[Closed] Driving standards/sense of entitlement.

Because driving doesn't work if you simply follow the "speed limit" ...

Why the hell not?

But why do I need a reason ?
Because I am not going to follow a rule that doesn't make sense or worse is actually dangerous.

So how do you know if it makes sense or not? We are already arguing about whether or not these rules make sense, so it's clearly not cut and dried is it?

I'm glad I don't work with you 🙂

[quote=stevextc ]Because driving doesn't work if you simply follow the "speed limit" ...

It works just fine IME (as the recipient of two speeding tickets, in both cases I'm happy to admit I was speeding).

What is the difference between a pavement and a footpath and why it's illegal for a bike to ride over a pavement but not a car...?

The first bit is quite simple (apart from that the technical term for what you're calling a "pavement" is a "footway") - a footway runs alongside the carriageway of a road, a footpath is independent of any road. Meanwhile we already did the second part and as discussed it's illegal for both. It's not really terribly confusing. Though having double checked the relevant law: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/72 it appears the exemption "to gain lawful access to property" mentioned in the HC https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158#general-advice-rules-144-to-158 and discussed above doesn't exist in law.

It's a point that is open to creating a lot of confusion.... even ignoring the 40 mph part for Scotland.

Only if you don't bother to read the HC 🙄 - which TBH applies to most of your points.

intriguingly there's about 50m where the limit is 70!

Again, like the bridge .. WHY ????
Surely it would be clearer, less open to someone missing the sign etc. if they only had the 60 mph sign on exiting the roundabout...

I only mentioned it as a point of interest - in fact it would be far more daft to put the signs where you suggest as people would be far more likely to miss them. The only daft thing here is bothering with the 60 limit in the first place - I doubt having it makes the slightest difference to road safety on that short bit of road.

CBA with the rest of your rant, especially when your source is the Daily Fail.

[quote=stevextc ]I'm fairly convinced this is because leaving a safe gap is now interpreted as an invitation for someone to pull out in front of you ... which then itself leads to unsafe situations as you brake then the car too close behind you brakes etc.

Do you? I can't remember ever having to brake when somebody pulls out in front of me, but then I tend to leave a gap sufficient that it's quite easy for somebody to pull into it, in which case I'll just lift off the accelerator a bit to regain the gap. Maybe you're not actually leaving as much gap as you think (given you seem to think it important that other people don't pull into it). Maybe you should have a good think about your driving standards, because you're not exactly coming across as being as good as you seem to think you are here.

BTW I'm sure we did something recently about how irrelevant it is to your journey time having people pull into the gap you're leaving - something which got mentioned at a speed awareness course somebody did? edit: here we go http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/speed-awareness-course-tomorrow/page/2#post-8418565

Frequently half the machines are not working.... (or are working but turned off) ... when the queue gets longer they get turned back on... because it's all about creating a delay ... the aim is actually to create a delay because studies have found that one of the major complaints in frequent fliers is waiting for baggage so airports deliberately introduce as much delay as possible before the baggage collection.

Sorry this is just more BS.

I fly frequently, \I guess between 20 and 30 times a year. I have never seen more than one or 2 machines not operating.

As I posted above, the passport control is operated by the Border Agency not by the Airport. Why would they want to look slow and inefficient to help the airport generate revenue?

Last year I did think there was a deliberate slowness at the Border but that was more to do with the Industrial dispute they were having about under manning. Nothing to do with the airport.

I still call BS on the "European Passports" nonsense as well. Post an image of the signage and I will admit I'm wrong but there is no indication that this is the case.

Yesterday morning, as I approached the Wilton Avenue junction with Hill Lane, there was a driver who wanted to leave the Old Dell complex and head to same junction (~100 metres away). Instead of waiting for me to go by at ~18mph, this numpty decided to pull out in front of me and then give me far less than 1.5m room on his left.
My urine definitely got warmer!

stevextc » Because driving doesn't work if you simply follow the "speed limit" ...

[quote="molgrips"]Why the hell not?
[quote="aracer"]It works just fine IME (as the recipient of two speeding tickets, in both cases I'm happy to admit I was speeding).

I think you missed the whole point... just because the speed limit is 60 doesn't mean it's SAFE to go 60....

Only if you don't bother to read the HC - which TBH applies to most of your points.

