if they deliberately move out, or try to prevent the
manoeuvre.

[Roland Perry]

In message
<232606893374668325.224533%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org
>, at 11:40:03 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
remarked:

>> We are talking about (professional) farmers using the right tools for the
>> job, not vulnerable people fumbling for change in their pocket.
>
>They use the right tools for the job.
>
>There is no truck made, other than specialist army vehicles. That can haul
>several tonnes of grain or straw from a field.

The tractors I see are hauling things along a road. Beet seems to be a
popular crop locally. What they need is a better "tug" than a general
purpose tractor, and a more robust trailer to put the stuff in.

>>> and where they are entitled to feel impatient with others who aren't >as
>>> speedy as they are? I don't.
>>
>> It's the equipment that isn't as speedy, not the driver.
>
>A modern tractor can tow at 40 mph. Which is the same speed limit applied
>to a truck on a S/C road.

Maybe they have old tractors then. The loads they expect to pull are
absurdly large, and the trailers very unstable looking. I'm not sure
they'd be safe at 40mph.
--
Roland Perry

[Ian Smith]

Sadly, though, your expectation of reasonable behaviour from the
police and prosecutors is misplaced.

In the Daniel Cadden case, the police arrested a cyclist who was
cycling legally and in accordance with the national standard for cycle
training because he was 'forcing' cars to cross a solid white line to
overtake him. He was prosecuted. The judge was of the opinion the
cyclist should not have been cycling on the road at all and he was
initially found guilty.

The police did not make any attempt to apprehend the cars that were
illegally crossing the solid white lines.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Ian Jackson]

In message <slrnkaa12...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, Ian Smith
<i...@astounding.org.uk> writes

There are occasions when you ARE allowed to cross the double solid white
lines, or the solid + dotted, with the solid on your side.

When I were a lad, I'm pretty sure that it was stated simply as being
'to overtake very-slow-moving traffic'. However, I believe that, these
days, it is restricted specifically to things like agricultural
vehicles, and cyclists are not mentioned.
--
Ian

[Nightjar]

On 15/11/2012 10:30, Allan wrote:

....

> Having read the other postings on this thread, my thoughts:

....

> b) it's about courtesy: why should one vehicle hold up a whole line

Something that could be asked of a large number of drivers on many
roads, not just agricultural vehicles.

....

> d) I believe in Oregon US, there is a rule that if you are driving a
> vehicle over a certain size, and there is a queue of more than 3 (?)
> vehicles behind you, you are obliged to pull over (I could be wrong: it
> was a few years ago that I was told this). What a good idea.

In Britain, a vehicle over a certain size (3m wide) has to have Police
permission if travelling more than 5 miles and, if over 3.5m wide, for
any distance has to have Police permission, an escort vehicle and travel
at a maximum speed of 12mph.

Colin Bignell

[Lieutenant Scott]

If I'm in a queue and see someone indicating out of the layby, I'll always let them out. After all I'm not going to be stuck in a big queue am I? I'll be in the front of it, 1st to overtake.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Auctioneer, n. The man who proclaims with a hammer that he has picked a pocket with his tongue.

[Peter Parry]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:45:02 +0000, Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>When I were a lad, I'm pretty sure that it was stated simply as being
>'to overtake very-slow-moving traffic'. However, I believe that, these
>days, it is restricted specifically to things like agricultural
>vehicles, and cyclists are not mentioned.

HC Rule 129 - "You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road
is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle,
horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph
(16 km/h) or less"

[the Omrud]

On 15/11/2012 15:45, Ian Jackson wrote:

> When I were a lad, I'm pretty sure that it was stated simply as being
> 'to overtake very-slow-moving traffic'. However, I believe that, these
> days, it is restricted specifically to things like agricultural
> vehicles, and cyclists are not mentioned.

Nope, it's clearer now:

108: Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means
you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to
enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if
necessary to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse
or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or less.

--
David

[Roland Perry]

In message <7gaaa8d59aghttnls...@4ax.com>, at 17:50:02 on
Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> remarked:

>HC Rule 129 - "You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road
>is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle,
>horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph
>(16 km/h) or less"

So no overtaking cyclists doing 11 mph!
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <5X9ps.296575$W63.2...@fx05.am4>, at 17:55:02 on Thu, 15
Nov 2012, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> remarked:

>108: Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means
>you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to
>enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if
>necessary to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle,
>horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or
>less.

Does anyone know if you are allowed to enter a mandatory cycle lane to
overtake a stationary vehicle? The place I have in mind in central
Cambridge has such a cycle lane (as a contraflow) and if someone parks
on the LHS of the road you probably won't be able to get past unless you
enter that cycle lane (which FAOD will be on your offside).
--
Roland Perry

[Percy Picacity]

On 2012-11-15 11:40:03 +0000, Steve Firth said:


>>
>
> A modern tractor can tow at 40 mph. Which is the same speed limit applied
> to a truck on a S/C road.

It may be applied, but it doesn't generally stick!
--

Percy Picacity

[Ian Jackson]

In message <7gaaa8d59aghttnls...@4ax.com>, Peter Parry
<pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> writes

Noted. However, it does seem strange that the law is so specific. A slow
vehicle is a slow vehicle. If they have to be specific, I would
certainly have thought that agricultural vehicles would have been
included.
--
Ian

[Clive George]

Most agricultural vehicles go faster than 10mph. They also tend to be
wider, so the risk in overtaking them against a white line will be
higher than for eg a pootling bike.

In practice, so long as you do it safely, crossing a solid white line
while passing a cyclist going rather faster than 10mph will be fine. And
I much prefer the drivers who do this to those who try and stay within
the lane, even when it's obvious that there's space.

[Roland Perry]

In message <IjWqcjCO...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>, at 19:45:02 on Thu, 15
Nov 2012, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> remarked:

>>HC Rule 129 - "You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road
>>is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle,
>>horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph
>>(16 km/h) or less"
>
>Noted. However, it does seem strange that the law is so specific.

They probably have a mental image of a road maintenance vehicle as a
"steam roller".

Presumably if a stretch of road is actually under repair, there will be
a temporary TRO and/or temporary traffic lights.
--
Roland Perry

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-11-14, Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <k80hk6$tpe$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:45:01 on Wed, 14 Nov
> 2012, Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> remarked:
>>Specifically
>>
>>"If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other
>>public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable
>>consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty
>>of an offence."
>>
>>and
>>
>>"A person is to be regarded as driving without reasonable consideration
>>for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his
>>driving."
>
> That's another offence that isn't enforced very often then, almost every
> tractor driver in my part of the country is guilty of it. I wouldn't
> mind so much if they were moving the tractor and a plough from one field
> to another, but they routinely use them as tugs for implausibly large
> trailers, and tow them for miles and miles.

