Roundabouts

[Simon Lunn]

Despite supposedly tougher driving tests I'm increasingly appalled by
driver behaviour on roundabouts - in particular the almost total lack of
any signalling, either on the approach to the roundabout, or immediately
prior to the exit.
A large roundabout at the top of my town has very clear signs on the
approach showing which lane to be in for the exit you require. If you
want to go straight on then you should be in the outer or offside lane.
Despite this clear signing, many 'straight-on' drivers still approach in
the nearside lane and then get in a mess when they are 'cut-up' by
drivers in the correct inner lane of the roundabout taking 'their' exit.
Of course it is always the 'cut-up' drivers who blast their horns -
despite the fact that it is they who are in the wrong.

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:59:42 -0400, Simon Lunn put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>Despite supposedly tougher driving tests I'm increasingly appalled by
>driver behaviour on roundabouts

It's as remarkable as someone managing to crosspost an article about
driving to three different groups, all of which have nothing to do with
driving.

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

[Pat O'Neill]

"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7d46i75oghbrjpn4f...@news.markshouse.net...

Is it half-term already?

[Graeme Wall]

And the relevance to railways is?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

[JNugent]

On 27/01/2012 20:59, Simon Lunn wrote:

> Despite supposedly tougher driving tests I'm increasingly appalled by driver
> behaviour on roundabouts

So although you think you have passed one of these "supposedly tougher
driving tests", you actually aren't so sure about it.

Is that about right?

[Simon Mason]

On Jan 27, 8:59 pm, Simon Lunn <%...@invalid.com> wrote:
> Despite supposedly tougher driving tests I'm increasingly appalled by
> driver behaviour on roundabouts - in particular the almost total lack of
> any signalling, either on the approach to the roundabout, or immediately
> prior to the exit.

This one is a cracker :-)

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/numpty.mp4

--
Simon Mason

[®i©ardo]

On 27/01/2012 21:27, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 27/01/2012 20:59, Simon Lunn wrote:
>> Despite supposedly tougher driving tests I'm increasingly appalled by
>> driver behaviour on roundabouts - in particular the almost total lack of
>> any signalling, either on the approach to the roundabout, or immediately
>> prior to the exit.
>> A large roundabout at the top of my town has very clear signs on the
>> approach showing which lane to be in for the exit you require. If you
>> want to go straight on then you should be in the outer or offside lane.
>> Despite this clear signing, many 'straight-on' drivers still approach in
>> the nearside lane and then get in a mess when they are 'cut-up' by
>> drivers in the correct inner lane of the roundabout taking 'their' exit.
>> Of course it is always the 'cut-up' drivers who blast their horns -
>> despite the fact that it is they who are in the wrong.
>>
>
> And the relevance to railways is?
>

It's on the road from the station?

--
Moving things in still pictures

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:59:42 -0400, Simon Lunn couldnae haud thur wheesht
ony mair an' gied us this:

I fear it's not so much a lack of understanding which causes incidents
such as this, but rather a selfish disregard for other road users,
despite knowing the rules full well. The Highway Code is too often seen
as nothing more than a journey-lengthening inconvenience.

Not that I claim to be a perfect driver or cyclist, but when out and
about, I seek to avoid conflict, show consideration, and try to make
things smoother in some small way for all road users, including myself.
Occasionally, though, it just feels like I'm pissing in the wind.

--
Perpetual Calendar - http://www.1r5.net
Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/1r5.net
Email - i...@1r5.net

[Turk182]

On Jan 27, 8:59 pm, Simon Lunn <%...@invalid.com> wrote:

> Despite supposedly tougher driving tests I'm increasingly appalled by
> driver behaviour on roundabouts - in particular the almost total lack of
> any signalling, either on the approach to the roundabout, or immediately
> prior to the exit.

You've been watching police cars again!

Turk182

[Bruce]

Ian Smith <i...@1r5.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:59:42 -0400, Simon Lunn couldnae haud thur wheesht
>ony mair an' gied us this:
>> Despite supposedly tougher driving tests I'm increasingly appalled by
>> driver behaviour on roundabouts - in particular the almost total lack of
>> any signalling, either on the approach to the roundabout, or immediately
>> prior to the exit.
>> A large roundabout at the top of my town has very clear signs on the
>> approach showing which lane to be in for the exit you require. If you
>> want to go straight on then you should be in the outer or offside lane.
>> Despite this clear signing, many 'straight-on' drivers still approach in
>> the nearside lane and then get in a mess when they are 'cut-up' by
>> drivers in the correct inner lane of the roundabout taking 'their' exit.
>> Of course it is always the 'cut-up' drivers who blast their horns -
>> despite the fact that it is they who are in the wrong.
>
>I fear it's not so much a lack of understanding which causes incidents
>such as this, but rather a selfish disregard for other road users,
>despite knowing the rules full well.

Most drivers above 'a certain age' were taught that either of two
lanes can be used if going straight on. However, driving instructors
now tell their clients that, absent any specific lane markings, they
should use the left hand lane if going straight ahead. Apparently
this is preferred by driving test examiners.

The problem comes when those of us who are above 'a certain age' see
younger drivers always using the left lane to go straight on. It is
easy to criticise, but if that is how younger drivers have been taught
to drive, that is how many (not all) of them will drive.

The Highway Code is ambiguous on this point:

<http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070338>

"186 Signals and position.

When taking the first exit to the left, unless signs or markings
indicate otherwise

- signal left and approach in the left-hand lane
- keep to the left on the roundabout and continue signalling left to
leave

When taking an exit to the right or going full circle, unless signs or
markings indicate otherwise
- signal right and approach in the right-hand lane
- keep to the right on the roundabout until you need to change lanes
to exit the roundabout
- signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want

When taking any intermediate exit, unless signs or markings indicate
otherwise

- select the appropriate lane on approach to the roundabout
- you should not normally need to signal on approach
- stay in this lane until you need to alter course to exit the
roundabout
- signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want

When there are more than three lanes at the entrance to a roundabout,
use the most appropriate lane on approach and through it."

I don't have an older copy of the Highway Code to compare.

[Bruce]

If you follow the link given ...
<http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070338>

... the image above Clause 186 shows what is now routinely taught.

[Envo]

>
> Not that I claim to be a perfect driver or cyclist, but when out and
> about, I seek to avoid conflict, show consideration, and try to make
> things smoother in some small way for all road users, including
> myself.
> Occasionally, though, it just feels like I'm pissing in the wind.
>

Confucius, he say: "He who pisseth into the wind shall surely get his
own back!"

Envo

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:16:09 +0000, Envo couldnae haud thur wheesht ony

mair an' gied us this:

:-)

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:03:13 +0000, Bruce couldnae haud thur wheesht ony

mair an' gied us this:

Yes, you make some valid points. I have no problems with using either
lane for straight on where allowed, prudent, and readily anticipated by
others. But it was my understanding that the original post criticised
those who ignore/disobey lane markings or signs, and thus invite conflict
in doing so.

[The Real Doctor]

On 27/01/12 20:59, Simon Lunn wrote:
> A large roundabout at the top of my town has very clear signs on the
> approach showing which lane to be in for the exit you require. If you
> want to go straight on then you should be in the outer or offside lane.

At many roundabouts the lane arrows are far too near the roundabout,
often just three or four car lengths back. Since there is no consistency
about the "straight on" lane, it's extremely easy to find yourself in
the wrong one if there is any queueing traffic: you thn have to decide
whether to annoy people by moving into the correct lane or whether to
annoy people by taking the wrong lane onto the roundabout.

At one of my local roundabouts, on the Dumfries by pass, the first
arrows (100' from the junction) show the left hand lane for straight
ahead and the next arrows (50' from the junction) show the right hand
lane for straight ahead. This is not wholly helpful.

