To Those who Believe that "The Law is The Law"
Nuxx Bar
going to the right of the left-hand "keep left" sign in this picture?
http://www.spod.org/~allyg/tmpimages/skeldergate.jpg
1. Yes, they should. By law, motorists must make a U-turn. Cyclists
must either U-turn, turn left, or dismount and temporarily become
pedestrians. Since it is possible to stay within the law here, road
users should do so.
2. Motorists should be; cyclists shouldn't be, since they're using a
morally superior form of transport.
3. Cyclists should be; motorists shouldn't be. [I put this in for the
sake of completeness; I'm sure no-one thinks it.]
4. Neither motorists nor cyclists should be prosecuted. Common sense
clearly indicates that the left-hand "keep left" sign is a mistake,
and is only intended to apply to cyclists who are turning left. It is
more important to determine what the intention behind a sign/
restriction is than it is to blindly and robotically obey every sign/
restriction without applying any intelligence whatsoever.
5. Something else (please state).
Ian
"Nuxx Bar" <derderd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2675ea80-9d20-4826...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Pedant hat on...
5. Highway Code rule 109 applies, with reference to
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/Signsandmarkings/index.htm ,
halfway down Page 2.
In other words, all traffic (which includes bicycles) must pass to the left
of the sign. Ther is no requirement to execute any u-turn....
nightjar
"Nuxx Bar" <derderd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2675ea80-9d20-4826...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> going to the right of the left-hand "keep left" sign in this picture?
>
> http://www.spod.org/~allyg/tmpimages/skeldergate.jpg
>
> 5. Something else (please state).
The wrong bollard has been fitted. The correct bollard for that position is
one with a plain white circle instead of the keep left sign.
Colin Bignell
Peter Hill
should be a pass either side sign 611.
http://www.barriersdirect.co.uk/categories/18-directional-bollards
Single Aspect Directional Bollard
http://www.barriersdirect.co.uk/assets/0000/3239/HRSA_2_normal.jpg?1241095786
(though I'd say it's 2 aspect)
--
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!
Ian
"nightjar .me.uk>" <cpb@<insert my surname here> wrote in message
news:wbSdnQp-dsCDNczX...@giganews.com...
right, means "pass either side").
But as it stands, and bearing in mind the words "You MUST...." in the HC, it
does leave the way open for a haemophrenic policeman to make a name for
himself....
:o)
Nobby Anderson
No, that's not the point. In Nuxxy's tiny young mind the fact that the
bollard is there either in error or by design means that all road users
can do what they damn well please at any time and at any speed anywhere
in the country! If one sign is wrong, by extension all of them are so
you can ignore them all - especially those pesky red and white circular
ones with the numbers in them - fuck knows what they mean anyway, eh?
Even in Nuxx-world that must be reaching a bit far - surely?
Nobby
Bod
explanatory to me.
Bod
Nuxx Bar
> nightjar <cpb@> wrote:
>
To be fair, you normally talk quite a lot of sense, but in this case
you've really lost it I'm afraid. I was just trying to find out if
the "You break the law, you can't moan about being punished, and NO
EXCEPTIONS" brigade thought it was OK to prosecute those who went to
the right of the sign. No more, no less. Now why not take the post
at face value?
If you keep reading things into people's posts which aren't there,
you'll get a reputation for being paranoid, dear fellow.
spindrift
Any road user who ignores traffic law, be it speeding, jumping red
lights, ignoring keep left signs or whatever, gets their vehicle
confiscated, be it bike, car, lorry, whatever.
Bod
Draconian,don't you think?
Bod
spindrift
Of course.
Most people acceot that the roads are too congested and there are too
many idiot road users.
Two birds/one stone.
Bod
Within a year,we'd probably have no buses left on the road and no food
in the shops,because the lorries have been confiscated.
Half the police force would have no cars,so law and order would break down.
Have you thought this through properly?
Bod
spindrift
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, I bet we'd end up having to eat horses like in that film:
'We Ended Up Having To Eat Horses!'
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>To be fair, you normally talk quite a lot of sense, but in this case
>you've really lost it I'm afraid. I was just trying to find out if
>the "You break the law, you can't moan about being punished, and NO
>EXCEPTIONS" brigade thought it was OK to prosecute those who went to
>the right of the sign. No more, no less. Now why not take the post
>at face value?