Are there decent places to pull over, and do people let the tractors
back in? I wouldn't expect someone to risk getting stuck in a ditch
or tearing up a fence or hedge, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone
got fed up with not being let back into the lane & so became less
inclined to pull over.

[Lieutenant Scott]

He's entirely off the road, not obstructing anyone. Delivery drivers have to stop somewhere.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

You know you're getting old when:
Your friends compliment you on your new alligator shoes and you're barefoot.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:45:02 -0000, Phil Mcbride <philmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> D.M. Procida wrote:
>> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>

>> > In message <k80hk6$tpe$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:45:01 on Wed, 14 Nov
>> > 2012, Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> remarked:
>> > >Specifically
>> > >
>> > >"If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other
>> > >public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable
>> > >consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty
>> > >of an offence."
>> > >
>> > >and
>> > >
>> > >"A person is to be regarded as driving without reasonable consideration
>> > >for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his
>> > >driving."
>> >
>> > That's another offence that isn't enforced very often then, almost every
>> > tractor driver in my part of the country is guilty of it. I wouldn't
>> > mind so much if they were moving the tractor and a plough from one field
>> > to another, but they routinely use them as tugs for implausibly large
>> > trailers, and tow them for miles and miles.
>>

>> What on earth are they supposed to do? Keep ducking embarrassedly into
>> the side of the road because someone more important's behind them? I
>> don't suppose that people who have to tow huge loads for miles and miles
>> are doing it on some sort of whim.
>>

>> Daniele
>
> That said if it was one car being slowed down by a tractor then maybe
> it is one person's right vs. another, and there is no clear *moral*
> justification for the tractor pulling over.
>
> But if it is a mile of cars behind a slow tractor that is passing
> empty lay bys, then surely it is common courtesy to pull over and let
> the traffic pass?

Agreed, I've done it in a CAR when I'm going slow for some reason (mechanical problem, towing something heavy, carrying something fragile, etc).

I feel guilty if there are people behind me.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Los Angeles's full name is “El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora la
Reina de los Angeles de Porciuncula” and can be
abbreviated to 3.63% of its size, “L.A.”

[Nick]

"Phil" <philmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0f09bdcb-ee18-4615...@googlegroups.com...

Last night I was in a convoy that stretched as far as the eye could see,
stuck behind a tractor going at 15mph during rush hour. From where I joined
to convoy to where I left, it was several miles. Needless to say during this
time there was no opportunity to overtake safely.

Over this distance, we passed a number of empty lay bys. Meanwhile I was
witness to some of the most dangerous convoy queue jumping and overtaking at
junctions (where the road broadens to permit turning traffic to not obstruct
others), across hatched lines and so on.

Apart from "common sense" of not being an inconvenience to other drivers, is
there any road legislation that requires slow moving vehicles to pull over
at the first opportunity to let other drivers pass?

If so what is the legal "threshold" slow speed? If no what speed would you
consider an acceptable lower limit under normal road conditions?

Just a few comments on this posting.
I am not a farmer, but my father was. I have some experience, albeit some
years back.
Farmers grow stuff that, direct or indirect, feeds and clothes us. Their
produce is what we purchase in shops after processing, packaging and various
other dire requirements.
When necessary farmers start work before dawn and finish after dark.
2012 is, I believe, on record as having one of the worst weather records.
Much farm produce is time sensitive.
I suspect that if you were to visit your local shop or supermarket and find
that there was no bread, meat, vegetables, dairy product etc. you would not
be a happy bunny.
How do you think this produce magically appeared in shops?
By farmers with tractors and trailers, that's how.
To work fields and gather produce, a tractor, with attachments, is required.
A conventional road going lorry is (generally) no good for the job.
Somewhere in this thread is some ref. to farm trailers being unstable (or
similar). I say this is utter tosh.
After the haulage business, the farming industry is perhaps the most highly
regulated. To be in business, farmers must be competitive. To do so they
need to be abreast of modern methods and invest heavily in modern machinery.

Perhaps we should do away with UK farming altogether and import even more
than we do now. No more tractors blocking the roads but a lot more foreign
trucks. Farms could be converted to B+B's.
Perhaps the OP should take up patience, or try the M25 on a busy day.
Apologies for my [minor] rant.
Nick.

[Nick]

"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ls68a8t30kh5bou70...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 20:35:01 +0000,
> real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
> > In message <k80hk6$tpe$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:45:01 on Wed, 14 Nov
>>> 2012, Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> remarked:

> Well actually, they are not supposed to be driving tractors for miles
> on the roads.
>
> They will most likely be fuelled with Red Diesel, and the amount that
> can be used on the road is very limited.
>
Quote please on both the above statements. I believe neither is correct.
Nick.

[Steve Firth]

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <232606893374668325.224533%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org
>> , at 11:40:03 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> remarked:
>>> We are talking about (professional) farmers using the right tools for the
>>> job, not vulnerable people fumbling for change in their pocket.
>>
>> They use the right tools for the job.
>>
>> There is no truck made, other than specialist army vehicles. That can haul
>> several tonnes of grain or straw from a field.
>
> The tractors I see are hauling things along a road.

Yes... And where would you guess that they come from or are going to?

> Beet seems to be a popular crop locally. What they need is a better "tug"
> than a general purpose tractor, and a more robust trailer to put the stuff in.

I'm sure if you write to the farms concerned offering this advice they will
take your suggestions under consideration and may give you some feedback on
why they work as they do.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Ian Smith]

Indeed, but Daniel Cadden was cycling at more than 10mph - all parties
agreed that was the case. So the vehicles should not have crossed the
line, yet the police arrested the cyclist who was 'forcing' motorists
to break the law, but not the motorists who were breaking the law.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <xf2FlsUQ...@perry.co.uk>,

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <5X9ps.296575$W63.2...@fx05.am4>, at 17:55:02 on Thu, 15
>Nov 2012, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>108: Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means
>>you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to
>>enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if
>>necessary to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle,
>>horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or
>>less.
>
>Does anyone know if you are allowed to enter a mandatory cycle lane to
>overtake a stationary vehicle?

No, I think you are not.

> The place I have in mind in central
>Cambridge has such a cycle lane (as a contraflow) and if someone parks
>on the LHS of the road you probably won't be able to get past unless you
>enter that cycle lane (which FAOD will be on your offside).

