On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:28:55 +0100, Roger wrote:

The message . com
from Jules contains these words:

I think you can still legally drive a tank on UK roads without any kind of
permits or paperwork...

You need a licence that covers vehicles steered by its tracks. That's a
pretty rare form of permit.

Heh, yeah :-) Bad wording on my part... of course there's an extra
test (although it might be interesting if there wasn't :-) but once
licenced I don't believe there's any requirement to inform anyone when
you're taking a sodding great tank out on a jolly down a residential
street, is there?

Dave Liquorice wrote:

However it still look like another good reason for compulsory testing
every 5 years. If only to keep up with the law changes/additions, new
signage/road markings, etc.


Five years? Yes, I'd go with that. Plus, compulsory eye tests.

--
Adrian C

clumsy ******* wrote:
Dave wrote:

bottom of page here
"http://www.ukmotorists.com/highway%20code3.asp"

Try here
http://www.ukmotorists.com/diversion_signs.asp

--
Adrian C

Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:57:47 UTC, Dave wrote:

Dave wrote:

I'll ask this again
Can anyone explain why some LARGE road signs have those triangle, square and
circular emblems on them? Sometimes they are empty and sometimes they
are solid colour. I would imagine that they are there for the emergency
services, but I can't understand what is what.


Bottom of second page he

http://tinyurl.com/chzraf

but I'm not sure if you mean those, or the plain yellow shapes I've seen
in the past.

Thank you.

The yellow signs are what I meant. Sometimes they are filled in black
andf other times they are not filled in at all and are just black and
white suymbols. I think

Dave

clumsy ******* wrote:
Dave wrote:

Sometimes they are empty and sometimes they
are solid colour. I would imagine that they are there for the emergency
services, but I can't understand what is what.

holiday route/diversion are yellow/black, what colour is "empty"?

bottom of page here
"http://www.ukmotorists.com/highway%20code3.asp"

Those are the ones I am on about, but what do they mean?

Dave

Dave wrote:
clumsy ******* wrote:
Dave wrote:

Sometimes they are empty and sometimes they
are solid colour. I would imagine that they are there for the
emergency services, but I can't understand what is what.

holiday route/diversion are yellow/black, what colour is "empty"?

bottom of page here
"http://www.ukmotorists.com/highway%20code3.asp"

Those are the ones I am on about, but what do they mean?

Dave

They mean that you haven't quite grasped what the dozens of posts have
been saying.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

Dave wrote:

Can anyone explain why some road signs have those triangle, square and
circular emblems on them? Sometimes they are empty and sometimes they
are solid colour. I would imagine that they are there for the emergency
services, but I can't understand what is what.

No, they're not there for the emergency services, they are there for
motorists who have been diverted from another (usually trunk road or
motorway) route. The symbols don't have any meaning in themselves, i.e.
there's no difference between filled or open square, triangle or circle.
However each symbol marks a different alternative route.

When a pre-planned diversion is in operation signs will be placed which
have messages specifying which classes of vehicle are to follow the
diversion routes, some examples a

DIVERSION
AT NEXT JCT
FOLLOW (CIRCLE)

HGVS
FOLLOW (SQUARE)

WINDS - HGVS
FOLLOW ( OPEN SQUARE)

HIGH SIDED VEHS
FOLLOW (OPEN TRIANGLE)


Another use is for Holiday Routes. When they are in operation drivers
will be instructed to follow the appropriate symbol.


WTF this has to do with DIY, I cannot imagine.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Don't know, but soon we will have 20 mph signs all over the place.

That's effectively the speed that humps allow. Wonder if they'll get rid
of them?

Humps are cheaper than cameras.

Humps will go if they install road pricing GPS units in cars.. then they
can fine you for exceeding the speed limit on the fly, or maybe even
disable the vehicle on the grounds that its being driven by an idiot or is
stolen if you start clocking up (say) £10 per 100 meters per mph over
limit fines.


I like the speed humps that are just wide enought to slow down most cars but
let an A8 Quatro pass over them without touching them due to it's wider
wheel base than the average car. These speed humps certainly speed me up.

Adam

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
om...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Don't know, but soon we will have 20 mph signs all over the place.

That's effectively the speed that humps allow. Wonder if they'll get rid
of them?

Humps are cheaper than cameras.

Humps will go if they install road pricing GPS units in cars.. then they
can fine you for exceeding the speed limit on the fly, or maybe even
disable the vehicle on the grounds that its being driven by an idiot or
is stolen if you start clocking up (say) £10 per 100 meters per mph over
limit fines.


I like the speed humps that are just wide enought to slow down most cars
but let an A8 Quatro pass over them without touching them due to it's
wider wheel base than the average car. These speed humps certainly speed
me up.

