Firstly, I don't really care (but that might be because it's Sultana and Your Party, which is as insignificant as it is amusing) and, secondly, really? Don't the police have better things to be spending their time on?
You've just said my job isn't important.
Investitgating financial crimes is very important.
Anything juicy recently?
Nope, my investigations have mostly centred on cocaine and unsolicited & solicited dick pics.
In my OH's last company, she was asked to ignore the cocaine misuse as the company wouldn't have a sales team left. Your lot must have higher standards.
Just to point out that this is an everyday example of the ridiculous state of affairs where wholesalers in this product are getting 20-25 year sentences while the product is regarded by millions as quotidian and normal.
If demand ceased, so would supply. Either decriminalise or make the user the real criminal, not the hard working trader.
MPs and television presenters have been cancelled over dodgy bants or porn but politics and the media are fuelled by actually illegal drugs. And this illustrates a real problem – the growing gulf between what is acceptable and what is legal.
Coke is now such a naff drug - it’s being hoovered up noses in pubs up and down the country by every man jack and off kitchen counters by bored mums.
Is the answer to be massively illiberal on coke - 1 year in prison, no suspended sentences or anything for possession. Announce it from the rooftops - you are caught with coke, or driving under the influence and you are going to prison for a year so say goodbye to your mid level management job, your kids, your bed. Prepare to be unable to cover your mortgage and lose your home, have a nightmare with a drugs offence when opening accounts or travelling.
Would something this severe smash the casual use? These people aren’t thinking of the chain of poor fuckers down the line working in grim conditions to harvest and produce, those getting killed in the trade so why have any sympathy for the end users?
I’m not sure how I feel about the above but would be an interesting experiment.
Where do you plan to build the extra 3,000 prisons?
This misses the point. The function of mandatory prison sentences is not in order to fill extra prisons but to deter certain actions. I am neutral as between decriminalisation and, OTOH, rational drug law enforcement. What is irrational is to deter traders with 25 year sentences but not deter use in any significant way.
Would not a few dozen otherwise impeccable living middling sorts with wives, children and careers in auto finance and geography teaching going to prison for drug use be enough?
I wonder how many of us are a little more careful about driving now that mere careless driving, if it chances to have certain outcomes, can lead straight to prison?
It can but even if careless driving leads to death or serious injury in most cases the sentence will be a community order or suspended sentence. Only if the driver killed under the influence of drink of drugs would an immediate prison sentence be likely.
We also should be considering changing highway laws to reduce speed limits on rural roads, narrow tracks and at bends or banning u turns or 3 point turns except in quiet residential streets as a lot of what would be mere careless driving could still be doing a currently legal manoeuvre
Just how are people supposed to turn round if they miss a junction or take a wrong turn?
Wait until they reach the next roundabout
This is nuts. I live in rural Surrey, but let's be honest Surrey is also pretty built up so I imagine most of the countryside is worse for roundabouts than where I live, but lets just take the lane I live on:
It has a roundabout at one end so let's assume we are going in the other direction. It is 2 miles long. It then reaches a cross roads. To the left you have to drive about 4 miles to a roundabout (which you may not know is there). Straight on is a narrow lane of about a mile with a T junction at the end. At that junction you can turn left or right. If you turn left you have about 5 miles to another T junction. At that junction you can turn left and eventually come to a roundabout in a mile. If you turn right I can't even think where there is a roundabout. Going back to the last junction if you turn right you come to another junction after about 2 miles. You can turn right and come to a roundabout after 3 miles. If you turn left after 2 miles you come to another junction. The next roundabout is about 7 miles away. Finally going back to the first junction if you turn right after 2 miles there is a junction. I can't think of where there is another roundabout either left or right on that road.
Your suggestion is nuts.
You are also wrong on speed limits for country lanes. You should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions. I am currently taking my Advanced Driving lessons for IAM. They are really hot on not exceeding the speed limits, but also hot on not progressing and I was told I was driving too slow for the conditions on my last lesson. People driving too slow for the conditions are also very dangerous.
Fine, then take the risk of being done for death or serious injury by careless driving if you do said u turn on a rural road and won't wait until the next roundabout or village.
The speed limit on country lanes is 60mph.
'Driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions' is a totally subjective term. One man's 'appropriate speed' may be 55mph, another 20mph on the same road and same conditions, even if approaching a bend it is completely vague guidance. As you say you can be accused of going too slow as well as too fast
You should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear, is good general advice.
And how is the average man on the road of average intelligence let alone those of below supposed to be able to calculate how long it will take them to stop where they see is clear ahead? They can follow the speed limit, they can't do stopping distance calculations every road they take!
On the contrary, you can and do. Just as you judge other distances, like how far behind the car in front to drive, in different conditions.
Glad you live the other side of London, I'm unlikely to meet you coming round a corner. Perhaps you should hand back your licence, I'm beginning to think that wasn't such an uncharitable suggestion
How? The average driver on the road is NOT a statistician who can calculate stopping distances. You drive behind a car so you can always see its back and license plate in full, that is NOT the same as doing constant stopping distance calculations.
The speed limit on rural roads is 60mph, either we reduce that to 40mph and say 20-30mph max around bends and when wet or snowing and 20mph on single tracks or legally there must be real debate on whether someone driving at the speed limit should be prosecuted even if an accident?
Driving is a skill.
If you're so incompetent you can't estimate your vehicles stopping distance, you should not be behind the wheel.
And yes, that means that driving slower than the speed limit is often appropriate, eg when approaching corners, or on rural roads.
It is a limit, not a target for a reason - and the Highway Code is very clear about that too.
You are being absurd and should not be behind the wheel if you can't drive safely.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You clearly never drive on country lanes, because around here I have never seen people approach blind bends on country lanes at 60mph.
Cars doing less than the speed limit in suitable conditions is the norm, not the exception.
Precisely because competent people do know that and do not stick to the speed target limit.
No and of course the highway code says to slow down on approach to a bend on country lanes.
Though to what? 50, 40, 30, 20mph? Again no clarity and again a field day for lawyers to argue on what was the correct speed to slow down to if an accident occurred
"Don't go too close to the fire, HYUFD"
"How close is too close ? 10m ? 5m ? 1m ?"
"Sorry, what ? Use your common sense"
[HYUFD bursts into flames]
Yes but then I would not be prosecuted for putting myself too close to the flames and I may still have had time to get away as long as I didn't actually walk into the flames but it would depend how close I was
Firstly, I don't really care (but that might be because it's Sultana and Your Party, which is as insignificant as it is amusing) and, secondly, really? Don't the police have better things to be spending their time on?
You've just said my job isn't important.
Investitgating financial crimes is very important.
Anything juicy recently?
Nope, my investigations have mostly centred on cocaine and unsolicited & solicited dick pics.
In my OH's last company, she was asked to ignore the cocaine misuse as the company wouldn't have a sales team left. Your lot must have higher standards.
Just to point out that this is an everyday example of the ridiculous state of affairs where wholesalers in this product are getting 20-25 year sentences while the product is regarded by millions as quotidian and normal.
If demand ceased, so would supply. Either decriminalise or make the user the real criminal, not the hard working trader.
MPs and television presenters have been cancelled over dodgy bants or porn but politics and the media are fuelled by actually illegal drugs. And this illustrates a real problem – the growing gulf between what is acceptable and what is legal.
Coke is now such a naff drug - it’s being hoovered up noses in pubs up and down the country by every man jack and off kitchen counters by bored mums.
Is the answer to be massively illiberal on coke - 1 year in prison, no suspended sentences or anything for possession. Announce it from the rooftops - you are caught with coke, or driving under the influence and you are going to prison for a year so say goodbye to your mid level management job, your kids, your bed. Prepare to be unable to cover your mortgage and lose your home, have a nightmare with a drugs offence when opening accounts or travelling.
Would something this severe smash the casual use? These people aren’t thinking of the chain of poor fuckers down the line working in grim conditions to harvest and produce, those getting killed in the trade so why have any sympathy for the end users?
I’m not sure how I feel about the above but would be an interesting experiment.
Where do you plan to build the extra 3,000 prisons?
This misses the point. The function of mandatory prison sentences is not in order to fill extra prisons but to deter certain actions. I am neutral as between decriminalisation and, OTOH, rational drug law enforcement. What is irrational is to deter traders with 25 year sentences but not deter use in any significant way.
Would not a few dozen otherwise impeccable living middling sorts with wives, children and careers in auto finance and geography teaching going to prison for drug use be enough?
I wonder how many of us are a little more careful about driving now that mere careless driving, if it chances to have certain outcomes, can lead straight to prison?
It can but even if careless driving leads to death or serious injury in most cases the sentence will be a community order or suspended sentence. Only if the driver killed under the influence of drink of drugs would an immediate prison sentence be likely.
We also should be considering changing highway laws to reduce speed limits on rural roads, narrow tracks and at bends or banning u turns or 3 point turns except in quiet residential streets as a lot of what would be mere careless driving could still be doing a currently legal manoeuvre
Just how are people supposed to turn round if they miss a junction or take a wrong turn?
Wait until they reach the next roundabout
This is nuts. I live in rural Surrey, but let's be honest Surrey is also pretty built up so I imagine most of the countryside is worse for roundabouts than where I live, but lets just take the lane I live on:
It has a roundabout at one end so let's assume we are going in the other direction. It is 2 miles long. It then reaches a cross roads. To the left you have to drive about 4 miles to a roundabout (which you may not know is there). Straight on is a narrow lane of about a mile with a T junction at the end. At that junction you can turn left or right. If you turn left you have about 5 miles to another T junction. At that junction you can turn left and eventually come to a roundabout in a mile. If you turn right I can't even think where there is a roundabout. Going back to the last junction if you turn right you come to another junction after about 2 miles. You can turn right and come to a roundabout after 3 miles. If you turn left after 2 miles you come to another junction. The next roundabout is about 7 miles away. Finally going back to the first junction if you turn right after 2 miles there is a junction. I can't think of where there is another roundabout either left or right on that road.
Your suggestion is nuts.
You are also wrong on speed limits for country lanes. You should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions. I am currently taking my Advanced Driving lessons for IAM. They are really hot on not exceeding the speed limits, but also hot on not progressing and I was told I was driving too slow for the conditions on my last lesson. People driving too slow for the conditions are also very dangerous.
Fine, then take the risk of being done for death or serious injury by careless driving if you do said u turn on a rural road and won't wait until the next roundabout or village.
The speed limit on country lanes is 60mph.
'Driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions' is a totally subjective term. One man's 'appropriate speed' may be 55mph, another 20mph on the same road and same conditions, even if approaching a bend it is completely vague guidance. As you say you can be accused of going too slow as well as too fast
You should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear, is good general advice.
And how is the average man on the road of average intelligence let alone those of below supposed to be able to calculate how long it will take them to stop where they see is clear ahead? They can follow the speed limit, they can't do stopping distance calculations every road they take!
On the contrary, you can and do. Just as you judge other distances, like how far behind the car in front to drive, in different conditions.
Glad you live the other side of London, I'm unlikely to meet you coming round a corner. Perhaps you should hand back your licence, I'm beginning to think that wasn't such an uncharitable suggestion
How? The average driver on the road is NOT a statistician who can calculate stopping distances. You drive behind a car so you can always see its back and license plate in full, that is NOT the same as doing constant stopping distance calculations.
The speed limit on rural roads is 60mph, either we reduce that to 40mph and say 20-30mph max around bends and when wet or snowing and 20mph on single tracks or legally there must be real debate on whether someone driving at the speed limit should be prosecuted even if an accident?
Driving is a skill.
If you're so incompetent you can't estimate your vehicles stopping distance, you should not be behind the wheel.
And yes, that means that driving slower than the speed limit is often appropriate, eg when approaching corners, or on rural roads.
It is a limit, not a target for a reason - and the Highway Code is very clear about that too.
You are being absurd and should not be behind the wheel if you can't drive safely.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You clearly never drive on country lanes, because around here I have never seen people approach blind bends on country lanes at 60mph.
Cars doing less than the speed limit in suitable conditions is the norm, not the exception.
Precisely because competent people do know that and do not stick to the speed target limit.
These days I rarely drive on anything but country roads, and that's my experience too. It would be madness to do otherwise.
Country roads serve as footpaths, bridleways, cycle lanes, tractor access and everything in the way. You can tell the difference between someone who grew up in the countryside and those who didn't by the space and time they provide to those not in a car.
It shouldn't need to be written down, but it's there in the Code anyway.
It isn't, it says to give space of 1.5m to cyclists at 30mph for instance but is not clear how much extra to give at speeds above that
Do you have to be told everything
If you cannot drive in accordance with road conditions and anticipate situations you should not drive at all
Yes but clarity is needed on adjustments needed for all the different road conditions in the Code
Firstly, I don't really care (but that might be because it's Sultana and Your Party, which is as insignificant as it is amusing) and, secondly, really? Don't the police have better things to be spending their time on?
You've just said my job isn't important.
Investitgating financial crimes is very important.
Anything juicy recently?
Nope, my investigations have mostly centred on cocaine and unsolicited & solicited dick pics.
In my OH's last company, she was asked to ignore the cocaine misuse as the company wouldn't have a sales team left. Your lot must have higher standards.
Just to point out that this is an everyday example of the ridiculous state of affairs where wholesalers in this product are getting 20-25 year sentences while the product is regarded by millions as quotidian and normal.
If demand ceased, so would supply. Either decriminalise or make the user the real criminal, not the hard working trader.
MPs and television presenters have been cancelled over dodgy bants or porn but politics and the media are fuelled by actually illegal drugs. And this illustrates a real problem – the growing gulf between what is acceptable and what is legal.
Coke is now such a naff drug - it’s being hoovered up noses in pubs up and down the country by every man jack and off kitchen counters by bored mums.
Is the answer to be massively illiberal on coke - 1 year in prison, no suspended sentences or anything for possession. Announce it from the rooftops - you are caught with coke, or driving under the influence and you are going to prison for a year so say goodbye to your mid level management job, your kids, your bed. Prepare to be unable to cover your mortgage and lose your home, have a nightmare with a drugs offence when opening accounts or travelling.
Would something this severe smash the casual use? These people aren’t thinking of the chain of poor fuckers down the line working in grim conditions to harvest and produce, those getting killed in the trade so why have any sympathy for the end users?
I’m not sure how I feel about the above but would be an interesting experiment.
Where do you plan to build the extra 3,000 prisons?
This misses the point. The function of mandatory prison sentences is not in order to fill extra prisons but to deter certain actions. I am neutral as between decriminalisation and, OTOH, rational drug law enforcement. What is irrational is to deter traders with 25 year sentences but not deter use in any significant way.
Would not a few dozen otherwise impeccable living middling sorts with wives, children and careers in auto finance and geography teaching going to prison for drug use be enough?
I wonder how many of us are a little more careful about driving now that mere careless driving, if it chances to have certain outcomes, can lead straight to prison?
It can but even if careless driving leads to death or serious injury in most cases the sentence will be a community order or suspended sentence. Only if the driver killed under the influence of drink of drugs would an immediate prison sentence be likely.
We also should be considering changing highway laws to reduce speed limits on rural roads, narrow tracks and at bends or banning u turns or 3 point turns except in quiet residential streets as a lot of what would be mere careless driving could still be doing a currently legal manoeuvre
Just how are people supposed to turn round if they miss a junction or take a wrong turn?
Wait until they reach the next roundabout
This is nuts. I live in rural Surrey, but let's be honest Surrey is also pretty built up so I imagine most of the countryside is worse for roundabouts than where I live, but lets just take the lane I live on:
It has a roundabout at one end so let's assume we are going in the other direction. It is 2 miles long. It then reaches a cross roads. To the left you have to drive about 4 miles to a roundabout (which you may not know is there). Straight on is a narrow lane of about a mile with a T junction at the end. At that junction you can turn left or right. If you turn left you have about 5 miles to another T junction. At that junction you can turn left and eventually come to a roundabout in a mile. If you turn right I can't even think where there is a roundabout. Going back to the last junction if you turn right you come to another junction after about 2 miles. You can turn right and come to a roundabout after 3 miles. If you turn left after 2 miles you come to another junction. The next roundabout is about 7 miles away. Finally going back to the first junction if you turn right after 2 miles there is a junction. I can't think of where there is another roundabout either left or right on that road.
Your suggestion is nuts.
You are also wrong on speed limits for country lanes. You should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions. I am currently taking my Advanced Driving lessons for IAM. They are really hot on not exceeding the speed limits, but also hot on not progressing and I was told I was driving too slow for the conditions on my last lesson. People driving too slow for the conditions are also very dangerous.
Fine, then take the risk of being done for death or serious injury by careless driving if you do said u turn on a rural road and won't wait until the next roundabout or village.