Of which I'm as guilty as most.... but the HC isn't law... and the law in many cases does not agree with the HC.... but the law is not written to be readable - though the HC is.... unfortunately the way Acts are written means that the people who are meant to read them BEFORE voting don't actually read them... or (in the case of the road traffic act) the hundreds of other Laws (passed Acts) that are contradictory or simply so far out of date they are irrelevant... (The base of the road traffic act was written when Penny farthings were new technology and cycles are classed as sledges and trolleys and even livestock in many definitions)

I only mentioned it as a point of interest - in fact it would be far more daft to put the signs where you suggest as people would be far more likely to miss them. The only daft thing here is bothering with the 60 limit in the first place - I doubt having it makes the slightest difference to road safety on that short bit of road.

It may not make any difference but why not have a 60 sign at the roundabout and then a 60 sign where the current one is....

My whole point is about making stuff clear and easy to follow....

Maybe you should have a good think about your driving standards, because you're not exactly coming across as being as good as you seem to think you are here.

BTW I'm sure we did something recently about how irrelevant it is to your journey time having people pull into the gap you're leaving - something which got mentioned at a speed awareness course somebody did?

I don't need a good think about my driving standards because I already know they have gone downhill over the last decades....
Frankly I used to care a lot about safety .. now I care more about not getting a ticket... so far I have managed 30 odd years and not had a single driving offence except a PCN for pulling over for a fire engine...

Getting a PCN for pulling over into a bus lane for a fire engine was a landmark... this is the point where I no longer gave a crap about good/bad practice ... I realised no-one gives a toss about following the rules, getting the revenue is far more important. I was sent a threatening letter basically saying pay up for a discount or take it to court and we will throw everything we can at you to ruin your life....

CBA with the rest of your rant, especially when your source is the Daily Fail.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=yellow+lines+around+car&rlz=1C1CHFX_en-GBGB545GB549&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWiO3uotPTAhVDI8AKHQK2DqcQ_AUICigB&biw=1585&bih=781

BTW I'm sure we did something recently about how irrelevant it is to your journey time having people pull into the gap you're leaving - something which got mentioned at a speed awareness course somebody did?

It might be irrelevant to journey time .... but it's not irrelevant to safety...

Though having double checked the relevant law: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/72 it appears the exemption "to gain lawful access to property" mentioned in the HC https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158#general-advice-rules-144-to-158 and discussed above doesn't exist in law.

There is some other legislation.... I don't have time to find it as i have a dentists appointment ... by that is what I mean about confusing and unclear legislation.... and it would take ages to find again as it's buried in some other act referred to by another etc. (i.e. something you'd never find unless you were looking)

IMHO the problem is the crap legislation.... the HC tries to summarise it but the legislation itself is contradictory....

p.s. Have you ever ridden after lighting up hours without pedal reflectors ???

Does that law make ANY sense to you?

Do you support "plastic police" (community support) handing out PCN's to kids for riding on the pavement as the commons actually passed that as a law and it was then rejected by the Lords?

Amusingly, I just failed for not going *at* the speed limits. And not pulling out quickly enough.

In the Netherlands, though, where the roads are more segregated.

EDIT:

Getting a PCN for pulling over into a bus lane for a fire engine

Surely you could appeal that?

"BTW I'm sure we did something recently about how irrelevant it is to your journey time having people pull into the gap you're leaving"

get a little unhappy with drivers that roll stop lines at speed from the left into what is a safe gap - then turn right bringing you to a stop - in my mind a typical rat running move and self entitlement - their journey is important - yours can wait - i can live with it as I know I've allowed enough time for my journey and the luxury of that makes me smug and content

[quote=stevextc ]I think you missed the whole point... just because the speed limit is 60 doesn't mean it's SAFE to go 60....

[img] [/img]

Of which I'm as guilty as most.... but the HC isn't law... and the law in many cases does not agree with the HC....

In this case it does (we were discussing NSL speeds) and in most cases it does. There's really very little confusing if you do read it.

I don't need a good think about my driving standards because I already know they have gone downhill over the last decades....
Frankly I used to care a lot about safety .. now I care more about not getting a ticket...

I'm not sure it's even worth discussing this with you any further if that is your attitude - maybe you should think about whether you should be driving at all. I don't even think about getting a ticket most of the time, because I'm obeying the law so it's a non issue (and nowadays even on the open road and motorway I rarely stray into the sort of speeds where I might get a ticket). You should try it.

