Please Slow Down...

[Tosspot]

Caught this in passing;

http://www.equepet.com/images/products/4cde6f8baa19c-8aPy.jpg

What think the froup?

[Molly Mockford]

At 17:22:06 on Thu, 9 May 2013, Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com> wrote in
<QbydnYYpX-CBUBbM...@giganews.com>:

>Caught this in passing;
>
> http://www.equepet.com/images/products/4cde6f8baa19c-8aPy.jpg
>
>What think the froup?

It looks, from the "Equisafety" logo on it, as though it is designed for
horse-riders, most of whom do seem already to wear high-visibility
clothing (and hard hats) when riding on the public road. Adding a
reminder to any following drivers, bikers and even high-speed cyclists
to slow down rather than spook the horse by overtaking at speed seems
like an excellent idea.
--
Molly Mockford
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton Diamond Ph.D.)
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)

[mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk]

In message <gFAz8ZN8...@molly.mockford>

Molly Mockford <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:

> At 17:22:06 on Thu, 9 May 2013, Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <QbydnYYpX-CBUBbM...@giganews.com>:
>
> >Caught this in passing;
> >
> > http://www.equepet.com/images/products/4cde6f8baa19c-8aPy.jpg
> >
> >What think the froup?
>
> It looks, from the "Equisafety" logo on it, as though it is designed for
> horse-riders, most of whom do seem already to wear high-visibility
> clothing (and hard hats) when riding on the public road. Adding a
> reminder to any following drivers, bikers and even high-speed cyclists
> to slow down rather than spook the horse by overtaking at speed seems
> like an excellent idea.

Actually the Police reportedly don't like these Hi Viz jackets and there
was an item on radio 4 news earlier in the week where a police
spokesperson was suggesting that they might start to prosecute riders
for the crime of impersonating a police officer.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <842f3a4953....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>,

<mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>In message <gFAz8ZN8...@molly.mockford>
> Molly Mockford <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>> At 17:22:06 on Thu, 9 May 2013, Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> <QbydnYYpX-CBUBbM...@giganews.com>:
>>
>> >Caught this in passing;
>> >
>> > http://www.equepet.com/images/products/4cde6f8baa19c-8aPy.jpg
>> >
>> >What think the froup?
>>
>> It looks, from the "Equisafety" logo on it, as though it is designed for
>> horse-riders, most of whom do seem already to wear high-visibility
>> clothing (and hard hats) when riding on the public road. Adding a
>> reminder to any following drivers, bikers and even high-speed cyclists
>> to slow down rather than spook the horse by overtaking at speed seems
>> like an excellent idea.
>
>Actually the Police reportedly don't like these Hi Viz jackets and there
>was an item on radio 4 news earlier in the week where a police
>spokesperson was suggesting that they might start to prosecute riders
>for the crime of impersonating a police officer.

As has been done in the past.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Rob Morley]

Cheesy, pointless and potentially prosecutable. A bit like some
personal number plates.

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

Has it? The current fuss seems to be some nitwit at ACPO being all
"LOOK AT ME! NOW PROMOTE ME!" as that officer class always seem to be
doing.

Can't see much about it ever actually happening previously.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
Actually, the Singularity seems rather useful in the entire work avoidance
field. "I _could_ write up that report now but if I put it off, I may well
become a weakly godlike entity, at which point not only will I be able to
type faster but my comments will be more on-target." - James Nicoll

[Toom Tabard]

On Thursday, 9 May 2013 17:51:05 UTC+1, Molly Mockford wrote:
> At 17:22:06 on Thu, 9 May 2013, Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <QbydnYYpX-CBUBbM...@giganews.com>:
>
> >Caught this in passing;
> >
> > http://www.equepet.com/images/products/4cde6f8baa19c-8aPy.jpg
> >
> >What think the froup?
>
> It looks, from the "Equisafety" logo on it, as though it is designed for
> horse-riders, most of whom do seem already to wear high-visibility
> clothing (and hard hats) when riding on the public road. Adding a
> reminder to any following drivers, bikers and even high-speed cyclists
> to slow down rather than spook the horse by overtaking at speed seems
> like an excellent idea.
>