The speed limit on country lanes is 60mph.
'Driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions' is a totally subjective term. One man's 'appropriate speed' may be 55mph, another 20mph on the same road and same conditions, even if approaching a bend it is completely vague guidance. As you say you can be accused of going too slow as well as too fast
You should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear, is good general advice.
And how is the average man on the road of average intelligence let alone those of below supposed to be able to calculate how long it will take them to stop where they see is clear ahead? They can follow the speed limit, they can't do stopping distance calculations every road they take!
On the contrary, you can and do. Just as you judge other distances, like how far behind the car in front to drive, in different conditions.
Glad you live the other side of London, I'm unlikely to meet you coming round a corner. Perhaps you should hand back your licence, I'm beginning to think that wasn't such an uncharitable suggestion
How? The average driver on the road is NOT a statistician who can calculate stopping distances. You drive behind a car so you can always see its back and license plate in full, that is NOT the same as doing constant stopping distance calculations.
The speed limit on rural roads is 60mph, either we reduce that to 40mph and say 20-30mph max around bends and when wet or snowing and 20mph on single tracks or legally there must be real debate on whether someone driving at the speed limit should be prosecuted even if an accident?
Driving is a skill.
If you're so incompetent you can't estimate your vehicles stopping distance, you should not be behind the wheel.
And yes, that means that driving slower than the speed limit is often appropriate, eg when approaching corners, or on rural roads.
It is a limit, not a target for a reason - and the Highway Code is very clear about that too.
You are being absurd and should not be behind the wheel if you can't drive safely.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You clearly never drive on country lanes, because around here I have never seen people approach blind bends on country lanes at 60mph.
Cars doing less than the speed limit in suitable conditions is the norm, not the exception.
Precisely because competent people do know that and do not stick to the speed target limit.
No and of course the highway code says to slow down on approach to a bend on country lanes.
Though to what? 50, 40, 30, 20mph? Again no clarity and again a field day for lawyers to argue on what was the correct speed to slow down to if an accident occurred
It depends on how tight the bend is, how far you can see round it and how wide the road is. And for a left hand bend, if you have been able to approach it to the right. Plus other conditions like rain and sun.
So again, totally unclear as dependent on a wide range of conditions and a lawyers field day if an accident
If only you could spare us all this pontification from someone who has from all appearances never driven (or even been driven) down a country lane.
Firstly, I don't really care (but that might be because it's Sultana and Your Party, which is as insignificant as it is amusing) and, secondly, really? Don't the police have better things to be spending their time on?
You've just said my job isn't important.
Investitgating financial crimes is very important.
Anything juicy recently?
Nope, my investigations have mostly centred on cocaine and unsolicited & solicited dick pics.
In my OH's last company, she was asked to ignore the cocaine misuse as the company wouldn't have a sales team left. Your lot must have higher standards.
Just to point out that this is an everyday example of the ridiculous state of affairs where wholesalers in this product are getting 20-25 year sentences while the product is regarded by millions as quotidian and normal.
If demand ceased, so would supply. Either decriminalise or make the user the real criminal, not the hard working trader.
MPs and television presenters have been cancelled over dodgy bants or porn but politics and the media are fuelled by actually illegal drugs. And this illustrates a real problem – the growing gulf between what is acceptable and what is legal.
Coke is now such a naff drug - it’s being hoovered up noses in pubs up and down the country by every man jack and off kitchen counters by bored mums.
Is the answer to be massively illiberal on coke - 1 year in prison, no suspended sentences or anything for possession. Announce it from the rooftops - you are caught with coke, or driving under the influence and you are going to prison for a year so say goodbye to your mid level management job, your kids, your bed. Prepare to be unable to cover your mortgage and lose your home, have a nightmare with a drugs offence when opening accounts or travelling.
Would something this severe smash the casual use? These people aren’t thinking of the chain of poor fuckers down the line working in grim conditions to harvest and produce, those getting killed in the trade so why have any sympathy for the end users?
I’m not sure how I feel about the above but would be an interesting experiment.
Where do you plan to build the extra 3,000 prisons?
This misses the point. The function of mandatory prison sentences is not in order to fill extra prisons but to deter certain actions. I am neutral as between decriminalisation and, OTOH, rational drug law enforcement. What is irrational is to deter traders with 25 year sentences but not deter use in any significant way.
Would not a few dozen otherwise impeccable living middling sorts with wives, children and careers in auto finance and geography teaching going to prison for drug use be enough?
I wonder how many of us are a little more careful about driving now that mere careless driving, if it chances to have certain outcomes, can lead straight to prison?
It can but even if careless driving leads to death or serious injury in most cases the sentence will be a community order or suspended sentence. Only if the driver killed under the influence of drink of drugs would an immediate prison sentence be likely.
We also should be considering changing highway laws to reduce speed limits on rural roads, narrow tracks and at bends or banning u turns or 3 point turns except in quiet residential streets as a lot of what would be mere careless driving could still be doing a currently legal manoeuvre
Just how are people supposed to turn round if they miss a junction or take a wrong turn?
Wait until they reach the next roundabout
This is nuts. I live in rural Surrey, but let's be honest Surrey is also pretty built up so I imagine most of the countryside is worse for roundabouts than where I live, but lets just take the lane I live on:
It has a roundabout at one end so let's assume we are going in the other direction. It is 2 miles long. It then reaches a cross roads. To the left you have to drive about 4 miles to a roundabout (which you may not know is there). Straight on is a narrow lane of about a mile with a T junction at the end. At that junction you can turn left or right. If you turn left you have about 5 miles to another T junction. At that junction you can turn left and eventually come to a roundabout in a mile. If you turn right I can't even think where there is a roundabout. Going back to the last junction if you turn right you come to another junction after about 2 miles. You can turn right and come to a roundabout after 3 miles. If you turn left after 2 miles you come to another junction. The next roundabout is about 7 miles away. Finally going back to the first junction if you turn right after 2 miles there is a junction. I can't think of where there is another roundabout either left or right on that road.
Your suggestion is nuts.
You are also wrong on speed limits for country lanes. You should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions. I am currently taking my Advanced Driving lessons for IAM. They are really hot on not exceeding the speed limits, but also hot on not progressing and I was told I was driving too slow for the conditions on my last lesson. People driving too slow for the conditions are also very dangerous.
Fine, then take the risk of being done for death or serious injury by careless driving if you do said u turn on a rural road and won't wait until the next roundabout or village.
The speed limit on country lanes is 60mph.
'Driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions' is a totally subjective term. One man's 'appropriate speed' may be 55mph, another 20mph on the same road and same conditions, even if approaching a bend it is completely vague guidance. As you say you can be accused of going too slow as well as too fast
You should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear, is good general advice.
And how is the average man on the road of average intelligence let alone those of below supposed to be able to calculate how long it will take them to stop where they see is clear ahead? They can follow the speed limit, they can't do stopping distance calculations every road they take!
On the contrary, you can and do. Just as you judge other distances, like how far behind the car in front to drive, in different conditions.
Glad you live the other side of London, I'm unlikely to meet you coming round a corner. Perhaps you should hand back your licence, I'm beginning to think that wasn't such an uncharitable suggestion
How? The average driver on the road is NOT a statistician who can calculate stopping distances. You drive behind a car so you can always see its back and license plate in full, that is NOT the same as doing constant stopping distance calculations.
The speed limit on rural roads is 60mph, either we reduce that to 40mph and say 20-30mph max around bends and when wet or snowing and 20mph on single tracks or legally there must be real debate on whether someone driving at the speed limit should be prosecuted even if an accident?
Driving is a skill.
If you're so incompetent you can't estimate your vehicles stopping distance, you should not be behind the wheel.
And yes, that means that driving slower than the speed limit is often appropriate, eg when approaching corners, or on rural roads.
It is a limit, not a target for a reason - and the Highway Code is very clear about that too.
You are being absurd and should not be behind the wheel if you can't drive safely.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You clearly never drive on country lanes, because around here I have never seen people approach blind bends on country lanes at 60mph.
Cars doing less than the speed limit in suitable conditions is the norm, not the exception.
Precisely because competent people do know that and do not stick to the speed target limit.
These days I rarely drive on anything but country roads, and that's my experience too. It would be madness to do otherwise.
Country roads serve as footpaths, bridleways, cycle lanes, tractor access and everything in the way. You can tell the difference between someone who grew up in the countryside and those who didn't by the space and time they provide to those not in a car.
It shouldn't need to be written down, but it's there in the Code anyway.
It isn't, it says to give space of 1.5m to cyclists at 30mph for instance but is not clear how much extra to give at speeds above that
Do you have to be told everything
If you cannot drive in accordance with road conditions and anticipate situations you should not drive at all
Yes but clarity is needed on adjustments needed for all the different road conditions in the Code
Even if we were on Pistonheads this would be considered trolling at this point.
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
1) Depending on exact positioning, width of road, how far into the manoeuvre you were etc*, he should probably have waited 2) You should have let him go without remonstration. 3) Re 2) I would have done the same as you anyway !
*If you can supply google street image of road and mark your position, I'll produce a look-up table for HYUFD to use if he ever does a 3 point turn in exactly the same spot.
I would love to see @hyufd in the driving seat next to my driving instructor. A fully qualified police driver and see them argue. @hyufd constantly saying to him 'No your wrong, I know'.
For anyone who is interested can I recommend IAM. Early last year I went on a trial drive and found it really useful and decided to join. Before I did I was recommended 3 books. 'The Highway Code' obviously, 'Know Your Traffic Signs' which isn't particularly useful as most are in the Highway Code and finally but most useful 'Roadcraft the Police Handbook'.
The only disappointment was when I got to 'Police Pursuits' section in the book and it told me this would be dealt with elsewhere (and obviously only for Police pursuit drivers). So disappointed.
Membership is only around £40 - £50 and the lessons are £200 odd. That is in fact just for the test. The actual lessons are free for as many as you need. It is a Charity. The instructors are more than Advanced Motorists as they have further qualification (can't remember the details). Most are serving or ex Police drivers (and I don't mean plod footling around, but fully qualified high speed chase drivers).
I have found the experience excellent and I have learnt so much. You don't have to be a skilled driver to benefit from it (I'm not). All you need is basic competence. Although for instance I can and do double declutch when appropriate, it is not expected.
Firstly, I don't really care (but that might be because it's Sultana and Your Party, which is as insignificant as it is amusing) and, secondly, really? Don't the police have better things to be spending their time on?
You've just said my job isn't important.
Investitgating financial crimes is very important.
Anything juicy recently?
Nope, my investigations have mostly centred on cocaine and unsolicited & solicited dick pics.
In my OH's last company, she was asked to ignore the cocaine misuse as the company wouldn't have a sales team left. Your lot must have higher standards.
Just to point out that this is an everyday example of the ridiculous state of affairs where wholesalers in this product are getting 20-25 year sentences while the product is regarded by millions as quotidian and normal.
If demand ceased, so would supply. Either decriminalise or make the user the real criminal, not the hard working trader.
MPs and television presenters have been cancelled over dodgy bants or porn but politics and the media are fuelled by actually illegal drugs. And this illustrates a real problem – the growing gulf between what is acceptable and what is legal.
Coke is now such a naff drug - it’s being hoovered up noses in pubs up and down the country by every man jack and off kitchen counters by bored mums.
Is the answer to be massively illiberal on coke - 1 year in prison, no suspended sentences or anything for possession. Announce it from the rooftops - you are caught with coke, or driving under the influence and you are going to prison for a year so say goodbye to your mid level management job, your kids, your bed. Prepare to be unable to cover your mortgage and lose your home, have a nightmare with a drugs offence when opening accounts or travelling.
Would something this severe smash the casual use? These people aren’t thinking of the chain of poor fuckers down the line working in grim conditions to harvest and produce, those getting killed in the trade so why have any sympathy for the end users?
I’m not sure how I feel about the above but would be an interesting experiment.
Where do you plan to build the extra 3,000 prisons?
This misses the point. The function of mandatory prison sentences is not in order to fill extra prisons but to deter certain actions. I am neutral as between decriminalisation and, OTOH, rational drug law enforcement. What is irrational is to deter traders with 25 year sentences but not deter use in any significant way.
Would not a few dozen otherwise impeccable living middling sorts with wives, children and careers in auto finance and geography teaching going to prison for drug use be enough?
I wonder how many of us are a little more careful about driving now that mere careless driving, if it chances to have certain outcomes, can lead straight to prison?
It can but even if careless driving leads to death or serious injury in most cases the sentence will be a community order or suspended sentence. Only if the driver killed under the influence of drink of drugs would an immediate prison sentence be likely.
We also should be considering changing highway laws to reduce speed limits on rural roads, narrow tracks and at bends or banning u turns or 3 point turns except in quiet residential streets as a lot of what would be mere careless driving could still be doing a currently legal manoeuvre
Just how are people supposed to turn round if they miss a junction or take a wrong turn?
Wait until they reach the next roundabout
This is nuts. I live in rural Surrey, but let's be honest Surrey is also pretty built up so I imagine most of the countryside is worse for roundabouts than where I live, but lets just take the lane I live on:
It has a roundabout at one end so let's assume we are going in the other direction. It is 2 miles long. It then reaches a cross roads. To the left you have to drive about 4 miles to a roundabout (which you may not know is there). Straight on is a narrow lane of about a mile with a T junction at the end. At that junction you can turn left or right. If you turn left you have about 5 miles to another T junction. At that junction you can turn left and eventually come to a roundabout in a mile. If you turn right I can't even think where there is a roundabout. Going back to the last junction if you turn right you come to another junction after about 2 miles. You can turn right and come to a roundabout after 3 miles. If you turn left after 2 miles you come to another junction. The next roundabout is about 7 miles away. Finally going back to the first junction if you turn right after 2 miles there is a junction. I can't think of where there is another roundabout either left or right on that road.
Your suggestion is nuts.
You are also wrong on speed limits for country lanes. You should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions. I am currently taking my Advanced Driving lessons for IAM. They are really hot on not exceeding the speed limits, but also hot on not progressing and I was told I was driving too slow for the conditions on my last lesson. People driving too slow for the conditions are also very dangerous.
Fine, then take the risk of being done for death or serious injury by careless driving if you do said u turn on a rural road and won't wait until the next roundabout or village.
The speed limit on country lanes is 60mph.
'Driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions' is a totally subjective term. One man's 'appropriate speed' may be 55mph, another 20mph on the same road and same conditions, even if approaching a bend it is completely vague guidance. As you say you can be accused of going too slow as well as too fast
Driving to the speed appropriate to the road, car and conditions is subjective I agree. However it is not so subjective that it can be both 20mph for person A and 55 mph for person B. Never in a million years. Either one should not be on the road because they are not competent at driving or the other should not be on the road because they are using excessive speed. Whichever it will not be careless driving but dangerous driving. A sensible margin is more like 5 - 10 mph for the same car and same conditions not a difference of 35 mph.
And just to show how out of touch you are my instructor was an advanced police driver and I also had another advanced driver in the car who was training for his advanced instructor status (so already and advanced driver going to the next level). Both commented I was driving too slowly. It was a country lane.
Re the U turn on a country lane (which of course for a proper country lane is actually impossible) but other manoeuvres are of course you are nuts if you are saying I am taking a risk outside of the normal risk of driving. For a start going around a roundabout is far riskier for the cyclist (as a cyclist I know) so me waiting for a roundabout rather than carrying out the manoeuvre on the road in the appropriate place and taking care to look properly is the sensible thing to do for both me and the cyclist..
Can I suggest you do two things:
a) Buy Roadcraft. It is the police drivers handbook and used by the IAM. You might learn something about road safety b) Get on a bike and see what scares you most. A driver doing a 3 point turn ahead of you or a driver passing you going around a roundabout.
Why? In law it is completely subjective as the law is the law and if only a 60mph limit applies any lawyer could argue 20mph is appropriate or 55mph appropriate in slightly poor conditions for example.
It would certainly not be dangerous driving in either case and a good lawyer could ensure they are acquitted even of careless driving.
Too slowly for a country lane? So they should be driving at 60mph unless heavy rain or snow? Certainly not approaching a bend. Again confusing one size fits all advice.
You should stop at a roundabout in most cases to fully check for cyclists, as I said earlier.
Firstly, I don't really care (but that might be because it's Sultana and Your Party, which is as insignificant as it is amusing) and, secondly, really? Don't the police have better things to be spending their time on?
You've just said my job isn't important.
Investitgating financial crimes is very important.
Anything juicy recently?
Nope, my investigations have mostly centred on cocaine and unsolicited & solicited dick pics.
In my OH's last company, she was asked to ignore the cocaine misuse as the company wouldn't have a sales team left. Your lot must have higher standards.