Ian

[Bruce]

Ian Smith <i...@1r5.net> wrote:

>Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If you follow the link given ...
>> <http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070338>
>> ... the image above Clause 186 shows what is now routinely taught.
>
>Yes, you make some valid points. I have no problems with using either
>lane for straight on where allowed, prudent, and readily anticipated by
>others.

I think you missed the point, that what is now taught to learner
drivers is to use only the left lane when going straight on, and that
using the right lane, as older drivers are accustomed to, is going to
cause problems with younger drivers who have been taught that the only
lane that should be used for going straight on is the left lane.

This was changed some years ago and has apparently been taught for
some years, so a significant proportion of drivers expect other people
to use only the left lane in this situation.

It therefore makes no sense for you to say "I have no problems with

using either lane for straight on where allowed, prudent, and readily

anticipated by others". Why? Because this is not all about you.

What *would* make sense is for older drivers, including you, to drive
in the same way that has been taught to learners for some years, is
expected in driving tests (and indeed any alternative approach may
contribute towards a failure) and is clearly indicated in the figure
above Clause 186 in the Highway Code. To do otherwise introduces
additional, unnecessary risk of a collision.

Remember that ignorance of the current rules of the road (because they
have changed since you passed your test) is no excuse.

[Sam Wilson]

In article <jg73o7$nti$1...@dont-email.me>,

Also confusing, and there are several of these in Edinburgh and
environs, are the cases where a two lane road widens to three at a
junction, and there is a sign before the widening which shows what the
three lanes are for but not how the two become three. Some add the
extra lane on the left, others on the right.

Mind you, that's not as bad as one roundabout I once met in Sheffield
where a single lane branched into 6 at the entrance to a roundabout.

Sam5

[The Real Doctor]

On 31/01/12 08:39, Bruce wrote:
> What*would* make sense is for older drivers, including you, to drive

> in the same way that has been taught to learners for some years, is
> expected in driving tests (and indeed any alternative approach may
> contribute towards a failure) and is clearly indicated in the figure
> above Clause 186 in the Highway Code.

Or you could read the relevant text in section 186, which says

> When taking any intermediate exit, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise

> select the appropriate lane on approach to the roundabout

> you should not normally need to signal on approach

> stay in this lane until you need to alter course to exit the roundabout

> signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want

and clearly avoids dictating which lane to us if you are going straight on.

Ian

[The Real Doctor]

On 31/01/12 10:49, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Also confusing, and there are several of these in Edinburgh and
> environs, are the cases where a two lane road widens to three at a
> junction, and there is a sign before the widening which shows what the
> three lanes are for but not how the two become three.

Dumfries bypass has two roundabouts with these as well. At one of them
the left hand lane splits into left and straight and at the other the
right hand lane splits into right and straight. The only indication of
this is the arrows on the road just before the junction.

Ian

[Neil Williams]

On Jan 31, 9:39 am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What *would* make sense is for older drivers, including you, to drive
> in the same way that has been taught to learners for some years, is
> expected in driving tests (and indeed any alternative approach may
> contribute towards a failure) and is clearly indicated in the figure
> above Clause 186 in the Highway Code.  To do otherwise introduces
> additional, unnecessary risk of a collision.

Maybe I'm a hybrid of old and new.

My view for straight on has tended to be...
1. If it's a dual carriageway, either lane is acceptable. You should
exit the roundabout in the lane you entered it in, unless you check it
is clear to pull in.
2. If it's a single carriageway, you should only go straight on from
the left lane. If you do from the right lane, you should treat it
exactly as if you were performing an overtake, i.e. only pull in if
it's clear to pull in and not assume anything about the actions of the
driver you are "overtaking".

That approach would seem to satisfy both types of driver. It's also
worth being aware of muppets who think the left lane is OK for left,
straight on *and right* when using the right lane for straight on.
Ideally always avoid being directly alongside another driver on a
roundabout if at all possible.

Neil

[Bruce]

That all sounds sensible, Neil, but any deviation from what new
drivers have been taught for the last couple of decades (and are
expected to do on their driving test, or invite failure) carries a
risk. In the event of a collision, any deviation from this new norm
effectively puts the driver on the wrong side of the law and makes
them liable.

So my advice (not that anyone asked!) is always to use the left lane
when going straight on. Of course the fact that the majority of
drivers now seem to do this probably invites a minority of drivers to
gain advantage by using the 'wrong' lane, including some older drivers
who are unaware that the rules of the road have changed. But that's
life. ;-)

[Mortimer]

"Ian Smith" <i...@1r5.net> wrote in message
news:85EVq.1044$ZT6...@newsfe23.ams2...

> Yes, you make some valid points. I have no problems with using either
> lane for straight on where allowed, prudent, and readily anticipated by
> others. But it was my understanding that the original post criticised
> those who ignore/disobey lane markings or signs, and thus invite conflict
> in doing so.

I would always use the left lane on a single-lane-in-each-direction road if
I was going straight on, in the absence of any instructions to the contrary.

Where that default rule is over-ruled by advance lane-usage signs, those
signs need to be very clear and repeated several times, to allow plenty of
warning that it's *not* the default state.

On a dual carriageway where the exit is also two-lane, I may use Lane 2. If
the entry is dual and the exit is single (eg because the major road turns
left and I want the minor straight on road) I may use the right hand lane
and go all the way round so as to avoid a long queue of left-turning
traffic.

As the HC advises, I don't indicate on approach if I'm going straight ahead.
I may indicate left as I pass the previous (left) exit, though on a small
roundabout, there is very little time between passing that exit and taking
the straight on one - it is better to indicate late rather than early
because a premature left signal may make someone think I'm turning left and
pull out in front of me.

The difficulty is when the exit is not absolutely straight ahead because the
road curves in the last few yards before the give-way line: do you indicate
left if it leaves at 11 o clock position or right if it leaves at 1 o clock
position, with the possibility of people thinking I intend to take the
previous or following exit? I err on the side of not indicating in this
situation; my fiancee always indicates if the exit is a few degrees either
side of straight on (and moans at me for not doing the same). For example,
at this roundabout http://g.co/maps/pbs77 would you indicate right if you
were on the A64 and going north to continue on the A64 or left if going
south?

[Neil Williams]

On Jan 31, 9:39 am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Remember that ignorance of the current rules of the road (because they
> have changed since you passed your test) is no excuse.

Don't think my posting worked so I'll try again.

I must be a hybrid of both types of driver.

IMO the best approach to dealing with both situations is to treat
going straight on on a single carriageway from the right lane as an
overtake - i.e. it is up to you, not the driver on the left, to ensure
you have enough space to safely pull in at your exit, and if there
isn't to drop behind the car you were attempting to "overtake" instead
of trying to cut in front of it. In a sense it is an overtake, as
there's no good reason to go straight on from the right lane if the
left lane is completely clear.

On a dual carriageway, I'd say you can go straight on from either lane
so long as you exit the roundabout in the lane you entered it (i.e.
left lane = straight on, into left lane, right lane = straight on,
into right lane). But in doing so beware of muppets turning right
from the left lane. Normally on major dual carriageways the lanes are
marked up to this effect.

Neil

[Neil Williams]

On Jan 31, 1:28 pm, "Mortimer" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> The difficulty is when the exit is not absolutely straight ahead because the
> road curves in the last few yards before the give-way line: do you indicate
> left if it leaves at 11 o clock position or right if it leaves at 1 o clock
> position, with the possibility of people thinking I intend to take the
> previous or following exit?

Often, the exit that is termed "straight on" (usually the continuation
of the road you are approaching on) is indicated as a thicker line on
the signs, which helps in the decision.

On mini roundabouts, there often isn't time to switch from right to
left, and as there aren't usually multiple lanes (Hemel/Swindon aside)
this isn't a problem. But if you're going to leave a roundabout with
2 or more lanes (or one that's two or more car widths wide) while
indicating right you're taking a massive risk.