That would be why they are putting platform humps in these days.
Shame that they also slow emergency stuff down too.

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:48:58 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
. com...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Don't know, but soon we will have 20 mph signs all over the place.

That's effectively the speed that humps allow. Wonder if they'll get rid
of them?

Humps are cheaper than cameras.

Humps will go if they install road pricing GPS units in cars.. then they
can fine you for exceeding the speed limit on the fly, or maybe even
disable the vehicle on the grounds that its being driven by an idiot or
is stolen if you start clocking up (say) £10 per 100 meters per mph over
limit fines.


I like the speed humps that are just wide enought to slow down most cars
but let an A8 Quatro pass over them without touching them due to it's
wider wheel base than the average car. These speed humps certainly speed
me up.

That would be why they are putting platform humps in these days.
Shame that they also slow emergency stuff down too.

Which is a good reason not to install speed bumps at all.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:17:00 +0100, Dave
wrote:

Those are the ones I am on about, but what do they mean?

well, we did say! They are permanently signed diversions, they can
just put a sign in at the start to tell you to follow the yellow
triangles or whatever.
--
CanThrashMotors

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:48:58 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

8

That would be why they are putting platform humps in these days.
Shame that they also slow emergency stuff down too.

Which is a good reason not to install speed bumps at all.

Its the usual case of the idiots spoiling it for everyone else.
There should be no need for speed humps as there should be no need for keep
clear road signs.
Most drivers are too stupid not to have the humps or the keep clear signs as
they just don't pay attention to road conditions.

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:54:48 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Mark" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:48:58 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

8

That would be why they are putting platform humps in these days.
Shame that they also slow emergency stuff down too.

Which is a good reason not to install speed bumps at all.

Its the usual case of the idiots spoiling it for everyone else.
There should be no need for speed humps as there should be no need for keep
clear road signs.
Most drivers are too stupid not to have the humps or the keep clear signs as
they just don't pay attention to road conditions.

Indeed. And the more we cater for the bad drivers the less incentive
there is for them to improve.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Dave Liquorice"
saying something like:

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:28:34 +0100, Roger wrote:

That's what they say but what does the small round sign with a walking
figure within require whom to do what?

No Pedestrians or possibly more correctly Pedestrians Prohibited.

That would be with a crosshairs on the ped.

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:11:03 +0100, Mark wrote:
That would be why they are putting platform humps in these days.
Shame that they also slow emergency stuff down too.

Which is a good reason not to install speed bumps at all.

All emergency vehicles should be pedal cycles, then they could simply ride
on the pavement. With no lights on after dark, of course.

Steve Firth wrote:
Dave wrote:

Can anyone explain why some road signs have those triangle, square and
circular emblems on them? Sometimes they are empty and sometimes they
are solid colour. I would imagine that they are there for the emergency
services, but I can't understand what is what.

No, they're not there for the emergency services, they are there for
motorists who have been diverted from another (usually trunk road or
motorway) route. The symbols don't have any meaning in themselves, i.e.
there's no difference between filled or open square, triangle or circle.
However each symbol marks a different alternative route.

When a pre-planned diversion is in operation signs will be placed which
have messages specifying which classes of vehicle are to follow the
diversion routes, some examples a

DIVERSION
AT NEXT JCT
FOLLOW (CIRCLE)

HGVS
FOLLOW (SQUARE)

WINDS - HGVS
FOLLOW ( OPEN SQUARE)

HIGH SIDED VEHS
FOLLOW (OPEN TRIANGLE)


Another use is for Holiday Routes. When they are in operation drivers
will be instructed to follow the appropriate symbol.

Many thanks for taking the time to answer this, Steve.

WTF this has to do with DIY, I cannot imagine.

I do *all* my own driving though :-)

Dave

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:01:37 +0100, Dave
wrote:

I do *all* my own driving though :-)

exactly, no chauffeurs here!
--
CarThatMotors

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:59:26 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Dave Liquorice"
saying something like:

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:28:34 +0100, Roger wrote:

That's what they say but what does the small round sign with a walking
figure within require whom to do what?

No Pedestrians or possibly more correctly Pedestrians Prohibited.

That would be with a crosshairs on the ped.

That would not follow the convention, as we already have a black bicycle on
a white background in a red circle to prohibit cycles and a similar sign
whith a car and motorbike to prohibit motor vehicles. Therefore prohibiting
pedestrians (or for that matter horses or anything else) should
automatically follow the same convention.

SteveW

In uk.d-i-y, Steve Walker wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:59:26 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Dave Liquorice"
saying something like:

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:28:34 +0100, Roger wrote:

That's what they say but what does the small round sign with a walking
figure within require whom to do what?

No Pedestrians or possibly more correctly Pedestrians Prohibited.

That would be with a crosshairs on the ped.