Someone parking like that is obstructing the highway. You should stop
and call the police.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

[Nightjar]

Assuming the lane is marked with a line to Diagram 1004 of the Traffic
Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, the meaning of the line
is that motor vehicles should not enter the cycle lane, unless that lane
is clear of pedal cycles.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/schedule/6/made

Colin Bignell

[Roland Perry]

In message
<1052625726374696009.582950%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.or
g>, at 18:40:02 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
remarked:

>> The tractors I see are hauling things along a road.
>
>Yes... And where would you guess that they come from or are going to?

From the side of a field to a depot some distance away.

>> Beet seems to be a popular crop locally. What they need is a better "tug"
>> than a general purpose tractor, and a more robust trailer to put the stuff in.
>
>I'm sure if you write to the farms concerned offering this advice they will
>take your suggestions under consideration and may give you some feedback on
>why they work as they do.

Because they are saving costs to the detriment of other road users.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <bwq*cd...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 19:35:02 on Thu,
15 Nov 2012, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:

>>Does anyone know if you are allowed to enter a mandatory cycle lane to
>>overtake a stationary vehicle?
>
>No, I think you are not.

That's what I suspected.

>> The place I have in mind in central
>>Cambridge has such a cycle lane (as a contraflow) and if someone parks
>>on the LHS of the road you probably won't be able to get past unless you
>>enter that cycle lane (which FAOD will be on your offside).
>
>Someone parking like that is obstructing the highway. You should stop
>and call the police.

It was normally happening when I was heading for the station, and didn't
want to miss a train.

This lady (no identifying marks) is trying to solve the problem by
parking on the pavement <sigh> but you can see how a Transit van or
similar vehicle parked there would cause some people to infringe the
cycle lane. http://www.perry.co.uk/images/pembroke-parking.jpg

(I have another picture which clearly shows it's a little narrower than
two Range-Rover widths).

It's quite likely the "no queuing past here for the car park" yellow
plate is positioned to avoid this sort of problem, but I don't think
such a plate has any legal force of its own.

Oddly enough there's an almost identical sign about a hundred yards from
the DHL van in my earlier picture.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <8pCdnRRzWs4y0DjN...@giganews.com>, at 20:20:02
on Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk>
remarked:

>Assuming the lane is marked with a line to Diagram 1004 of the Traffic
>Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, the meaning of the line
>is that motor vehicles should not enter the cycle lane, unless that
>lane is clear of pedal cycles.
>
>http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/schedule/6/made

That's not a compulsory cycle lane, which has a solid white line
(diagram 1049 perhaps).
--
Roland Perry

[Sam Plusnet]

In article <5X9ps.296575$W63.2...@fx05.am4>, usenet...@gmail.com
says...

I don't understand the point of the 10mph bit.

Since a cyclist's velocity at any moment in time can only be a matter of
conjecture[1], how can a court make a finding based on this unknowable
quantity?

[1] Unless there's a handy video camera.

--
Sam

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.wntl7aldytk5n5@i7-940>, at 15:25:02 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012,
Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> remarked:

>> Reminds me of when a delivery van pulled onto the pavement[1] on a road
>> in central Nottingham, double yellow lines, no stopping and no
>> unloading, and the two policemen walking along that very pavement just
>> skirted round it.
>>
>> I was so put out, I took a photo (of the van):
>>
>> http://www.perry.co.uk/images/dhl-no-stopping-unloading.jpg
>>
>> [1] So none of the "no-one saw you do it" nonsense.
>
>He's entirely off the road, not obstructing anyone.

He's obstructing pedestrians.

And things such as "No Stopping" and "No Unloading" also apply to the
pavement, a bit of a belt-and-braces approach as it's illegal to be
there at all.

>Delivery drivers have to stop somewhere.

The businesses along that side of the road all have off-road parking
(there's effectively nothing on the other side of the road).
--
Roland Perry

[Sam Plusnet]

In article <8cydnVAR2u5jcjnN...@brightview.co.uk>,
cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk says...

>
> On 15/11/2012 10:30, Allan wrote:
>

> > c) I tend to walk quite fast (cos I have long legs): when walking along
> > a busy pavement in town, people tend to look behind them and move aside
> > to let me past (I don't necessarily insist on moving past). What is it
> > about people in cars that is different from people on pavements.
>
> IME people never look behind them on pavements in that manner. Do you
> ring a bell or have a bad cough? :-)
>
> I walk fairly quickly too, and just thread my way through space.

And most people don't seem to worry about obstructing others.

If they meet friends, they will stop & gather in an amorphous group to
chat - they seem to have an instinct for arranging themselves into a
pavement-blocking[1] mass.

[1] Or aisle-blocking if in a supermarket - one or two trolleys form a
great barricade.
If only the Paris mob had been equipped with supermarket trolleys in
1830.

--
Sam

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-11-15, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:00:05 -0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message
>> <4985c551-c4a2-49eb...@qi10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, at
>> 18:50:02 on Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Phil Mcbride <philmc...@gmail.com>
>> remarked:
>>> I have seen a police car overtake a slow tractor before. The police
>>> car wasn't blue lighting so they weren't in an emergency. If the
>>> police wanted to stop them for being an obstruction or DWDCAA they
>>> would've.
>>
>> No, the whole point is they often wouldn't.
>>
>> Reminds me of when a delivery van pulled onto the pavement[1] on a road
>> in central Nottingham, double yellow lines, no stopping and no
>> unloading, and the two policemen walking along that very pavement just
>> skirted round it.
>>
>> I was so put out, I took a photo (of the van):
>>
>> http://www.perry.co.uk/images/dhl-no-stopping-unloading.jpg
>>
>> [1] So none of the "no-one saw you do it" nonsense.
>
> He's entirely off the road, not obstructing anyone. Delivery drivers have to stop somewhere.

He's obstructing pedestrians, who are the rightful users of the
pavement. Delivery drivers should find a legal place to unload or get
ticketed.

[D.M. Procida]

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> In message

> <232606893374668325.224533%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org
> >, at 11:40:03 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
> remarked:
> >> We are talking about (professional) farmers using the right tools for the
> >> job, not vulnerable people fumbling for change in their pocket.
> >
> >They use the right tools for the job.
> >
> >There is no truck made, other than specialist army vehicles. That can haul
> >several tonnes of grain or straw from a field.
>

> The tractors I see are hauling things along a road. Beet seems to be a

> popular crop locally. What they need is a better "tug" than a general
> purpose tractor, and a more robust trailer to put the stuff in.