But I would go with you and say never, ever indicate left early - that
is inviting people to pull out in front of you. By contrast,
indicating right (while it might scare the driver to the right of you)
is a good way of saying "I don't want *this* exit" if you feel the
person to your right may have some doubt and cut across you or into
the side of you. There are lane-marked roundabouts (the A41-M25 one
being an example, I think) where an unusual marked layout may confuse
and this sort of thing helps make your intentions very clear. Another
situation where it might be useful is a 5- or 6-ways roundabout where
there are two turns that might be seen as "left" or "straight on".

Neil

[al Mossah]

> at this roundabouthttp://g.co/maps/pbs77would you indicate right if you

> were on the A64 and going north to continue on the A64 or left if going
> south?

In that instance I'd signal right approaching the roundabout if going
north. Going south I'd only signal to exit the roundabout. My logic
is that going north I'm clearly stating I'm not going left. Going
south, I'm going straight on. If this isn't correct, I am prepared to
listen.

[Neil Williams]

On Jan 31, 2:49 pm, al Mossah <almos...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> In that instance I'd signal right approaching the roundabout if going
> north.  Going south I'd only signal to exit the roundabout.  My logic
> is that going north I'm clearly stating I'm not going left.  Going
> south, I'm going straight on.  If this isn't correct, I am prepared to
> listen.

I'd usually base it on the sign.

http://g.co/maps/n34ma

to me would say (northbound) indicate right on approaching THEN change
to indicating left once I had passed the first exit. But I don't
think omitting the right indication would cause any confusion either,
as there are only two exits, and the "main" exit is clearly marked on
the sign.

What would be a problem would be:-
1. Indicating left on approaching the roundabout - people would
correctly think you'd be taking the B1261 and this could[1] cause an
accident.
2. Indicating right but NOT switching to a left indication before
leaving the roundabout. This causes a reduction in "bandwidth" of the
roundabout, because anyone approaching from the north would have to
assume you were going to continue all the way round. This is a big
bugbear in Milton Keynes when it is busy, and it alone causes
congestion!

Going southbound, either indicating left on approaching the roundabout
(as it's the first exit) or indicating left a short way round the
roundabout (as it's more or less straight on) would both get the
message across, and neither should cause any confusion. Indicating
right would mean you want the B1261.

[1] Peoples' signalling is unreliable enough that I tend to be looking
for other things as well, like them turning their wheels past the
point where they could *not* take the exit.

Neil

[Neil Williams]

On Jan 31, 4:14 pm, Neil Williams <pacer...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2. Indicating right but NOT switching to a left indication

To add to that, the Highway Code allows, if I recall, for you not to
switch to a left indication if there isn't time. However, I generally
only find that there isn't time on mini roundabouts, and then only
some of them. But this "error" merely reduces the bandwidth of the
road (i.e. it's an inconsiderate error, not a dangerous one), so it is
of far lesser importance than (1), which would be downright dangerous.

On the rare occasion that I change my mind about an exit having
already signalled left for it, assuming there is no vehicle behind me
or to my right in which case changing my mind is not a safe option and
I will take it anyway then find somewhere to turn round, I would
briefly indicate right (to signify I intend *not* to take the exit)
but also prepare to give way to anyone approaching the roundabout at
the next exit who may have been confused by the aborted signal.
Similarly, if doing a U-turn at a small roundabout (where people will
tend not to expect it), it is a good idea to prepare to give way at
the furthest-round exit. That isn't in the Highway Code, but is
sensible defensive driving; if you have made an error that could in
any way cause confusion, prepare for others to be confused and to
accommodate their resulting actions.

Neil

[Clive]

In message <li9fi7h1hhrt5nd75...@4ax.com>, Bruce
<docne...@gmail.com> writes

>What *would* make sense is for older drivers, including you, to drive
>in the same way that has been taught to learners for some years, is
>expected in driving tests (and indeed any alternative approach may
>contribute towards a failure) and is clearly indicated in the figure
>above Clause 186 in the Highway Code. To do otherwise introduces
>additional, unnecessary risk of a collision.

I've just looked at the above figure (above Clause 186) and it does not
prohibit what I was taught in 1963, that you may use the outside lane to
exit the roundabout opposite your entry.
--
Clive

[Neil Williams]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:57:26 +0000, The Real Doctor
<ian.g...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> whether to annoy people by moving into the correct lane or whether
to
> annoy people by taking the wrong lane onto the roundabout.

Or if in doubt approach in the right hand lane and go round 1.5
times, which shouldn't really annoy anyone.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

[JNugent]

On 31/01/2012 06:51, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:57:26 +0000, The Real Doctor
> <ian.g...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> whether to annoy people by moving into the correct lane or whether
> to
>> annoy people by taking the wrong lane onto the roundabout.
>
> Or if in doubt approach in the right hand lane and go round 1.5 times, which
> shouldn't really annoy anyone.

Good suggestion.

Approaching in the RFL and describing 270 degrees round the roundabout (to
turn left) is often a useful tactic.

[JNugent]

On 31/01/2012 08:39, Bruce wrote:

> Ian Smith<i...@1r5.net> wrote:
>> Bruce<docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> If you follow the link given ...
>>> <http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070338>
>>> ... the image above Clause 186 shows what is now routinely taught.
>>
>> Yes, you make some valid points. I have no problems with using either
>> lane for straight on where allowed, prudent, and readily anticipated by
>> others.
>
>
> I think you missed the point, that what is now taught to learner
> drivers is to use only the left lane when going straight on, and that
> using the right lane, as older drivers are accustomed to, is going to
> cause problems with younger drivers who have been taught that the only
> lane that should be used for going straight on is the left lane.

That current teaching (if it is taught) is stupid. It reduces two-lane
dual-carriageways to a single lane in either direction just where capacity is
needed most.

If it were taught now (and I'm not convinced of that), I would make a point
of ignoring it and of continuing to drive as I was taught in the days when
learner drivers were made aware that making reasonable progress was a
requirement in order to pass the test and to drive properly thereafter.

[JNugent]

On 31/01/2012 11:50, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Jan 31, 9:39 am, Bruce<docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What *would* make sense is for older drivers, including you, to drive
>> in the same way that has been taught to learners for some years, is
>> expected in driving tests (and indeed any alternative approach may
>> contribute towards a failure) and is clearly indicated in the figure
>> above Clause 186 in the Highway Code. To do otherwise introduces
>> additional, unnecessary risk of a collision.
>
> Maybe I'm a hybrid of old and new.
>
> My view for straight on has tended to be...
> 1. If it's a dual carriageway, either lane is acceptable.

Correct.

And once traffic flow is above a certain de minimis value, using only the NS
lane will reduce the junction's capacity for no good reason.

[Bruce]

Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 31, 9:39 am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Remember that ignorance of the current rules of the road (because they
>> have changed since you passed your test) is no excuse.
>
>Don't think my posting worked so I'll try again.

I understood perfectly what you were saying. I just disagree.

>I must be a hybrid of both types of driver.
>
>IMO the best approach to dealing with both situations is to treat
>going straight on on a single carriageway from the right lane as an
>overtake - i.e. it is up to you, not the driver on the left, to ensure
>you have enough space to safely pull in at your exit, and if there
>isn't to drop behind the car you were attempting to "overtake" instead
>of trying to cut in front of it. In a sense it is an overtake, as
>there's no good reason to go straight on from the right lane if the
>left lane is completely clear.
>
>On a dual carriageway, I'd say you can go straight on from either lane
>so long as you exit the roundabout in the lane you entered it (i.e.
>left lane = straight on, into left lane, right lane = straight on,
>into right lane). But in doing so beware of muppets turning right
>from the left lane. Normally on major dual carriageways the lanes are
>marked up to this effect.

I will give you an example of where that is not a good idea. It's
within the boundaries of Milton Keynes so you may know it; it is the
roundabout on the A5 to the south of MK where it joins the southern
continuation of the V10 Brickhill Street, the A4146 to Aylesbury and
the southern continuation of the V4 Watling Street (old A5).

