Drivers and their problems

"the mum said there needed to be better signs to warn drivers of some of the potential hazards"

Errrr.... High hedges, narrow road, bends. And that's just fron that one photo. Why would any competent driver need a sign to tell them that they need to moderate their speed and use the horn ?

mdavidford wrote:

What about the tortoise though?

"Would passengers taking the 17.35 to Newcastle please bring it back."

brooksby wrote:

Genuine question, possibly something road.cc could look into: how do the costs of using public transport (buses, tube, hire bikes) compare with the costs of owning and driving a car in That There London?  I mean, London has arguably the best public transport system in all of England - as an occasional tourist, I honestly can't imagine why someone would own a car when they lived there.

Seconded - not a Londoner and never lived there so have no idea. But ... I used to visit and ... it's quite big. In fact, more like a series of towns / cities stuck together. And apparently public transport on the edges / just outside can be sketchy (made even worse by contrast with the centre I imagine).

chrisonabike wrote:

 "Would passengers taking the 17.35 to Newcastle please bring it back."

Peter Cook's Scotland Yard detective on the Great Train Robbery: "I think I should make one thing clear from the outset, when you speak of train robbery, this involved no loss of train. It was merely the contents of the train which were pilfered, we haven't lost an actual train since 1943, I think it was, the year of the great snows, when we mislaid a small one."

David9694 wrote:

How to catch the bus. There's also one about getting off it. If I was going to France or Gernany I guess there'd be no shame in reading up on how to use the RER and the U-Bahn. I guess this is a great way of removing obstacles to public transport use - one of the better things the internet has done -  but isn't using buses a life skill like brushing your teeth or tying your shoe laces??

https://youtu.be/5-yvQBZEhx8?si=foIco7ss8ljVBA8h

I've never found a bus system that didn't have a learning curve. I've ridden buses in at least:

• London (probably the easiest)
• Glasgow
• Chicago
• Washington, DC
• Seattle, WA
• Portland, OR
• Peoria, IL
• Denver, CO

I gave up in Dublin and walked everywhere, but I did find the train there easy to figure out.

It's (usually) easy to find a schedule and routes, but with an unfamiliar system it's often not obvious to figure out:

• Do I need to buy a ticket in advance? Day pass?
• Where do I buy it?
• Can I buy it as I board?
• Can I pay cash on board? How much do I need?
• Do I have to pay again if I transfer?

And yes, my expectation used to be that if I was waiting at a bus stop, the bus would stop. That doesn't always work.

HoarseMann wrote:

Heavy traffic "forces" driver to break the law...

https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/24631810.colchester-woman-forced-bre...

Her journey of 0.5 miles is a 10 min walk, 3 min cycle or 4 min drive! (Colchester Institute to Rawstorn Rd).

Her home wasn't "inaccessible", AFAICS, it just meant she might have had to wait while traffic (of which she was a part!) cleared.  God forbid she have to wait like everyone else…

David9694 wrote:

“Some drivers will inevitably end up being very surprised when a notice of intended prosecution letter arrives on their doormat when they felt they had managed to slow down enough after spotting a police car in the distance.”

"But officer, I slowed down when I was passing your car…"

David9694 wrote:

...but isn't using buses a life skill like brushing your teeth or tying your shoe laces??

Exactly like it, in that you have to be taught; if "everyone" uses electric toothbrushes or slip-on shoes you probably won't!

Presumably "I have to drive the kids everywhere" at least in part because that's simply what everyone else does (and your kids will be the butt of jokes / abuse / social isolation if you don't.  Assuming they still spend some time not online?

I saw that. Comments closed and wiped out !
She made up the bit about roadworks.
And she also would have to have used the bus lane to access the pedestrian area.

This was linked.

The cars have to be very long, but Wokingham is one of them...

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/drivers-cars-too-lon...

David9694 wrote:

Drivers failing tests for stopping at red light due to little-known law

A quirk of the Highway Code is to blame for the failure, which has gone viral on YouTube and social media apps.

Ah - our sometime commentator "Nigel" was only half-right!  Clearly you not only can go through a red light if it isn't yet "established", but you also should if it's been permanently establish in the wrong place!

David9694 wrote:

OK this article and the post it's based on is probably nonsense, although I have occasionally seen it happen in my locality.