If the object of the exercise is to be hi-viz and give the message 'PLEASE SLOW DOWN', then the basic yellow jacket, with the full upper back panel used with larger text would be adequate and the message more readable. To include the 'POLITE' panel, the 'notice' and the hatched blue and white area is superfluous
in this respect and it's presence, and similarity to, police apparel is too
obvious to be other than an attempt to mislead. It certainly can't be claimed
as unintended similarity.

Toom

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-09, mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk wrote:

> In message <gFAz8ZN8...@molly.mockford>
> Molly Mockford <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> At 17:22:06 on Thu, 9 May 2013, Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> <QbydnYYpX-CBUBbM...@giganews.com>:
>>
>> >Caught this in passing;
>> >
>> > http://www.equepet.com/images/products/4cde6f8baa19c-8aPy.jpg
>> >
>> >What think the froup?
>>
>> It looks, from the "Equisafety" logo on it, as though it is designed for
>> horse-riders, most of whom do seem already to wear high-visibility
>> clothing (and hard hats) when riding on the public road. Adding a
>> reminder to any following drivers, bikers and even high-speed cyclists
>> to slow down rather than spook the horse by overtaking at speed seems
>> like an excellent idea.
>
> Actually the Police reportedly don't like these Hi Viz jackets and there
> was an item on radio 4 news earlier in the week where a police
> spokesperson was suggesting that they might start to prosecute riders
> for the crime of impersonating a police officer.

I think a similar product was discussed on uk.legal.moderated
recently.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-09, Toom Tabard wrote:

>> At 17:22:06 on Thu, 9 May 2013, Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com> wrote in

>> >Caught this in passing;
>> >
>> > http://www.equepet.com/images/products/4cde6f8baa19c-8aPy.jpg

> If the object of the exercise is to be hi-viz and give the message
> 'PLEASE SLOW DOWN', then the basic yellow jacket, with the full
> upper back panel used with larger text would be adequate and the
> message more readable. To include the 'POLITE' panel, the 'notice'
> and the hatched blue and white area is superfluous in this respect
> and it's presence, and similarity to, police apparel is too obvious
> to be other than an attempt to mislead. It certainly can't be
> claimed as unintended similarity.

BUT it's to mislead people into doing what they should be doing anyway
(driving carefully & with respect for other people's safety) rather
than to defraud.

[Toom Tabard]

Yes, but. as I've implied, a modified version, could 'lead' people to do what
they should do anyway, without the need to 'mislead'.

However innocuous in a particular context, there is a problem with othe than
zero tolerance of efforts to mimic the livery and insignia of the emergency
or police services, because it is then difficult to limit and ban the spread of
such jackets in other contexts and ready identification and association is
nullified in situations where it may be important or vital.

Toom

[Dave Larrington]

My mate BJ painted the fairing of his BMW in "official" colours and put
a chessboard around his helmet. He said it had a remarkable effect on
the behaviour of other road users :-)

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Tip of the Day: 20%

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-10, Toom Tabard wrote:

> On Thursday, 9 May 2013 22:15:16 UTC+1, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2013-05-09, Toom Tabard wrote:
>>
>> >> At 17:22:06 on Thu, 9 May 2013, Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>
>> >> >Caught this in passing;
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.equepet.com/images/products/4cde6f8baa19c-8aPy.jpg
>>
>> > If the object of the exercise is to be hi-viz and give the message
>> > 'PLEASE SLOW DOWN', then the basic yellow jacket, with the full
>> > upper back panel used with larger text would be adequate and the
>> > message more readable. To include the 'POLITE' panel, the 'notice'
>> > and the hatched blue and white area is superfluous in this respect
>> > and it's presence, and similarity to, police apparel is too obvious
>> > to be other than an attempt to mislead. It certainly can't be
>> > claimed as unintended similarity.
>>
>> BUT it's to mislead people into doing what they should be doing anyway
>> (driving carefully & with respect for other people's safety) rather
>> than to defraud.