Signs don't define the law. Signs display the law. If a sign displays
something that is not the law, then the sign has no force. So no-one
is breaking the law by ignoring an invalid sign. Furthermore, the law
only permits a local authority to erect valid signs - they are not
permitted to erect invalid ones. Therefore, the "You break the law,
you can't moan about being punished, and NO EXCEPTIONS" brigade would,
logically, be in favour of prosecuting the authority for erecting the
invalid sign in contravention to the law, and have nothing to say
about the actions of drivers and cyclists who, being fully aware of
the law themselves, ignore it.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Bod
Bang goes that form of transport as well then. :-)
Bod
lardyninja
Bod wrote, On 06/07/2009 09:45:
> Within a year,we'd probably have no buses left on the road and no food
> in the shops,because the lorries have been confiscated.
> Half the police force would have no cars,so law and order would break down.
> Have you thought this through properly?
>
Are you assuming that no one changes their behaviour and keeps driving
in the manner which they currently do? If so, I think this is not a
valid assumption. It doesn't change the fact that spindrift's proposal
is not practical and would possibly lead to a revolution. You can take
away our rights, you can take away our freedoms but you can't away our
rides :-)
LN
--
Never knowingly understood
spindrift
OK, say a 'Three strikes and you're out' policy.
Bod
Bod
Nobby Anderson
> On Jul 6, 8:42�am, Nobby Anderson <no...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> No, that's not the point. �In Nuxxy's tiny young mind the fact that the
>> bollard is there either in error or by design means that all road users
>> can do what they damn well please at any time and at any speed anywhere
>> in the country! �If one sign is wrong, by extension all of them are so
>> you can ignore them all - especially those pesky red and white circular
>> ones with the numbers in them - fuck knows what they mean anyway, eh?
>>
>> Even in Nuxx-world that must be reaching a bit far - surely?
>
> To be fair, you normally talk quite a lot of sense, but in this case
Now there's an admission, seeing as most of what I've posted in the past
about you and your lunatic obsession with Chapman is to accuse you and
your pet bitch of being mad! You must have me confused with someone
else :)
Nobby
Bod
Bod
Nobby Anderson
Exactimundo. But Nuxx never lets facts or logic get in the way of a
good diatribe.
Nobby
Brimstone
At the moment it's twelve points and you're out which can be less than three
offences. How would your proposal improve on that?
Toom Tabard
5. Phone the local authority highways department (or indeed road
faults number) and point out that the signage needs some correction or
clarification.
Toom
mark smith
I live there and the roads are all over the shop
Most people have an inbuilt satnav to decipher silly signs and crazy
bollards
Bye
Mark
"Nuxx Bar" <derderd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2675ea80-9d20-4826...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Simon Brooke
wrote:
> "Nuxx Bar" <derderderder...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
While I agree that the wrong bollard has been fitted (and think that
'pass either side' was intended), so long as the bollard is there all
traffic must pass left of it.
Daniel Barlow
> At the moment it's twelve points and you're out which can be less than three
> offences. How would your proposal improve on that?
Perhaps there should be a provision for having your points removed by
acts of extraordinary competence, or some other "carrot" measure that
would encourage people actively to drive more politely than simply
hoping they make it through the next three years without doing anything
wrong.
I have no idea how this could be implemented, though. What correlates
with considerate driving and cannot be gamed? I suppose you could add a
random selection ("lottery") element to avoid people trying to game the
system as much.
-dan
nightjar
"Ian" <i...@henden.co.uk> wrote in message
news:DRh4m.17854$_d3....@newsfe03.ams2...
>
> "nightjar .me.uk>" <cpb@<insert my surname here> wrote in message
> news:wbSdnQp-dsCDNczX...@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Nuxx Bar" <derderd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:2675ea80-9d20-4826...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>> Do you believe that motorists and/or cyclists should be prosecuted for
>>> going to the right of the left-hand "keep left" sign in this picture?
>>>
>>> http://www.spod.org/~allyg/tmpimages/skeldergate.jpg
>>>
>>> ...
>>> 5. Something else (please state).
>>
>> The wrong bollard has been fitted. The correct bollard for that position
>> is one with a plain white circle instead of the keep left sign.
>>
> Agreed (almost.... I would have put a bollrd with two arrows, one left,
> one right, means "pass either side").
It also means you can reach the same destination by passing either side,
which is clearly not the case here and is why the plain white circle is
correct.
Colin Bignell
nightjar
"Simon Brooke" <stil...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:61b98c5d-5bc8-482a...@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
More accurately, failure to do so is a breach of Section 36 of the Road
Traffic Act 1988. However, motor vehicle drivers would, I think, have a good
defence in that to do so would require them to drive down a dedicated cycle
lane.
