In your poor version of English, yes my replies may not warrant capitalisation but then again, as I said, I have higher standards. If you want to use lazy grammar then that’s your call and no doubt in 100-years time English will be signifficantly different.

If a person makes the effort and sacrifice to become and remain a qualified Professional then capitalising their title is reflective of their effort. If you choose not to show such courtesy then, again, that’s your call.

There’s nothing you could do not to sound like a self-important ****. I’m sure though that STW members appreciate you trying though.

so what’s the point? – I’m not bothered about waiting but it bothers me not understanding why they just don’t change immediately

Because when the next pedestrian turns up 10 seconds after you they’ll press the button again and traffic is stopped twice. By putting in a short delay there’s a chance that peds will cross in groups rather than singly. Presumably there should also be a delay once they’ve been activated so that they don’t change again without a delay.

That said, increasingly lights seem to favour peds over road users – I can’t see the benefit myself, you sit in a 5 minute traffic jam to get to the shops but then can cross from the car park to the bank without having to wait 20 seconds. Don’t they realise pedestrians and drivers are the same people?

mk1 – you suggest your version of English is “correct” (moreso than others) – having spent too much time in education I’ve never seen a version like it, with such odd capitalisation, though that doesn’t make me right of course. At no point did I assert that my “forum English” was any better.

If a person makes the effort and sacrifice to become and remain a qualified Professional then capitalising their title is reflective of their effort. If you choose not to show such courtesy then, again, that’s your call.

If you insist, from a family of qualified engineers and from my team I thank you for your distinction of our efforts 😉

There’s nothing you could do not to sound like a self-important ****.

You’re the only STW member to voice that opinion, and remaining quiet on such issues is not a strength of the STW posse – thats why it’s fun to be here! 😉

All I did was ask for proof of the law you suggest and ask why you were capitalising odd words (as I assumed you were quoting verbatim; I used those words in the search of the legislation and got very few hits hence asking) and you got very upset and personal over it – I find this to be slightly strange behaviour?

Was it too much to ask for proof?

Was it self-important of me to ask why you were capitalising words/phrases that don’t require it or appear so in the source of proof?

It seems your answer to both is yes, to which I’ll have to disagree and move on. I’ll check back for your link to the law though, genuinely interested.

From a family of qualified Professionals and my Practice I applaud your sterling efforts to devalue the term Professional.

I don’t see how my behaviour was strange but then again I expect you’d say the same. You’re the one that got ‘personal’ about things. You asked in a condescending way why I capitalise certain phrases, I responded. You choose to use less formal english, I don’t. No, it wasn’t self-important of you to ask why I capitalise things, but it was to state ‘don’t require it’ and similar. You started the ‘I’m better at English than you are’ childiness. I merely responded in kind.

You’ll demonstrate this flaw further by responding to this.

OT:

S176 of the Highway Code contains ‘If the traffic lights are not working, treat the situation as you would an unmarked junction and proceed with great care. [Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36]’

As the sensors do not register a bicycles approach then the lights will not change. This is the not working bit. Although, I would argue that this doen’t mean that they are broken. I would also argue that the proceed with great care bit means Give Way. If they said Give Way then, as the average motorist is inept and interprits this to be ‘give way to other cars’, I would foresee pedestrians being run over.

I am fully aware that the Highway Code is not a Statute but the interpretation of current laws (noted after). I have merely opened the door it is for the individual to walk through it.

Mk1fan – ill respond to that – the lights not working means no lights – not one that won’t change for you – hence you are still going thru a valid red light.

No way of knowing which interpretation is right without case law but I wouldn’t like to base a legal defence on your interpretation

I’m with TJ on this. The Highway Code may refer to lights not working – but neither the RTA or TSRGD refer to “not working” in the sections you cited or elsewhere. What they do refer to is defines the correct character, size etc of traffic signs/lights (but not how they are triggered). Therefore what it seems to say to me is if its not illuminated it is no longer a valid traffic sign.

if you want confusing, then try the crossings / lights around the Canon Street/King William Street/Eastcheap/Gracechucrh Street in London. It’s a real treat for first timers