If these so-called farmers had any sense, they would have "floating
balloon tugs".

The floating balloon tugs would carry their produce and other things
serenely over the fields, so that other people hurrying to important
meetings didn't have to slow down at all.

It's this lack of imagination that's responsible for the dire state of
the farming industry in this country, and the terrible delays on country
roads.

Daniele

[Zapp Brannigan]

"Ian Smith" <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnkaae0...@acheron.astounding.org.uk...

Quite right too, in my view. Mr Cadden was blocking a whole lane,
ignoring the cycle lane provided for his comfort and safety.

This is the social equivalent of emitting loud, stinking farts in a crowded
lift - it may be perfectly lawful, but those who relish doing so should not
expect sympathy from the other people who must suffer their ill-mannered
behaviour.

[Judith]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:30:03 +0000, Allan <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

>c) I tend to walk quite fast (cos I have long legs): when walking along
>a busy pavement in town, people tend to look behind them and move aside
>to let me past

How do they know that you are there?

Do you use the cyclists call of "coming through" or "get out of the fucking
way"? - both of which I have heard.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:35:02 -0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <op.wntl7aldytk5n5@i7-940>, at 15:25:02 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012,
> Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>>> Reminds me of when a delivery van pulled onto the pavement[1] on a road
>>> in central Nottingham, double yellow lines, no stopping and no
>>> unloading, and the two policemen walking along that very pavement just
>>> skirted round it.
>>>
>>> I was so put out, I took a photo (of the van):
>>>
>>> http://www.perry.co.uk/images/dhl-no-stopping-unloading.jpg
>>>
>>> [1] So none of the "no-one saw you do it" nonsense.
>>
>> He's entirely off the road, not obstructing anyone.
>
> He's obstructing pedestrians.

I can see plenty room.

And the world isn't big enough for everyone, people have to obstruct something.

> And things such as "No Stopping" and "No Unloading" also apply to the
> pavement, a bit of a belt-and-braces approach as it's illegal to be
> there at all.

Those are put there so the council can make money off us in fines.

>> Delivery drivers have to stop somewhere.
>
> The businesses along that side of the road all have off-road parking
> (there's effectively nothing on the other side of the road).

And a delivery driver who probably went there once would know this I suppose....

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Drugs lead nowhere, but it's the scenic route.

[Lieutenant Scott]

People should learn to share and not be so protective of what's "rightfully mine". Typical modern capitalist attitude.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

A gang-member was holding his 8-month-old baby while his wife was in kitchen fixing lunch.
The baby murmured "mother".
The guy gets all excited and hollered to his wife "Hey, the baby just said half a word!"

[m...@privacy.net]

On 15 Nov,

Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> When I were a lad, I'm pretty sure that it was stated simply as being
> 'to overtake very-slow-moving traffic'. However, I believe that, these
> days, it is restricted specifically to things like agricultural
> vehicles, and cyclists are not mentioned.

My defensive driving course (by a police instructor) about 10 years ago said
it was legal (if it was safe) to cross the double white line *only* if the
bicycle was travelling less than 10mph.

Even well into my 60s my bicycle rarely averages less than 10mph.

--
BD
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

[Roland Perry]

In message <MPG.2b0f723fd...@news.plus.net>, at 21:45:02 on
Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> remarked:

>If they meet friends, they will stop & gather in an amorphous group to
>chat - they seem to have an instinct for arranging themselves into a
>pavement-blocking[1] mass.

I don't know if you are familiar with the new tunnels under Kings Cross
liking the new ticket halls to the Piccadilly and Victoria Lines, but
for some reason (perhaps because of the distance) are very prone to
families walking hand-in-hand four or five abreast, taking up almost all
the width - for both directions not just the way they are going.

Meanwhile, one of the things I've noticed since moving to a smaller and
more country-atmosphere place is the propensity of locals to take one
step inside a shop doorway then grind to a complete halt (complete with
bags, pushchairs etc) for what feels like a lifetime looking from left
to right to see where in the shop they want to head to next. If they
tried that in the Big City they'd just get flattened!
--
Roland Perry

[Clive George]

On 15/11/2012 22:55, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

> Quite right too, in my view. Mr Cadden was blocking a whole lane,
> ignoring the cycle lane provided for his comfort and safety.

I'd like to discourage cyclists from riding quickly on the pavement, and
that's what that cycle lane was - it wasn't dedicated to bikes.
Fortunately it appears the law eventually agreed.

So he wasn't ignoring it, he'd determined that it was unsuitable for use
at that time.

There's a section of cycle lane/pavement near Southampton I use
occasionally. Going uphill, I'll be on the pavement (legally). It's
steep enough that I'm going at a suitable pace. Going the other way,
I'll definitely not use the pavement. You seem to think this is bad -
I'm afraid I have to disagree.

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:40:02 +0000, Lieutenant Scott put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:35:02 -0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <op.wntl7aldytk5n5@i7-940>, at 15:25:02 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012,
>> Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>>>> Reminds me of when a delivery van pulled onto the pavement[1] on a road
>>>> in central Nottingham, double yellow lines, no stopping and no
>>>> unloading, and the two policemen walking along that very pavement just
>>>> skirted round it.
>>>>
>>>> I was so put out, I took a photo (of the van):
>>>>
>>>> http://www.perry.co.uk/images/dhl-no-stopping-unloading.jpg
>>>>
>>>> [1] So none of the "no-one saw you do it" nonsense.
>>>
>>> He's entirely off the road, not obstructing anyone.
>>
>> He's obstructing pedestrians.
>
>I can see plenty room.

What you are able or unable to see isn't the issue, it's what the situation
actually is.

>> The businesses along that side of the road all have off-road parking
>> (there's effectively nothing on the other side of the road).
>
>And a delivery driver who probably went there once would know this I suppose....

It's their job to make themselves aware of things like that. In any case,
there are signs.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

[Simon Finnigan]

Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> considered Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:35:02 +0000

> You are supposed to slow down behind the cyclist before overtaking, at
> which point you can establish his speed from your own, following him.
>
> This has the additional benefit that you will have time to ensure the
> other lane is clear before pulling into it, and that the hopefully
> brief time you spend on the wrong side of the road will be at a lower
> and safer speed.

And take longer, making the manoeuvre more dangerous. Accelerating up again
from 10mph means you'll have to spend longer crossing the white line than
starting from a higher speed.