That would not follow the convention, as we already have a black bicycle on
a white background in a red circle to prohibit cycles and a similar sign
whith a car and motorbike to prohibit motor vehicles. Therefore prohibiting
pedestrians (or for that matter horses or anything else) should
automatically follow the same convention.

Then perhaps you can explain why "no left turn", "no right turn", and
"no u turn" *do* feature a diagonal bar. Designed to confuse?

--
Mike Barnes

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:54:48 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Mark" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:48:58 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

8

That would be why they are putting platform humps in these days.
Shame that they also slow emergency stuff down too.

Which is a good reason not to install speed bumps at all.

Its the usual case of the idiots spoiling it for everyone else.
There should be no need for speed humps as there should be no need for
keep
clear road signs.
Most drivers are too stupid not to have the humps or the keep clear signs
as
they just don't pay attention to road conditions.

Indeed. And the more we cater for the bad drivers the less incentive
there is for them to improve.


At this moment i still think we need more cameras so they can collect points
and get disqualified faster.
They should then have to take compulsory training and a test before they get
their license back.
I don't see how standards will improve without doing something like that.
Even that might not work given the idiotic attitude of many drivers so a
three strikes and out system to remove them from the roads all together is
probably a good idea.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:54:48 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:48:58 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

8

That would be why they are putting platform humps in these days.
Shame that they also slow emergency stuff down too.

Which is a good reason not to install speed bumps at all.

Its the usual case of the idiots spoiling it for everyone else.
There should be no need for speed humps as there should be no need for
keep
clear road signs.
Most drivers are too stupid not to have the humps or the keep clear signs
as
they just don't pay attention to road conditions.

Indeed. And the more we cater for the bad drivers the less incentive
there is for them to improve.


At this moment i still think we need more cameras so they can collect
points and get disqualified faster.
They should then have to take compulsory training and a test before they
get their license back.
I don't see how standards will improve without doing something like that.
Even that might not work given the idiotic attitude of many drivers so a
three strikes and out system to remove them from the roads all together is
probably a good idea.


Why not pick on pedestrians instead?

The thick ****s walk up to a pelican crossing press the button then look and
see that they can cross the road before the car gets there and so they cross
with the red man showing. The car gets to the crossing and has to wait at an
empty crossing.

The even thicker ****s think that by just been near to a pelican crossing
allows them to cross the road without looking.

The thickest ****s of all have a limp and walk very slowly. It is their duty
to cross the road at any place that suits them in a diagonal line thus
holding the traffic up for longer than is needed.

Run 'em over.

Adam

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:49:41 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Even that might not work given the idiotic attitude of many drivers so a
three strikes and out system to remove them from the roads all together
is probably a good idea.

Naw, some people have a total disregard for the law, they simply believe
it doesn't apply to them. Not having a valid driving licence won't stop
them driving.

This is a major failing in the system, catch someone driving without the
required documentation take their licence away. What effect is that
going to have? SFA, they have already shown they are quiy=te happy to
drive without documentation.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:49:26 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

That would not follow the convention, as we already have a black
bicycle on a white background in a red circle to prohibit cycles and a
similar sign whith a car and motorbike to prohibit motor vehicles.
Therefore prohibiting pedestrians (or for that matter horses or
anything else) should automatically follow the same convention.

Then perhaps you can explain why "no left turn", "no right turn", and
"no u turn" *do* feature a diagonal bar. Designed to confuse?

There is a need to differentate between the orders to "Turn Right" or "No
Right Turn".

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:13:14 +0100, Adrian C wrote:

However it still look like another good reason for compulsory testing
every 5 years. If only to keep up with the law changes/additions, new
signage/road markings, etc.

Five years? Yes, I'd go with that. Plus, compulsory eye tests.

Any one with any sense visits an optician at that sort of interval anyway
but I guess many people with normal sight don't bother. Trouble is quite a
lot of eye problems are degenerative and slowly sneak up on you unnoticed.
If spotted early they can be treated with good out comes, caught late and
the damage is done.

--
Cheers
Dave.

dennis@home wrote:
"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:54:48 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:48:58 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

8

Snipped

At this moment i still think we need more cameras so they can collect
points and get disqualified faster.

Dennis, I have been quite reticent to jump down your throat despite the
deserved comments from others. I have now come to the conclusion that you
could be closely related to members of that breed of super idiots that have
multiplied over the last few decades. It is inappropriate speed that kills,
not someone driving at 36 mph in a 30 limit when the road conditions were
perfect and there were no other vehicles or pedestrians about. What you are
encouraging is more of the idiot breed that think speed limits are all
important: they are not! Cameras do not indicate that there was ice on the
road and that the individual who drove past the school at 19 m.p.h.at 8.45
a.m. or 4.00 p.m. knocking a child down was driving irresponsibly. To do
this with present technology is not possible as far as I am aware. The
removal of police from the road and the imposition of targets has hindered
road safety. Likewise, the failure to prosecute folk who drive a car at
less than 56 m.p.h. in the slow lane of a motorway, when conditions allow,
creates dangerous situations that may cause accidents as HGVs endeavour to
pass the idiot. Such folk ought to be prosecuted (for obstruction but rarely
are) and possibly barred from using motorways.