If you know this junction well, you will know that it is an accident
black spot. It is heavily congested in both rush hours, tidally, with
northbound traffic congested in the morning rush and southbound in the
evening. So poor lane discipline is complicated by aggressive driving
and people using hard acceleration to take advantage of gaps in
traffic.

Traffic from Aylesbury using the A4146 single carriageway splits into
two lanes on the approach. The lanes are not marked.

http://binged.it/xEqcLb
http://g.co/maps/6khn4

If turning left into the V4 Watling Street (1st exit) there is no
doubt; you should use the inside lane.

If taking the second exit onto the A5, which is still well to the left
of straight on, you should use the first lane. But some people use
the outside lane, as indeed they do if coming from Dunstable on the
A5.

If taking the third exit onto the V10 Brickhill Street, that is as
near to straight on as it gets, so you should use the inside lane. Of
course that risks conflict with drivers who are using the outside lane
and turning onto the northbound A5.

However, using the outside lane invites conflict with drivers from
Aylesbury using the left lane who are also heading for the V10, and
with drivers from V4 Watling Street heading for the southbound A5.

Similar conflicts occur when entering the roundabout from the V10
Brickhill Street, so no point listing them.

In the last two years, I have witnessed four collisions here. Two
were at the exit onto the A5 northbound, one at the exit onto the V10,
and one at the exit onto the A5 southbound. All of them caused by
people exiting the roundabout from the outside lane.

There have been numerous near misses. Only once have I seen someone
turning right using the inside lane. Obviously there are some people
who do that but it is mercifully rare, and the major risk of collision
is caused by people using the outside lane. If drivers adhered to the
recommendations shown in the Highway Code, in particular using the
left lane for going straight on, the risk of collision would be
significantly reduced.

It was as a result of experience at this junction and at one in
Aylesbury that I researched the guidance on which lane or lanes can be
used at a roundabout. I looked at the Highway Code and talked to my
cousin, a driving instructor, and a mutual friend who is a driving
test examiner. As a result of this research, I now always use the
left lane when going straight on.

[JNugent]

On 31/01/2012 12:28, Mortimer wrote:

> "Ian Smith" <i...@1r5.net> wrote:

>> Yes, you make some valid points. I have no problems with using either
>> lane for straight on where allowed, prudent, and readily anticipated by
>> others. But it was my understanding that the original post criticised
>> those who ignore/disobey lane markings or signs, and thus invite conflict
>> in doing so.

> I would always use the left lane on a single-lane-in-each-direction road if I
> was going straight on, in the absence of any instructions to the contrary.

On a "single-lane-in-each-direction road", what other lane *could* you use
(leaving aside the "wrong" side of the road)?

[Neil Williams]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:27:21 +0000, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I understood perfectly what you were saying. I just disagree.

I know, I got an error when posting so thought I'd lost it, so
retyped it.

[Neil Williams]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:27:21 +0000, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> It was as a result of experience at this junction

Having read what you posted, I would consider coming from the A4146
onto the A5 north as a left turn, and would say the left lane is
correct as you do.

I see your point about the other conflicts, though. I think that
roundabout should really be lane-marked (not wrongly as per the one 2
junctions closer to MK which was corrected some time later), as well
as many others with more than 4 exits. In the meantime that is a
roundabout where avoiding driving directly alongside another vehicle
is a very good idea.

[Neil Williams]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:28:41 +0000, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

> On a "single-lane-in-each-direction road", what other lane *could*
you use
> (leaving aside the "wrong" side of the road)?

Many of them split into 2 just for the roundabout. Almost all in MK
split into 3, one for each direction (in the case of single
carriageways).

[Bruce]

Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:27:21 +0000, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> It was as a result of experience at this junction
>
>Having read what you posted, I would consider coming from the A4146
>onto the A5 north as a left turn, and would say the left lane is
>correct as you do.
>
>I see your point about the other conflicts, though. I think that
>roundabout should really be lane-marked (not wrongly as per the one 2
>junctions closer to MK which was corrected some time later), as well
>as many others with more than 4 exits.

I agree. Spiral markings would be a good idea, where one or more
lanes disappear off at each exit.

>In the meantime that is a
>roundabout where avoiding driving directly alongside another vehicle
>is a very good idea.

I totally agree - defensive driving is essential. But it's not easy
because so many people drive very aggressively at this location.

For years, there has been a scheme on the Highways Agency's shelves to
make this into a grade separated junction, which would help. The
scheme is occasionally dusted off, looked at then put back on the
shelf.

And as I said to Jeremy, the relevant Rules in the Highway Code need
to be clear and unambiguous.

[Ian]

"Neil Williams" <pace...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:almarsoft.1845...@news.individual.net...

> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:57:26 +0000, The Real Doctor
> <ian.g...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> whether to annoy people by moving into the correct lane or whether
> to
>> annoy people by taking the wrong lane onto the roundabout.
>
> Or if in doubt approach in the right hand lane and go round 1.5 times,
> which shouldn't really annoy anyone.
>

Roundabout near here says "Use both lanes for A27".

So I do.

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:34:28 -0000, Ian put finger to keyboard and typed:

Simultaneously, or alternately?

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

[Ian]

"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:n1ogi7llta7b1ncou...@news.markshouse.net...

> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:34:28 -0000, Ian put finger to keyboard and typed:
>
>>
>>"Neil Williams" <pace...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:almarsoft.1845...@news.individual.net...
>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:57:26 +0000, The Real Doctor
>>> <ian.g...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> whether to annoy people by moving into the correct lane or whether
>>> to
>>>> annoy people by taking the wrong lane onto the roundabout.
>>>
>>> Or if in doubt approach in the right hand lane and go round 1.5 times,
>>> which shouldn't really annoy anyone.
>>>
>> Roundabout near here says "Use both lanes for A27".
>>
>>So I do.
>
> Simultaneously, or alternately?
>

:o)

--
IanH

[Yokel]

It depends on what everyone else is doing, too.

Near where I live, there is a roundabout on single carriageway roads, so
only one lane on each exit, although each road has two lanes marked on
approach and (if you are careful) there is room for two lanes on the
roundabout.

Normally I would use the left hand lane for either turning left or going
ahead as described above, but there is actually very little right
turning traffic from the direction I normally approach this roundabout.
A couple of days ago, the two cars ahead of me were both clearly
indicating to turn left, so as to more efficiently use the road space I
used the right hand lane to go ahead. By watching them closely, the
option to "go round" if the worst happened (the rearmost of the two in
front decided to continue ahead instead of turning as signalled) was
also available.

Provided you don't break the law or do something totally unexpected by
other road users, reacting sensibly to the situation is normally safer
than doing it blindly "by the book".

--
- Yokel -

Yokel posts via a spam-trap account which is not read.

[Clive]

In message <ftkgi712pmv5404o0...@4ax.com>, Bruce
<docne...@gmail.com> writes

>I totally agree - defensive driving is essential. But it's not easy
>because so many people drive very aggressively at this location.

When I was learning how to drive a bus (in Bristol) It was drummed into
me the importance of always being in the right lane. Further it was
made very clear that at roundabouts you drove to the central bollards of
the exit before yours to cut of anyone on your inside, forcing them onto
that road and keeping you (driver) and passengers safe for the next
exit.
--
Clive

[Mortimer]

"Neil Williams" <pace...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:almarsoft.1734...@news.individual.net...

> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:28:41 +0000, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>> On a "single-lane-in-each-direction road", what other lane *could*
> you use
>> (leaving aside the "wrong" side of the road)?
>
> Many of them split into 2 just for the roundabout. Almost all in MK split
> into 3, one for each direction (in the case of single carriageways).

Sorry, yes, I was meaning where one approach lane splits into two in the
last few yards before the give-way line on the roundabout.