Just to point out that this is an everyday example of the ridiculous state of affairs where wholesalers in this product are getting 20-25 year sentences while the product is regarded by millions as quotidian and normal.
If demand ceased, so would supply. Either decriminalise or make the user the real criminal, not the hard working trader.
MPs and television presenters have been cancelled over dodgy bants or porn but politics and the media are fuelled by actually illegal drugs. And this illustrates a real problem – the growing gulf between what is acceptable and what is legal.
Coke is now such a naff drug - it’s being hoovered up noses in pubs up and down the country by every man jack and off kitchen counters by bored mums.
Is the answer to be massively illiberal on coke - 1 year in prison, no suspended sentences or anything for possession. Announce it from the rooftops - you are caught with coke, or driving under the influence and you are going to prison for a year so say goodbye to your mid level management job, your kids, your bed. Prepare to be unable to cover your mortgage and lose your home, have a nightmare with a drugs offence when opening accounts or travelling.
Would something this severe smash the casual use? These people aren’t thinking of the chain of poor fuckers down the line working in grim conditions to harvest and produce, those getting killed in the trade so why have any sympathy for the end users?
I’m not sure how I feel about the above but would be an interesting experiment.
Where do you plan to build the extra 3,000 prisons?
This misses the point. The function of mandatory prison sentences is not in order to fill extra prisons but to deter certain actions. I am neutral as between decriminalisation and, OTOH, rational drug law enforcement. What is irrational is to deter traders with 25 year sentences but not deter use in any significant way.
Would not a few dozen otherwise impeccable living middling sorts with wives, children and careers in auto finance and geography teaching going to prison for drug use be enough?
I wonder how many of us are a little more careful about driving now that mere careless driving, if it chances to have certain outcomes, can lead straight to prison?
It can but even if careless driving leads to death or serious injury in most cases the sentence will be a community order or suspended sentence. Only if the driver killed under the influence of drink of drugs would an immediate prison sentence be likely.
We also should be considering changing highway laws to reduce speed limits on rural roads, narrow tracks and at bends or banning u turns or 3 point turns except in quiet residential streets as a lot of what would be mere careless driving could still be doing a currently legal manoeuvre
Just how are people supposed to turn round if they miss a junction or take a wrong turn?
Wait until they reach the next roundabout
This is nuts. I live in rural Surrey, but let's be honest Surrey is also pretty built up so I imagine most of the countryside is worse for roundabouts than where I live, but lets just take the lane I live on:
It has a roundabout at one end so let's assume we are going in the other direction. It is 2 miles long. It then reaches a cross roads. To the left you have to drive about 4 miles to a roundabout (which you may not know is there). Straight on is a narrow lane of about a mile with a T junction at the end. At that junction you can turn left or right. If you turn left you have about 5 miles to another T junction. At that junction you can turn left and eventually come to a roundabout in a mile. If you turn right I can't even think where there is a roundabout. Going back to the last junction if you turn right you come to another junction after about 2 miles. You can turn right and come to a roundabout after 3 miles. If you turn left after 2 miles you come to another junction. The next roundabout is about 7 miles away. Finally going back to the first junction if you turn right after 2 miles there is a junction. I can't think of where there is another roundabout either left or right on that road.
Your suggestion is nuts.
You are also wrong on speed limits for country lanes. You should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions. I am currently taking my Advanced Driving lessons for IAM. They are really hot on not exceeding the speed limits, but also hot on not progressing and I was told I was driving too slow for the conditions on my last lesson. People driving too slow for the conditions are also very dangerous.
Fine, then take the risk of being done for death or serious injury by careless driving if you do said u turn on a rural road and won't wait until the next roundabout or village.
The speed limit on country lanes is 60mph.
'Driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions' is a totally subjective term. One man's 'appropriate speed' may be 55mph, another 20mph on the same road and same conditions, even if approaching a bend it is completely vague guidance. As you say you can be accused of going too slow as well as too fast
Driving to the speed appropriate to the road, car and conditions is subjective I agree. However it is not so subjective that it can be both 20mph for person A and 55 mph for person B. Never in a million years. Either one should not be on the road because they are not competent at driving or the other should not be on the road because they are using excessive speed. Whichever it will not be careless driving but dangerous driving. A sensible margin is more like 5 - 10 mph for the same car and same conditions not a difference of 35 mph.
And just to show how out of touch you are my instructor was an advanced police driver and I also had another advanced driver in the car who was training for his advanced instructor status (so already and advanced driver going to the next level). Both commented I was driving too slowly. It was a country lane.
Re the U turn on a country lane (which of course for a proper country lane is actually impossible) but other manoeuvres are of course you are nuts if you are saying I am taking a risk outside of the normal risk of driving. For a start going around a roundabout is far riskier for the cyclist (as a cyclist I know) so me waiting for a roundabout rather than carrying out the manoeuvre on the road in the appropriate place and taking care to look properly is the sensible thing to do for both me and the cyclist..
Can I suggest you do two things:
a) Buy Roadcraft. It is the police drivers handbook and used by the IAM. You might learn something about road safety b) Get on a bike and see what scares you most. A driver doing a 3 point turn ahead of you or a driver passing you going around a roundabout.
Why? In law it is completely subjective as the law is the law and if only a 60mph limit applies any lawyer could argue 20mph is appropriate or 55mph appropriate in slightly poor conditions for example.
It would certainly not be dangerous driving in either case and a good lawyer could ensure they are acquitted even of careless driving.
Too slowly for a country lane? So they should be driving at 60mph unless heavy rain or snow? Certainly not approaching a bend. Again confusing one size fits all advice.
You should stop at a roundabout in most cases to fully check for cyclists, as I said earlier.
At no point did I say you should be driving down a country lane at 60mph. On the contrary I said you should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions and that will rarely be anything like 60 mph. You are fixated on this. 60 mph is not a target. On many country lanes if you did this you would definitely be dangerous driving and deserve to get banned and no a lawyer will not get you off if you take a chevron bend at 55 mph and kill someone coming the other way because you couldn't take the bend.
You can of course also drive too slow for a road and can also be done for dangerous driving for doing so. Just look it up.
In a nut shell. if you exceed the speed limit you are breaking the law, but if you are below the speed limit you can also be breaking the law for driving too slowly or too fast.
Finally re stopping at roundabouts; when your exit is clear as mentioned before, this would be a fail on an Advanced Driving Test (it might be on the standard test, I don't know) and a policeman who was having a very bad morning might do you for careless driving. To do so causes utter confusion to cars behind and other drivers waiting to enter the roundabout from other junctions.
I am assuming you don't drive and I repeat again I suggest you read Roadcraft the Police Drivers Handbook.
PS The IAM will give you a free trial drive if you want. You get 60 - 90 minutes behind the wheel and they will give you a free evaluation of your driving.
Yes, 60mph is not a target, agreed. On a bend you should certainly slow down well below that so below 55mph too, agreed.
Yet what is the speed to slow down to at a bend, 40mph, 30mph, even 20mph? Lawyers disagree and the Highway Code is unclear.
Yes you should drive at the speed limit if clear and good conditions and no bend generally but you have just said you should not be driving down a country lane at 60mph. So what is too slow? 40mph? 50mph? 20mph?
Even if your exit is clear you at least have to check ahead and right before moving at a roundabout even if you don't stop completely
Rhuallt hill on the A55 has a couple of long bends and the average speed cameras monitor the 70 mph limit
We have an abundance of country roads throughout our area, many with bends with slow marked on the road and chevrons and the speed varies according to the road condition, not something you have read in the highway code
If you cannot adjust your driving then you should not drive
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
You would have had to have given way to the cyclist and stopped the 3 point turn until he had got passed I think.
The Highway Code says do not proceed with a manoeuvre until clear and look out for cyclists, motorbikes and pedestrians especially in your mirrors
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
Dealing with other vehicles The manoeuvre should not be started until the road is clear of traffic in both directions. Once you have completed the first leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass behind you if they wanted to, before commencing the second leg. Similarly before commencing the third leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass in front of you if they wanted to. The same would apply if it took further movements forwards and backwards to complete the manoeuvre.
Firstly, I don't really care (but that might be because it's Sultana and Your Party, which is as insignificant as it is amusing) and, secondly, really? Don't the police have better things to be spending their time on?
You've just said my job isn't important.
Investitgating financial crimes is very important.
Anything juicy recently?
Nope, my investigations have mostly centred on cocaine and unsolicited & solicited dick pics.
In my OH's last company, she was asked to ignore the cocaine misuse as the company wouldn't have a sales team left. Your lot must have higher standards.
Just to point out that this is an everyday example of the ridiculous state of affairs where wholesalers in this product are getting 20-25 year sentences while the product is regarded by millions as quotidian and normal.
If demand ceased, so would supply. Either decriminalise or make the user the real criminal, not the hard working trader.
MPs and television presenters have been cancelled over dodgy bants or porn but politics and the media are fuelled by actually illegal drugs. And this illustrates a real problem – the growing gulf between what is acceptable and what is legal.
Coke is now such a naff drug - it’s being hoovered up noses in pubs up and down the country by every man jack and off kitchen counters by bored mums.
Is the answer to be massively illiberal on coke - 1 year in prison, no suspended sentences or anything for possession. Announce it from the rooftops - you are caught with coke, or driving under the influence and you are going to prison for a year so say goodbye to your mid level management job, your kids, your bed. Prepare to be unable to cover your mortgage and lose your home, have a nightmare with a drugs offence when opening accounts or travelling.
Would something this severe smash the casual use? These people aren’t thinking of the chain of poor fuckers down the line working in grim conditions to harvest and produce, those getting killed in the trade so why have any sympathy for the end users?
I’m not sure how I feel about the above but would be an interesting experiment.
Where do you plan to build the extra 3,000 prisons?
This misses the point. The function of mandatory prison sentences is not in order to fill extra prisons but to deter certain actions. I am neutral as between decriminalisation and, OTOH, rational drug law enforcement. What is irrational is to deter traders with 25 year sentences but not deter use in any significant way.
Would not a few dozen otherwise impeccable living middling sorts with wives, children and careers in auto finance and geography teaching going to prison for drug use be enough?
I wonder how many of us are a little more careful about driving now that mere careless driving, if it chances to have certain outcomes, can lead straight to prison?
It can but even if careless driving leads to death or serious injury in most cases the sentence will be a community order or suspended sentence. Only if the driver killed under the influence of drink of drugs would an immediate prison sentence be likely.
We also should be considering changing highway laws to reduce speed limits on rural roads, narrow tracks and at bends or banning u turns or 3 point turns except in quiet residential streets as a lot of what would be mere careless driving could still be doing a currently legal manoeuvre
Just how are people supposed to turn round if they miss a junction or take a wrong turn?
Wait until they reach the next roundabout
This is nuts. I live in rural Surrey, but let's be honest Surrey is also pretty built up so I imagine most of the countryside is worse for roundabouts than where I live, but lets just take the lane I live on:
It has a roundabout at one end so let's assume we are going in the other direction. It is 2 miles long. It then reaches a cross roads. To the left you have to drive about 4 miles to a roundabout (which you may not know is there). Straight on is a narrow lane of about a mile with a T junction at the end. At that junction you can turn left or right. If you turn left you have about 5 miles to another T junction. At that junction you can turn left and eventually come to a roundabout in a mile. If you turn right I can't even think where there is a roundabout. Going back to the last junction if you turn right you come to another junction after about 2 miles. You can turn right and come to a roundabout after 3 miles. If you turn left after 2 miles you come to another junction. The next roundabout is about 7 miles away. Finally going back to the first junction if you turn right after 2 miles there is a junction. I can't think of where there is another roundabout either left or right on that road.
Your suggestion is nuts.
You are also wrong on speed limits for country lanes. You should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions. I am currently taking my Advanced Driving lessons for IAM. They are really hot on not exceeding the speed limits, but also hot on not progressing and I was told I was driving too slow for the conditions on my last lesson. People driving too slow for the conditions are also very dangerous.
Fine, then take the risk of being done for death or serious injury by careless driving if you do said u turn on a rural road and won't wait until the next roundabout or village.
The speed limit on country lanes is 60mph.
'Driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions' is a totally subjective term. One man's 'appropriate speed' may be 55mph, another 20mph on the same road and same conditions, even if approaching a bend it is completely vague guidance. As you say you can be accused of going too slow as well as too fast
You should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear, is good general advice.
And how is the average man on the road of average intelligence let alone those of below supposed to be able to calculate how long it will take them to stop where they see is clear ahead? They can follow the speed limit, they can't do stopping distance calculations every road they take!
On the contrary, you can and do. Just as you judge other distances, like how far behind the car in front to drive, in different conditions.
Glad you live the other side of London, I'm unlikely to meet you coming round a corner. Perhaps you should hand back your licence, I'm beginning to think that wasn't such an uncharitable suggestion
How? The average driver on the road is NOT a statistician who can calculate stopping distances. You drive behind a car so you can always see its back and license plate in full, that is NOT the same as doing constant stopping distance calculations.
The speed limit on rural roads is 60mph, either we reduce that to 40mph and say 20-30mph max around bends and when wet or snowing and 20mph on single tracks or legally there must be real debate on whether someone driving at the speed limit should be prosecuted even if an accident?
Driving is a skill.
If you're so incompetent you can't estimate your vehicles stopping distance, you should not be behind the wheel.
And yes, that means that driving slower than the speed limit is often appropriate, eg when approaching corners, or on rural roads.
It is a limit, not a target for a reason - and the Highway Code is very clear about that too.
You are being absurd and should not be behind the wheel if you can't drive safely.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You clearly never drive on country lanes, because around here I have never seen people approach blind bends on country lanes at 60mph.
Cars doing less than the speed limit in suitable conditions is the norm, not the exception.
Precisely because competent people do know that and do not stick to the speed target limit.
No and of course the highway code says to slow down on approach to a bend on country lanes.
Though to what? 50, 40, 30, 20mph? Again no clarity and again a field day for lawyers to argue on what was the correct speed to slow down to if an accident occurred
It depends on how tight the bend is, how far you can see round it and how wide the road is. And for a left hand bend, if you have been able to approach it to the right. Plus other conditions like rain and sun.
So again, totally unclear as dependent on a wide range of conditions and a lawyers field day if an accident
If only you could spare us all this pontification from someone who has from all appearances never driven (or even been driven) down a country lane.
Firstly, I don't really care (but that might be because it's Sultana and Your Party, which is as insignificant as it is amusing) and, secondly, really? Don't the police have better things to be spending their time on?
You've just said my job isn't important.
Investitgating financial crimes is very important.
Anything juicy recently?
Nope, my investigations have mostly centred on cocaine and unsolicited & solicited dick pics.
In my OH's last company, she was asked to ignore the cocaine misuse as the company wouldn't have a sales team left. Your lot must have higher standards.
Just to point out that this is an everyday example of the ridiculous state of affairs where wholesalers in this product are getting 20-25 year sentences while the product is regarded by millions as quotidian and normal.
If demand ceased, so would supply. Either decriminalise or make the user the real criminal, not the hard working trader.
MPs and television presenters have been cancelled over dodgy bants or porn but politics and the media are fuelled by actually illegal drugs. And this illustrates a real problem – the growing gulf between what is acceptable and what is legal.
Coke is now such a naff drug - it’s being hoovered up noses in pubs up and down the country by every man jack and off kitchen counters by bored mums.
Is the answer to be massively illiberal on coke - 1 year in prison, no suspended sentences or anything for possession. Announce it from the rooftops - you are caught with coke, or driving under the influence and you are going to prison for a year so say goodbye to your mid level management job, your kids, your bed. Prepare to be unable to cover your mortgage and lose your home, have a nightmare with a drugs offence when opening accounts or travelling.
Would something this severe smash the casual use? These people aren’t thinking of the chain of poor fuckers down the line working in grim conditions to harvest and produce, those getting killed in the trade so why have any sympathy for the end users?
I’m not sure how I feel about the above but would be an interesting experiment.
Where do you plan to build the extra 3,000 prisons?
This misses the point. The function of mandatory prison sentences is not in order to fill extra prisons but to deter certain actions. I am neutral as between decriminalisation and, OTOH, rational drug law enforcement. What is irrational is to deter traders with 25 year sentences but not deter use in any significant way.
Would not a few dozen otherwise impeccable living middling sorts with wives, children and careers in auto finance and geography teaching going to prison for drug use be enough?
I wonder how many of us are a little more careful about driving now that mere careless driving, if it chances to have certain outcomes, can lead straight to prison?
It can but even if careless driving leads to death or serious injury in most cases the sentence will be a community order or suspended sentence. Only if the driver killed under the influence of drink of drugs would an immediate prison sentence be likely.