[Scion]

Phil W Lee spake thus:

> Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> considered Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:35:02 +0000
> the perfect time to write:
>

> You are supposed to slow down behind the cyclist before overtaking, at
> which point you can establish his speed from your own, following him.
>
> This has the additional benefit that you will have time to ensure the
> other lane is clear before pulling into it, and that the hopefully brief
> time you spend on the wrong side of the road will be at a lower and
> safer speed.

Speedos are notoriously inaccurate at low speeds. I've had cars where the
needle shows 10mph when the car is stationary - by design, rather than a
fault with my particular speedos.

One would hope that this is an area of the law where the police would
exercise discretion.

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.wnt9auwpytk5n5@i7-940>, at 23:40:02 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012,

Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>>>> Reminds me of when a delivery van pulled onto the pavement[1] on a road
>>>> in central Nottingham, double yellow lines, no stopping and no
>>>> unloading, and the two policemen walking along that very pavement just
>>>> skirted round it.
>>>>
>>>> I was so put out, I took a photo (of the van):
>>>>
>>>> http://www.perry.co.uk/images/dhl-no-stopping-unloading.jpg
>>>>
>>>> [1] So none of the "no-one saw you do it" nonsense.
>>>
>>> He's entirely off the road, not obstructing anyone.
>>
>> He's obstructing pedestrians.
>
>I can see plenty room.

It might just pass the "Nottingham police test" which is that if you can
get a buggy past, they'll ignore the pavement parking, a practice which
is endemic throughout the whole city and its suburbs.

>And the world isn't big enough for everyone, people have to obstruct something.

The people whose job it is to paint yellow lines and invent "no
stopping/loading" are the ones who are supposed to make that sort of
decision. Not individual drivers choosing to ignore the rules.

>> And things such as "No Stopping" and "No Unloading" also apply to the
>> pavement, a bit of a belt-and-braces approach as it's illegal to be
>> there at all.
>
>Those are put there so the council can make money off us in fines.

In this case they are there because it's a very busy inner ring road (no
vehicles on it when I took the photo only because they are stopped at
the lights in the middle distance).

At places like zebra crossings the zig-zag markings (whose applicability
to the pavement too, is similarly ignored by van drivers and enforcers
in Nottingham) is so pedestrians have unobstructed sight lines.

>>> Delivery drivers have to stop somewhere.
>>
>> The businesses along that side of the road all have off-road parking
>> (there's effectively nothing on the other side of the road).
>
>And a delivery driver who probably went there once would know this I suppose....

In the photo you can see the gate pillars of the delivery yard for the
buildings this van is parked outside. And as a driver for a courier
company, working from his local depot, not being familiar with where to
park in on of the busiest streets of the City that he'll be driving on
several times a day on the way somewhere else, must surely count as
lacking "due care and attention".
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.wnt9bysyytk5n5@i7-940>, at 23:40:02 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012,
Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> remarked:

>> He's obstructing pedestrians, who are the rightful users of the
>> pavement. Delivery drivers should find a legal place to unload or get
>> ticketed.
>
>People should learn to share and not be so protective of what's "rightfully mine".

The law has decided that does not need to extend to pedestrians sharing
the pavement with parked vans.
--
Roland Perry

[Nightjar]

On 16/11/2012 03:10, Phil W Lee wrote:
....

> You are supposed to slow down behind the cyclist before overtaking, at
> which point you can establish his speed from your own, following him.

As others have pointed out, older car speedometers don't even register
at under 10mph.

> This has the additional benefit that you will have time to ensure the
> other lane is clear before pulling into it, and that the hopefully
> brief time you spend on the wrong side of the road will be at a lower
> and safer speed.

It will be a less brief time than if you had not slowed down, so,
assuming that you are already looking as far ahead as the road will
permit, the only thing that makes the slower speed safer is that it will
reduce the energy in any accident.

Colin Bignell

[Nightjar]

I've never seen that line used for cycle lanes, except to divide a
pavement between pedestrian and cycle use, but it does appear that, if
it is used on the carriageway, then it would prohibit cars from entering
the cycle lane.

Colin Bignell

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:10:10 -0000, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:40:02 +0000, Lieutenant Scott put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:35:02 -0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <op.wntl7aldytk5n5@i7-940>, at 15:25:02 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012,
>>> Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>>>>> Reminds me of when a delivery van pulled onto the pavement[1] on a road
>>>>> in central Nottingham, double yellow lines, no stopping and no
>>>>> unloading, and the two policemen walking along that very pavement just
>>>>> skirted round it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was so put out, I took a photo (of the van):
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.perry.co.uk/images/dhl-no-stopping-unloading.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] So none of the "no-one saw you do it" nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> He's entirely off the road, not obstructing anyone.
>>>
>>> He's obstructing pedestrians.
>>
>> I can see plenty room.
>
> What you are able or unable to see isn't the issue, it's what the situation
> actually is.

And on the van's left, there is lots of room on the pavement. We can see this from the photo. It's not just "what I see", it's what anyone with a functional pair of eyes and the photo in front of them can see.

>>> The businesses along that side of the road all have off-road parking
>>> (there's effectively nothing on the other side of the road).
>>
>> And a delivery driver who probably went there once would know this I suppose....
>
> It's their job to make themselves aware of things like that. In any case,
> there are signs.

They deliver to a hundred sites a day. Researching parking on all of them would be ridiculous.

There are signs everywhere. Do you stop in the middle of the road while you read those stupidly small parking restriction signs?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

A man goes to the Doctor and says "Doctor I think my wife's been dead for two weeks."
"Dead for two weeks, how did you work that out?"
"Well, the sex is the same but the washing is starting to build up."

[D.M. Procida]

Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:

> >Since a cyclist's velocity at any moment in time can only be a matter of
> >conjecture[1], how can a court make a finding based on this unknowable
> >quantity?
> >
> >[1] Unless there's a handy video camera.
>

> You are supposed to slow down behind the cyclist before overtaking, at
> which point you can establish his speed from your own, following him.

According to whom?

The last thing I want while cycling is someone who wants to overtake in
a harder, larger vehicle slowing down behind me.

If someone wants to overtake, the sooner they do, and the less fuss they
make about it, the better.

Daniele

[Roland Perry]

In message <Zqmdnen_Y9GJijvN...@giganews.com>, at 10:40:02
on Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk>

remarked:
>>> Assuming the lane is marked with a line to Diagram 1004 of the Traffic
>>> Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, the meaning of the line
>>> is that motor vehicles should not enter the cycle lane, unless that
>>> lane is clear of pedal cycles.
>>>
>>> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/schedule/6/made
>>
>> That's not a compulsory cycle lane, which has a solid white line
>> (diagram 1049 perhaps).
>
>I've never seen that line used for cycle lanes, except to divide a
>pavement between pedestrian and cycle use, but it does appear that, if
>it is used on the carriageway, then it would prohibit cars from
>entering the cycle lane.