They should then have to take compulsory training and a test before
they get their license back.
I don't see how standards will improve without doing something like
that. Even that might not work given the idiotic attitude of many
drivers so a three strikes and out system to remove them from the
roads all together is probably a good idea.

I have every sympathy for a driver (particularly one who has to do 40 to 50k
miles per annum) that notches up points for driving responsibly and is
observing road conditions, traffic, pedestrians, feral dogs, whatever,
rather than irresponsibly spending time with eyes glued to the speedometer.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:13:14 +0100, Adrian C wrote:

However it still look like another good reason for compulsory
testing every 5 years. If only to keep up with the law
changes/additions, new signage/road markings, etc.

Five years? Yes, I'd go with that. Plus, compulsory eye tests.

Any one with any sense visits an optician at that sort of interval
anyway but I guess many people with normal sight don't bother.
Trouble is quite a lot of eye problems are degenerative and slowly
sneak up on you unnoticed. If spotted early they can be treated with
good out comes, caught late and the damage is done.

I would endorse that. Rather like braking inefficiency in a car can go
unobserved if it happens over a lengthy period.

Both my mother (long deceased) and recently father were diagnosed with
cataracts. In my mother's case, after the operation she was able to see
"perfectly" - as near as damned it, though having suffered for many years
with limited vision.

Contrary to the comment about braking efficiency, I knew that I was
suffering abnormalities with my vision in my 30s. Though I pointed out to
both my optician and GP, they both poo pooed it, one saying it was lack of
fluid from the lacremous gland (tear duct). Fortunately, my glasses were
knocked off my face whilst my brother in law and I struggled to pick up a
mooring for our boat resulting in them going into The Oggin, never to be
seen again. I went to a different optician who immediately said "Do not pass
Go, do not collect £200" and referred me to an hospital for Glaucoma which
has thankfully contained the problem for the last 2x years.

About 2 years ago, I started experiencing flashing lights - not quite true-
difficult to describe, and also a slight hyper sensitivity to blue light -
an exaggerated annoyance to those bloody silly unnecessary headlights mostly
on vehicles from Germany, (it's about time full beam was removed from motors
, but that's another issue). Went to see the Consultant immediately,
"everything seems OK". Six months later, I'm diagnosed as having cataracts -
common for those that have taken medication for Glaucoma apparently.

Sorry if I've bored you, but I hope that folk might learn from this.

Glaucoma is hereditary; if it is in the family, optician's inspections are
free under the UK NHS.

I strongly advocate using the opportunity if any of these signals are
relevant to you and yours.

Clot

In uk.d-i-y, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:49:26 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

That would not follow the convention, as we already have a black
bicycle on a white background in a red circle to prohibit cycles and a
similar sign whith a car and motorbike to prohibit motor vehicles.
Therefore prohibiting pedestrians (or for that matter horses or
anything else) should automatically follow the same convention.

Then perhaps you can explain why "no left turn", "no right turn", and
"no u turn" *do* feature a diagonal bar. Designed to confuse?

There is a need to differentate between the orders to "Turn Right" or "No
Right Turn".

Isn't there a similar need to differentiate between "Cycles only" and
"No cycles"?

What I'm saying is that there isn't consistency. Because signs such as
those I've listed above have a bar through them, people expect a bar on
a prohibition sign and find a sign without the bar confusing. That's why
informal signs such as "no smoking", "no dog ****", (etc), always have a
bar though them. People understand the bar. Without the bar they
wouldn't understand.

--
Mike Barnes

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:19:34 +0100 (BST), Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:49:26 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

That would not follow the convention, as we already have a black
bicycle on a white background in a red circle to prohibit cycles and a
similar sign whith a car and motorbike to prohibit motor vehicles.
Therefore prohibiting pedestrians (or for that matter horses or
anything else) should automatically follow the same convention.

Then perhaps you can explain why "no left turn", "no right turn", and
"no u turn" *do* feature a diagonal bar. Designed to confuse?

There is a need to differentate between the orders to "Turn Right" or "No
Right Turn".

Although an order to turn right would be a white arrow on a blue circular
sign.

SteveW

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:48:08 GMT, ARWadsworth wrote:

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:54:48 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Mark" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:48:58 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

8

That would be why they are putting platform humps in these days.
Shame that they also slow emergency stuff down too.