Colin Bignell
GutterCyclist
wrote:
> "Simon Brooke" <still...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
You know, once urcm is up and running, it will probably drain away all
the good stuff from urc, so urc could rename itself urd or ukt. Easily.
Mark W
"Nuxx Bar" <derderd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Do you believe that motorists and/or cyclists should be prosecuted for
> going to the right of the left-hand "keep left" sign in this picture?
>
> http://www.spod.org/~allyg/tmpimages/skeldergate.jpg
>
I think all road users should apply good old British bloody-mindedness when
faced with such dilemmas.
John Wright
> Do you believe that motorists and/or cyclists should be prosecuted for
> going to the right of the left-hand "keep left" sign in this picture?
>
> http://www.spod.org/~allyg/tmpimages/skeldergate.jpg
Error 404 five minutes ago...
--
John Wright
Nuxx Bar
> Do you believe that motorists and/or cyclists should be prosecuted for
> going to the right of the left-hand "keep left" sign in this picture?
>
> http://www.spod.org/~allyg/tmpimages/skeldergate.jpg
>
> must either U-turn, turn left, or dismount and temporarily become
> pedestrians. Since it is possible to stay within the law here, road
> users should do so.
>
> 2. Motorists should be; cyclists shouldn't be, since they're using a
> morally superior form of transport.
>
> 3. Cyclists should be; motorists shouldn't be. [I put this in for the
> sake of completeness; I'm sure no-one thinks it.]
>
> 4. Neither motorists nor cyclists should be prosecuted. Common sense
> clearly indicates that the left-hand "keep left" sign is a mistake,
> and is only intended to apply to cyclists who are turning left. It is
> more important to determine what the intention behind a sign/
> restriction is than it is to blindly and robotically obey every sign/
> restriction without applying any intelligence whatsoever.
>
The image can now be found at:
http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8219/skeldergate.jpg
The person who was originally hosting the image decided to take it
down when he saw that I'd linked to it, even though he had linked to
it from another recent thread on URC. This is an excellent
demonstration of how petty, spiteful and eager to censor certain
people's opinions many of the URC "regulars" are, and the real reason
for the problems that URC is having at the moment. If the image had
been linked to by someone with the "right" opinions instead of me, it
would not have been taken down.
Anyway, I had a local copy of the image, so people will still be able
to follow this discussion despite the best efforts of the person
concerned (although of course his original link is still broken...way
to go).
Nick Finnigan
>
> is breaking the law by ignoring an invalid sign. Furthermore, the law
> only permits a local authority to erect valid signs - they are not
> permitted to erect invalid ones. Therefore, the "You break the law,
> you can't moan about being punished, and NO EXCEPTIONS" brigade would,
> logically, be in favour of prosecuting the authority for erecting the
> invalid sign in contravention to the law,
There is no offence for which the local authority (or their employees)
could be prosecuted. It is just bad practice to contravene the General
Directions, and may make the regulation itself unenforceable.
JNugent
Ask for permission to proceed?
Nuxx Bar
> Exactimundo. But Nuxx never lets facts or logic get in the way of a
> good diatribe.
Sigh. You're doing a great impression of Chapman in this thread.
Getting involved in a hitherto interesting discussion solely so that
you can make generalised slurs at me/Judith/etc (often in reply to
points that *others* make), then repeating that several times in the
same thread, is *very* Chapmanesque behaviour.
I guess you must have got out on the wrong side of bed yesterday, so
I'll put it down to that. I just hope it doesn't become a habit.
We've got enough Chapman imitators/admirers round here already without
one of the few genuinely interesting URC "regulars" joining their
ranks.
Happi Monday
Alistair Gunn
Well bandwidth leeching is hardly a noble act that deserves encouragement
is it?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
John Wright
> In uk.rec.cycling John Wright twisted the electrons to say:
>> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>>> Do you believe that motorists and/or cyclists should be prosecuted for
>>> going to the right of the left-hand "keep left" sign in this picture?
>>> http://www.spod.org/~allyg/tmpimages/skeldergate.jpg
>> Error 404 five minutes ago...
>
> Well bandwidth leeching is hardly a noble act that deserves encouragement
> is it?
Que?
--
John Wright
Steve Firth
> > Well bandwidth leeching is hardly a noble act that deserves encouragement
> > is it?
>
> Que?
Nuxx Bar provided a link to a file hosted on someone elses account. That
means the person who owned that account would be getting the
bills/nagging letters about exceeding bandwidth limitations.
Nuxx Bar is now doing the "what, who, me?" act demonstrating that either
they really are clueless and expect someone else to host material on
their behalf or just as part of their ongoing attempt to get up as many
noses as possible.