There are compulsory cycle lanes all over the place (forward flow as
well as contra-flow). Just in case there is any doubt, here's the
Streetview of the location whose photo I posted earlier.

http://goo.gl/maps/AQpSJ
--
Roland Perry

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:55:02 -0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <op.wnt9auwpytk5n5@i7-940>, at 23:40:02 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012,
> Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>>>>> Reminds me of when a delivery van pulled onto the pavement[1] on a road
>>>>> in central Nottingham, double yellow lines, no stopping and no
>>>>> unloading, and the two policemen walking along that very pavement just
>>>>> skirted round it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was so put out, I took a photo (of the van):
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.perry.co.uk/images/dhl-no-stopping-unloading.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] So none of the "no-one saw you do it" nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> He's entirely off the road, not obstructing anyone.
>>>
>>> He's obstructing pedestrians.
>>
>> I can see plenty room.
>
> It might just pass the "Nottingham police test" which is that if you can
> get a buggy past, they'll ignore the pavement parking, a practice which
> is endemic throughout the whole city and its suburbs.

I'd be happy if you could get a non-clinically-obese person past. I see no reason for these enormous pushchairs that people use nowadays. When I was a baby, I was in a pushchair no wider than a well built adult. And it didn't have huge wheels either, they were about 3-4 inches in diameter and not pneumatic. Presumably if someone dared to use such a thing nowadays they'd get locked up for child abuse by the social worker Nazis.

>> And the world isn't big enough for everyone, people have to obstruct something.
>
> The people whose job it is to paint yellow lines and invent "no
> stopping/loading" are the ones who are supposed to make that sort of
> decision. Not individual drivers choosing to ignore the rules.

That's the problem with the world. Decisions are made by people who aren't in the location the decision affects.

>>> And things such as "No Stopping" and "No Unloading" also apply to the
>>> pavement, a bit of a belt-and-braces approach as it's illegal to be
>>> there at all.
>>
>> Those are put there so the council can make money off us in fines.
>
> In this case they are there because it's a very busy inner ring road (no
> vehicles on it when I took the photo only because they are stopped at
> the lights in the middle distance).
>
> At places like zebra crossings the zig-zag markings (whose applicability
> to the pavement too, is similarly ignored by van drivers and enforcers
> in Nottingham) is so pedestrians have unobstructed sight lines.

The van is taking up virtually no road space, so he's not causing congestion.
And it doesn't look like he's blocking a pedestrians view either.

>>>> Delivery drivers have to stop somewhere.
>>>
>>> The businesses along that side of the road all have off-road parking
>>> (there's effectively nothing on the other side of the road).
>>
>> And a delivery driver who probably went there once would know this I suppose....
>
> In the photo you can see the gate pillars of the delivery yard for the
> buildings this van is parked outside. And as a driver for a courier
> company, working from his local depot, not being familiar with where to
> park in on of the busiest streets of the City that he'll be driving on
> several times a day on the way somewhere else, must surely count as
> lacking "due care and attention".

There may well be nowhere else convenient to park. The guy has to carry large heavy parcels to the building, not spend 10 minutes doing so as he has a busy schedule, and not leave his van for ages to get things stolen from. Couriers delivering to me even complain when they have to ring the bell of the next door neighbour and get them to sign for it, as it doubles the time spent here (or more if they have to try a few neighbours until one is in). They have a lot of deliveries to make. I've ended up signing a document for a couple of them which they keep in the van authorising them to leave parcels in my shed.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Why do our kids have to take the Iowa Test for Basic Skills?
Why can't we have a Georgia Test of Basic Skills with questions like,
"Bubba's got three cars and he done traded for two more. How many cement blocks is Bubba gonna need?"

[Lieutenant Scott]

The law needs to learn to allow sharing then.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

"Click cancel to discontinue starting" - Mac OS 9

[Ian Jackson]

In article <k83ro1$u31$1...@dont-email.me>,

Zapp Brannigan <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
>Quite right too, in my view.

Shrewsbury Crown Court, which decided Daniel Cadden's appeal,
disagrees with you.

> Mr Cadden was blocking a whole lane,
>ignoring the cycle lane provided for his comfort and safety.

There wasn't a cycle lane. There was a shared use pavement on the
opposite side of the road.

The court agreed with Cadden that it would have been wholly
inappropriate for Cadden to ride on that shared use pavement at his
speed of around 20mph. Ie, the thing which the police wanted him to
do would have been unlawful.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.wnu5o9adytk5n5@i7-940>, at 11:20:02 on Fri, 16 Nov 2012,
Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> remarked:

>on the van's left, there is lots of room on the pavement.

Not for some sizes of pushchair. And it's moot anyway, as parking there
is illegal about three times over.

>They deliver to a hundred sites a day. Researching parking on all of them would be ridiculous.

Can't you see the gateposts for the entrance to the off-street parking,
just behind the van? How much research does that take.

>There are signs everywhere. Do you stop in the middle of the road while you read those stupidly small parking restriction signs?

There are rather large yellow lines, and anyone who thinks that
stopping/unloading on the Nottingham inner ring road is likely to be
allowed is so unobservant they should perhaps consider going back to
driver training.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.wnu74qxkytk5n5@i7-940>, at 12:15:03 on Fri, 16 Nov 2012,
Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> remarked:

>> In the photo you can see the gate pillars of the delivery yard for the
>> buildings this van is parked outside.

...

>There may well be nowhere else convenient to park.

Nowhere else than the delivery yard? He seems to have found a bit of
pavement.
--
Roland Perry

[Serena Blanchflower]

Don't forget that pushchairs also come in adult sizes (when they're
more often referred to as wheelchairs). Looking at the picture, I'm
not sure how easy it would be to fit a wheelchair through the
remaining gap.

--
Cheers, Serena

Whenever I get the urge to exercise, I lie down until the feeling
passes. (Robert Hutchins)

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:30:03 -0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <op.wnu5o9adytk5n5@i7-940>, at 11:20:02 on Fri, 16 Nov 2012,
> Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>
>> on the van's left, there is lots of room on the pavement.
>
> Not for some sizes of pushchair. And it's moot anyway, as parking there
> is illegal about three times over.

The point of parking being illegal is that you're causing a problem. So it certainly isn't moot.

>> They deliver to a hundred sites a day. Researching parking on all of them would be ridiculous.
>
> Can't you see the gateposts for the entrance to the off-street parking,
> just behind the van? How much research does that take.