Which is a good reason not to install speed bumps at all.

Its the usual case of the idiots spoiling it for everyone else.
There should be no need for speed humps as there should be no need for
keep
clear road signs.
Most drivers are too stupid not to have the humps or the keep clear signs
as
they just don't pay attention to road conditions.

Indeed. And the more we cater for the bad drivers the less incentive
there is for them to improve.


At this moment i still think we need more cameras so they can collect
points and get disqualified faster.
They should then have to take compulsory training and a test before they
get their license back.
I don't see how standards will improve without doing something like that.
Even that might not work given the idiotic attitude of many drivers so a
three strikes and out system to remove them from the roads all together is
probably a good idea.


Why not pick on pedestrians instead?

The thick ****s walk up to a pelican crossing press the button then look and
see that they can cross the road before the car gets there and so they cross
with the red man showing. The car gets to the crossing and has to wait at an
empty crossing.

The even thicker ****s think that by just been near to a pelican crossing
allows them to cross the road without looking.

The thickest ****s of all have a limp and walk very slowly. It is their duty
to cross the road at any place that suits them in a diagonal line thus
holding the traffic up for longer than is needed.

Run 'em over.

Adam

Locally to us is a car park with shops on the opposite side of the road.
There has been a zebra crossing there for decades. Recently the council
removed the zebra and replaced it with a puffin crossing (which had to be
resited, as traffic leaving the car park would have been too close to the
crossing to see the lights above their roofline when turning out). I pass
this way as both a pedestrian and a motorist frequently and find that it is
worse for both.

As a pedestrian I press the button and then can have a lengthy wait until
the green man comes on, whereas with the zebra I could cross straight away.

As a motorist, I continue to wait at a red light when pedestrians have
already finished crossing or even come to a halt when the lights change
after the pedestrians have taken advantage of a gap in the traffic. I
thought that puffins were meant to detect pedestrians and avoid holding up
the traffic unnecessarily.

The cost of this change must have been high, there will be increased
maintenance costs and it seems to have disadvantaged everyone as far as
practicality is concerned.

SteveW

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 10:06:04 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

In uk.d-i-y, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:49:26 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

That would not follow the convention, as we already have a black
bicycle on a white background in a red circle to prohibit cycles and a
similar sign whith a car and motorbike to prohibit motor vehicles.
Therefore prohibiting pedestrians (or for that matter horses or
anything else) should automatically follow the same convention.

Then perhaps you can explain why "no left turn", "no right turn", and
"no u turn" *do* feature a diagonal bar. Designed to confuse?

There is a need to differentate between the orders to "Turn Right" or "No
Right Turn".

Isn't there a similar need to differentiate between "Cycles only" and
"No cycles"?

What I'm saying is that there isn't consistency. Because signs such as
those I've listed above have a bar through them, people expect a bar on
a prohibition sign and find a sign without the bar confusing. That's why
informal signs such as "no smoking", "no dog ****", (etc), always have a
bar though them. People understand the bar. Without the bar they
wouldn't understand.

There is a sort of consistency, as prohibitions from turns and U-turns all
have a bar through, wheras prohibitions of entry to specific categories,
speed limits, etc. all do not, each group is seperately consistent -
prohibitions of specific actions and prohibitions of continuation. I
suppose if we started again from scratch things might be done differently.

SteveW

In uk.d-i-y, Steve Walker wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:19:34 +0100 (BST), Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:49:26 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

That would not follow the convention, as we already have a black
bicycle on a white background in a red circle to prohibit cycles and a
similar sign whith a car and motorbike to prohibit motor vehicles.
Therefore prohibiting pedestrians (or for that matter horses or
anything else) should automatically follow the same convention.

Then perhaps you can explain why "no left turn", "no right turn", and
"no u turn" *do* feature a diagonal bar. Designed to confuse?

There is a need to differentate between the orders to "Turn Right" or "No
Right Turn".

Although an order to turn right would be a white arrow on a blue circular
sign.

Quite. If the bar is needed for "no right turn", it's needed for "no
cycling". If it's not needed for "no cycling", it's not needed for "no
right turn" either.

--
Mike Barnes

In uk.d-i-y, Steve Walker wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 10:06:04 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

In uk.d-i-y, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:49:26 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

That would not follow the convention, as we already have a black
bicycle on a white background in a red circle to prohibit cycles and a
similar sign whith a car and motorbike to prohibit motor vehicles.
Therefore prohibiting pedestrians (or for that matter horses or
anything else) should automatically follow the same convention.

Then perhaps you can explain why "no left turn", "no right turn", and
"no u turn" *do* feature a diagonal bar. Designed to confuse?

There is a need to differentate between the orders to "Turn Right" or "No
Right Turn".