The real problem is when you are on a dual carriageway, come to a roundabout
which is too humped to be able to see the road on the far side, approach in
Lane 2, see two exit lanes and then find that they merge into one just after
the exit.

That situation needs to be properly signed as you are approaching the
roundabout "CAUTION: Single lane exit from roundabout: Approach in Lane 1"
or something like that.

[Yokel]

I know a number of (traffic light) junctions where the road layout is
deliberately designed this way. If you are in Southampton, there is a
string of them along the dockfront road from Dock Gate 4 in front of the
Town Quay (Red Funnel ferry terminal) and the Royal Pier. The idea is
to increase flow across the junction by having two lanes go across and
then hope that everyone has sufficient wit to sort themselves out safely
on the other side.

The most infamous one I know of is now long gone as it was on the old
A33 Winchester by-pass before the M3 was built through Twyford Down.
The road was a fairly narrow 2-lane dual carriageway built in the 1930s,
but at the "Hockley Lights" junction (which has now been re-incarnated
just off Junction 11 of the M3) an extra straight ahead lane was put in
so that when the lights changed there was a mad three-abreast charge
across the junction to find that after a few tens of yards only two
lanes were now there. This actually made national TV and I can remember
a program where Nigel Mansell, of all people, did a demonstration drive
across this junction accompanied by some very pungent comments about the
wit and common sense of highway engineers who could design such a layout
and think it safe.

[Ian]

"Yokel" <yokelstev...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:Zd2dnYvcLawhO7TS...@bt.com...

There were a number like that on Eastern Road, Portsmouth, too.

Dunno if they are still there - never go to Portsmouth now (apart from for
the Naked Bike Ride, and use the M275 to get there, or the train....)

[Roland Perry]

One of my least favourite roundabouts is this one http://g.co/maps/fh583
near Reading station, where traffic coming from the east and exiting
north always uses both lanes. Going "straight ahead" in the RH lane to
the station is a complete no-no, should anyone even consider it a
possibility.
--
Roland Perry

[Clive]

In message <KCGbig4e...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes

Looked at the picture and the road marking on the roundabout itself make
it plain that the inside lane carries on round to the north.
--
Clive

[Peter Campbell Smith]

"Ian" <i...@henden.co.uk> wrote in
news:2dqdndH-a8S9LbTS...@brightview.com:

>>> The real problem is when you are on a dual carriageway, come to a
>>> roundabout which is too humped to be able to see the road on the far
>>> side, approach in Lane 2, see two exit lanes and then find that they
>>> merge into one just after the exit.
>>>

>> I know a number of (traffic light) junctions where the road layout is
>> deliberately designed this way.

There's one here: http://tinyurl.com/786lbov where the A24 crosses the A232
southbound on the Ewell Bypass in Surrey. It currently has lanes 1 and 2
(of 3) merging just after the lights; it used to have 2 and 3 merging so
you can never be quite sure where someone in lane 2 is going to go.

Peter

--
|| Peter CS ~ Epsom ~ UK | pjcs02 [at] gmail.com |

[Graeme Wall]

That roundabout wasn't there last time I was in that part of Reading,
and the Rising Sun was a decent Breakspeare's pub :-(

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

[Ian]

"Graeme Wall" <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5HuWq.10783$kH7....@newsfe12.ams2...

> On 02/02/2012 11:21, Clive wrote:
>> In message <KCGbig4e...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
>> <rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
>>> One of my least favourite roundabouts is this one
>>> http://g.co/maps/fh583 near Reading station, where traffic coming from
>>> the east and exiting north always uses both lanes. Going "straight
>>> ahead" in the RH lane to the station is a complete no-no, should
>>> anyone even consider it a possibility.
>> Looked at the picture and the road marking on the roundabout itself make
>> it plain that the inside lane carries on round to the north.
>
> That roundabout wasn't there last time I was in that part of Reading, and
> the Rising Sun was a decent Breakspeare's pub :-(
>

Photos are around a year out-of date. Some parts of Friar St, f'rinsannce,
are still One Way. The OTHER way.

[Roland Perry]

In message <3PvbUmCX...@yewbank.demon.co.uk>, at 11:21:59 on Thu, 2
Feb 2012, Clive <cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk> remarked:

>>One of my least favourite roundabouts is this one
>>http://g.co/maps/fh583 near Reading station, where traffic coming from
>>the east and exiting north always uses both lanes. Going "straight
>>ahead" in the RH lane to the station is a complete no-no, should
>>anyone even consider it a possibility.
>Looked at the picture and the road marking on the roundabout itself
>make it plain that the inside lane carries on round to the north.

I looked in vain for road markings on the approach to warn about that,
by the time you are *on* the roundabout it's too late.
--
Roland Perry

[Clive]

In message <CiBZa9JA...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes

>>Looked at the picture and the road marking on the roundabout itself
>>make it plain that the inside lane carries on round to the north.
>I looked in vain for road markings on the approach to warn about that,
>by the time you are *on* the roundabout it's too late.

Just do a complete circuit and exit as required.
--
Clive

[Roland Perry]

In message <EhX3f8S1...@yewbank.demon.co.uk>, at 18:57:57 on Thu, 2

Feb 2012, Clive <cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk> remarked:

>>>Looked at the picture and the road marking on the roundabout itself
>>>make it plain that the inside lane carries on round to the north.
>>I looked in vain for road markings on the approach to warn about that,
>>by the time you are *on* the roundabout it's too late.
>Just do a complete circuit and exit as required.

That's a work-around, and presumably the lack of crashes at the site
means it's one that people can and do invoke on rather short notice!
--
Roland Perry

[Graeme Wall]

It's a lot more than a year since I was last there, around 30!

[Ian]

"Graeme Wall" <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:r2CWq.5396$ZT6....@newsfe23.ams2...

> On 02/02/2012 12:57, Ian wrote:
>> "Graeme Wall"<ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:5HuWq.10783$kH7....@newsfe12.ams2...
>>> On 02/02/2012 11:21, Clive wrote:
>>>> In message<KCGbig4e...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
>>>> <rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
>>>>> One of my least favourite roundabouts is this one
>>>>> http://g.co/maps/fh583 near Reading station, where traffic coming from
>>>>> the east and exiting north always uses both lanes. Going "straight
>>>>> ahead" in the RH lane to the station is a complete no-no, should
>>>>> anyone even consider it a possibility.
>>>> Looked at the picture and the road marking on the roundabout itself
>>>> make
>>>> it plain that the inside lane carries on round to the north.
>>>
>>> That roundabout wasn't there last time I was in that part of Reading,
>>> and
>>> the Rising Sun was a decent Breakspeare's pub :-(
>>>
>> Photos are around a year out-of date.
>
> It's a lot more than a year since I was last there, around 30!
>

I think you will find the trolleybus wires have now been taken down.....

(but many of the poles are still extant in Reading!)

BTW.... and on topic (just).... Not many people know that Reading pioneered
the very first UK contraflow bus lane. (To save rewiring the 17 route when
they wanted to make the road towards Cemetary Junction one-way). The
contraflow survives to this day.

A mine of useless information.....

:o)

--
IanH

[Graeme Wall]

On 03/02/2012 12:48, Ian wrote:
> "Graeme Wall"<ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:r2CWq.5396$ZT6....@newsfe23.ams2...
>> On 02/02/2012 12:57, Ian wrote:
>>> "Graeme Wall"<ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:5HuWq.10783$kH7....@newsfe12.ams2...
>>>> On 02/02/2012 11:21, Clive wrote:
>>>>> In message<KCGbig4e...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
>>>>> <rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
>>>>>> One of my least favourite roundabouts is this one
>>>>>> http://g.co/maps/fh583 near Reading station, where traffic coming from
>>>>>> the east and exiting north always uses both lanes. Going "straight
>>>>>> ahead" in the RH lane to the station is a complete no-no, should
>>>>>> anyone even consider it a possibility.
>>>>> Looked at the picture and the road marking on the roundabout itself
>>>>> make
>>>>> it plain that the inside lane carries on round to the north.
>>>>
>>>> That roundabout wasn't there last time I was in that part of Reading,
>>>> and
>>>> the Rising Sun was a decent Breakspeare's pub :-(
>>>>
>>> Photos are around a year out-of date.
>>
>> It's a lot more than a year since I was last there, around 30!
>>
> I think you will find the trolleybus wires have now been taken down.....
>
> (but many of the poles are still extant in Reading!)