We also should be considering changing highway laws to reduce speed limits on rural roads, narrow tracks and at bends or banning u turns or 3 point turns except in quiet residential streets as a lot of what would be mere careless driving could still be doing a currently legal manoeuvre
Just how are people supposed to turn round if they miss a junction or take a wrong turn?
Wait until they reach the next roundabout
This is nuts. I live in rural Surrey, but let's be honest Surrey is also pretty built up so I imagine most of the countryside is worse for roundabouts than where I live, but lets just take the lane I live on:
It has a roundabout at one end so let's assume we are going in the other direction. It is 2 miles long. It then reaches a cross roads. To the left you have to drive about 4 miles to a roundabout (which you may not know is there). Straight on is a narrow lane of about a mile with a T junction at the end. At that junction you can turn left or right. If you turn left you have about 5 miles to another T junction. At that junction you can turn left and eventually come to a roundabout in a mile. If you turn right I can't even think where there is a roundabout. Going back to the last junction if you turn right you come to another junction after about 2 miles. You can turn right and come to a roundabout after 3 miles. If you turn left after 2 miles you come to another junction. The next roundabout is about 7 miles away. Finally going back to the first junction if you turn right after 2 miles there is a junction. I can't think of where there is another roundabout either left or right on that road.
Your suggestion is nuts.
You are also wrong on speed limits for country lanes. You should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions. I am currently taking my Advanced Driving lessons for IAM. They are really hot on not exceeding the speed limits, but also hot on not progressing and I was told I was driving too slow for the conditions on my last lesson. People driving too slow for the conditions are also very dangerous.
Fine, then take the risk of being done for death or serious injury by careless driving if you do said u turn on a rural road and won't wait until the next roundabout or village.
The speed limit on country lanes is 60mph.
'Driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions' is a totally subjective term. One man's 'appropriate speed' may be 55mph, another 20mph on the same road and same conditions, even if approaching a bend it is completely vague guidance. As you say you can be accused of going too slow as well as too fast
Driving to the speed appropriate to the road, car and conditions is subjective I agree. However it is not so subjective that it can be both 20mph for person A and 55 mph for person B. Never in a million years. Either one should not be on the road because they are not competent at driving or the other should not be on the road because they are using excessive speed. Whichever it will not be careless driving but dangerous driving. A sensible margin is more like 5 - 10 mph for the same car and same conditions not a difference of 35 mph.
And just to show how out of touch you are my instructor was an advanced police driver and I also had another advanced driver in the car who was training for his advanced instructor status (so already and advanced driver going to the next level). Both commented I was driving too slowly. It was a country lane.
Re the U turn on a country lane (which of course for a proper country lane is actually impossible) but other manoeuvres are of course you are nuts if you are saying I am taking a risk outside of the normal risk of driving. For a start going around a roundabout is far riskier for the cyclist (as a cyclist I know) so me waiting for a roundabout rather than carrying out the manoeuvre on the road in the appropriate place and taking care to look properly is the sensible thing to do for both me and the cyclist..
Can I suggest you do two things:
a) Buy Roadcraft. It is the police drivers handbook and used by the IAM. You might learn something about road safety b) Get on a bike and see what scares you most. A driver doing a 3 point turn ahead of you or a driver passing you going around a roundabout.
Why? In law it is completely subjective as the law is the law and if only a 60mph limit applies any lawyer could argue 20mph is appropriate or 55mph appropriate in slightly poor conditions for example.
It would certainly not be dangerous driving in either case and a good lawyer could ensure they are acquitted even of careless driving.
Too slowly for a country lane? So they should be driving at 60mph unless heavy rain or snow? Certainly not approaching a bend. Again confusing one size fits all advice.
You should stop at a roundabout in most cases to fully check for cyclists, as I said earlier.
Firstly, I don't really care (but that might be because it's Sultana and Your Party, which is as insignificant as it is amusing) and, secondly, really? Don't the police have better things to be spending their time on?
You've just said my job isn't important.
Investitgating financial crimes is very important.
Anything juicy recently?
Nope, my investigations have mostly centred on cocaine and unsolicited & solicited dick pics.
In my OH's last company, she was asked to ignore the cocaine misuse as the company wouldn't have a sales team left. Your lot must have higher standards.
Just to point out that this is an everyday example of the ridiculous state of affairs where wholesalers in this product are getting 20-25 year sentences while the product is regarded by millions as quotidian and normal.
If demand ceased, so would supply. Either decriminalise or make the user the real criminal, not the hard working trader.
MPs and television presenters have been cancelled over dodgy bants or porn but politics and the media are fuelled by actually illegal drugs. And this illustrates a real problem – the growing gulf between what is acceptable and what is legal.
Coke is now such a naff drug - it’s being hoovered up noses in pubs up and down the country by every man jack and off kitchen counters by bored mums.
Is the answer to be massively illiberal on coke - 1 year in prison, no suspended sentences or anything for possession. Announce it from the rooftops - you are caught with coke, or driving under the influence and you are going to prison for a year so say goodbye to your mid level management job, your kids, your bed. Prepare to be unable to cover your mortgage and lose your home, have a nightmare with a drugs offence when opening accounts or travelling.
Would something this severe smash the casual use? These people aren’t thinking of the chain of poor fuckers down the line working in grim conditions to harvest and produce, those getting killed in the trade so why have any sympathy for the end users?
I’m not sure how I feel about the above but would be an interesting experiment.
Where do you plan to build the extra 3,000 prisons?
This misses the point. The function of mandatory prison sentences is not in order to fill extra prisons but to deter certain actions. I am neutral as between decriminalisation and, OTOH, rational drug law enforcement. What is irrational is to deter traders with 25 year sentences but not deter use in any significant way.
Would not a few dozen otherwise impeccable living middling sorts with wives, children and careers in auto finance and geography teaching going to prison for drug use be enough?
I wonder how many of us are a little more careful about driving now that mere careless driving, if it chances to have certain outcomes, can lead straight to prison?
It can but even if careless driving leads to death or serious injury in most cases the sentence will be a community order or suspended sentence. Only if the driver killed under the influence of drink of drugs would an immediate prison sentence be likely.
We also should be considering changing highway laws to reduce speed limits on rural roads, narrow tracks and at bends or banning u turns or 3 point turns except in quiet residential streets as a lot of what would be mere careless driving could still be doing a currently legal manoeuvre
Just how are people supposed to turn round if they miss a junction or take a wrong turn?
Wait until they reach the next roundabout
This is nuts. I live in rural Surrey, but let's be honest Surrey is also pretty built up so I imagine most of the countryside is worse for roundabouts than where I live, but lets just take the lane I live on:
It has a roundabout at one end so let's assume we are going in the other direction. It is 2 miles long. It then reaches a cross roads. To the left you have to drive about 4 miles to a roundabout (which you may not know is there). Straight on is a narrow lane of about a mile with a T junction at the end. At that junction you can turn left or right. If you turn left you have about 5 miles to another T junction. At that junction you can turn left and eventually come to a roundabout in a mile. If you turn right I can't even think where there is a roundabout. Going back to the last junction if you turn right you come to another junction after about 2 miles. You can turn right and come to a roundabout after 3 miles. If you turn left after 2 miles you come to another junction. The next roundabout is about 7 miles away. Finally going back to the first junction if you turn right after 2 miles there is a junction. I can't think of where there is another roundabout either left or right on that road.
Your suggestion is nuts.
You are also wrong on speed limits for country lanes. You should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions. I am currently taking my Advanced Driving lessons for IAM. They are really hot on not exceeding the speed limits, but also hot on not progressing and I was told I was driving too slow for the conditions on my last lesson. People driving too slow for the conditions are also very dangerous.
Fine, then take the risk of being done for death or serious injury by careless driving if you do said u turn on a rural road and won't wait until the next roundabout or village.
The speed limit on country lanes is 60mph.
'Driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions' is a totally subjective term. One man's 'appropriate speed' may be 55mph, another 20mph on the same road and same conditions, even if approaching a bend it is completely vague guidance. As you say you can be accused of going too slow as well as too fast
Driving to the speed appropriate to the road, car and conditions is subjective I agree. However it is not so subjective that it can be both 20mph for person A and 55 mph for person B. Never in a million years. Either one should not be on the road because they are not competent at driving or the other should not be on the road because they are using excessive speed. Whichever it will not be careless driving but dangerous driving. A sensible margin is more like 5 - 10 mph for the same car and same conditions not a difference of 35 mph.
And just to show how out of touch you are my instructor was an advanced police driver and I also had another advanced driver in the car who was training for his advanced instructor status (so already and advanced driver going to the next level). Both commented I was driving too slowly. It was a country lane.
Re the U turn on a country lane (which of course for a proper country lane is actually impossible) but other manoeuvres are of course you are nuts if you are saying I am taking a risk outside of the normal risk of driving. For a start going around a roundabout is far riskier for the cyclist (as a cyclist I know) so me waiting for a roundabout rather than carrying out the manoeuvre on the road in the appropriate place and taking care to look properly is the sensible thing to do for both me and the cyclist..
Can I suggest you do two things:
a) Buy Roadcraft. It is the police drivers handbook and used by the IAM. You might learn something about road safety b) Get on a bike and see what scares you most. A driver doing a 3 point turn ahead of you or a driver passing you going around a roundabout.
Why? In law it is completely subjective as the law is the law and if only a 60mph limit applies any lawyer could argue 20mph is appropriate or 55mph appropriate in slightly poor conditions for example.
It would certainly not be dangerous driving in either case and a good lawyer could ensure they are acquitted even of careless driving.
Too slowly for a country lane? So they should be driving at 60mph unless heavy rain or snow? Certainly not approaching a bend. Again confusing one size fits all advice.
You should stop at a roundabout in most cases to fully check for cyclists, as I said earlier.
At no point did I say you should be driving down a country lane at 60mph. On the contrary I said you should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions and that will rarely be anything like 60 mph. You are fixated on this. 60 mph is not a target. On many country lanes if you did this you would definitely be dangerous driving and deserve to get banned and no a lawyer will not get you off if you take a chevron bend at 55 mph and kill someone coming the other way because you couldn't take the bend.
You can of course also drive too slow for a road and can also be done for dangerous driving for doing so. Just look it up.
In a nut shell. if you exceed the speed limit you are breaking the law, but if you are below the speed limit you can also be breaking the law for driving too slowly or too fast.
Finally re stopping at roundabouts; when your exit is clear as mentioned before, this would be a fail on an Advanced Driving Test (it might be on the standard test, I don't know) and a policeman who was having a very bad morning might do you for careless driving. To do so causes utter confusion to cars behind and other drivers waiting to enter the roundabout from other junctions.
I am assuming you don't drive and I repeat again I suggest you read Roadcraft the Police Drivers Handbook.
PS The IAM will give you a free trial drive if you want. You get 60 - 90 minutes behind the wheel and they will give you a free evaluation of your driving.
Yes, 60mph is not a target, agreed. On a bend you should certainly slow down well below that so below 55mph too, agreed.
Yet what is the speed to slow down to at a bend, 40mph, 30mph, even 20mph? Lawyers disagree and the Highway Code is unclear.
Yes you should drive at the speed limit if clear and good conditions and no bend generally but you have just said you should not be driving down a country lane at 60mph. So what is too slow? 40mph? 50mph? 20mph?
Even if your exit is clear you at least have to check ahead and right before moving at a roundabout even if you don't stop completely
Rhuallt hill on the A55 has a couple of long bends and the average speed cameras monitor the 70 mph limit
We have an abundance of country roads throughout our area, many with bends with slow marked on the road and chevrons and the speed varies according to the road condition, not something you have read in the highway code
If you cannot adjust your driving then you should not drive
Firstly, I don't really care (but that might be because it's Sultana and Your Party, which is as insignificant as it is amusing) and, secondly, really? Don't the police have better things to be spending their time on?
You've just said my job isn't important.
Investitgating financial crimes is very important.
Anything juicy recently?
Nope, my investigations have mostly centred on cocaine and unsolicited & solicited dick pics.
In my OH's last company, she was asked to ignore the cocaine misuse as the company wouldn't have a sales team left. Your lot must have higher standards.
Just to point out that this is an everyday example of the ridiculous state of affairs where wholesalers in this product are getting 20-25 year sentences while the product is regarded by millions as quotidian and normal.
If demand ceased, so would supply. Either decriminalise or make the user the real criminal, not the hard working trader.
MPs and television presenters have been cancelled over dodgy bants or porn but politics and the media are fuelled by actually illegal drugs. And this illustrates a real problem – the growing gulf between what is acceptable and what is legal.
Coke is now such a naff drug - it’s being hoovered up noses in pubs up and down the country by every man jack and off kitchen counters by bored mums.
Is the answer to be massively illiberal on coke - 1 year in prison, no suspended sentences or anything for possession. Announce it from the rooftops - you are caught with coke, or driving under the influence and you are going to prison for a year so say goodbye to your mid level management job, your kids, your bed. Prepare to be unable to cover your mortgage and lose your home, have a nightmare with a drugs offence when opening accounts or travelling.
Would something this severe smash the casual use? These people aren’t thinking of the chain of poor fuckers down the line working in grim conditions to harvest and produce, those getting killed in the trade so why have any sympathy for the end users?
I’m not sure how I feel about the above but would be an interesting experiment.
Where do you plan to build the extra 3,000 prisons?
This misses the point. The function of mandatory prison sentences is not in order to fill extra prisons but to deter certain actions. I am neutral as between decriminalisation and, OTOH, rational drug law enforcement. What is irrational is to deter traders with 25 year sentences but not deter use in any significant way.
Would not a few dozen otherwise impeccable living middling sorts with wives, children and careers in auto finance and geography teaching going to prison for drug use be enough?
I wonder how many of us are a little more careful about driving now that mere careless driving, if it chances to have certain outcomes, can lead straight to prison?
It can but even if careless driving leads to death or serious injury in most cases the sentence will be a community order or suspended sentence. Only if the driver killed under the influence of drink of drugs would an immediate prison sentence be likely.
We also should be considering changing highway laws to reduce speed limits on rural roads, narrow tracks and at bends or banning u turns or 3 point turns except in quiet residential streets as a lot of what would be mere careless driving could still be doing a currently legal manoeuvre
Just how are people supposed to turn round if they miss a junction or take a wrong turn?
Wait until they reach the next roundabout
This is nuts. I live in rural Surrey, but let's be honest Surrey is also pretty built up so I imagine most of the countryside is worse for roundabouts than where I live, but lets just take the lane I live on:
It has a roundabout at one end so let's assume we are going in the other direction. It is 2 miles long. It then reaches a cross roads. To the left you have to drive about 4 miles to a roundabout (which you may not know is there). Straight on is a narrow lane of about a mile with a T junction at the end. At that junction you can turn left or right. If you turn left you have about 5 miles to another T junction. At that junction you can turn left and eventually come to a roundabout in a mile. If you turn right I can't even think where there is a roundabout. Going back to the last junction if you turn right you come to another junction after about 2 miles. You can turn right and come to a roundabout after 3 miles. If you turn left after 2 miles you come to another junction. The next roundabout is about 7 miles away. Finally going back to the first junction if you turn right after 2 miles there is a junction. I can't think of where there is another roundabout either left or right on that road.
Your suggestion is nuts.
You are also wrong on speed limits for country lanes. You should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions. I am currently taking my Advanced Driving lessons for IAM. They are really hot on not exceeding the speed limits, but also hot on not progressing and I was told I was driving too slow for the conditions on my last lesson. People driving too slow for the conditions are also very dangerous.
Fine, then take the risk of being done for death or serious injury by careless driving if you do said u turn on a rural road and won't wait until the next roundabout or village.
The speed limit on country lanes is 60mph.
'Driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions' is a totally subjective term. One man's 'appropriate speed' may be 55mph, another 20mph on the same road and same conditions, even if approaching a bend it is completely vague guidance. As you say you can be accused of going too slow as well as too fast
You should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear, is good general advice.
And how is the average man on the road of average intelligence let alone those of below supposed to be able to calculate how long it will take them to stop where they see is clear ahead? They can follow the speed limit, they can't do stopping distance calculations every road they take!
On the contrary, you can and do. Just as you judge other distances, like how far behind the car in front to drive, in different conditions.
Glad you live the other side of London, I'm unlikely to meet you coming round a corner. Perhaps you should hand back your licence, I'm beginning to think that wasn't such an uncharitable suggestion
How? The average driver on the road is NOT a statistician who can calculate stopping distances. You drive behind a car so you can always see its back and license plate in full, that is NOT the same as doing constant stopping distance calculations.
The speed limit on rural roads is 60mph, either we reduce that to 40mph and say 20-30mph max around bends and when wet or snowing and 20mph on single tracks or legally there must be real debate on whether someone driving at the speed limit should be prosecuted even if an accident?