(I wouldn't wear one of these myself.)

> Yes, but. as I've implied, a modified version, could 'lead' people to do what
> they should do anyway, without the need to 'mislead'.
>
> However innocuous in a particular context, there is a problem with othe than
> zero tolerance of efforts to mimic the livery and insignia of the emergency
> or police services, because it is then difficult to limit and ban the spread of
> such jackets in other contexts and ready identification and association is
> nullified in situations where it may be important or vital.

Good point; see also "boy who cried wolf".

[Alan Braggins]

In article <27uno850u2du6l0a4...@4ax.com>, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>On Thu, 09 May 2013 19:09:28 +0100, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>>In article <842f3a4953....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>,
>> <mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Actually the Police reportedly don't like these Hi Viz jackets and there
>>>was an item on radio 4 news earlier in the week where a police
>>>spokesperson was suggesting that they might start to prosecute riders
>>>for the crime of impersonating a police officer.
>>
>>As has been done in the past.
>
>Has it?

A motorcyclist friend of a friend told me that he'd been asked by
the police to remove similar wording from his bike or jacket, and told
that he might be prosecuted if he continued to wear it after being warned.

He stopped, rather than test whether they really meant it.

[Andy Morris]

My bike doesn't spook at fast cars, so provided they leave me space I'm
not that bothered.

There's lots of reasons why I dislike speeding

--
Andy Morris
Andy dot Jinkas at Googlemail

[Simon Mason]

On May 10, 7:34�pm, a...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
> In article <27uno850u2du6l0a4ihb9dj87tgare1...@4ax.com>, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> >On Thu, 09 May 2013 19:09:28 +0100, n...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> >>In article <842f3a4953.mrc7offl...@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>,

> >> <mrc7--u...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >>>Actually the Police reportedly don't like these Hi Viz jackets and there
> >>>was an item on radio 4 news earlier in the week where a police
> >>>spokesperson was suggesting that they might start to prosecute riders
> >>>for the crime of impersonating a police officer.
>
> >>As has been done in the past.
>
> >Has it?
>
> A motorcyclist friend of a friend told me that he'd been asked by
> the police to remove similar wording from his bike or jacket, and told
> that he might be prosecuted if he continued to wear it after being warned.
>
> He stopped, rather than test whether they really meant it.

What about all of those No Parking signs like these?

http://goo.gl/uhiUL

--
Simon Mason

[Kim Bolton]

In the sixties, people with signs like this outside their houses were prosecuted.

--
Kim Bolton

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 09:34:14 +0100, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid>
wrote:

Fifty years ago is a rather long time... about forty generations of
police policy!

We're on a private road and a number of my neighbours have very
similar signs up that have been up for at least a decade and a half
while we've been here.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
Imagine how happy you might be if you spent less time
imagining how happy you might be.
-- j comeau, a softer world

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <1b1so81feontsp3an...@4ax.com>,
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 May 2013 08:04:46 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
>wrote:
>>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> considered Thu, 09

>>May 2013 20:30:35 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>
>>>>>Actually the Police reportedly don't like these Hi Viz jackets and there
>>>>>was an item on radio 4 news earlier in the week where a police
>>>>>spokesperson was suggesting that they might start to prosecute riders
>>>>>for the crime of impersonating a police officer.
>>>>
>>>>As has been done in the past.
>>>
>>>Has it? The current fuss seems to be some nitwit at ACPO being all
>>>"LOOK AT ME! NOW PROMOTE ME!" as that officer class always seem to be
>>>doing.
>>>
>>>Can't see much about it ever actually happening previously.
>>

>>It's been attempted a few times, but always failed except in
>>circumstances where it wasn't just looks but actions that gave the
>>impression of being a police officer, like disguises used to commit a
>>serious crime like robbery.
>
>That's what I thought. It's just threat and bluster from the idiots at
>ACPO, who probably wouldn't be able to recognise an actual Police
>hi-vis kit if they saw it.