:-) Unfortunately they'd long gone by the time I moved to Reading.

>
> BTW.... and on topic (just).... Not many people know that Reading pioneered
> the very first UK contraflow bus lane. (To save rewiring the 17 route when
> they wanted to make the road towards Cemetary Junction one-way). The
> contraflow survives to this day.

Ah, the dreaded Kings Road contraflow. I lived just off Cemetery
Junction and used to cycle up and down that road to get to the station.

>
> A mine of useless information.....
>

Welcome to the club.

[Martin D. Pay]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:39:55 +0000, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com>
mangled uncounted electrons thus:

<snip>

>What *would* make sense is for older drivers, including you, to drive

>in the same way that has been taught to learners for some years, is
>expected in driving tests (and indeed any alternative approach may
>contribute towards a failure) and is clearly indicated in the figure

>above Clause 186 in the Highway Code. To do otherwise introduces
>additional, unnecessary risk of a collision.
>
>Remember that ignorance of the current rules of the road (because they
>have changed since you passed your test) is no excuse.

Which is why I have maintained for many years that all drivers
should be subject to retaking a driving test, say every 10 years,
to ensure (as best as can reasonably be done, anyway) that their
driving skills haven't deteriorated into routine bad habits and
that their knowledge of the relevant laws and codes remains
up-to-date.

Driving is a privilege, not a right, and should only be granted
to those able to demonstrate on a regular basis that they have
the necessary skillset, mental acuity and physical ability to
safely operate a ton or thereabouts of metal travelling at
anything up to (legally!) 70mph in the immediate vicinity of very
many other similar lumps of fast-moving metal.

And no, I don't drive; I took lessons many years ago but fairly
quickly realised that I don't have the necessary combination of
factors to be a safe driver - including quite poor eyesight that
when corrected with spectacles is within the legal limit to drive
but which left me feeling unsafe. I don't hate cars - my wife
drives, and due to the poor-to-appalling provision of public
transport her daily life (and my weekend one) would be very
severely curtailed without the use of a car.

Martin D. Pay
Sure this will as controversial here as it is with my wife... @_@

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 05/02/2012 11:44, Martin D. Pay wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:39:55 +0000, Bruce<docne...@gmail.com>
> mangled uncounted electrons thus:
>
> <snip>
>
>> What *would* make sense is for older drivers, including you, to drive
>> in the same way that has been taught to learners for some years, is
>> expected in driving tests (and indeed any alternative approach may
>> contribute towards a failure) and is clearly indicated in the figure
>> above Clause 186 in the Highway Code. To do otherwise introduces
>> additional, unnecessary risk of a collision.
>>
>> Remember that ignorance of the current rules of the road (because they
>> have changed since you passed your test) is no excuse.
>
> Which is why I have maintained for many years that all drivers
> should be subject to retaking a driving test, say every 10 years,
> to ensure (as best as can reasonably be done, anyway) that their
> driving skills haven't deteriorated into routine bad habits and
> that their knowledge of the relevant laws and codes remains
> up-to-date.

I have maintained for many years that all bicyclists
should be subject to taking a cycling test, say just once,

to ensure (as best as can reasonably be done, anyway) that their

cycling skills and their knowledge of the relevant laws and codes
becomes up-to-date.

>
> Driving is a privilege, not a right, and should only be granted
> to those able to demonstrate on a regular basis that they have
> the necessary skillset, mental acuity and physical ability to
> safely operate a ton or thereabouts of metal travelling at
> anything up to (legally!) 70mph in the immediate vicinity of very
> many other similar lumps of fast-moving metal.

Cycling is a privilege, not a right, and should only be granted

to those able to demonstrate on a regular basis that they have
the necessary skillset, mental acuity and physical ability to

safely operate a wobbly non viable childs toy travelling at
anything up to 20mph in the immediate vicinity of vulnerable pedestrians.



--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when davi...@blueyonder.co.uk (Dave -
Cyclists VOR) came up to me and whispered:

> Cycling is a privilege, not a right,

Unfortunately not the case. A bicycle is "an adjunct to perambulation"
and as such a cyclist has the right (not privilege) to pass and repass
the public highway unmolested by licensed users.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
IF you think this http://bit.ly/u5EP3p is cruel
please sign this http://bit.ly/sKkzEx

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

[Jonathan Morton]

"Paul Cummins" <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote in message
news:memo.2012020...@postmaster.local.domain...

> We were about to embark at Dover, when davi...@blueyonder.co.uk (Dave -
> Cyclists VOR) came up to me and whispered:
>
>> Cycling is a privilege, not a right,
>
> Unfortunately not the case. A bicycle is "an adjunct to perambulation"
> and as such a cyclist has the right (not privilege) to pass and repass
> the public highway unmolested by licensed users.

You forgot a few of the other privileges - it's OK for cyclists (a) to ride
on the pavement in circumstances where - if they were in the carriageway -
they would be travelling the wrong way on a one-way street (b) to cycle
across zebra crossings (c) to ignore red lights...

Regards

Jonathan

[JNugent]

On 05/02/2012 11:44, Martin D. Pay wrote:

[ ... ]

> Driving is a privilege, not a right,

That is often said, and is patently *untrue*.

Once one has passed the test of competence to drive and paid the appropriate
fee for the licence, and as long as one complies with the various legal
requirements involved, driving is a right which no-one can suspend, remove or
rescind.

If that is wrong, please demonstrate wherein lies its incorrectness.

[steve robinson]

JNugent wrote:

> On 05/02/2012 11:44, Martin D. Pay wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > Driving is a privilege, not a right,
>

> That is often said, and is patently untrue.

>
> Once one has passed the test of competence to drive and paid the
> appropriate fee for the licence, and as long as one complies with
> the various legal requirements involved, driving is a right which
> no-one can suspend, remove or rescind.
>
> If that is wrong, please demonstrate wherein lies its incorrectness.

The police , courts dvla medical and optical experts may disagree
with you

[charles]

In article <9p7gt4...@mid.individual.net>,

A "Licence" is usually defined as "permission to do something", be it
driving, receiving television, fishing or getting married.

No driving is not a "right", it is something you may do with state
permission and, if you fail to comply with certain aspects of the law, that
licence can be withdrawn.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

[JNugent]

Which bit of "as long as one complies with the various legal requirements
involved" did you fail to read and/or understand?

[JNugent]

On 05/02/2012 14:24, charles wrote:

> JNugent<jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 05/02/2012 11:44, Martin D. Pay wrote:

>> [ ... ]

>>> Driving is a privilege, not a right,

>> That is often said, and is patently *untrue*.

>> Once one has passed the test of competence to drive and paid the
>> appropriate fee for the licence, and as long as one complies with the
>> various legal requirements involved, driving is a right which no-one can
>> suspend, remove or rescind.

>> If that is wrong, please demonstrate wherein lies its incorrectness.

> A "Licence" is usually defined as "permission to do something", be it
> driving, receiving television, fishing or getting married.

And?

> No driving is not a "right", it is something you may do with state
> permission

Or without it. I do not need anyone's permission to drive my car. Not even yours.

> and, if you fail to comply with certain aspects of the law, that
> licence can be withdrawn.

What about if you don't fail to comply?