Driving is a skill.
If you're so incompetent you can't estimate your vehicles stopping distance, you should not be behind the wheel.
And yes, that means that driving slower than the speed limit is often appropriate, eg when approaching corners, or on rural roads.
It is a limit, not a target for a reason - and the Highway Code is very clear about that too.
You are being absurd and should not be behind the wheel if you can't drive safely.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You clearly never drive on country lanes, because around here I have never seen people approach blind bends on country lanes at 60mph.
Cars doing less than the speed limit in suitable conditions is the norm, not the exception.
Precisely because competent people do know that and do not stick to the speed target limit.
These days I rarely drive on anything but country roads, and that's my experience too. It would be madness to do otherwise.
Country roads serve as footpaths, bridleways, cycle lanes, tractor access and everything in the way. You can tell the difference between someone who grew up in the countryside and those who didn't by the space and time they provide to those not in a car.
It shouldn't need to be written down, but it's there in the Code anyway.
It isn't, it says to give space of 1.5m to cyclists at 30mph for instance but is not clear how much extra to give at speeds above that
Do you have to be told everything
If you cannot drive in accordance with road conditions and anticipate situations you should not drive at all
Yes but clarity is needed on adjustments needed for all the different road conditions in the Code
No it is not
Time for you to get a cuppa and a rich tea biscuit
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
1) Depending on exact positioning, width of road, how far into the manoeuvre you were etc*, he should probably have waited 2) You should have let him go without remonstration. 3) Re 2) I would have done the same as you anyway !
*If you can supply google street image of road and mark your position, I'll produce a look-up table for HYUFD to use if he ever does a 3 point turn in exactly the same spot.
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
Definitely the cyclist at fault there, if as you describe. You do often get into an awkward standoff though because most drivers will pause a manoeuvre to let you past in that scenario.
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
You would have had to have given way to the cyclist and stopped the 3 point turn until he had got passed I think.
The Highway Code says do not proceed with a manoeuvre until clear and look out for cyclists, motorbikes and pedestrians especially in your mirrors
The road was clear when I proceeded and I did look out for him which is why I saw him, and stopped.
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
Dealing with other vehicles The manoeuvre should not be started until the road is clear of traffic in both directions. Once you have completed the first leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass behind you if they wanted to, before commencing the second leg. Similarly before commencing the third leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass in front of you if they wanted to. The same would apply if it took further movements forwards and backwards to complete the manoeuvre.
Looks like Bart may need a Highway Code check then!
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
You would have had to have given way to the cyclist and stopped the 3 point turn until he had got passed I think.
The Highway Code says do not proceed with a manoeuvre until clear and look out for cyclists, motorbikes and pedestrians especially in your mirrors
The road was clear when I proceeded and I did look out for him which is why I saw him, and stopped.
You would have to have let him through as well as stop and then only finish the 3 point turn once he had gone through
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
Dealing with other vehicles The manoeuvre should not be started until the road is clear of traffic in both directions. Once you have completed the first leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass behind you if they wanted to, before commencing the second leg. Similarly before commencing the third leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass in front of you if they wanted to. The same would apply if it took further movements forwards and backwards to complete the manoeuvre.
Looks like Bart may need a Highway Code check then!
It's a tricky one. Away from the theory I have come across drivers who wait after each leg of the turn and those who consider it one manoeuvre so assume they have right of way throughout, I didn't know the answer without looking it up. Imagine it does create the odd low speed crash.
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
Dealing with other vehicles The manoeuvre should not be started until the road is clear of traffic in both directions. Once you have completed the first leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass behind you if they wanted to, before commencing the second leg. Similarly before commencing the third leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass in front of you if they wanted to. The same would apply if it took further movements forwards and backwards to complete the manoeuvre.
Looks like Bart may need a Highway Code check then!
It's a tricky one. Away from the theory I have come across drivers who wait after each leg of the turn and those who consider it one manoeuvre so assume they have right of way throughout, I didn't know the answer without looking it up. Imagine it does create the odd low speed crash.
It does but from your post the correct answer is the former and the driver to wait after each leg of the turn to let any cyclists etc through
Firstly, I don't really care (but that might be because it's Sultana and Your Party, which is as insignificant as it is amusing) and, secondly, really? Don't the police have better things to be spending their time on?
You've just said my job isn't important.
Investitgating financial crimes is very important.
Anything juicy recently?
Nope, my investigations have mostly centred on cocaine and unsolicited & solicited dick pics.
In my OH's last company, she was asked to ignore the cocaine misuse as the company wouldn't have a sales team left. Your lot must have higher standards.
Just to point out that this is an everyday example of the ridiculous state of affairs where wholesalers in this product are getting 20-25 year sentences while the product is regarded by millions as quotidian and normal.
If demand ceased, so would supply. Either decriminalise or make the user the real criminal, not the hard working trader.
MPs and television presenters have been cancelled over dodgy bants or porn but politics and the media are fuelled by actually illegal drugs. And this illustrates a real problem – the growing gulf between what is acceptable and what is legal.
Coke is now such a naff drug - it’s being hoovered up noses in pubs up and down the country by every man jack and off kitchen counters by bored mums.
Is the answer to be massively illiberal on coke - 1 year in prison, no suspended sentences or anything for possession. Announce it from the rooftops - you are caught with coke, or driving under the influence and you are going to prison for a year so say goodbye to your mid level management job, your kids, your bed. Prepare to be unable to cover your mortgage and lose your home, have a nightmare with a drugs offence when opening accounts or travelling.
Would something this severe smash the casual use? These people aren’t thinking of the chain of poor fuckers down the line working in grim conditions to harvest and produce, those getting killed in the trade so why have any sympathy for the end users?
I’m not sure how I feel about the above but would be an interesting experiment.
Where do you plan to build the extra 3,000 prisons?
This misses the point. The function of mandatory prison sentences is not in order to fill extra prisons but to deter certain actions. I am neutral as between decriminalisation and, OTOH, rational drug law enforcement. What is irrational is to deter traders with 25 year sentences but not deter use in any significant way.
Would not a few dozen otherwise impeccable living middling sorts with wives, children and careers in auto finance and geography teaching going to prison for drug use be enough?
I wonder how many of us are a little more careful about driving now that mere careless driving, if it chances to have certain outcomes, can lead straight to prison?
It can but even if careless driving leads to death or serious injury in most cases the sentence will be a community order or suspended sentence. Only if the driver killed under the influence of drink of drugs would an immediate prison sentence be likely.
We also should be considering changing highway laws to reduce speed limits on rural roads, narrow tracks and at bends or banning u turns or 3 point turns except in quiet residential streets as a lot of what would be mere careless driving could still be doing a currently legal manoeuvre
Just how are people supposed to turn round if they miss a junction or take a wrong turn?
Wait until they reach the next roundabout
This is nuts. I live in rural Surrey, but let's be honest Surrey is also pretty built up so I imagine most of the countryside is worse for roundabouts than where I live, but lets just take the lane I live on:
It has a roundabout at one end so let's assume we are going in the other direction. It is 2 miles long. It then reaches a cross roads. To the left you have to drive about 4 miles to a roundabout (which you may not know is there). Straight on is a narrow lane of about a mile with a T junction at the end. At that junction you can turn left or right. If you turn left you have about 5 miles to another T junction. At that junction you can turn left and eventually come to a roundabout in a mile. If you turn right I can't even think where there is a roundabout. Going back to the last junction if you turn right you come to another junction after about 2 miles. You can turn right and come to a roundabout after 3 miles. If you turn left after 2 miles you come to another junction. The next roundabout is about 7 miles away. Finally going back to the first junction if you turn right after 2 miles there is a junction. I can't think of where there is another roundabout either left or right on that road.
Your suggestion is nuts.
You are also wrong on speed limits for country lanes. You should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions. I am currently taking my Advanced Driving lessons for IAM. They are really hot on not exceeding the speed limits, but also hot on not progressing and I was told I was driving too slow for the conditions on my last lesson. People driving too slow for the conditions are also very dangerous.
Fine, then take the risk of being done for death or serious injury by careless driving if you do said u turn on a rural road and won't wait until the next roundabout or village.
The speed limit on country lanes is 60mph.
'Driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions' is a totally subjective term. One man's 'appropriate speed' may be 55mph, another 20mph on the same road and same conditions, even if approaching a bend it is completely vague guidance. As you say you can be accused of going too slow as well as too fast
Driving to the speed appropriate to the road, car and conditions is subjective I agree. However it is not so subjective that it can be both 20mph for person A and 55 mph for person B. Never in a million years. Either one should not be on the road because they are not competent at driving or the other should not be on the road because they are using excessive speed. Whichever it will not be careless driving but dangerous driving. A sensible margin is more like 5 - 10 mph for the same car and same conditions not a difference of 35 mph.
And just to show how out of touch you are my instructor was an advanced police driver and I also had another advanced driver in the car who was training for his advanced instructor status (so already and advanced driver going to the next level). Both commented I was driving too slowly. It was a country lane.
Re the U turn on a country lane (which of course for a proper country lane is actually impossible) but other manoeuvres are of course you are nuts if you are saying I am taking a risk outside of the normal risk of driving. For a start going around a roundabout is far riskier for the cyclist (as a cyclist I know) so me waiting for a roundabout rather than carrying out the manoeuvre on the road in the appropriate place and taking care to look properly is the sensible thing to do for both me and the cyclist..
Can I suggest you do two things:
a) Buy Roadcraft. It is the police drivers handbook and used by the IAM. You might learn something about road safety b) Get on a bike and see what scares you most. A driver doing a 3 point turn ahead of you or a driver passing you going around a roundabout.
Why? In law it is completely subjective as the law is the law and if only a 60mph limit applies any lawyer could argue 20mph is appropriate or 55mph appropriate in slightly poor conditions for example.
It would certainly not be dangerous driving in either case and a good lawyer could ensure they are acquitted even of careless driving.
Too slowly for a country lane? So they should be driving at 60mph unless heavy rain or snow? Certainly not approaching a bend. Again confusing one size fits all advice.
You should stop at a roundabout in most cases to fully check for cyclists, as I said earlier.
Firstly, I don't really care (but that might be because it's Sultana and Your Party, which is as insignificant as it is amusing) and, secondly, really? Don't the police have better things to be spending their time on?
You've just said my job isn't important.
Investitgating financial crimes is very important.
Anything juicy recently?
Nope, my investigations have mostly centred on cocaine and unsolicited & solicited dick pics.
In my OH's last company, she was asked to ignore the cocaine misuse as the company wouldn't have a sales team left. Your lot must have higher standards.
Just to point out that this is an everyday example of the ridiculous state of affairs where wholesalers in this product are getting 20-25 year sentences while the product is regarded by millions as quotidian and normal.
If demand ceased, so would supply. Either decriminalise or make the user the real criminal, not the hard working trader.
MPs and television presenters have been cancelled over dodgy bants or porn but politics and the media are fuelled by actually illegal drugs. And this illustrates a real problem – the growing gulf between what is acceptable and what is legal.
Coke is now such a naff drug - it’s being hoovered up noses in pubs up and down the country by every man jack and off kitchen counters by bored mums.
Is the answer to be massively illiberal on coke - 1 year in prison, no suspended sentences or anything for possession. Announce it from the rooftops - you are caught with coke, or driving under the influence and you are going to prison for a year so say goodbye to your mid level management job, your kids, your bed. Prepare to be unable to cover your mortgage and lose your home, have a nightmare with a drugs offence when opening accounts or travelling.
Would something this severe smash the casual use? These people aren’t thinking of the chain of poor fuckers down the line working in grim conditions to harvest and produce, those getting killed in the trade so why have any sympathy for the end users?
I’m not sure how I feel about the above but would be an interesting experiment.
Where do you plan to build the extra 3,000 prisons?
This misses the point. The function of mandatory prison sentences is not in order to fill extra prisons but to deter certain actions. I am neutral as between decriminalisation and, OTOH, rational drug law enforcement. What is irrational is to deter traders with 25 year sentences but not deter use in any significant way.
Would not a few dozen otherwise impeccable living middling sorts with wives, children and careers in auto finance and geography teaching going to prison for drug use be enough?
I wonder how many of us are a little more careful about driving now that mere careless driving, if it chances to have certain outcomes, can lead straight to prison?
It can but even if careless driving leads to death or serious injury in most cases the sentence will be a community order or suspended sentence. Only if the driver killed under the influence of drink of drugs would an immediate prison sentence be likely.
We also should be considering changing highway laws to reduce speed limits on rural roads, narrow tracks and at bends or banning u turns or 3 point turns except in quiet residential streets as a lot of what would be mere careless driving could still be doing a currently legal manoeuvre
Just how are people supposed to turn round if they miss a junction or take a wrong turn?
Wait until they reach the next roundabout
This is nuts. I live in rural Surrey, but let's be honest Surrey is also pretty built up so I imagine most of the countryside is worse for roundabouts than where I live, but lets just take the lane I live on:
It has a roundabout at one end so let's assume we are going in the other direction. It is 2 miles long. It then reaches a cross roads. To the left you have to drive about 4 miles to a roundabout (which you may not know is there). Straight on is a narrow lane of about a mile with a T junction at the end. At that junction you can turn left or right. If you turn left you have about 5 miles to another T junction. At that junction you can turn left and eventually come to a roundabout in a mile. If you turn right I can't even think where there is a roundabout. Going back to the last junction if you turn right you come to another junction after about 2 miles. You can turn right and come to a roundabout after 3 miles. If you turn left after 2 miles you come to another junction. The next roundabout is about 7 miles away. Finally going back to the first junction if you turn right after 2 miles there is a junction. I can't think of where there is another roundabout either left or right on that road.
Your suggestion is nuts.
You are also wrong on speed limits for country lanes. You should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions. I am currently taking my Advanced Driving lessons for IAM. They are really hot on not exceeding the speed limits, but also hot on not progressing and I was told I was driving too slow for the conditions on my last lesson. People driving too slow for the conditions are also very dangerous.
Fine, then take the risk of being done for death or serious injury by careless driving if you do said u turn on a rural road and won't wait until the next roundabout or village.
The speed limit on country lanes is 60mph.
'Driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions' is a totally subjective term. One man's 'appropriate speed' may be 55mph, another 20mph on the same road and same conditions, even if approaching a bend it is completely vague guidance. As you say you can be accused of going too slow as well as too fast
Driving to the speed appropriate to the road, car and conditions is subjective I agree. However it is not so subjective that it can be both 20mph for person A and 55 mph for person B. Never in a million years. Either one should not be on the road because they are not competent at driving or the other should not be on the road because they are using excessive speed. Whichever it will not be careless driving but dangerous driving. A sensible margin is more like 5 - 10 mph for the same car and same conditions not a difference of 35 mph.
And just to show how out of touch you are my instructor was an advanced police driver and I also had another advanced driver in the car who was training for his advanced instructor status (so already and advanced driver going to the next level). Both commented I was driving too slowly. It was a country lane.
Re the U turn on a country lane (which of course for a proper country lane is actually impossible) but other manoeuvres are of course you are nuts if you are saying I am taking a risk outside of the normal risk of driving. For a start going around a roundabout is far riskier for the cyclist (as a cyclist I know) so me waiting for a roundabout rather than carrying out the manoeuvre on the road in the appropriate place and taking care to look properly is the sensible thing to do for both me and the cyclist..
Can I suggest you do two things:
a) Buy Roadcraft. It is the police drivers handbook and used by the IAM. You might learn something about road safety b) Get on a bike and see what scares you most. A driver doing a 3 point turn ahead of you or a driver passing you going around a roundabout.
Why? In law it is completely subjective as the law is the law and if only a 60mph limit applies any lawyer could argue 20mph is appropriate or 55mph appropriate in slightly poor conditions for example.
It would certainly not be dangerous driving in either case and a good lawyer could ensure they are acquitted even of careless driving.
Too slowly for a country lane? So they should be driving at 60mph unless heavy rain or snow? Certainly not approaching a bend. Again confusing one size fits all advice.
You should stop at a roundabout in most cases to fully check for cyclists, as I said earlier.
At no point did I say you should be driving down a country lane at 60mph. On the contrary I said you should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions and that will rarely be anything like 60 mph. You are fixated on this. 60 mph is not a target. On many country lanes if you did this you would definitely be dangerous driving and deserve to get banned and no a lawyer will not get you off if you take a chevron bend at 55 mph and kill someone coming the other way because you couldn't take the bend.
You can of course also drive too slow for a road and can also be done for dangerous driving for doing so. Just look it up.
In a nut shell. if you exceed the speed limit you are breaking the law, but if you are below the speed limit you can also be breaking the law for driving too slowly or too fast.