I can assure you that it isn't, because people have been convicted
for wearing such kit. Whether that would still happen is much
less clear, and I don't believe that any of the convictions were
in a precedence-establishing court. So it may be MOSTLY threat
and bluster, but it's not ALL threat and bluster. Be prepared
for serious legal costs (which you will NOT get back, even if you
win) if you wear such kit after being told not to by the plod.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <nu1so8575pa3d3qfp...@4ax.com>,

Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 May 2013 09:34:14 +0100, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid>
>wrote:
>>>

>>> What about all of those No Parking signs like these?
>>>
>>> http://goo.gl/uhiUL
>>
>>In the sixties, people with signs like this outside their houses were prosecuted.
>
>Fifty years ago is a rather long time... about forty generations of
>police policy!

Courts have much longer memories.

>We're on a private road and a number of my neighbours have very
>similar signs up that have been up for at least a decade and a half
>while we've been here.

The relevant Act does not apply to private roads, so you can put
up any signs that you like which don't breach some other law.
You won't be able to enforce them, but there is no law against
erroneous signs (e.g. "Trespassers will be prosecuted").

Try: "All drivers MUST wear helmets beyond this point" :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 10:06:38 +0100, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:

>In article <nu1so8575pa3d3qfp...@4ax.com>,
>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>>On Sat, 11 May 2013 09:34:14 +0100, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What about all of those No Parking signs like these?
>>>>
>>>> http://goo.gl/uhiUL
>>>
>>>In the sixties, people with signs like this outside their houses were prosecuted.
>>
>>Fifty years ago is a rather long time... about forty generations of
>>police policy!
>
>Courts have much longer memories.
>
>>We're on a private road and a number of my neighbours have very
>>similar signs up that have been up for at least a decade and a half
>>while we've been here.
>
>The relevant Act does not apply to private roads, so you can put
>up any signs that you like which don't breach some other law.

Ours may be interesting - it's still owned privately in pieces by each
houseowner, but it has been adopted by the local authority for
maintenance (only took 8 years) and has had eg a reserved disabled
parking space painted in front of one house.

>You won't be able to enforce them, but there is no law against
>erroneous signs (e.g. "Trespassers will be prosecuted").
>
>Try: "All drivers MUST wear helmets beyond this point" :-)

Oh, now! That's a great idea.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
I am always a bit unhappy when I spot a bit of text that made perfect
sense in my brain but on passing through my fingers turned into a word
salad suggesting that someone had jammed an ice pick into my head and
stirred while I was typing. -- James Nicoll

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

You can assure me all you like, but I'll need recent cites to be
convinced at all.

>Whether that would still happen is much
>less clear, and I don't believe that any of the convictions were
>in a precedence-establishing court. So it may be MOSTLY threat
>and bluster, but it's not ALL threat and bluster.

It's terrorism, that's what it is. (/slips tongue out of cheek)

Too much in life is illegal to worry about this sort of thing,
frankly. The tradeoffs in this case are excellent.

>Be prepared
>for serious legal costs (which you will NOT get back, even if you
>win) if you wear such kit after being told not to by the plod.

I'd also love to see Phil's equal-but-opposite cite for the "POLITE"
ones under question being signed off by a senior Met staffer.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
If it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing.