BTW I'm sure we did something recently about how irrelevant it is to your journey time having people pull into the gap you're leaving - something which got mentioned at a speed awareness course somebody did?

It might be irrelevant to journey time .... but it's not irrelevant to safety...

Not irrelevant, but as I explained (but you appear to have ignored) it's something you can manage and mitigate against - providing you are leaving a proper safe gap in the first place.

stevextc » I'm fairly convinced this is because leaving a safe gap is now interpreted as an invitation for someone to pull out in front of you ...

I'm not too bothered by that one. What I find more irritating is people who overtake me then pull into the safe gap about 2 metres from the front of my car.

..the law in many cases does not agree with the HC..
..IMHO the problem is the crap legislation.... the HC tries to summarise it but the legislation itself is contradictory....

Examples?

The "MUST" rules in the Highway Code all provide references to the relevant traffic laws.

Getting a PCN for pulling over into a bus lane for a fire engine was a landmark...

Annoying yes, but a simple consequence of having an automated system.
You should have appealed.

I think you missed the whole point... just because the speed limit is 60 doesn't mean it's SAFE to go 60....

We know this, but it's a LIMIT, which means you can go slower. Following the limit doens't mean doing 60, it means not exceeding 60.

So it does work. It means you know that person coming over the hill is going to be with you NO EARLIER than X seconds. If they are going slower, then that's fine, but if they are going faster that's when there's a problem because people aren't expecitng you to come over the hill at 80.

Multiquotes and a strawman jpeg

Classic forum argument

Annoying yes, but a simple consequence of having an automated system.
You [u]should[/u] have appealed.

Could or should ???

See that was my first reaction ... but then you look at how are you going to prove the fire engine.
They have proof, a photo of me in a bus lane .... they also must have photo's of the fire engine but they aren't likely going to provide me with their photo's top use as evidence against them... at least not without me paying for a solicitor...

They must have known this as I wasn't the only car pulled into the bus lane... but they obviously don't care because revenue is revenue.

They (TfL in this case) also make it clear they don't mind how much tax payer money they spend if you appeal they have a bottomless pit to prevent successful appeals as the system depends on people not appealing....Meanwhile I have to take time off work etc. which would have cost me far more than the "£60 if you pay within 2 weeks"...

The whole system is just set up to minimise cost at the expense of anyone who has a good reason to appeal.

I can't believe you would think of the system in these terms. You really think that the people that work there are mendacious plotters being as nasty as they possibly can to line their own pockets? Except it's not their own pockets, it's the public purse.

I have no idea how you can live with such a twisted bitter view of humanity, tbh. Most people in local government, or indeed any goverment, or indeed most people in general are well meaning but make lots of mistakes. That's what you need to remember.

[quote="Molgrips"]I'm not sure it's even worth discussing this with you any further if that is your attitude - maybe you should think about whether you should be driving at all.

I'm just being honest... I stopped caring because that is what 90% of other drivers do....

I don't even think about getting a ticket most of the time, because I'm obeying the law so it's a non issue

You already demonstrated your ignorance of laws on mini roundabouts... (I mean ignorance literally not as an insult) and I'm sure you share it with a huge number of people.

I presume you always park your car in reverse on a public highway as well or you are contravening the seatbelt law (presuming you aren't driving a emergency services vehicle)? for the seconds you sit down to the seconds you put on a seatbelt...

I'll readily admit I'll get in then put a seat belt on.... but it's illegal.
You probably also do lots of other things that most people do but are still illegal... and in many cases it's actually impossible not to break contradictory laws... or break one by mistake whilst trying to follow one.

I was doing 70 mph +/- 5% on my speedometer calibration.... there is no way on earth I was doing 40mph by the time I passed the sign that lit up literally a second earlier... so the second I passed the sign I was breaking the law.... by the time I got to the camera I must have been 40 or very close...

Had I had a car tailgating me what should I have done ??? Hit the brakes harder in order to ensure i was doing no more than 40 mph by the time I hit the sign or try and safely be doing less than 45 mph by the time I got to the camera???

I'll also admit to riding a well lit and otherwise legal bike without pedal reflectors... similarly it's illegal after lighting up time.

ahem, those quotes are mine, not molly's

I also never attended archery practice on a Sunday.