Finally re stopping at roundabouts; when your exit is clear as mentioned before, this would be a fail on an Advanced Driving Test (it might be on the standard test, I don't know) and a policeman who was having a very bad morning might do you for careless driving. To do so causes utter confusion to cars behind and other drivers waiting to enter the roundabout from other junctions.
I am assuming you don't drive and I repeat again I suggest you read Roadcraft the Police Drivers Handbook.
PS The IAM will give you a free trial drive if you want. You get 60 - 90 minutes behind the wheel and they will give you a free evaluation of your driving.
Yes, 60mph is not a target, agreed. On a bend you should certainly slow down well below that so below 55mph too, agreed.
Yet what is the speed to slow down to at a bend, 40mph, 30mph, even 20mph? Lawyers disagree and the Highway Code is unclear.
Yes you should drive at the speed limit if clear and good conditions and no bend generally but you have just said you should not be driving down a country lane at 60mph. So what is too slow? 40mph? 50mph? 20mph?
Even if your exit is clear you at least have to check ahead and right before moving at a roundabout even if you don't stop completely
Rhuallt hill on the A55 has a couple of long bends and the average speed cameras monitor the 70 mph limit
We have an abundance of country roads throughout our area, many with bends with slow marked on the road and chevrons and the speed varies according to the road condition, not something you have read in the highway code
If you cannot adjust your driving then you should not drive
Adjust your speed yes but to what exactly?
Are you seriously expecting an answer to that question?
This argument over Grok can produce dodgy images....this same week an Israeli company open sourced a state of the art text to video model, but not as usual just the weights of the model, the whole system, training code, etc. So anybody can take off guardrails and fine tune and even runs on a (higher end) macbook. Its already been widely adopted in cloud system. The reality is with particular text to image, there is no moat, no super secret special sauce. Can't put the genie back in the box.
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
You would have had to have given way to the cyclist and stopped the 3 point turn until he had got passed I think.
The Highway Code says do not proceed with a manoeuvre until clear and look out for cyclists, motorbikes and pedestrians especially in your mirrors
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
You would have had to have given way to the cyclist and stopped the 3 point turn until he had got passed I think.
The Highway Code says do not proceed with a manoeuvre until clear and look out for cyclists, motorbikes and pedestrians especially in your mirrors
We are at 'I think' stage now !!!!!!
Hardly, noneoftheabove even posted the correct answer
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
Dealing with other vehicles The manoeuvre should not be started until the road is clear of traffic in both directions. Once you have completed the first leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass behind you if they wanted to, before commencing the second leg. Similarly before commencing the third leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass in front of you if they wanted to. The same would apply if it took further movements forwards and backwards to complete the manoeuvre.
Looks like Bart may need a Highway Code check then!
It's a tricky one. Away from the theory I have come across drivers who wait after each leg of the turn and those who consider it one manoeuvre so assume they have right of way throughout, I didn't know the answer without looking it up. Imagine it does create the odd low speed crash.
Might be both then. I'm almost certain the Code will advise to give someone doing a manoeuvre loads of room, patience etc
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
You would have had to have given way to the cyclist and stopped the 3 point turn until he had got passed I think.
The Highway Code says do not proceed with a manoeuvre until clear and look out for cyclists, motorbikes and pedestrians especially in your mirrors
The road was clear when I proceeded and I did look out for him which is why I saw him, and stopped.
You would have to have let him through as well as stop and then only finish the 3 point turn once he had gone through
Between legs is what it says. Ie that the built up traffic has stopped and built up during a leg. He approached, did not stop, and tried to go around while I was moving.
Oh well, everyone was safe in the end precisely because I was keeping aware of hazards and able to react and stop to someone being dangerous. Skilled drivers need to be able to react to the unexpected.
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
You would have had to have given way to the cyclist and stopped the 3 point turn until he had got passed I think.
The Highway Code says do not proceed with a manoeuvre until clear and look out for cyclists, motorbikes and pedestrians especially in your mirrors
The road was clear when I proceeded and I did look out for him which is why I saw him, and stopped.
You would have to have let him through as well as stop and then only finish the 3 point turn once he had gone through
Between legs is what it says. Ie that the built up traffic has stopped and built up during a leg. He approached, did not stop, and tried to go around while I was moving.
Oh well, everyone was safe in the end precisely because I was keeping aware of hazards and able to react and stop to someone being dangerous. Skilled drivers need to be able to react to the unexpected.
He didn't need to stop, as he said he had priority and you had to stop the 3 point turn and let him pass as soon as you saw him in your mirrors
Firstly, I don't really care (but that might be because it's Sultana and Your Party, which is as insignificant as it is amusing) and, secondly, really? Don't the police have better things to be spending their time on?
You've just said my job isn't important.
Investitgating financial crimes is very important.
Anything juicy recently?
Nope, my investigations have mostly centred on cocaine and unsolicited & solicited dick pics.
In my OH's last company, she was asked to ignore the cocaine misuse as the company wouldn't have a sales team left. Your lot must have higher standards.
Just to point out that this is an everyday example of the ridiculous state of affairs where wholesalers in this product are getting 20-25 year sentences while the product is regarded by millions as quotidian and normal.
If demand ceased, so would supply. Either decriminalise or make the user the real criminal, not the hard working trader.
MPs and television presenters have been cancelled over dodgy bants or porn but politics and the media are fuelled by actually illegal drugs. And this illustrates a real problem – the growing gulf between what is acceptable and what is legal.
Coke is now such a naff drug - it’s being hoovered up noses in pubs up and down the country by every man jack and off kitchen counters by bored mums.
Is the answer to be massively illiberal on coke - 1 year in prison, no suspended sentences or anything for possession. Announce it from the rooftops - you are caught with coke, or driving under the influence and you are going to prison for a year so say goodbye to your mid level management job, your kids, your bed. Prepare to be unable to cover your mortgage and lose your home, have a nightmare with a drugs offence when opening accounts or travelling.
Would something this severe smash the casual use? These people aren’t thinking of the chain of poor fuckers down the line working in grim conditions to harvest and produce, those getting killed in the trade so why have any sympathy for the end users?
I’m not sure how I feel about the above but would be an interesting experiment.
Where do you plan to build the extra 3,000 prisons?
This misses the point. The function of mandatory prison sentences is not in order to fill extra prisons but to deter certain actions. I am neutral as between decriminalisation and, OTOH, rational drug law enforcement. What is irrational is to deter traders with 25 year sentences but not deter use in any significant way.
Would not a few dozen otherwise impeccable living middling sorts with wives, children and careers in auto finance and geography teaching going to prison for drug use be enough?
I wonder how many of us are a little more careful about driving now that mere careless driving, if it chances to have certain outcomes, can lead straight to prison?
It can but even if careless driving leads to death or serious injury in most cases the sentence will be a community order or suspended sentence. Only if the driver killed under the influence of drink of drugs would an immediate prison sentence be likely.
We also should be considering changing highway laws to reduce speed limits on rural roads, narrow tracks and at bends or banning u turns or 3 point turns except in quiet residential streets as a lot of what would be mere careless driving could still be doing a currently legal manoeuvre
Just how are people supposed to turn round if they miss a junction or take a wrong turn?
Wait until they reach the next roundabout
This is nuts. I live in rural Surrey, but let's be honest Surrey is also pretty built up so I imagine most of the countryside is worse for roundabouts than where I live, but lets just take the lane I live on:
It has a roundabout at one end so let's assume we are going in the other direction. It is 2 miles long. It then reaches a cross roads. To the left you have to drive about 4 miles to a roundabout (which you may not know is there). Straight on is a narrow lane of about a mile with a T junction at the end. At that junction you can turn left or right. If you turn left you have about 5 miles to another T junction. At that junction you can turn left and eventually come to a roundabout in a mile. If you turn right I can't even think where there is a roundabout. Going back to the last junction if you turn right you come to another junction after about 2 miles. You can turn right and come to a roundabout after 3 miles. If you turn left after 2 miles you come to another junction. The next roundabout is about 7 miles away. Finally going back to the first junction if you turn right after 2 miles there is a junction. I can't think of where there is another roundabout either left or right on that road.
Your suggestion is nuts.
You are also wrong on speed limits for country lanes. You should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions. I am currently taking my Advanced Driving lessons for IAM. They are really hot on not exceeding the speed limits, but also hot on not progressing and I was told I was driving too slow for the conditions on my last lesson. People driving too slow for the conditions are also very dangerous.
Fine, then take the risk of being done for death or serious injury by careless driving if you do said u turn on a rural road and won't wait until the next roundabout or village.
The speed limit on country lanes is 60mph.
'Driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions' is a totally subjective term. One man's 'appropriate speed' may be 55mph, another 20mph on the same road and same conditions, even if approaching a bend it is completely vague guidance. As you say you can be accused of going too slow as well as too fast
Driving to the speed appropriate to the road, car and conditions is subjective I agree. However it is not so subjective that it can be both 20mph for person A and 55 mph for person B. Never in a million years. Either one should not be on the road because they are not competent at driving or the other should not be on the road because they are using excessive speed. Whichever it will not be careless driving but dangerous driving. A sensible margin is more like 5 - 10 mph for the same car and same conditions not a difference of 35 mph.
And just to show how out of touch you are my instructor was an advanced police driver and I also had another advanced driver in the car who was training for his advanced instructor status (so already and advanced driver going to the next level). Both commented I was driving too slowly. It was a country lane.
Re the U turn on a country lane (which of course for a proper country lane is actually impossible) but other manoeuvres are of course you are nuts if you are saying I am taking a risk outside of the normal risk of driving. For a start going around a roundabout is far riskier for the cyclist (as a cyclist I know) so me waiting for a roundabout rather than carrying out the manoeuvre on the road in the appropriate place and taking care to look properly is the sensible thing to do for both me and the cyclist..
Can I suggest you do two things:
a) Buy Roadcraft. It is the police drivers handbook and used by the IAM. You might learn something about road safety b) Get on a bike and see what scares you most. A driver doing a 3 point turn ahead of you or a driver passing you going around a roundabout.
Why? In law it is completely subjective as the law is the law and if only a 60mph limit applies any lawyer could argue 20mph is appropriate or 55mph appropriate in slightly poor conditions for example.
It would certainly not be dangerous driving in either case and a good lawyer could ensure they are acquitted even of careless driving.
Too slowly for a country lane? So they should be driving at 60mph unless heavy rain or snow? Certainly not approaching a bend. Again confusing one size fits all advice.
You should stop at a roundabout in most cases to fully check for cyclists, as I said earlier.
Firstly, I don't really care (but that might be because it's Sultana and Your Party, which is as insignificant as it is amusing) and, secondly, really? Don't the police have better things to be spending their time on?
You've just said my job isn't important.
Investitgating financial crimes is very important.
Anything juicy recently?
Nope, my investigations have mostly centred on cocaine and unsolicited & solicited dick pics.
In my OH's last company, she was asked to ignore the cocaine misuse as the company wouldn't have a sales team left. Your lot must have higher standards.
Just to point out that this is an everyday example of the ridiculous state of affairs where wholesalers in this product are getting 20-25 year sentences while the product is regarded by millions as quotidian and normal.
If demand ceased, so would supply. Either decriminalise or make the user the real criminal, not the hard working trader.
MPs and television presenters have been cancelled over dodgy bants or porn but politics and the media are fuelled by actually illegal drugs. And this illustrates a real problem – the growing gulf between what is acceptable and what is legal.
Coke is now such a naff drug - it’s being hoovered up noses in pubs up and down the country by every man jack and off kitchen counters by bored mums.
Is the answer to be massively illiberal on coke - 1 year in prison, no suspended sentences or anything for possession. Announce it from the rooftops - you are caught with coke, or driving under the influence and you are going to prison for a year so say goodbye to your mid level management job, your kids, your bed. Prepare to be unable to cover your mortgage and lose your home, have a nightmare with a drugs offence when opening accounts or travelling.
Would something this severe smash the casual use? These people aren’t thinking of the chain of poor fuckers down the line working in grim conditions to harvest and produce, those getting killed in the trade so why have any sympathy for the end users?
I’m not sure how I feel about the above but would be an interesting experiment.
Where do you plan to build the extra 3,000 prisons?
This misses the point. The function of mandatory prison sentences is not in order to fill extra prisons but to deter certain actions. I am neutral as between decriminalisation and, OTOH, rational drug law enforcement. What is irrational is to deter traders with 25 year sentences but not deter use in any significant way.
Would not a few dozen otherwise impeccable living middling sorts with wives, children and careers in auto finance and geography teaching going to prison for drug use be enough?
I wonder how many of us are a little more careful about driving now that mere careless driving, if it chances to have certain outcomes, can lead straight to prison?
It can but even if careless driving leads to death or serious injury in most cases the sentence will be a community order or suspended sentence. Only if the driver killed under the influence of drink of drugs would an immediate prison sentence be likely.
We also should be considering changing highway laws to reduce speed limits on rural roads, narrow tracks and at bends or banning u turns or 3 point turns except in quiet residential streets as a lot of what would be mere careless driving could still be doing a currently legal manoeuvre
Just how are people supposed to turn round if they miss a junction or take a wrong turn?
Wait until they reach the next roundabout
This is nuts. I live in rural Surrey, but let's be honest Surrey is also pretty built up so I imagine most of the countryside is worse for roundabouts than where I live, but lets just take the lane I live on:
It has a roundabout at one end so let's assume we are going in the other direction. It is 2 miles long. It then reaches a cross roads. To the left you have to drive about 4 miles to a roundabout (which you may not know is there). Straight on is a narrow lane of about a mile with a T junction at the end. At that junction you can turn left or right. If you turn left you have about 5 miles to another T junction. At that junction you can turn left and eventually come to a roundabout in a mile. If you turn right I can't even think where there is a roundabout. Going back to the last junction if you turn right you come to another junction after about 2 miles. You can turn right and come to a roundabout after 3 miles. If you turn left after 2 miles you come to another junction. The next roundabout is about 7 miles away. Finally going back to the first junction if you turn right after 2 miles there is a junction. I can't think of where there is another roundabout either left or right on that road.
Your suggestion is nuts.
You are also wrong on speed limits for country lanes. You should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions. I am currently taking my Advanced Driving lessons for IAM. They are really hot on not exceeding the speed limits, but also hot on not progressing and I was told I was driving too slow for the conditions on my last lesson. People driving too slow for the conditions are also very dangerous.
Fine, then take the risk of being done for death or serious injury by careless driving if you do said u turn on a rural road and won't wait until the next roundabout or village.
The speed limit on country lanes is 60mph.
'Driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions' is a totally subjective term. One man's 'appropriate speed' may be 55mph, another 20mph on the same road and same conditions, even if approaching a bend it is completely vague guidance. As you say you can be accused of going too slow as well as too fast
Driving to the speed appropriate to the road, car and conditions is subjective I agree. However it is not so subjective that it can be both 20mph for person A and 55 mph for person B. Never in a million years. Either one should not be on the road because they are not competent at driving or the other should not be on the road because they are using excessive speed. Whichever it will not be careless driving but dangerous driving. A sensible margin is more like 5 - 10 mph for the same car and same conditions not a difference of 35 mph.
And just to show how out of touch you are my instructor was an advanced police driver and I also had another advanced driver in the car who was training for his advanced instructor status (so already and advanced driver going to the next level). Both commented I was driving too slowly. It was a country lane.
Re the U turn on a country lane (which of course for a proper country lane is actually impossible) but other manoeuvres are of course you are nuts if you are saying I am taking a risk outside of the normal risk of driving. For a start going around a roundabout is far riskier for the cyclist (as a cyclist I know) so me waiting for a roundabout rather than carrying out the manoeuvre on the road in the appropriate place and taking care to look properly is the sensible thing to do for both me and the cyclist..
Can I suggest you do two things:
a) Buy Roadcraft. It is the police drivers handbook and used by the IAM. You might learn something about road safety b) Get on a bike and see what scares you most. A driver doing a 3 point turn ahead of you or a driver passing you going around a roundabout.
Why? In law it is completely subjective as the law is the law and if only a 60mph limit applies any lawyer could argue 20mph is appropriate or 55mph appropriate in slightly poor conditions for example.
It would certainly not be dangerous driving in either case and a good lawyer could ensure they are acquitted even of careless driving.
Too slowly for a country lane? So they should be driving at 60mph unless heavy rain or snow? Certainly not approaching a bend. Again confusing one size fits all advice.
You should stop at a roundabout in most cases to fully check for cyclists, as I said earlier.
At no point did I say you should be driving down a country lane at 60mph. On the contrary I said you should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions and that will rarely be anything like 60 mph. You are fixated on this. 60 mph is not a target. On many country lanes if you did this you would definitely be dangerous driving and deserve to get banned and no a lawyer will not get you off if you take a chevron bend at 55 mph and kill someone coming the other way because you couldn't take the bend.