How can this so-called "privilege" be withdrawn, repealed, revoked,
discontinued, suspended or otherwise nullified in such circumstances?

Please be explicit and don't repeat the bit about breaking the law which was
covered in what I said in the first place, meaning that your mentioning it
was unnecessary and irrelevant.

[steve robinson]

You can meet the legal requirements to drive but still be unfit to do
so or prevented from doing so by the law .

The police can prevent you from driving if they feel you are unfit
through drink or drugs (they arrest you) and take you to either the
police station or medical facilities to get an expert opinion, the
dvla recind your licience at 70 until you can prove fitness.

Just a couple of simple examples for the simple minded , there are of
course many more but i neither have the time or inclination to
enlighten you

[charles]

In article <9p7ii3...@mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 05/02/2012 14:24, charles wrote:

[Snip]

> I do not need anyone's permission to drive my car. Not even yours.

You do on the "public highway". What you do on private property is
entirely up to you. And, the vehicle needs a "licence," too.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

What a fuckwit. They are perfect examples of "the various legal
requirements involved" that Mr Nugent was talking about.

Being drunk makes it illegal to drive or even attempt to drive you retard.

[Clive]

In message <525cca16...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles
<cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> writes

>A "Licence" is usually defined as "permission to do something", be it
>driving, receiving television, fishing or getting married.
>No driving is not a "right", it is something you may do with state
>permission and, if you fail to comply with certain aspects of the law, that
>licence can be withdrawn.

So let's get this straight, if I have a mistress, my marriage licence
gets revoked?
--
Clive

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 05/02/2012 15:14, charles wrote:
> In article<9p7ii3...@mid.individual.net>,
> JNugent<jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 05/02/2012 14:24, charles wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
>> I do not need anyone's permission to drive my car. Not even yours.
>
> You do on the "public highway". What you do on private property is
> entirely up to you. And, the vehicle needs a "licence," too.
>

Its doesn't need a license - it needs Road Tax.

[charles]

In article <Dxs2rmCc...@yewbank.demon.co.uk>,

your wife might try to arrange that ;-)

[charles]

In article <RbxXq.64190$7N1....@newsfe24.ams2>,

Dave - Cyclists VOR <davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On 05/02/2012 15:14, charles wrote:
> > In article<9p7ii3...@mid.individual.net>,
> > JNugent<jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >> On 05/02/2012 14:24, charles wrote:
> >
> > [Snip]
> >
> >> I do not need anyone's permission to drive my car. Not even yours.
> >
> > You do on the "public highway". What you do on private property is
> > entirely up to you. And, the vehicle needs a "licence," too.
> >
> Its doesn't need a license - it needs Road Tax.

and if you don't pay, it's illegal to take then vehicle on teh road.

[Jeff]

>> Cycling is a privilege, not a right,
>
> Unfortunately not the case. A bicycle is "an adjunct to perambulation"
> and as such a cyclist has the right (not privilege) to pass and repass
> the public highway unmolested by licensed users.

That is patently incorrect as cycling is not allowed on footpath rights
of way.

Jeff

[steve robinson]

The only fuckwit here is you you do not seem to comprehend that the
police can act on suspicion of and prevent you driving something
completly different from being ilegal to drive because your drunk
/drugged , no licience insurance etc and if you bothered to read
fully what i wrote you would understand that.

Just because the police have a suspicion it does not in itself lead
to a conclusion that you have acted ilegally you could easily be
under the precribed limit, on drugs that permit you to drive.

A good example is my daughter car impounded for no insurance , she
had fully comp insurance at the time covering myself her partner and
herself but the police didnt believe who the driver was

[Ian]

"Martin D. Pay" <mar...@starship-excalibur.co.uk> wrote in message
news:36psi7dkraf7bdlpi...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:39:55 +0000, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com>
> mangled uncounted electrons thus:
>
> <snip>
>
>>What *would* make sense is for older drivers, including you, to drive
>>in the same way that has been taught to learners for some years, is
>>expected in driving tests (and indeed any alternative approach may
>>contribute towards a failure) and is clearly indicated in the figure
>>above Clause 186 in the Highway Code. To do otherwise introduces
>>additional, unnecessary risk of a collision.
>>
>>Remember that ignorance of the current rules of the road (because they
>>have changed since you passed your test) is no excuse.
>
> Which is why I have maintained for many years that all drivers
> should be subject to retaking a driving test, say every 10 years,
> to ensure (as best as can reasonably be done, anyway) that their
> driving skills haven't deteriorated into routine bad habits and
> that their knowledge of the relevant laws and codes remains
> up-to-date.
>
> Driving is a privilege, not a right, and should only be granted
> to those able to demonstrate on a regular basis that they have
> the necessary skillset, mental acuity and physical ability to
> safely operate a ton or thereabouts of metal travelling at
> anything up to (legally!) 70mph in the immediate vicinity of very
> many other similar lumps of fast-moving metal.

Drivers are effectively subject to continuous assessment, Speed cameras,
surveilence cameras, plod sitting in cars watching traffic, accident
outcomes, etc, for a start.

> And no, I don't drive;

Thought not.

[joe]

No it is not. It is not. Free tax discs are available, it is however,
illegal to not display a current tax disc.

--

[Graham Murray]

Clive <cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk> writes:

> So let's get this straight, if I have a mistress, my marriage licence
> gets revoked?

Might that not depend on whether the marriage licence is a licence to be
(and remain in) a married state or a licence to have a marriage
ceremony.

[charles]

In article <9p7ouq...@mid.individual.net>,

And you drive a vehicle qualifying for one? I suspect that 99% of vehicles
need payment for them to be legal on the road. The number will grow if
electric vehicles catch on, but the Government will miss the money, so will
have to start charging.

[Clive]

In message <87sjipi...@newton.gmurray.org.uk>, Graham Murray
<news...@gmurray.org.uk> writes

I must admit, I've never thought about it.
--
Clive

[Jack]

On 05/02/2012 16:58, charles wrote:
The number will grow if
> electric vehicles catch on, but the Government will miss the money, so will
> have to start charging.
>

Was that pun intentional?

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when davi...@blueyonder.co.uk (Dave -
Cyclists VOR) came up to me and whispered:

> it needs Road Tax.

Doubt it - that hasn't existed since the 1930's

[JNugent]

On 05/02/2012 15:06, steve robinson wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
>> On 05/02/2012 14:13, steve robinson wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/02/2012 11:44, Martin D. Pay wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>
>>>>> Driving is a privilege, not a right,
>>>>
>>>> That is often said, and is patently untrue.
>>>>
>>>> Once one has passed the test of competence to drive and paid the
>>>> appropriate fee for the licence, and as long as one complies
>>>> with the various legal requirements involved, driving is a
>>>> right which no-one can suspend, remove or rescind.
>>>>
>>>> If that is wrong, please demonstrate wherein lies its
>>>> incorrectness.

>>> The police , courts dvla medical and optical experts may
>>> disagree with you

>> Which bit of "as long as one complies with the various legal
>> requirements involved" did you fail to read and/or understand?

> You can meet the legal requirements to drive but still be unfit to do
> so or prevented from doing so by the law .

If one is unfit (I take it you mean ill), that is hardly a denial of one's
rights by the state (though you might be a health conspiracy theorist, which
is something I obviously cannot rule out).

How can one be prevented by law from driving in compliance with the legal
requirements?

That's a new one. You'll no doubt want to explain it, if you can.

> The police can prevent you from driving if they feel you are unfit
> through drink or drugs (they arrest you) and take you to either the
> police station or medical facilities to get an expert opinion, the
> dvla recind your licience at 70 until you can prove fitness.

Which bit of "...complies with the various legal requirements involved..."
was too complicated for you?

> Just a couple of simple examples for the simple minded , there are of
> course many more but i neither have the time or inclination to
> enlighten you

I'd really LOVE to hear an example of how you "think" that the law can
prevent one from driving in compliance with the requisite legal requirements.