Isn't there a similar need to differentiate between "Cycles only" and
"No cycles"?

What I'm saying is that there isn't consistency. Because signs such as
those I've listed above have a bar through them, people expect a bar on
a prohibition sign and find a sign without the bar confusing. That's why
informal signs such as "no smoking", "no dog ****", (etc), always have a
bar though them. People understand the bar. Without the bar they
wouldn't understand.

There is a sort of consistency, as prohibitions from turns and U-turns all
have a bar through, wheras prohibitions of entry to specific categories,
speed limits, etc. all do not, each group is seperately consistent -
prohibitions of specific actions and prohibitions of continuation. I
suppose if we started again from scratch things might be done differently.

Well, they did start from scratch not so long ago, and just look at what
they came up with. I think the number of road users who appreciate the
distinction between "cycles only" (white bike on round blue sign) and
"no cycles" (black bike on round white sign with a red border) is
vanishingly small. A simple bar through the "no cycling" sign is a no-
brainer.

--
Mike Barnes

Clot wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:13:14 +0100, Adrian C wrote:

However it still look like another good reason for compulsory
testing every 5 years. If only to keep up with the law
changes/additions, new signage/road markings, etc.
Five years? Yes, I'd go with that. Plus, compulsory eye tests.
Any one with any sense visits an optician at that sort of interval
anyway but I guess many people with normal sight don't bother.
Trouble is quite a lot of eye problems are degenerative and slowly
sneak up on you unnoticed. If spotted early they can be treated with
good out comes, caught late and the damage is done.

I would endorse that. Rather like braking inefficiency in a car can go
unobserved if it happens over a lengthy period.

Until recently, I have an eye test every 2 years. The reason I have not
done this over the last 3 years is because of a problem in my left eye.

Both my mother (long deceased) and recently father were diagnosed with
cataracts. In my mother's case, after the operation she was able to see
"perfectly" - as near as damned it, though having suffered for many years
with limited vision.

I was like that until 1998 when I had my cataract removed. My right eye
allowed me to continue driving by permission from the DVLA

Snip.

I went to a different optician who immediately said "Do not pass
Go, do not collect £200" and referred me to an hospital for Glaucoma which
has thankfully contained the problem for the last 2x years.

Glaucoma can be fatal for the eyes. Thankfully, I am clear of it.

About 2 years ago, I started experiencing flashing lights - not quite true-
difficult to describe, and also a slight hyper sensitivity to blue light -
an exaggerated annoyance to those bloody silly unnecessary headlights mostly
on vehicles from Germany, (it's about time full beam was removed from motors
, but that's another issue). Went to see the Consultant immediately,
"everything seems OK". Six months later, I'm diagnosed as having cataracts -
common for those that have taken medication for Glaucoma apparently.

Everyone take notice of this.

I suffered a detached retina last September and it was successfully
operated on, but the surgeon told me that I would get a cataract after
the op. I told him that I had a lens implant done in 1998 and he smiled.
Once you have suffered a retached reitina, you other eye can suffer the
same fates.
Take notice of this as well.

Sorry if I've bored you, but I hope that folk might learn from this.

Glaucoma is hereditary; if it is in the family, optician's inspections are
free under the UK NHS.

If you suffer from glaucoma.

I strongly advocate using the opportunity if any of these signals are
relevant to you and yours.

Symptom of a detached retina is that you get a shape a bit like the moon
when it is just coming out/going into, the earths shadow. A bit like a
cresent at the side of your vision. Mine was enroaching into my central
vision within 2 weeks.

Sorry if I have bored anyone, but our eyes are priceless.

Dave

Steve Walker wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:48:08 GMT, ARWadsworth wrote:

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:54:48 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:


"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:48:58 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:
8

That would be why they are putting platform humps in these days.
Shame that they also slow emergency stuff down too.
Which is a good reason not to install speed bumps at all.
Its the usual case of the idiots spoiling it for everyone else.
There should be no need for speed humps as there should be no need for
keep
clear road signs.
Most drivers are too stupid not to have the humps or the keep clear signs
as
they just don't pay attention to road conditions.
Indeed. And the more we cater for the bad drivers the less incentive
there is for them to improve.

At this moment i still think we need more cameras so they can collect
points and get disqualified faster.
They should then have to take compulsory training and a test before they
get their license back.
I don't see how standards will improve without doing something like that.
Even that might not work given the idiotic attitude of many drivers so a
three strikes and out system to remove them from the roads all together is
probably a good idea.

Why not pick on pedestrians instead?

The thick ****s walk up to a pelican crossing press the button then look and
see that they can cross the road before the car gets there and so they cross
with the red man showing. The car gets to the crossing and has to wait at an
empty crossing.