You can of course also drive too slow for a road and can also be done for dangerous driving for doing so. Just look it up.
In a nut shell. if you exceed the speed limit you are breaking the law, but if you are below the speed limit you can also be breaking the law for driving too slowly or too fast.
Finally re stopping at roundabouts; when your exit is clear as mentioned before, this would be a fail on an Advanced Driving Test (it might be on the standard test, I don't know) and a policeman who was having a very bad morning might do you for careless driving. To do so causes utter confusion to cars behind and other drivers waiting to enter the roundabout from other junctions.
I am assuming you don't drive and I repeat again I suggest you read Roadcraft the Police Drivers Handbook.
PS The IAM will give you a free trial drive if you want. You get 60 - 90 minutes behind the wheel and they will give you a free evaluation of your driving.
Yes, 60mph is not a target, agreed. On a bend you should certainly slow down well below that so below 55mph too, agreed.
Yet what is the speed to slow down to at a bend, 40mph, 30mph, even 20mph? Lawyers disagree and the Highway Code is unclear.
Yes you should drive at the speed limit if clear and good conditions and no bend generally but you have just said you should not be driving down a country lane at 60mph. So what is too slow? 40mph? 50mph? 20mph?
Even if your exit is clear you at least have to check ahead and right before moving at a roundabout even if you don't stop completely
Rhuallt hill on the A55 has a couple of long bends and the average speed cameras monitor the 70 mph limit
We have an abundance of country roads throughout our area, many with bends with slow marked on the road and chevrons and the speed varies according to the road condition, not something you have read in the highway code
If you cannot adjust your driving then you should not drive
Adjust your speed yes but to what exactly?
Are you seriously expecting an answer to that question?
Just wait until HYUFD discovers the concept of "reasonable person" in common law.
But what is reasonable? It needs to be written down for all circumstances.
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
Dealing with other vehicles The manoeuvre should not be started until the road is clear of traffic in both directions. Once you have completed the first leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass behind you if they wanted to, before commencing the second leg. Similarly before commencing the third leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass in front of you if they wanted to. The same would apply if it took further movements forwards and backwards to complete the manoeuvre.
Looks like Bart may need a Highway Code check then!
It's a tricky one. Away from the theory I have come across drivers who wait after each leg of the turn and those who consider it one manoeuvre so assume they have right of way throughout, I didn't know the answer without looking it up. Imagine it does create the odd low speed crash.
Might be both then. I'm almost certain the Code will advise to give someone doing a manoeuvre loads of room, patience etc
HIghway Code Rules 179 and 180 ' Rule 179 'Well before you turn right you should use your mirrors to make sure you know the position and movement of traffic behind you give a right-turn signal take up a position just left of the middle of the road or in the space marked for traffic turning right leave room for other vehicles to pass on the left, if possible.
Rule 180 Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.' https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203
Firstly, I don't really care (but that might be because it's Sultana and Your Party, which is as insignificant as it is amusing) and, secondly, really? Don't the police have better things to be spending their time on?
You've just said my job isn't important.
Investitgating financial crimes is very important.
Anything juicy recently?
Nope, my investigations have mostly centred on cocaine and unsolicited & solicited dick pics.
In my OH's last company, she was asked to ignore the cocaine misuse as the company wouldn't have a sales team left. Your lot must have higher standards.
Just to point out that this is an everyday example of the ridiculous state of affairs where wholesalers in this product are getting 20-25 year sentences while the product is regarded by millions as quotidian and normal.
If demand ceased, so would supply. Either decriminalise or make the user the real criminal, not the hard working trader.
MPs and television presenters have been cancelled over dodgy bants or porn but politics and the media are fuelled by actually illegal drugs. And this illustrates a real problem – the growing gulf between what is acceptable and what is legal.
Coke is now such a naff drug - it’s being hoovered up noses in pubs up and down the country by every man jack and off kitchen counters by bored mums.
Is the answer to be massively illiberal on coke - 1 year in prison, no suspended sentences or anything for possession. Announce it from the rooftops - you are caught with coke, or driving under the influence and you are going to prison for a year so say goodbye to your mid level management job, your kids, your bed. Prepare to be unable to cover your mortgage and lose your home, have a nightmare with a drugs offence when opening accounts or travelling.
Would something this severe smash the casual use? These people aren’t thinking of the chain of poor fuckers down the line working in grim conditions to harvest and produce, those getting killed in the trade so why have any sympathy for the end users?
I’m not sure how I feel about the above but would be an interesting experiment.
Where do you plan to build the extra 3,000 prisons?
This misses the point. The function of mandatory prison sentences is not in order to fill extra prisons but to deter certain actions. I am neutral as between decriminalisation and, OTOH, rational drug law enforcement. What is irrational is to deter traders with 25 year sentences but not deter use in any significant way.
Would not a few dozen otherwise impeccable living middling sorts with wives, children and careers in auto finance and geography teaching going to prison for drug use be enough?
I wonder how many of us are a little more careful about driving now that mere careless driving, if it chances to have certain outcomes, can lead straight to prison?
It can but even if careless driving leads to death or serious injury in most cases the sentence will be a community order or suspended sentence. Only if the driver killed under the influence of drink of drugs would an immediate prison sentence be likely.
We also should be considering changing highway laws to reduce speed limits on rural roads, narrow tracks and at bends or banning u turns or 3 point turns except in quiet residential streets as a lot of what would be mere careless driving could still be doing a currently legal manoeuvre
Just how are people supposed to turn round if they miss a junction or take a wrong turn?
Wait until they reach the next roundabout
This is nuts. I live in rural Surrey, but let's be honest Surrey is also pretty built up so I imagine most of the countryside is worse for roundabouts than where I live, but lets just take the lane I live on:
It has a roundabout at one end so let's assume we are going in the other direction. It is 2 miles long. It then reaches a cross roads. To the left you have to drive about 4 miles to a roundabout (which you may not know is there). Straight on is a narrow lane of about a mile with a T junction at the end. At that junction you can turn left or right. If you turn left you have about 5 miles to another T junction. At that junction you can turn left and eventually come to a roundabout in a mile. If you turn right I can't even think where there is a roundabout. Going back to the last junction if you turn right you come to another junction after about 2 miles. You can turn right and come to a roundabout after 3 miles. If you turn left after 2 miles you come to another junction. The next roundabout is about 7 miles away. Finally going back to the first junction if you turn right after 2 miles there is a junction. I can't think of where there is another roundabout either left or right on that road.
Your suggestion is nuts.
You are also wrong on speed limits for country lanes. You should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions. I am currently taking my Advanced Driving lessons for IAM. They are really hot on not exceeding the speed limits, but also hot on not progressing and I was told I was driving too slow for the conditions on my last lesson. People driving too slow for the conditions are also very dangerous.
Fine, then take the risk of being done for death or serious injury by careless driving if you do said u turn on a rural road and won't wait until the next roundabout or village.
The speed limit on country lanes is 60mph.
'Driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions' is a totally subjective term. One man's 'appropriate speed' may be 55mph, another 20mph on the same road and same conditions, even if approaching a bend it is completely vague guidance. As you say you can be accused of going too slow as well as too fast
Driving to the speed appropriate to the road, car and conditions is subjective I agree. However it is not so subjective that it can be both 20mph for person A and 55 mph for person B. Never in a million years. Either one should not be on the road because they are not competent at driving or the other should not be on the road because they are using excessive speed. Whichever it will not be careless driving but dangerous driving. A sensible margin is more like 5 - 10 mph for the same car and same conditions not a difference of 35 mph.
And just to show how out of touch you are my instructor was an advanced police driver and I also had another advanced driver in the car who was training for his advanced instructor status (so already and advanced driver going to the next level). Both commented I was driving too slowly. It was a country lane.
Re the U turn on a country lane (which of course for a proper country lane is actually impossible) but other manoeuvres are of course you are nuts if you are saying I am taking a risk outside of the normal risk of driving. For a start going around a roundabout is far riskier for the cyclist (as a cyclist I know) so me waiting for a roundabout rather than carrying out the manoeuvre on the road in the appropriate place and taking care to look properly is the sensible thing to do for both me and the cyclist..
Can I suggest you do two things:
a) Buy Roadcraft. It is the police drivers handbook and used by the IAM. You might learn something about road safety b) Get on a bike and see what scares you most. A driver doing a 3 point turn ahead of you or a driver passing you going around a roundabout.
Why? In law it is completely subjective as the law is the law and if only a 60mph limit applies any lawyer could argue 20mph is appropriate or 55mph appropriate in slightly poor conditions for example.
It would certainly not be dangerous driving in either case and a good lawyer could ensure they are acquitted even of careless driving.
Too slowly for a country lane? So they should be driving at 60mph unless heavy rain or snow? Certainly not approaching a bend. Again confusing one size fits all advice.
You should stop at a roundabout in most cases to fully check for cyclists, as I said earlier.
Firstly, I don't really care (but that might be because it's Sultana and Your Party, which is as insignificant as it is amusing) and, secondly, really? Don't the police have better things to be spending their time on?
You've just said my job isn't important.
Investitgating financial crimes is very important.
Anything juicy recently?
Nope, my investigations have mostly centred on cocaine and unsolicited & solicited dick pics.
In my OH's last company, she was asked to ignore the cocaine misuse as the company wouldn't have a sales team left. Your lot must have higher standards.
Just to point out that this is an everyday example of the ridiculous state of affairs where wholesalers in this product are getting 20-25 year sentences while the product is regarded by millions as quotidian and normal.
If demand ceased, so would supply. Either decriminalise or make the user the real criminal, not the hard working trader.
MPs and television presenters have been cancelled over dodgy bants or porn but politics and the media are fuelled by actually illegal drugs. And this illustrates a real problem – the growing gulf between what is acceptable and what is legal.
Coke is now such a naff drug - it’s being hoovered up noses in pubs up and down the country by every man jack and off kitchen counters by bored mums.
Is the answer to be massively illiberal on coke - 1 year in prison, no suspended sentences or anything for possession. Announce it from the rooftops - you are caught with coke, or driving under the influence and you are going to prison for a year so say goodbye to your mid level management job, your kids, your bed. Prepare to be unable to cover your mortgage and lose your home, have a nightmare with a drugs offence when opening accounts or travelling.
Would something this severe smash the casual use? These people aren’t thinking of the chain of poor fuckers down the line working in grim conditions to harvest and produce, those getting killed in the trade so why have any sympathy for the end users?
I’m not sure how I feel about the above but would be an interesting experiment.
Where do you plan to build the extra 3,000 prisons?
This misses the point. The function of mandatory prison sentences is not in order to fill extra prisons but to deter certain actions. I am neutral as between decriminalisation and, OTOH, rational drug law enforcement. What is irrational is to deter traders with 25 year sentences but not deter use in any significant way.
Would not a few dozen otherwise impeccable living middling sorts with wives, children and careers in auto finance and geography teaching going to prison for drug use be enough?
I wonder how many of us are a little more careful about driving now that mere careless driving, if it chances to have certain outcomes, can lead straight to prison?
It can but even if careless driving leads to death or serious injury in most cases the sentence will be a community order or suspended sentence. Only if the driver killed under the influence of drink of drugs would an immediate prison sentence be likely.
We also should be considering changing highway laws to reduce speed limits on rural roads, narrow tracks and at bends or banning u turns or 3 point turns except in quiet residential streets as a lot of what would be mere careless driving could still be doing a currently legal manoeuvre
Just how are people supposed to turn round if they miss a junction or take a wrong turn?
Wait until they reach the next roundabout
This is nuts. I live in rural Surrey, but let's be honest Surrey is also pretty built up so I imagine most of the countryside is worse for roundabouts than where I live, but lets just take the lane I live on:
It has a roundabout at one end so let's assume we are going in the other direction. It is 2 miles long. It then reaches a cross roads. To the left you have to drive about 4 miles to a roundabout (which you may not know is there). Straight on is a narrow lane of about a mile with a T junction at the end. At that junction you can turn left or right. If you turn left you have about 5 miles to another T junction. At that junction you can turn left and eventually come to a roundabout in a mile. If you turn right I can't even think where there is a roundabout. Going back to the last junction if you turn right you come to another junction after about 2 miles. You can turn right and come to a roundabout after 3 miles. If you turn left after 2 miles you come to another junction. The next roundabout is about 7 miles away. Finally going back to the first junction if you turn right after 2 miles there is a junction. I can't think of where there is another roundabout either left or right on that road.
Your suggestion is nuts.
You are also wrong on speed limits for country lanes. You should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions. I am currently taking my Advanced Driving lessons for IAM. They are really hot on not exceeding the speed limits, but also hot on not progressing and I was told I was driving too slow for the conditions on my last lesson. People driving too slow for the conditions are also very dangerous.
Fine, then take the risk of being done for death or serious injury by careless driving if you do said u turn on a rural road and won't wait until the next roundabout or village.
The speed limit on country lanes is 60mph.
'Driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions' is a totally subjective term. One man's 'appropriate speed' may be 55mph, another 20mph on the same road and same conditions, even if approaching a bend it is completely vague guidance. As you say you can be accused of going too slow as well as too fast
Driving to the speed appropriate to the road, car and conditions is subjective I agree. However it is not so subjective that it can be both 20mph for person A and 55 mph for person B. Never in a million years. Either one should not be on the road because they are not competent at driving or the other should not be on the road because they are using excessive speed. Whichever it will not be careless driving but dangerous driving. A sensible margin is more like 5 - 10 mph for the same car and same conditions not a difference of 35 mph.
And just to show how out of touch you are my instructor was an advanced police driver and I also had another advanced driver in the car who was training for his advanced instructor status (so already and advanced driver going to the next level). Both commented I was driving too slowly. It was a country lane.
Re the U turn on a country lane (which of course for a proper country lane is actually impossible) but other manoeuvres are of course you are nuts if you are saying I am taking a risk outside of the normal risk of driving. For a start going around a roundabout is far riskier for the cyclist (as a cyclist I know) so me waiting for a roundabout rather than carrying out the manoeuvre on the road in the appropriate place and taking care to look properly is the sensible thing to do for both me and the cyclist..
Can I suggest you do two things:
a) Buy Roadcraft. It is the police drivers handbook and used by the IAM. You might learn something about road safety b) Get on a bike and see what scares you most. A driver doing a 3 point turn ahead of you or a driver passing you going around a roundabout.
Why? In law it is completely subjective as the law is the law and if only a 60mph limit applies any lawyer could argue 20mph is appropriate or 55mph appropriate in slightly poor conditions for example.
It would certainly not be dangerous driving in either case and a good lawyer could ensure they are acquitted even of careless driving.
Too slowly for a country lane? So they should be driving at 60mph unless heavy rain or snow? Certainly not approaching a bend. Again confusing one size fits all advice.
You should stop at a roundabout in most cases to fully check for cyclists, as I said earlier.
At no point did I say you should be driving down a country lane at 60mph. On the contrary I said you should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions and that will rarely be anything like 60 mph. You are fixated on this. 60 mph is not a target. On many country lanes if you did this you would definitely be dangerous driving and deserve to get banned and no a lawyer will not get you off if you take a chevron bend at 55 mph and kill someone coming the other way because you couldn't take the bend.
You can of course also drive too slow for a road and can also be done for dangerous driving for doing so. Just look it up.
In a nut shell. if you exceed the speed limit you are breaking the law, but if you are below the speed limit you can also be breaking the law for driving too slowly or too fast.
Finally re stopping at roundabouts; when your exit is clear as mentioned before, this would be a fail on an Advanced Driving Test (it might be on the standard test, I don't know) and a policeman who was having a very bad morning might do you for careless driving. To do so causes utter confusion to cars behind and other drivers waiting to enter the roundabout from other junctions.
I am assuming you don't drive and I repeat again I suggest you read Roadcraft the Police Drivers Handbook.
PS The IAM will give you a free trial drive if you want. You get 60 - 90 minutes behind the wheel and they will give you a free evaluation of your driving.
Yes, 60mph is not a target, agreed. On a bend you should certainly slow down well below that so below 55mph too, agreed.
Yet what is the speed to slow down to at a bend, 40mph, 30mph, even 20mph? Lawyers disagree and the Highway Code is unclear.
Yes you should drive at the speed limit if clear and good conditions and no bend generally but you have just said you should not be driving down a country lane at 60mph. So what is too slow? 40mph? 50mph? 20mph?
Even if your exit is clear you at least have to check ahead and right before moving at a roundabout even if you don't stop completely
Rhuallt hill on the A55 has a couple of long bends and the average speed cameras monitor the 70 mph limit
We have an abundance of country roads throughout our area, many with bends with slow marked on the road and chevrons and the speed varies according to the road condition, not something you have read in the highway code
If you cannot adjust your driving then you should not drive
Adjust your speed yes but to what exactly?