Of course there are some daft laws - I've no idea how the seatbelt thing you're banging on about works, but I'm sure nobody has ever been done for that theoretical case. Your argument now appears to be a combo of strawman and slippery slope - no it doesn't make it reasonable or sensible to ignore all the rules because some are daft and never enforced.

molgrips - Member

We know this, but it's a LIMIT, which means you can go slower. Following the limit doesn't mean doing 60, it means not exceeding 60.

So it does work. It means you know that person coming over the hill is going to be with you NO EARLIER than X seconds. If they are going slower, then that's fine, but if they are going faster that's when there's a problem because people aren't expecting you to come over the hill at 80.

Congratulations, you've just been rear ended/T-boned by a police car.

I cannot believe you still think that driving to expectation is a good idea.

I can't believe you would think of the system in these terms. You really think that the people that work there are mendacious plotters being as nasty as they possibly can to line their own pockets? Except it's not their own pockets, it's the public purse.

I have no idea how you can live with such a twisted bitter view of humanity, tbh.

The policy (not the individuals) is to maximise revenue ... this is not a secret. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people been given tickets that the council or TfL etc. know is not legal because it's already been challenged and won in court. This isn't just councils or traffic but increasingly across all walks of life...

However the [u]policy[/u] is to issue anyway...

Most people in local government, or indeed any goverment, or indeed most people in general are well meaning but make lots of mistakes. That's what you need to remember.

They may or may not be well meaning ... however the system put in place is there to make it as much trouble as possible for them to act on being well meaning.

The system is set up so they have to take a personal risk in order to deviate off-script and even if they are not putting their actual job at risk they are forced to go through loops (extra work) in order to act like people rather than follow a script.

**** me stevextc whats your blood pressure like???

You could do with going for a nice ride in the sunshine.

bails » Also, as GrahamS has mentioned, knowledge of speed limits was atrocious. This sign:
Means a limit anywhere betwene 40 and 80mph if you believe the attendees!

aracer
Well they're not so far off - until recently it was between 40 and 70 (and still is in Scotland).

get a little unhappy with drivers that roll stop lines at speed from the left into what is a safe gap - then turn right bringing you to a stop - in my mind a typical rat running move and self entitlement

I had one of those this morning. Doing 40 (in a 40mph zone), car pulled out in front of me from a side street causing me to jam on, then proceeded to beetle along at 20mph. The road was clear behind me as far as the eye could see. Just... why?

look at how are you going to prove the fire engine.

I'd imagine that the local fire service will have records of their call-outs, would be fairly trivial to corroborate.

I was doing 70 mph +/- 5% on my speedometer calibration.... there is no way on earth I was doing 40mph by the time I passed the sign that lit up literally a second earlier...

There must surely be a period of grace between the signs changing and the limit being enforced. What if it changed when you were right underneath it? An immediate enforcement would mean you'd be penalised for disobeying a sign that wasn't even visible when you passed it.

Oh and the thing about the speed limit dropping for no reason early on a Sunday morning, its not all part of a master plan to extract money from the poor motorist.
The signs can be manually set but most of the time its automated, I believe the system sometimes has an issue with low numbers of vehicles. It can get confused into thinking there is slow traffic, it then slows the up stream to reduce the flow at the congestion point. hence you see 40 for no reason.

Steve - You appear to be getting a little agitated. Has you tin foil hat slipped or something?
[img] [/img]

stevextc - do you have anger management issues and do you attempt to 'have the last word' at work and/or in your personal life?

Excessive use of quotes, unattributed sources, capitals, underlining - it's the cyber version of shouting. When someone shouts persistently we all tune out; that's definitely where I am with you - and I'm sure others are in the same place.

I thought I recognised your style and, sure enough, your thread about Wiggle is exactly the same format.

It's both unnecessary and tiresome.

I got caught speeding two weeks ago. My Fault

Out of interest steve, did you attempt to contest the Bus Lane FPN in any way?

I can see you might not have wanted to employ a solicitor for the sake of contesting a £60 fine at the supreme court, but did you at least call/email the appropriate department and discuss it? What did they say?

ahem, those quotes are mine, not molly's

I also never attended archery practice on a Sunday.

Of course there are some daft laws - I've no idea how the seatbelt thing you're banging on about works, but [b]I'm sure nobody has ever been done for that theoretical case[/b]. Your argument now appears to be a combo of strawman and slippery slope -

I'm almost sure someone has but that's a bit either irrelevant or the point I'm making???? (and there are plenty of cyclists been done for pedal reflectors)

no it doesn't make it reasonable or sensible to ignore all the rules because some are daft and never enforced.