John Wright
> John Wright <jo...@pegasus.f2s.com> wrote:
>
>>> Well bandwidth leeching is hardly a noble act that deserves encouragement
>>> is it?
>> Que?
>
> Nuxx Bar provided a link to a file hosted on someone elses account. That
> means the person who owned that account would be getting the
> bills/nagging letters about exceeding bandwidth limitations.
Well surely if someone puts a picture on the web they intend anyone to
look at it. Anyway it came down rather too fast for most billing
procedures to have kicked in. Perhaps bandwidth limitations...
--
John Wright
Alistair Gunn
> > Nuxx Bar provided a link to a file hosted on someone elses account. That
> > means the person who owned that account would be getting the
> > bills/nagging letters about exceeding bandwidth limitations.
> Well surely if someone puts a picture on the web they intend anyone to
> look at it. Anyway it came down rather too fast for most billing
> procedures to have kicked in. Perhaps bandwidth limitations...
More like staying "under the radar" when it comes to bandwidth usage!
Nuxx Bar
>
> >>> Well bandwidth leeching is hardly a noble act that deserves encouragement
> >>> is it?
> >> Que?
>
> > Nuxx Bar provided a link to a file hosted on someone elses account. That
> > means the person who owned that account would be getting the
> > bills/nagging letters about exceeding bandwidth limitations.
>
> Well surely if someone puts a picture on the web they intend anyone to
> look at it.
Especially when they link to it from another thread in the same
newsgroup. Still, no surprise that Firth decided to complain about
it...he seems to dislike (and complain about) *everyone*. Some
occurrence in his life has made him very bitter towards people in
general.
> Anyway it came down rather too fast for most billing
> procedures to have kicked in. Perhaps bandwidth limitations...
It's just bloody-mindedness for the sheer hell of it. You get a lot
of that on URC. There's no logic to it other than that. Just be
thankful you got to see the picture somehow and therefore didn't get
caught in the crossfire of the latest mindless act of spite from a URC
"regular".
(He would have uploaded the image to an image hosting service himself
in the first place if he'd been genuinely concerned about bandwidth.
It's nothing but a feeble excuse.)
Steve Firth
> Still, no surprise that Firth decided to complain about
> it...he seems to dislike (and complain about) *everyone*.
No I just dislike retards who get their kicks out of pissing up
newsgroups. That's why I don't like you and your band of wanky little
chums.
Nuxx Bar
Steve Firth
Nuxx Bar
> Nuxx Bar <derderderder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 8:28 pm, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > > Nuxx Bar <derderderder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Still, no surprise that Firth decided to complain about
> > > > it...he seems to dislike (and complain about) *everyone*.
>
> > > No I just dislike retards who get their kicks out of pissing up
> > > newsgroups. That's why I don't like you and your band of wanky little
> > > chums.
>
> > Who do you like on URC then?
>
> What's it to do with you?
In other words "No-one". I suspect you see it as a weakness to be
nice to someone. Most people tend to naturally gravitate towards
those who they have similar viewpoints to, but not Firth, he's too
much of a tough guy. He don't need no-one, especially since he's
better than everyone else.
I usually agree with what you say, and had hoped we could be allies of
sorts, but now I've realised that's not possible and that it's no
great loss. You're just as obnoxious as Chapman and co, you just
happen to have saner viewpoints than them.
(You know URC is full of car-hating pricks...what possible problem
could you have with me going onto "their" newsgroup and correcting
their bullshit? And if I want to have a bit of fun along the way by
ridiculing the "flat Earth"-ers, so what? If you didn't laugh you'd
cry. Anyway I think it's pretty futile trying to convince you about
it, or anything else really.)
Steve Firth
> On Jul 8, 10:03 am, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > Nuxx Bar <derderderder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 7, 8:28 pm, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > > > Nuxx Bar <derderderder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Still, no surprise that Firth decided to complain about
> > > > > it...he seems to dislike (and complain about) *everyone*.
> >
> > > > No I just dislike retards who get their kicks out of pissing up
> > > > newsgroups. That's why I don't like you and your band of wanky little
> > > > chums.
> >
> > > Who do you like on URC then?
> >
> > What's it to do with you?
>
> In other words "No-one".
No, if I had meant no one, that's what I would say. I said "what's it to
do with you?", not "why don't you make up some shit."
I do hope this helps with your problem and with your multiple
personality disorders. Perhaps you could try not to tell great big lies
in the future? Or perhaps you can ask your doctor for a stronger
prescription?