Can you see what's inside the gates? It might be full. The company might have told him that things need regular access in and out and he shouldn't go in there and get in their way.

>> There are signs everywhere. Do you stop in the middle of the road while you read those stupidly small parking restriction signs?
>
> There are rather large yellow lines, and anyone who thinks that
> stopping/unloading on the Nottingham inner ring road is likely to be
> allowed is so unobservant they should perhaps consider going back to
> driver training.

I'm referring to single yellow lines which all have completely differnt meanings dependant on the silly little yellow signs they hide away, usually half rusted. Not possible to read them without stopping (especially as they normally face sideways).

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Q. What did the sign on the door of the whorehouse say?
A. Beat it - we're closed.

[Lieutenant Scott]

As I said in my other reply, the delivery yard might be full. We can't see it in the photo.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

What's the difference between PMS and Mad Cow Disease?
The number of tits.

[Nightjar]

I'm not doubting they exist; I have just never seen one. All those
around here use a broken line, even where adding a cycle lane on each
side of the road has been used as a way to narrow it as a traffic
calming measure. I expect it varies according to local authority policy.

Out of interest, for whom is the lane compulsory? Are cyclists in some
way forced to use it or is it simply that motor vehicles are not allowed
to enter it?

Colin Bignell

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.wnvd0uffytk5n5@i7-940>, at 14:20:12 on Fri, 16 Nov 2012,
Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> remarked:

>> Nowhere else than the delivery yard? He seems to have found a bit of
>> pavement.
>
>As I said in my other reply, the delivery yard might be full. We can't see it in the photo.

I was there, it wasn't; and isn't ever at that time of day.

But the alternative to using a delivery yard isn't "fly parking". It's
finding a legal place to park somewhere nearby.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <-eudnUOUS9vr0zvN...@giganews.com>, at 14:35:02

on Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk>
remarked:

>I'm not doubting they exist; I have just never seen one.

Perhaps they are more prevalent in some local authority areas than
others.

>All those around here use a broken line

...

>Out of interest, for whom is the lane compulsory?

It's compulsory that motorists keep out of it.

> Are cyclists in some way forced to use it or is it simply that motor
>vehicles are not allowed to enter it?

As it's a contraflow lane, it's probably highly advisable that cyclists
keep inside it too.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.wnu76fc8ytk5n5@i7-940>, at 12:15:03 on Fri, 16 Nov 2012,
Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> remarked:

>> The law has decided that does not need to extend to pedestrians sharing
>> the pavement with parked vans.
>
>The law needs to learn to allow sharing then.

It does, but only in certain prescribed circumstances.
--
Roland Perry

[Clive George]

I've met one or two cyclists who think that they should use the
contraflow cycle lane to go the other way, ie the same way as motor
traffic. They won't be persuaded otherwise. At that point you have to go
outside the lane to pass them.

(one tale was of somebody descending Mt Ventoux in the cycle lane.
There's one there for the uphill, because cyclists are slow up. There
isn't one for the downhill, because cyclists are more likely to be held
up by cars on the descent :-) Apparently this person was scattering
climbers - not good.)

For non-contraflow mandatory cycle lanes, just like bus lanes, you're
allowed to use the other bits of the road too.

[Roland Perry]

In message <xIKdnXhbmpVI9zvN...@brightview.co.uk>, at
16:35:02 on Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
remarked:

>I've met one or two cyclists who think that they should use the
>contraflow cycle lane to go the other way, ie the same way as motor
>traffic. They won't be persuaded otherwise. At that point you have to
>go outside the lane to pass them.

But a contraflow cycle lane will be on your offside, so you'll always be
outside that lane when overtaking a cyclist (ie you'll be on the
majority of the lefthand side of the road that isn't the contraflow
cycle lane).

I'm not that worried about cyclist going "wrong way" on such lanes
(because I'm going to keep out of them in any case), but they meet
cyclists going "right way" at both their's peril.
--
Roland Perry

[Clive George]

On 16/11/2012 16:55, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <xIKdnXhbmpVI9zvN...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 16:35:02 on Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
> remarked:
>> I've met one or two cyclists who think that they should use the
>> contraflow cycle lane to go the other way, ie the same way as motor
>> traffic. They won't be persuaded otherwise. At that point you have to
>> go outside the lane to pass them.
>
> But a contraflow cycle lane will be on your offside, so you'll always be
> outside that lane when overtaking a cyclist (ie you'll be on the
> majority of the lefthand side of the road that isn't the contraflow
> cycle lane).

I don't need to overtake. But if we're going in opposite directions we
do need to pass.

> I'm not that worried about cyclist going "wrong way" on such lanes
> (because I'm going to keep out of them in any case), but they meet
> cyclists going "right way" at both their's peril.

And I am talking about being that cyclist going "right way" meeting a
cyclist going "wrong way". What then happens is I have to go outside the
lane into the lane with motor traffic coming towards me. I can manage
that safely, but it's not ideal.

Of course in places like Downing Street or Tennis Court Road, weight of
numbers often works - the sheer mass of cyclists at peak times means
they spill over the lane anyway, and people going the other way just
have to cope. This generally seemed to work when I was last in that
situation, but that was a long time ago :-)

[Adam Funk]

The latter. New York City has lanes that are compulsory for cyclists
to use --- they are notoriously obstructed by skips, illegally parked
cars, &c., which the police generally do nothing about.

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.wnvc4caaytk5n5@i7-940>, at 14:00:10 on Fri, 16 Nov 2012,

Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> remarked:

>>> on the van's left, there is lots of room on the pavement.
>>
>> Not for some sizes of pushchair. And it's moot anyway, as parking there
>> is illegal about three times over.
>
>The point of parking being illegal is that you're causing a problem. So
>it certainly isn't moot.

"I'm being illegal but it's a victimless crime" isn't a well recognised
defence.

>>> They deliver to a hundred sites a day. Researching parking on all
>>>of them would be ridiculous.
>>
>> Can't you see the gateposts for the entrance to the off-street parking,
>> just behind the van? How much research does that take.
>
>Can you see what's inside the gates? It might be full.

I used to walk past there frequently. Here's the Streetview, which is
entirely consistent with my observations. http://goo.gl/maps/CTYCY

>The company might have told him that things need regular access in and
>out and he shouldn't go in there and get in their way.

Most unlikely.