I'm not saying ignore all the rules ...I'm saying it means I start obeying them when I might get caught rather than just obeying them because they are sensible. That might be parking illegally for 5 minutes because I don't have the correct change and it's Sunday and the local traffic wardens are not working... or it might be cycling home without pedal reflectors...

What I'm saying is that has changed my perception of WHY I obey...

The way I see it is there are 650 MP's MEANT (paid and elected) to make sure that the Act they vote on is fair and just etc. The overwhelming majority either don't show up or vote on party lines...

Before they vote they should fully understand the Act and it's consequences ... and how it interacts with any other Act..

This all seems to be far too much work/trouble for them.
Largely that is because they have Acts that need rewriting so it's next to impossible to

A recent example was some Act that by extension effectively allowed a PSCO to issue an on the spot fine to a kid for riding on the pavement.

Now I very much doubt most of the MP's that voted this Act in did so because they think that is correct... about the same time the Minister for Transport was saying "people should ride on the pavement where they feel unsafe on the road" and the police at the same time were saying they would prosecute people following the Ministers advice... they voted for it because they hadn't READ and UNDERSTOOD it...

The Road Traffic Act (1835) is a particularly crap bit of legislation for the 20C, let alone 21C .. and since then bicycles (carriages) etc. have changed a lot...
Despite the numerous amendments cycles are still carriages... so the new Act was referring to people driving a carriage on the pavement.... not a child riding a bike... but to unravel that is a lot of work and effort.. the sort of thing the CTC legal people might understand but not your MP.

http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/1835highwayact/

 

The policy (not the individuals) is to maximise revenue

Non-tinfoil related citation required!

I dunno about you but when I break the rules, I cough up. I get angry about it on here, but then I realise I was wrong.

I could claim the sign in Liverpool that I missed was not visible (it's not very conspicuous on streetview), but I can't really prove that it wasn't just me not watching well enough.

I presume you always park your car in reverse on a public highway as well or you are contravening the seatbelt law (presuming you aren't driving a emergency services vehicle)? for the seconds you sit down to the seconds you put on a seatbelt...

I understand that you must wear a seatbelt when driving unless you're reversing, but I've never come across anything to suggest that you're expected to teleport into the driver's seat with the seatbelt already fitted. Can you show me anything that would suggest that it applies when stationary / with the engine off? I've had a look and can't find any clarity either way.

It's a while ago, but I'm 99% certain that my driving instructor told me that you didn't need to wear a seatbelt for a manoeuvre that *involved* reverse (eg, a 3-point turn) but recommended leaving it on in case you forget to put it back on afterwards. He could've been wrong of course, he was a driving instructor not a lawyer.

[quote="GrahamS"]Out of interest steve, did you attempt to contest the Bus Lane FPN in any way?

Nope... I already lost a week by the time I got the letter (working away from home) and it was made pretty clear that you either pay up and get a 50% reduction or they are going to screw you over so you lose out even if the appeal is successful.

When I then considered how I could prove the fire engine it just looked simpler to pay than try and appeal.. after all they must have had photo's of the fire engine in the bus lane a minute either side...so it wasn't like this would be news to them. Having seen a documentary the policy is they fight every appeal because they rely on 90% of people not appealing and if people are seen to win then more will appeal... (I guess from their side it's like PPI and they could end up with a huge bill for all the illegal PCN's they paid and i think by paying you have to accept guilt so you can't then go back and challenge it)

If I phoned them up and they then started with the script, refusing to acknowledge the fire engine unless I could provide evidence I'd probably just have upset myself more.... not worth it for £60

Steve - did you get a photo with your bus lane fine as evidence? There were two or three photos attached to mine when I received it IIRC.

Assuming the bus lane was on the nearside and the camera mounted on the pavement there would be a good view of the bus lane and the normal lane and loads of vehicles skewed all over the bus lane as they avoided the fire engine? Mine had time stamps on as well which could have helped demonstrate that you were stationary/moving slowly.

Also - common sense surely dictates that if a smart motorway sign changes from 70-40 immediately that you're not expected to jab the brakes on. I've never stamped on the brake and never received a speeding fine from such a scenario.