[Kim Bolton]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 10:01:00 +0100, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:

> On Sat, 11 May 2013 09:34:14 +0100, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 May 2013 08:31:51 +0100, Simon Mason wrote:
>>
>>> On May 10, 7:34�pm, a...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
>>
>>>> A motorcyclist friend of a friend told me that he'd been asked by the
>>>> police to remove similar wording from his bike or jacket, and told
>>>> that he might be prosecuted if he continued to wear it after being
>>>> warned.
>>>>
>>>> He stopped, rather than test whether they really meant it.
>>>
>>> What about all of those No Parking signs like these?
>>>
>>> http://goo.gl/uhiUL
>>
>>In the sixties, people with signs like this outside their houses were
>>prosecuted.
>
> Fifty years ago is a rather long time... about forty generations of
> police policy!
>
> We're on a private road and a number of my neighbours have very similar
> signs up that have been up for at least a decade and a half while we've
> been here.
>
> Cheers - Jaimie

Oh, I fully understand that. Perhaps I should have expanded my statement by saying that as the police are a
bureaucratic and heirarchical organisation, the tendency to reinvent the wheel, or in this case resume
prosecutions of people displaying such notices, might well come round again as a sparkling new initiative
designed to bolster some rising management-grade officer's chances of advancement.

--
Kim Bolton

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 17:20:34 +0100, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid>

wrote:

>On Sat, 11 May 2013 10:01:00 +0100, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 09:34:14 +0100, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 May 2013 08:31:51 +0100, Simon Mason wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 10, 7:34�pm, a...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
>>>
>>>>> A motorcyclist friend of a friend told me that he'd been asked by the
>>>>> police to remove similar wording from his bike or jacket, and told
>>>>> that he might be prosecuted if he continued to wear it after being
>>>>> warned.
>>>>>
>>>>> He stopped, rather than test whether they really meant it.
>>>>
>>>> What about all of those No Parking signs like these?
>>>>
>>>> http://goo.gl/uhiUL
>>>
>>>In the sixties, people with signs like this outside their houses were
>>>prosecuted.
>>
>> Fifty years ago is a rather long time... about forty generations of
>> police policy!
>>
>> We're on a private road and a number of my neighbours have very similar
>> signs up that have been up for at least a decade and a half while we've
>> been here.
>

>Oh, I fully understand that. Perhaps I should have expanded my statement by saying that as the police are a
>bureaucratic and heirarchical organisation, the tendency to reinvent the wheel, or in this case resume
>prosecutions of people displaying such notices, might well come round again as a sparkling new initiative
>designed to bolster some rising management-grade officer's chances of advancement.

Agreed, that's pretty much what I said upthread about it being some
ACPO nitwit. But I don't think they'll ever follow through and
prosecute, as they know it'll just get tossed out of court.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
aibohphobia, n., The fear of palindromes

[JNugent]

On 11/05/2013 17:20, Kim Bolton wrote:

> Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>> Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid> wrote:

>>> Simon Mason wrote:
>>>> a...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
>
>>>>> A motorcyclist friend of a friend told me that he'd been asked by the
>>>>> police to remove similar wording from his bike or jacket, and told
>>>>> that he might be prosecuted if he continued to wear it after being
>>>>> warned.
>
>>>>> He stopped, rather than test whether they really meant it.
>
>>>> What about all of those No Parking signs like these?
>>>> http://goo.gl/uhiUL
>
>>> In the sixties, people with signs like this outside their houses were
>>> prosecuted.
>
>> Fifty years ago is a rather long time... about forty generations of
>> police policy!
>> We're on a private road and a number of my neighbours have very similar
>> signs up that have been up for at least a decade and a half while we've
>> been here.
>

> Oh, I fully understand that. Perhaps I should have expanded my statement by saying that as the police are a
> bureaucratic and heirarchical organisation, the tendency to reinvent the wheel, or in this case resume
> prosecutions of people displaying such notices, might well come round again as a sparkling new initiative
> designed to bolster some rising management-grade officer's chances of advancement.

Displaying a notice - even an intentionally misleading one - is not the
same thing as impersonating a police officer, surely?