The even thicker ****s think that by just been near to a pelican crossing
allows them to cross the road without looking.

The thickest ****s of all have a limp and walk very slowly. It is their duty
to cross the road at any place that suits them in a diagonal line thus
holding the traffic up for longer than is needed.

Run 'em over.

Adam

Locally to us is a car park with shops on the opposite side of the road.
There has been a zebra crossing there for decades. Recently the council
removed the zebra and replaced it with a puffin crossing (which had to be
resited, as traffic leaving the car park would have been too close to the
crossing to see the lights above their roofline when turning out). I pass
this way as both a pedestrian and a motorist frequently and find that it is
worse for both.

As a pedestrian I press the button and then can have a lengthy wait until
the green man comes on, whereas with the zebra I could cross straight away.

As a motorist, I continue to wait at a red light when pedestrians have
already finished crossing or even come to a halt when the lights change
after the pedestrians have taken advantage of a gap in the traffic. I
thought that puffins were meant to detect pedestrians and avoid holding up
the traffic unnecessarily.

The cost of this change must have been high, there will be increased
maintenance costs and it seems to have disadvantaged everyone as far as
practicality is concerned.

What is the difference between trafic light controlled crossing?
My 18 month old highway code does not mention them. Mutter, mutter, I
must get myself a new one.

Dave

"Clot" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:54:48 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:48:58 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

8

Snipped

At this moment i still think we need more cameras so they can collect
points and get disqualified faster.

Dennis, I have been quite reticent to jump down your throat despite the
deserved comments from others. I have now come to the conclusion that you
could be closely related to members of that breed of super idiots that
have multiplied over the last few decades. It is inappropriate speed that
kills, not someone driving at 36 mph in a 30 limit when the road
conditions were perfect and there were no other vehicles or pedestrians
about.

Trying to live up to your name I see.
Speed limits are a maximum and that maximum may have nothing to do with how
safe it is.
Your argument is meaningless as you clearly don't understand why speed
limits are there.


What you are encouraging is more of the idiot breed that think speed
limits are all important: they are not! Cameras do not indicate that there
was ice on the road and that the individual who drove past the school at
19 m.p.h.at 8.45 a.m. or 4.00 p.m. knocking a child down was driving
irresponsibly. To do this with present technology is not possible as far
as I am aware. The removal of police from the road and the imposition of
targets has hindered road safety. Likewise, the failure to prosecute folk
who drive a car at less than 56 m.p.h. in the slow lane of a motorway,
when conditions allow, creates dangerous situations that may cause
accidents as HGVs endeavour to pass the idiot. Such folk ought to be
prosecuted (for obstruction but rarely are) and possibly barred from using
motorways.

They should then have to take compulsory training and a test before
they get their license back.
I don't see how standards will improve without doing something like
that. Even that might not work given the idiotic attitude of many
drivers so a three strikes and out system to remove them from the
roads all together is probably a good idea.

I have every sympathy for a driver (particularly one who has to do 40 to
50k miles per annum) that notches up points for driving responsibly and is
observing road conditions, traffic, pedestrians, feral dogs, whatever,
rather than irresponsibly spending time with eyes glued to the
speedometer.

You mean a driver that can't abide by the speed limit?
He doesn't sound very responsible and clearly is not observing road
conditions as one of the conditions is the speed limit.
I have no sympathy for such a poor driver.
I have even less sympathy for the ones that don't know what the speed limit
is or that don't know how fast they are going.

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
. ..

8

Locally to us is a car park with shops on the opposite side of the road.
There has been a zebra crossing there for decades. Recently the council
removed the zebra and replaced it with a puffin crossing (which had to be
resited, as traffic leaving the car park would have been too close to the
crossing to see the lights above their roofline when turning out). I pass
this way as both a pedestrian and a motorist frequently and find that it
is
worse for both.

As a pedestrian I press the button and then can have a lengthy wait until
the green man comes on, whereas with the zebra I could cross straight
away.

As a motorist, I continue to wait at a red light when pedestrians have
already finished crossing or even come to a halt when the lights change
after the pedestrians have taken advantage of a gap in the traffic. I
thought that puffins were meant to detect pedestrians and avoid holding up
the traffic unnecessarily.

The cost of this change must have been high, there will be increased
maintenance costs and it seems to have disadvantaged everyone as far as
practicality is concerned.

The theory is that they are safer.
Fewer people used to drive through red lights than ignore zebra crossings.
These days the its OK to speed brigade also ignore red lights.
They use the same logic to convince themselves that its OK.. you know the
one.. its OK to ignore the law most of the time so I will ignore it now.

SteveW

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Clot" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:54:48 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:48:58 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

8

Snipped

At this moment i still think we need more cameras so they can collect
points and get disqualified faster.