Can you show me anything that would suggest that it applies when stationary / with the engine off? I've had a look and can't find any clarity either way.

I had a look Cougar and the only relevant thing I could find was a Pistonheads thread about a guy who was done for removing his seatbelt whilst he was stationary in traffic.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=948453&i=0

I'm 99% certain that my driving instructor told me that you didn't need to wear a seatbelt for a manoeuvre that *involved* reverse (eg, a 3-point turn)

Correct. Legislation is here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/I/crossheading/protective-measures-seat-belts-helmets-etc

Section 14 (2)(b) ii has the reversing exception.

Easy reader version is here:
https://www.gov.uk/seat-belts-law/when-you-dont-need-to-wear-a-seat-belt

Having seen a documentary the policy is they fight every appeal because they rely on 90% of people not appealing

The "policy" will be dependent on the individual council and / or any third party they've contracted to enforce the restrictions. There is no great national conspiracy, there will be hundreds if not thousands of different organisations involved in the issue of PCNs.

Your argument is essentially that you received an unfair charge, couldn't be arsed to even try to contest it, and are now bitter that you had to pay. You've only yourself to blame here I'm afraid. They might have fought it tooth and nail of course, or they might equally well have gone "fair enough chief, we'll cancel that for you then, sorry for the inconvenience."

I understand that you must wear a seatbelt when driving unless you're reversing, but I've never come across anything to suggest that you're expected to teleport into the driver's seat with the seatbelt already fitted. Can you show me anything that would suggest that it applies when stationary / with the engine off? I've had a look and can't find any clarity either way.

It's a while ago, but I'm 99% certain that my driving instructor told me that you didn't need to wear a seatbelt for a manoeuvre that *involved* reverse (eg, a 3-point turn) but recommended leaving it on in case you forget to put it back on afterwards. He could've been wrong of course, he was a driving instructor not a lawyer.

I probably could find it eventually as I've found it before when looking for something else.... I just don't remember EXACTLY where... and the way legislation is written/amended makes it a bit pointless unless you actually got done for it.

Typically it's just badly worded....
An similar (more current) example is using your mobile phone...
There are several sites that suggest IF you have it in a holder and you are using it as a sat nav then that is actually legal.... and the illegal bit is actually "holding the phone" ... but if you read the legislation or simplifed .gov explanation that is far from clear.

https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-driving-the-law

During that time a few legal firms issued "their interpretation" as so many people were confused... but honestly would it have been that hard for the legislation to actually spell this out?

Note also the simplified .gov doesn't actually link to the Act itself....

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/41D

Nope...
When I then considered how I could prove the fire engine it just looked simpler to pay than try and appeal..
..If I phoned them up and they then started with the script, refusing to acknowledge the fire engine unless I could provide evidence I'd probably just have upset myself more.... not worth it for £60

So instead of at least phoning them up for a chat, where for all you know they may well have said something like [i]"Oh yes, I can see the incident photos here Mr Xtc and they clearly show a fire engine. There's no need pay the fine and we'll send you a letter confirming that."[/i] you instead have decided they are all mindless automata conspiring to rob you to swell the council coffers?

Odd.

Your argument is essentially that you received an unfair charge, couldn't be arsed to even try to contest it, and are now bitter that you had to pay. You've only yourself to blame here I'm afraid. They might have fought it tooth and nail of course, or they might equally well have gone "fair enough chief, we'll cancel that for you then, sorry for the inconvenience."

Not really, the problem was opening a can of worms...
It's possible I could have rung them up and they could have said "Oh sorry we have 100 other's and we saw the fire engine...." but it's equally possible they would have simply informed me if I wished to appeal I lose my right for the £60 discount and I then incur time off work etc.

Even assuming these were 50/50 possibilities it is £60 vs potentially £1000+

I'm also guessing the person who answered the phone would be far more likely to have no power to actually change anything there and then... and would instead follow a script.

[quote=stevextc ]and there are plenty of cyclists been done for pedal reflectors

cite

I'm not saying ignore all the rules ...I'm saying it means I start obeying them when I might get caught rather than just obeying them because they are sensible.

Ah - I tend to obey them if they are sensible, because you'd have to be a dick not to, but YMMV

[quote=stevextc ]An similar (more current) example is using your mobile phone...
There are several sites that suggest IF you have it in a holder and you are using it as a sat nav then that is actually legal.... and the illegal bit is actually "holding the phone" ... but if you read the legislation or simplifed .gov explanation that is far from clear.