>>> There are signs everywhere. Do you stop in the middle of the road
>>>while you read those stupidly small parking restriction signs?
>>
>> There are rather large yellow lines, and anyone who thinks that
>> stopping/unloading on the Nottingham inner ring road is likely to be
>> allowed is so unobservant they should perhaps consider going back to
>> driver training.
>
>I'm referring to single yellow lines which all have completely differnt
>meanings dependant on the silly little yellow signs they hide away,
>usually half rusted. Not possible to read them without stopping
>(especially as they normally face sideways).

None of which is the case on the site I pictured.
--
Roland Perry

[Lieutenant Scott]

The law needs to learn to allow sharing more often then.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

For 93 million miles, there is nothing between the sun and my shadow except me. I'm always getting in the way of something...

[Steve Firth]

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

> at 18:40:02 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
> remarked:
> >> The tractors I see are hauling things along a road.
> >
> >Yes... And where would you guess that they come from or are going to?
>
> From the side of a field to a depot some distance away.

I fear that you are unfamiliar with farming practice. The agricultural
produce does not neatly move itself to the side of a field.

[snip]

> >I'm sure if you write to the farms concerned offering this advice they will
> >take your suggestions under consideration and may give you some feedback on
> >why they work as they do.
>
> Because they are saving costs to the detriment of other road users.

Only to the detriment of the impatient and those who fail to recognise
that rural areas are someone elses working environment. It is fortunate
that none such post to this particular newsgroup.

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-11-15, D.M. Procida wrote:

> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>> The tractors I see are hauling things along a road. Beet seems to be a
>> popular crop locally. What they need is a better "tug" than a general
>> purpose tractor, and a more robust trailer to put the stuff in.
>
> If these so-called farmers had any sense, they would have "floating
> balloon tugs".
>
> The floating balloon tugs would carry their produce and other things
> serenely over the fields, so that other people hurrying to important
> meetings didn't have to slow down at all.
>
> It's this lack of imagination that's responsible for the dire state of
> the farming industry in this country, and the terrible delays on country
> roads.


If only more farmers read steampunk...

[Zapp Brannigan]

"D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:1ktnhe8.zlsg2mpwflp8N%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...

Indeed - a swift, smooth & wide overtake is preferable.

[Jacob Von Hogflume]

On 15/11/2012 21:35, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <op.wntl7aldytk5n5@i7-940>, at 15:25:02 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012,

> Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>>> Reminds me of when a delivery van pulled onto the pavement[1] on a road
>>> in central Nottingham, double yellow lines, no stopping and no
>>> unloading, and the two policemen walking along that very pavement just
>>> skirted round it.
>>>
>>> I was so put out, I took a photo (of the van):
>>>
>>> http://www.perry.co.uk/images/dhl-no-stopping-unloading.jpg
>>>
>>> [1] So none of the "no-one saw you do it" nonsense.
>>
>> He's entirely off the road, not obstructing anyone.
>
> He's obstructing pedestrians.
>
>

No he's not, you can get a wheelchair between the space too.

People who complain of this are usually the same people who complain
when their good don't turn up.

[Nightjar]

So, the term compulsory cycle lane is somewhat misleading, as there is
nothing compulsory about cycling in them. Perhaps reserved cycle lane
would be more accurate. However, as a broken cycle lane marking line
means that motor vehicles cannot enter the lane when there are cycles
present, there does not really seem to be a lot of point in a lane that
they cannot enter when there are none. Perhaps that is why I've never
seen one - my LA doesn't see the point either.

Colin Bignell

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:50:09 -0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <op.wnvc4caaytk5n5@i7-940>, at 14:00:10 on Fri, 16 Nov 2012,
> Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>
>>>> on the van's left, there is lots of room on the pavement.
>>>
>>> Not for some sizes of pushchair. And it's moot anyway, as parking there
>>> is illegal about three times over.
>>
>> The point of parking being illegal is that you're causing a problem. So
>> it certainly isn't moot.
>
> "I'm being illegal but it's a victimless crime" isn't a well recognised
> defence.

Sensible policemen would only arrest someone actually causing a problem. Traffic wardens however are not sensible.

>>>> They deliver to a hundred sites a day. Researching parking on all
>>>> of them would be ridiculous.
>>>
>>> Can't you see the gateposts for the entrance to the off-street parking,
>>> just behind the van? How much research does that take.
>>
>> Can you see what's inside the gates? It might be full.
>
> I used to walk past there frequently. Here's the Streetview, which is
> entirely consistent with my observations. http://goo.gl/maps/CTYCY

That would involve reversing! Maybe he's had a prang recently and his boss said he'd better not get another!

>> The company might have told him that things need regular access in and
>> out and he shouldn't go in there and get in their way.
>
> Most unlikely.
>
>>>> There are signs everywhere. Do you stop in the middle of the road
>>>> while you read those stupidly small parking restriction signs?
>>>
>>> There are rather large yellow lines, and anyone who thinks that
>>> stopping/unloading on the Nottingham inner ring road is likely to be
>>> allowed is so unobservant they should perhaps consider going back to
>>> driver training.
>>
>> I'm referring to single yellow lines which all have completely differnt
>> meanings dependant on the silly little yellow signs they hide away,
>> usually half rusted. Not possible to read them without stopping
>> (especially as they normally face sideways).
>
> None of which is the case on the site I pictured.

Odd, on your photograph, the double yellows appear to stop at the front of the van. On Google Maps they do not.

Anyway, the double yellows are for the ROAD, they are designed to stop you impeding traffic.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

If trains stop at train stations, what happens at workstations?

[Zapp Brannigan]

"Nick" <nick...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:agkppg...@mid.individual.net...

> Perhaps the OP should take up patience, or try the M25 on a busy day.
> Apologies for my [minor] rant.

Impassioned, but not persuasive.

If Farmer Giles just pulls over every few miles for 5 minutes and lets the
tailback clear, this results in massively less wasted time without
significantly harming his ability to conduct his business.

[Clive George]

On 16/11/2012 19:00, Nightjar wrote:

> So, the term compulsory cycle lane is somewhat misleading, as there is
> nothing compulsory about cycling in them. Perhaps reserved cycle lane
> would be more accurate.

Yeah, the wording does cause some confusion.

> However, as a broken cycle lane marking line
> means that motor vehicles cannot enter the lane when there are cycles
> present, there does not really seem to be a lot of point in a lane that
> they cannot enter when there are none.

Is that actually true? I thought the broken cycle lane lines were just
hints rather than law. Obviously trying to occupy the lane at the same
point and time as a cyclist would be bad, but isn't that just
dangerous/careless driving rather than actually illegal due to the
presence of the lane?