Dennis, I have been quite reticent to jump down your throat despite the
deserved comments from others. I have now come to the conclusion that you
could be closely related to members of that breed of super idiots that
have multiplied over the last few decades. It is inappropriate speed that
kills, not someone driving at 36 mph in a 30 limit when the road
conditions were perfect and there were no other vehicles or pedestrians
about.

Trying to live up to your name I see.


Speed limits are a maximum and that maximum may have nothing to do with
how safe it is.

Correct. Speed limits bear no relevance on safety.

130MPH at 3am on the M1 is perfectly safe.

Adam

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:24:28 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

In uk.d-i-y, Steve Walker wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:19:34 +0100 (BST), Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:49:26 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

That would not follow the convention, as we already have a black
bicycle on a white background in a red circle to prohibit cycles and a
similar sign whith a car and motorbike to prohibit motor vehicles.
Therefore prohibiting pedestrians (or for that matter horses or
anything else) should automatically follow the same convention.

Then perhaps you can explain why "no left turn", "no right turn", and
"no u turn" *do* feature a diagonal bar. Designed to confuse?

There is a need to differentate between the orders to "Turn Right" or "No
Right Turn".

Although an order to turn right would be a white arrow on a blue circular
sign.

Quite. If the bar is needed for "no right turn", it's needed for "no
cycling". If it's not needed for "no cycling", it's not needed for "no
right turn" either.

Except there is a difference, a no cycling sign is equivalent to a no-entry
sign for cycles, similarly for a no motor vehicles or no pedestrians sign.
A no right turn sign is not a form of no-entry sign, as it may be perfectly
permissible for traffic approaching from the opposite direction to turn
left into the same road, similarly for a no u-turns. Not having a bar gives
an indication of prohibition of entry, whereas the ones with bars are a
prohibition of a particular manouvre.

SteveW

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:33:49 +0100, Dave wrote:

Steve Walker wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:48:08 GMT, ARWadsworth wrote:

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:54:48 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:


"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:48:58 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:
8

That would be why they are putting platform humps in these days.
Shame that they also slow emergency stuff down too.
Which is a good reason not to install speed bumps at all.
Its the usual case of the idiots spoiling it for everyone else.
There should be no need for speed humps as there should be no need for
keep
clear road signs.
Most drivers are too stupid not to have the humps or the keep clear signs
as
they just don't pay attention to road conditions.
Indeed. And the more we cater for the bad drivers the less incentive
there is for them to improve.

At this moment i still think we need more cameras so they can collect
points and get disqualified faster.
They should then have to take compulsory training and a test before they
get their license back.
I don't see how standards will improve without doing something like that.
Even that might not work given the idiotic attitude of many drivers so a
three strikes and out system to remove them from the roads all together is
probably a good idea.

Why not pick on pedestrians instead?

The thick ****s walk up to a pelican crossing press the button then look and
see that they can cross the road before the car gets there and so they cross
with the red man showing. The car gets to the crossing and has to wait at an
empty crossing.

The even thicker ****s think that by just been near to a pelican crossing
allows them to cross the road without looking.

The thickest ****s of all have a limp and walk very slowly. It is their duty
to cross the road at any place that suits them in a diagonal line thus
holding the traffic up for longer than is needed.

Run 'em over.

Adam

Locally to us is a car park with shops on the opposite side of the road.
There has been a zebra crossing there for decades. Recently the council
removed the zebra and replaced it with a puffin crossing (which had to be
resited, as traffic leaving the car park would have been too close to the
crossing to see the lights above their roofline when turning out). I pass
this way as both a pedestrian and a motorist frequently and find that it is
worse for both.

As a pedestrian I press the button and then can have a lengthy wait until
the green man comes on, whereas with the zebra I could cross straight away.

As a motorist, I continue to wait at a red light when pedestrians have
already finished crossing or even come to a halt when the lights change
after the pedestrians have taken advantage of a gap in the traffic. I
thought that puffins were meant to detect pedestrians and avoid holding up
the traffic unnecessarily.

The cost of this change must have been high, there will be increased
maintenance costs and it seems to have disadvantaged everyone as far as
practicality is concerned.

What is the difference between trafic light controlled crossing?
My 18 month old highway code does not mention them. Mutter, mutter, I
must get myself a new one.

Dave

Pelicans you will be used to. Puffins are the same, except that they
supposedly have sensors to detect pedestrians and hold the red until they
have crossed, therefore the sequence is just like normal traffic lights
instead of the flashing amber of a pelican. A toucan also allows cyclists
to cross at the crossing.

SteveW

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
m...


130MPH at 3am on the M1 is perfectly safe.

Probably not.
Limited visibility.
Overnight road maintenance.
Other road users.
Road debris.
Animals.
The unknown.