It's just you, steve. The legislation quite clearly states "hand held" and the guidance quite clearly says that if you're using it hands free (and gives examples, including a holder) that you're OK. Are you trying to find things to get confused by?

[quote="nickewan"]Also - common sense surely dictates that if a smart motorway sign changes from 70-40 immediately that you're not expected to jab the brakes on. I've never stamped on the brake and never received a speeding fine from such a scenario.

Yes, common sense says that but the camera has no common sense.
So far as I understand the new speed limit applies from some exact point where the sign is....and has no "slow down sensibly" (It is a normal speed limit sign in that regard)

Now someone MAY have applied common sense and put a delay for the camera but equally they may not.... how would I know?
If I learned anything from implementing similar stuff through work it's that the simplest/cheapest option to implement is the one that gets implemented not the common sense approach....

Correct. Legislation is here:

Ah, nice find. The preamble to that says,

[i]The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring, subject to such exceptions as may be prescribed, [b]persons who are driving or riding[/b] in motor vehicles on a road to wear seat belts of such description as may be prescribed.[/i]

So how do we define "driving or riding"? Are you driving if you're sat in the car with the engine off? Seems unlikely. Engine running but parked up with the handbrake on? Dunno. To my mind both "driving" and "riding" would imply motion, if something is "being driven then it's under power and if you put an automatic into Drive then it sets off.

The article on the PH thread is insanity. I wonder if he got the charges dropped? Can't immediately find a follow-up article.

Ah, nice find. The preamble to that says,

The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring, subject to such exceptions as may be prescribed, persons who are driving or riding in motor vehicles on a road to wear seat belts of such description as may be prescribed.

So how do we define "driving or riding"? Are you driving if you're sat in the car with the engine off? Seems unlikely. Engine running but parked up with the handbrake on? Dunno. To my mind both "driving" and "riding" would imply motion, if something is "being driven then it's under power and if you put an automatic into Drive then it sets off.

The article on the PH thread is insanity. I wonder if he got the charges dropped? Can't immediately find a follow-up article.

When this "driving or not" has been applied to people over the alcohol limit sleeping/listening to radio in the driving seat with the keys in their pockets not in the ignition they have said that is "driving" (as I recall)

Anyway, the first point is there are multiple interpretations of what driving/riding mean so why can't they just spell it out? I can understand for seatbelts why not moving might also require a seatbelt (as you may be hit by another car)

You can apply all those arguments you make (which I agree are common sense) to simply getting in/out of the car.

The second point is based on possible interpretations 650 MP's are meant to have reviewed, understood and then voted on this....that then applies to millions of people... I just can't see how it would have killed them to actually get the wording correct and unambiguous?

If you then look at the whole Road Traffic Act ... (written before the modern safety bicycle) and then just amended to .... you can start to see how ambiguous the whole thing is.... cycles are classed as "carriages" ... I don't know about you but I see very few horse drawn carriages and why they law as pertains them applies to a cycle .... but not a car is just layers upon layers of amendments to an Act from the mid 1800's...

When this "driving or not" has been applied to people over the alcohol limit sleeping/listening to radio in the driving seat with the keys in their pockets not in the ignition they have said that is "driving" (as I recall)

Wrong. The alcohol stuff states "Driving or being in charge". The fact you have the keys means you are "in charge".

If you then look at the whole Road Traffic Act ... (written before the modern safety bicycle)

What? 1988? Did you ride a Penny farthing to school?

[url= http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/contents ]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/contents[/url]

.. cycles are classed as "carriages"

No they really aren't. From the 1988 RTA

"cycle” means a bicycle, a tricycle, or a cycle having four or more wheels, not being in any case a motor vehicle,"

Your rage against the machine is hilarious. 😀

Do you just make shit up? #xtcfact

Has this turned into one of them wordy ****athon threads?

Yes.

Multiquotes! Nitpicking! Froth!

Take it you're not at work today Steve as I reckon you could have rewritten the highway code this afternoon with all the posts you've put on.
There's no way on earth I'd be paying for that bus lane incident and I like others have said would've been straight on the phone.
In fact I sent dominoes an email on Sunday and got a refund today as my food was 50 mins late and cold. I love complaining me 😉