But somehow, I don't believe we're going to get such an example from you.

[JNugent]

On 05/02/2012 15:14, charles wrote:

> In article<9p7ii3...@mid.individual.net>,
> JNugent<jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 05/02/2012 14:24, charles wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
>> I do not need anyone's permission to drive my car. Not even yours.
>
> You do on the "public highway". What you do on private property is
> entirely up to you. And, the vehicle needs a "licence," too.

I think you're suffering from "not having read the thread" syndrome.

[JNugent]

If you, OTOH, had bothered to read (and more importantly, understand) what
had already been covered in the thread, you could and wouild not have tried,
so unsuccessfully, to make the very "point" you have failed to make.

Legal requirements met (remember that bit?), no-one can stop me from driving,
much as you obviously think you ought to be able to.

[steve robinson]

You obvously have a very poor understanding , you can be arrested on
suspicion which prevents you from driving although you may well have
been all legal and above board and not broken the law

>
> > Just a couple of simple examples for the simple minded , there
> > are of course many more but i neither have the time or
> > inclination to enlighten you
>
> I'd really LOVE to hear an example of how you "think" that the law
> can prevent one from driving in compliance with the requisite legal
> requirements.
>
> But somehow, I don't believe we're going to get such an example
> from you.

I think i already have

[steve robinson]

Yes they can, the police can stop you on suspicion and detain you for
several motoring offences even if after further investigation you are
shown to be acting within the law (as you put it legal requirements
met)

simples really

[joe]

charles wrote:

> > > > Its doesn't need a license - it needs Road Tax.
> > >
> > > and if you don't pay, it's illegal to take then vehicle on teh
> > > road.
>
> > No it is not. It is not. Free tax discs are available, it is
> > however, illegal to not display a current tax disc.
>
> And you drive a vehicle qualifying for one? I suspect that 99% of
> vehicles need payment for them to be legal on the road. The number
> will grow if electric vehicles catch on, but the Government will miss
> the money, so will have to start charging.

Me? no I do not drive a vehicle exempt from tax. What you suspect is
not relevant, but the answer to statement was.

--

[Neil Williams]

On Feb 5, 6:53 pm, useth...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins)
wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk (Dave -

> Cyclists VOR) came up to me and whispered:
>
> > it needs Road Tax.
>
> Doubt it - that hasn't existed since the 1930's

Slightly pedantic in that something similar exists, albeit into
general taxation and instead called Vehicle Excise Duty.

Neil

[Bruce]

Martin D. Pay <mar...@starship-excalibur.co.uk> wrote:

>Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>What *would* make sense is for older drivers, including you, to drive
>>in the same way that has been taught to learners for some years, is
>>expected in driving tests (and indeed any alternative approach may
>>contribute towards a failure) and is clearly indicated in the figure
>>above Clause 186 in the Highway Code. To do otherwise introduces
>>additional, unnecessary risk of a collision.
>>
>>Remember that ignorance of the current rules of the road (because they
>>have changed since you passed your test) is no excuse.
>
>Which is why I have maintained for many years that all drivers
>should be subject to retaking a driving test, say every 10 years,
>to ensure (as best as can reasonably be done, anyway) that their
>driving skills haven't deteriorated into routine bad habits and
>that their knowledge of the relevant laws and codes remains
>up-to-date.
>
>Driving is a privilege, not a right, and should only be granted
>to those able to demonstrate on a regular basis that they have
>the necessary skillset, mental acuity and physical ability to
>safely operate a ton or thereabouts of metal travelling at
>anything up to (legally!) 70mph in the immediate vicinity of very
>many other similar lumps of fast-moving metal.
>

>And no, I don't drive

You don't say. ;-)

[JNugent]

You can be arrested on reasonable suspicion of *anything* indictable, whether
you are driving or not.

Oddly enough, it has never happened to me in over 40 years while I've been
driving.

Perhaps you just have one of those dishonest faces.

>>> Just a couple of simple examples for the simple minded , there
>>> are of course many more but i neither have the time or
>>> inclination to enlighten you

>> I'd really LOVE to hear an example of how you "think" that the law
>> can prevent one from driving in compliance with the requisite legal
>> requirements.
>> But somehow, I don't believe we're going to get such an example
>> from you.

> I think i already have

Are you sure?

[JNugent]

I am sorry to hear of your bad experiences.

It doesn't happen to normal people, you'll be relieved to hear.

[Mizter T]

There's been a bit of a campaign of late of people trying to stop - or
at least challenge - VED being automatically referred to as 'Road Tax'
- the thinking being that it creates a sense of entitlement amongst
some of those who pay it that they do 'own the road' (or at least pay
for it - or sentiments along those lines) - said campaign has support
of Edmund King of the RAC Foundation.

(Though, FWIW, the ASA are quite happy with usage of 'Road Tax' as
shorthand for VED.)

[Mizter T]

On Feb 5, 7:37 pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Martin D. Pay <mar...@starship-excalibur.co.uk> wrote:

> [...]

> >Which is why I have maintained for many years that all drivers
> >should be subject to retaking a driving test, say every 10 years,
> >to ensure (as best as can reasonably be done, anyway) that their
> >driving skills haven't deteriorated into routine bad habits and
> >that their knowledge of the relevant laws and codes remains
> >up-to-date.
>
> >Driving is a privilege, not a right, and should only be granted
> >to those able to demonstrate on a regular basis that they have
> >the necessary skillset, mental acuity and physical ability to
> >safely operate a ton or thereabouts of metal travelling at
> >anything up to (legally!) 70mph in the immediate vicinity of very
> >many other similar lumps of fast-moving metal.
>
> >And no, I don't drive
>
> You don't say.  ;-)

Does that invalidate his point?

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when je...@jsystems.com (Jeff) came up
to me and whispered:

> That is patently incorrect as cycling is not allowed on
> footpath rights of way.

I didn't say Rights of Way, I *specified* the Public Highway.

Where Pedestrians are equally entitled to be without let or hindrance, as
99% of car drivers forget.

[Neil Williams]

On Feb 5, 8:10 pm, Mizter T <mizte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There's been a bit of a campaign of late of people trying to stop - or
> at least challenge - VED being automatically referred to as 'Road Tax'
> - the thinking being that it creates a sense of entitlement amongst
> some of those who pay it that they do 'own the road' (or at least pay
> for it - or sentiments along those lines) - said campaign has support
> of Edmund King of the RAC Foundation.
>
> (Though, FWIW, the ASA are quite happy with usage of 'Road Tax' as
> shorthand for VED.)

And it is a tax paid if you use the road (with certain types of
vehicles), so is a road tax to some extent, even if it isn't
hypothecated for road building and maintenance any more.

Referring to it as "Road Fund Licence" would be inaccurate as there is
no longer a Road Fund of that sort.

Neil

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk
(Charles Ellson) came up to me and whispered:

> An urban myth perpetuated by people who wish to endanger
> pedestrians by riding on pedestrian-only rights of way (e.g. the
> part of a highway set aside for their use).

Not the case - it is established law in Scotland, which, last time I
checked was (currently) part of the uk

[Peter Keller]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 11:57:32 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:


> wobbly
> non viable childs toy

It is very viable for many things. I love my very convenient child's toy.



--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

[Peter Keller]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:23:50 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:


>
> fuckwit.

Reminds me of a story I heard before:

The Buddha was giving a three day talk to a large group of monks and wise
men. During his talks there was one particular man who kept insulting the
revered one. At every opportunity this person would shout out obscenities
about the Buddha and contradict what he was saying.

The Buddha never even flinched. He just kept on with sermon as if
everything was fine.

At the end of the talk, the confused man approached the wise Buddha and
asked him "Master, I've been insulting you for three days now, yet you
have not responded to me, why?"

and the Buddha responded "If you are given a present, but you do not
accept it, to whom does it belong?"