Drivers failing tests for stopping at red light due to little-known law

A quirk of the Highway Code is to blame for the failure, which has gone viral on YouTube and social media apps.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/drivers-failing-test...

Here's the video referenced, from a year ago.

You can't buy stupid

I like the response from herefordman99:

Quote:

even if the scooter is road legal, then why use the road when the footpath is more than adequate? Surely it should only be used on the road where there is no available footpath to use? [...] Before anyone says anything, my wife uses one (not class 3 though), so i know the regulations surrounding them.

Doesn't appear to know the regulations that a C3 scooter rider cannot use its legally permitted 8 mph top speed on the pavement (must stay at or below 4 mph), so there is a perfectly good reason for them to be on the road even if there is an available footpath.

Hirsute wrote:

Apparently this is just a bike or e-bike…

I get that this is the point you're making, but in what world is that an "e-bike"?  It is an electric motorcycle.  Styled to look like a motorcycle.  Being (illegally) ridden by a 13 years old boy wearing a motorcycle helmet.

Good grief!  It's things like this that lead to councils panicking about the e-bike menace and putting stupid PSPOs in place… 

 clearly isn't one of life's winners but yet our laws can't see him deprived of his right to drive for life

Looks like Rab C. Nesbitt!

David9694 wrote:

business as usual for drivers as regards people with disabilities:

Worcestershire Parkway disabled parking, 'unexpected demand' to blame

A spokesperson for Great Western Railway said: "We offer 23 accessible parking bays immediately outside the station, and a separate pick-up/drop off point, both of which are clearly signposted.

https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/24731866.worcestershire-parkway-dis...

Other drivers only care about disabled people when it gives them a way to object to cycling infrastructure.

brooksby wrote:

Hirsute wrote:

Apparently this is just a bike or e-bike…

I get that this is the point you're making, but in what world is that an "e-bike"?  It is an illegal (if ridden on the road, or cycle path, or pavement, or ... probably most places) electric motorcycle.  Styled to look like a motorcycle.  Being (illegally) ridden by a 13 years old boy wearing a motorcycle helmet.

Just to emphasise; because there's a certain strain of adults (near to where I stay also) who are perfectly happy to buy their kids such "toys" (clearly how they think of them).  "How come I could buy it (in the shops) if it's illegal?"

I think this is somewhat like the early days before the government got prodded into classifying new pharmaceuticals where apparently you could e.g. go into certain pubs and see people openly dealing containers of stuff or even snorting it off the tables because "it's legal, you can't touch me!"

Hopefully it doesn't take too many deaths / injuries to people in this case before the government decides to give a monkeys'?  I believe it's "don't care" (because not a car) rather than ignorance.  Or even "it's all good for the economy, maybe they can even help with congestion?"

wtjs wrote:

 clearly isn't one of life's winners but yet our laws can't see him deprived of his right to drive for life

Looks like Rab C. Nesbitt!

Sadly that is the first thing I thought...

David9694 wrote:

Another cost to everyone else arising from cars - putting in the substantial bollards described here isn't going to come cheap. 

Obviously a woke waste of money!  We just need better drivers! Through .. er ... more police / "tech" / "self-driving cars" (one for "non-drivers and their problems"?) / sending everyone "back where they came from" we don't like (is this right?) etc.

chrisonabike wrote:

David9694 wrote:

Another cost to everyone else arising from cars - putting in the substantial bollards described here isn't going to come cheap. 

Obviously a woke waste of money!  We just need better drivers! Through .. er ... more police / "tech" / "self-driving cars" (one for "non-drivers and their problems"?) / sending everyone "back where they came from" we don't like (is this right?) etc.

We (society) would probably get a lot more value out of using the sensors, computers, and controllers that were intended to enable self-driving cars, to give us self-stopping cars. Cars that refuse to drive into people or buildings, go too fast around corners, drive on the wrong side of the road, or drive onto pavements. If it needs to be over-ridden for legitimate reasons, the car could go into a 5 MPH mode.

We (society) would probably get a lot more value out of using the sensors, computers, and controllers that were intended to enable self-driving cars, to give us self-stopping cars

I, for one, would prefer self driving cars with all their software failings to cars driven by Audi/ BMW drivers (and their ilk)

A chance that he thought his bike might be stolen from him.

Someone's been watching re-runs of Line Of Duty..