The law against impersonation is an important and very necessary one. As
someone pointed out recently, it is highly desirable that one can rely
upon a purported police officer actually being a police officer. If
impersonation were allowed to become common (and especially if it were
tolerated), no-one accosted by a policeman could be sure of the
bona-fides of the person issuing the challenge or order to stop. Or of
the advisability of actually complying. Toleration of impersonation
could, for instance, be a rapists' charter.

[Adam Funk]

Really? I still see them now.

It reminds me of Bill Bryson's comment (I can't remember which book
it's in) that when you see a "NO TURNING" sign you ought to turn
around in the driveway, even if you don't need too --- if you're
lucky, you'll find 2 of them close together so you can do it twice &
continue on your way.

[Simon Mason]

I always ignore those most annoying CYCLISTS DISMOUNT signs, usually
seen at roadworks when the Council has narrowed the road and does not
want the poor old "hard pressed" Great British driver (copyright Daily
Express) to be "held up" by anyone other than their own kind in the
race to the next red light.

--
Simon Mason

[Tom Gardner]

Phil W Lee wrote:
> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> considered Sat, 11

> May 2013 10:31:10 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>> I'd also love to see Phil's equal-but-opposite cite for the "POLITE"
>> ones under question being signed off by a senior Met staffer.
>>

> Certainly.
>
> From
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclists-join-highvis-polite-force-to-be-seen-by-motorists-8568155.html
>
> "Equisafety pressed ahead with the design after being assured by Met
> commander Bob Broadhurst that it was not illegal."

So, what is the "it" referred to in that sentence?
- the design?
- manufacturing and selling the apparel?
- wearing the apparel on the highway?
I'm sure the first two aren't illegal. The latter?

Of course, it isn't illegal to photograph police officers
in the street, but there have had to be several public "to
whom it may concern" letters written by high ranking
officers about that too.

Analogy: it is perfectly legal to sell airband radio receivers.
It is illegal to use them (unless the law has changed recently)
to listen to air traffic. Nonetheless many people do listen to
ATC, and I would be gobsmacked if police do anything about it
until some entity becomes embarrassed by what's been said.

One day, when I'm feeling perverse, I'll go and sit at the
end of Kemble runway when bloody Prince Charlie is due to
fly in/out. I wonder if they would notice and pay attention
to someone with something that looks like a handheld airband
radio?

[Percy Picacity]

I offer no opinion on the civil liberties side of the question, but
there is a real danger in a long road works that a slow vehicle
(cyclist or old tractor for example) will so delay the stream of
traffic that it has not reached the far end before the lights change.
Then opposing traffic will move into the single lane and, even if no
collision results, there will be an impasse only solvable on a busy
narrow road by many dozens of cars reversing beyond the queue at one
end. Having been delayed by more than 20 minutes by such an event I
can see why attempts should be made to avoid it.

--

Percy Picacity

[Simon Mason]

There is one for a railway bridge which is currently under maintanance
which means only one carriageway is open and is controlled by lights.
Cyclists are advised to dismount and walk along the footpath instead,
whereras in reality I can be off and through the lights before the
drivers behind have even selected first gear, so the request is quite
ridiculous. On the long road works that you describe, I simply ride on
the road works side of the coned off area, smile at the workmen and
thank them for providing a motor traffic free area for a while at
least.

--
Simon Mason

[Percy Picacity]

That does seem optimal. I was just charitably casting around for a
rational explanation of the "dismount" signs.

--

Percy Picacity

[Kim Bolton]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:38:16 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote:

> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> considered Sat, 11 May

> 2013 10:31:10 +0100 the perfect time to write:

> Certainly.
>
> From
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclists-join-highvis-polite-force-to-be-seen-by-motorists-8568155.html
>
> "Equisafety pressed ahead with the design after being assured by Met
> commander Bob Broadhurst that it was not illegal."

I rather thought that the illegality or otherwise would need to be tested in court. A police officer simply can't make
up this sort of thing as he goes along.

He can of course 'exercise his discretion' in individual cases, but that isn't the same thing as a general assertion
of non-illegality.

--
Kim Bolton