Are you seriously expecting an answer to that question?
Just wait until HYUFD discovers the concept of "reasonable person" in common law.
But what is reasonable? It needs to be written down for all circumstances.
The 'reasonable person' ie a jury has acquitted a driver doing 30mph in a single track road of death by careless driving
Very interesting by Jimmy Carr here. Fascinating insights on young men, isolation in society, identity and personal purpose.
I'm not sure I've heard these expressed as well anywhere else. Two conclusions: (1) he's very intelligent, and, (2) it feels like he's ever so slightly politicising now, possibly because he's concerned and feels he has to.
Rachel Reeves faces tax rise dilemma over immigration forecast. Chancellor could be forced to make up for a shortfall of billions of pounds as figures predict a collapse in net migration would have consequences for the economy
The OBR have included possibly overestimated immigration numbers in their fiscal forecast. If immigration does drop it will lead to a relative underperformance of the economy and a possible £20 billion hole in public finances.
Or, this will shown up to be a fantasy figure.
Doubt it. People aren't interested in analysis. Zach Polanski had a point when he asked, do you want to stop immigration or do you want your bum wiped? (aimed at broadly the same demographic). Hardly anyone is prepared to make trade-offs, and certainly not that one.
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
Dealing with other vehicles The manoeuvre should not be started until the road is clear of traffic in both directions. Once you have completed the first leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass behind you if they wanted to, before commencing the second leg. Similarly before commencing the third leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass in front of you if they wanted to. The same would apply if it took further movements forwards and backwards to complete the manoeuvre.
This is in line with my prior. My attitude is that when one does a turn in the road like this one is being a nuisance to other road users and one should be as considerate as possible to them. That means letting people past if you can and getting through it as quickly as possible if they can't get past or if they indicate for you to continue. As for using your horn, you should never use it just to say you are pissed off, especially on a residential street, and especially if you are in the wrong!
Very interesting by Jimmy Carr here. Fascinating insights on young men, isolation in society, identity and personal purpose.
I'm not sure I've heard these expressed as well anywhere else. Two conclusions: (1) he's very intelligent, and, (2) it feels like he's ever so slightly politicising now, possibly because he's concerned and feels he has to.
Carr is extremely intelligent and well read. Not just the Cambridge degree, but he has done a lot of podcasts and is able to display breath of knowledge and understanding. For me at a surface level comedy doesn't do justice to actually how smart he is, 100 knob gags and your fat / ugly munter seems like shooting fish in a barrel for him (although keeping that going year after year with new material is impressive, most comedians like musicians have a few greatest hits).
In the past couple of years he has started filming his audience work and putting it on YouTube. Again its dominated by your a moron / your a slag etc, but in there he drops 2-3 serious moments and they are often really interesting.
His explanation is that he is genuinely very curious individual and driven to work hard. So he does an insane number of gigs, but that requires huge amount of travel and sitting around, so he is constantly educating himself via books, podcasts, etc.
"Sorry HYUFD. You are right and everyone else is wrong. This is yet another subject on which you are clearly the authority and I was foolish to doubt that. I trust you will let us know in due course when DVLA launches the new HYUFD-approved 10TB online version of the Highway Code Map of the UK complete with clickable bends and roundabout entry points and associated tables"
Rachel Reeves faces tax rise dilemma over immigration forecast. Chancellor could be forced to make up for a shortfall of billions of pounds as figures predict a collapse in net migration would have consequences for the economy
The OBR have included possibly overestimated immigration numbers in their fiscal forecast. If immigration does drop it will lead to a relative underperformance of the economy and a possible £20 billion hole in public finances.
Or, this will shown up to be a fantasy figure.
Doubt it. People aren't interested in analysis. Zach Polanski had a point when he asked, do you want to stop immigration or do you want your bum wiped? (aimed at broadly the same demographic). Hardly anyone is prepared to make trade-offs, and certainly not that one.
That post is fascinating, because you've pushed aside the point to reassert your belief.
We might find out high immigration actually isn't the key driver of growth. People will be very interested in that analysis.
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
Dealing with other vehicles The manoeuvre should not be started until the road is clear of traffic in both directions. Once you have completed the first leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass behind you if they wanted to, before commencing the second leg. Similarly before commencing the third leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass in front of you if they wanted to. The same would apply if it took further movements forwards and backwards to complete the manoeuvre.
Looks like Bart may need a Highway Code check then!
It's a tricky one. Away from the theory I have come across drivers who wait after each leg of the turn and those who consider it one manoeuvre so assume they have right of way throughout, I didn't know the answer without looking it up. Imagine it does create the odd low speed crash.
Might be both then. I'm almost certain the Code will advise to give someone doing a manoeuvre loads of room, patience etc
HIghway Code Rules 179 and 180 ' Rule 179 'Well before you turn right you should use your mirrors to make sure you know the position and movement of traffic behind you give a right-turn signal take up a position just left of the middle of the road or in the space marked for traffic turning right leave room for other vehicles to pass on the left, if possible.
Rule 180 Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.' https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203
Rule 160,163.
(Glad you're suddenly taking such an interesting though - check out 125)
"Sorry HYUFD. You are right and everyone else is wrong. This is yet another subject on which you are clearly the authority and I was foolish to doubt that. I trust you will let us know in due course when DVLA launches the new HYUFD-approved 10TB online version of the Highway Code Map of the UK complete with clickable bends and roundabout entry points and associated tables"
The Highway Code needs to be more detailed and lower speed limits set on many rural roads, it is hardly a very contentious point
This argument over Grok can produce dodgy images....this same week an Israeli company open sourced a state of the art text to video model, but not as usual just the weights of the model, the whole system, training code, etc. So anybody can take off guardrails and fine tune and even runs on a (higher end) macbook. Its already been widely adopted in cloud system. The reality is with particular text to image, there is no moat, no super secret special sauce. Can't put the genie back in the box.
It's been bleeding obvious since I first saw LoRA being used that no amount of regulation or guardrails was going to stop transformers being abused. Politicians and regulators are so slow that the battle is already lost. They've got no idea what they are up against.
Very interesting by Jimmy Carr here. Fascinating insights on young men, isolation in society, identity and personal purpose.
I'm not sure I've heard these expressed as well anywhere else. Two conclusions: (1) he's very intelligent, and, (2) it feels like he's ever so slightly politicising now, possibly because he's concerned and feels he has to.
Carr is extremely intelligent and well read. Not just the Cambridge degree, but he has done a lot of podcasts and is able to display breath of knowledge and understanding. For me at a surface level comedy doesn't do justice to actually how smart he is, 100 knob gags and your fat / ugly munter seems like shooting fish in a barrel for him (although keeping that going year after year with new material is impressive, most comedians like musicians have a few greatest hits).
In the past couple of years he has started filming his audience work and putting it on YouTube. Again its dominated by your a moron / your a slag etc, but in there he drops 2-3 serious moments and they are often really interesting.
His explanation is that he is genuinely very curious individual and driven to work hard. So he does an insane number of gigs, but that requires huge amount of travel and sitting around, so he is constantly educating himself via books, podcasts, etc.
Loved his comments the other day about how young men are living one quick dopamine hit at a time.
Very interesting by Jimmy Carr here. Fascinating insights on young men, isolation in society, identity and personal purpose.
I'm not sure I've heard these expressed as well anywhere else. Two conclusions: (1) he's very intelligent, and, (2) it feels like he's ever so slightly politicising now, possibly because he's concerned and feels he has to.
Carr is extremely intelligent and well read. Not just the Cambridge degree, but he has done a lot of podcasts and is able to display breath of knowledge and understanding. For me at a surface level comedy doesn't do justice to actually how smart he is, 100 knob gags and your fat / ugly munter seems like shooting fish in a barrel for him (although keeping that going year after year with new material is impressive, most comedians like musicians have a few greatest hits).
In the past couple of years he has started filming his audience work and putting it on YouTube. Again its dominated by your a moron / your a slag etc, but in there he drops 2-3 serious moments and they are often really interesting.
His explanation is that he is genuinely very curious individual and driven to work hard. So he does an insane number of gigs, but that requires huge amount of travel and sitting around, so he is constantly educating himself via books, podcasts, etc.
Yes, quite, and he's all the more interesting for it. He describes himself as a traditional liberal (in other words, a classical liberal, driven by his belief in freedom - and anti-authoritarianism; be it of the Left or Right) but he also gets the importance of civic society, pubs, clubs and institutions. He is proud of Britain, its values and its legacy. He understands all societies have hierarchies, and thinks solving inequality is impossible, but absolute poverty and isolation is - and tax needs to be low in your 20s and in retirement.
If I were Kemi, I'd be privately consulting with him all the time.
Rachel Reeves faces tax rise dilemma over immigration forecast. Chancellor could be forced to make up for a shortfall of billions of pounds as figures predict a collapse in net migration would have consequences for the economy
The OBR have included possibly overestimated immigration numbers in their fiscal forecast. If immigration does drop it will lead to a relative underperformance of the economy and a possible £20 billion hole in public finances.
Or, this will shown up to be a fantasy figure.
Doubt it. People aren't interested in analysis. Zach Polanski had a point when he asked, do you want to stop immigration or do you want your bum wiped? (aimed at broadly the same demographic). Hardly anyone is prepared to make trade-offs, and certainly not that one.
That post is fascinating, because you've pushed aside the point to reassert your belief.
We might find out high immigration actually isn't the key driver of growth. People will be very interested in that analysis.
Aside from the fact that 80% of people “wiping bums” are British, there is also the small issue that letting companies freely recruit abroad just led to fraud, not extra migrants in the care sector.
And if high immigration = high economic performance, where has our high economic performance been?
Very interesting by Jimmy Carr here. Fascinating insights on young men, isolation in society, identity and personal purpose.
I'm not sure I've heard these expressed as well anywhere else. Two conclusions: (1) he's very intelligent, and, (2) it feels like he's ever so slightly politicising now, possibly because he's concerned and feels he has to.
Carr is extremely intelligent and well read. Not just the Cambridge degree, but he has done a lot of podcasts and is able to display breath of knowledge and understanding. For me at a surface level comedy doesn't do justice to actually how smart he is, 100 knob gags and your fat / ugly munter seems like shooting fish in a barrel for him (although keeping that going year after year with new material is impressive, most comedians like musicians have a few greatest hits).
In the past couple of years he has started filming his audience work and putting it on YouTube. Again its dominated by your a moron / your a slag etc, but in there he drops 2-3 serious moments and they are often really interesting.
His explanation is that he is genuinely very curious individual and driven to work hard. So he does an insane number of gigs, but that requires huge amount of travel and sitting around, so he is constantly educating himself via books, podcasts, etc.
Yes, quite, and he's all the more interesting for it. He describes himself as a traditional liberal (in other words, a classical liberal, driven by his belief in freedom - and anti-authoritarianism; be it of the Left or Right) but he also gets the importance of civic society, pubs, clubs and institutions. He is proud of Britain, its values and its legacy. He understands all societies have hierarchies, and thinks solving inequality is impossible, but absolute poverty and isolation is - and tax needs to be low in your 20s and in retirement.
If I were Kemi, I'd be privately consulting with him all the time.
Him and Rory Sutherland both definitely lean economically right, but are interesting listens because they can tell a good / interesting tale, but also have some quite radical and interesting ideas that you wouldn't necessarily hear from traditional right leaning person. They both seem to get that this issue that people in their 20s who are working hard are still getting raw deal, but not resorting to Jezza well freebies for all suggestions.
We are in a bit of a mess when a bloke who tell knob gags for living and another who helps flog Dove soap are coming up with more interesting ideas than our politicians.
Rachel Reeves faces tax rise dilemma over immigration forecast. Chancellor could be forced to make up for a shortfall of billions of pounds as figures predict a collapse in net migration would have consequences for the economy
The OBR have included possibly overestimated immigration numbers in their fiscal forecast. If immigration does drop it will lead to a relative underperformance of the economy and a possible £20 billion hole in public finances.
Or, this will shown up to be a fantasy figure.
Doubt it. People aren't interested in analysis. Zach Polanski had a point when he asked, do you want to stop immigration or do you want your bum wiped? (aimed at broadly the same demographic). Hardly anyone is prepared to make trade-offs, and certainly not that one.
That post is fascinating, because you've pushed aside the point to reassert your belief.
We might find out high immigration actually isn't the key driver of growth. People will be very interested in that analysis.
Not at all. I was quoting analysis including by the OBR. You reject that analysis in its entirety without explaining why in empirical terms. I don't have a "belief" one way or the other on this - I certainly haven't done the analysis myself - except to note it accords with other analysis I have seen.
I do "believe" however that people in general aren't interested in analysis, including it appears yourself.
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
Dealing with other vehicles The manoeuvre should not be started until the road is clear of traffic in both directions. Once you have completed the first leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass behind you if they wanted to, before commencing the second leg. Similarly before commencing the third leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass in front of you if they wanted to. The same would apply if it took further movements forwards and backwards to complete the manoeuvre.
Looks like Bart may need a Highway Code check then!
It's a tricky one. Away from the theory I have come across drivers who wait after each leg of the turn and those who consider it one manoeuvre so assume they have right of way throughout, I didn't know the answer without looking it up. Imagine it does create the odd low speed crash.
Might be both then. I'm almost certain the Code will advise to give someone doing a manoeuvre loads of room, patience etc
HIghway Code Rules 179 and 180 ' Rule 179 'Well before you turn right you should use your mirrors to make sure you know the position and movement of traffic behind you give a right-turn signal take up a position just left of the middle of the road or in the space marked for traffic turning right leave room for other vehicles to pass on the left, if possible.
Rule 180 Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.' https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203
Rule 160,163.
(Glad you're suddenly taking such an interesting though - check out 125)
Rule 160
'be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic. These are more difficult to see than larger vehicles and their riders are particularly vulnerable. Give them plenty of room, especially if you are driving a long vehicle or towing a trailer. You should give way to cyclists when you are changing direction or lane – do not cut across them.'
Rule 163 says cyclists should proceed with caution when passing slow moving or stationary traffic but not that they have to give way completely to cars doing u turns
Rule 125 'The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. Unsafe speed increases the chances of causing a collision (or being unable to avoid one), as well as its severity. Inappropriate speeds are also intimidating, deterring people from walking, cycling or riding horses. Driving at speeds too fast for the road and traffic conditions is dangerous. You should always reduce your speed when the road layout or condition presents hazards, such as bends sharing the road with pedestrians, particularly children, older adults or disabled people, cyclists and horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and motorcyclists weather conditions make it safer to do so driving at night as it is more difficult to see other road users.'
So again very vague as to how far to slow down in poor weather conditions, or when facing bends
Very interesting by Jimmy Carr here. Fascinating insights on young men, isolation in society, identity and personal purpose.
I'm not sure I've heard these expressed as well anywhere else. Two conclusions: (1) he's very intelligent, and, (2) it feels like he's ever so slightly politicising now, possibly because he's concerned and feels he has to.
Carr is extremely intelligent and well read. Not just the Cambridge degree, but he has done a lot of podcasts and is able to display breath of knowledge and understanding. For me at a surface level comedy doesn't do justice to actually how smart he is, 100 knob gags and your fat / ugly munter seems like shooting fish in a barrel for him (although keeping that going year after year with new material is impressive, most comedians like musicians have a few greatest hits).
In the past couple of years he has started filming his audience work and putting it on YouTube. Again its dominated by your a moron / your a slag etc, but in there he drops 2-3 serious moments and they are often really interesting.
His explanation is that he is genuinely very curious individual and driven to work hard. So he does an insane number of gigs, but that requires huge amount of travel and sitting around, so he is constantly educating himself via books, podcasts, etc.
I am a huge fan of Jimmy Carr, I've been to his live shows dozens of times, yet people still heckle him, his responses are a thing of beauty.
He said he learned a lot about the human condition from working at Shell's marketing department, and also a lot due to the breakdown in his relationship with his father. I don't think they've spoken for over 20 years.
Can you imagine a Cambridge educated guy making knob jokes and innuendos?
Firstly, I don't really care (but that might be because it's Sultana and Your Party, which is as insignificant as it is amusing) and, secondly, really? Don't the police have better things to be spending their time on?
You've just said my job isn't important.
Investitgating financial crimes is very important.
Anything juicy recently?
Nope, my investigations have mostly centred on cocaine and unsolicited & solicited dick pics.
In my OH's last company, she was asked to ignore the cocaine misuse as the company wouldn't have a sales team left. Your lot must have higher standards.
It's a bit more cynical.
The more cocaine people use the more addicted they became and addicts make really bad trades/investments that cost the firm millions and potentially billions.
Surely down to risk appetite / judgement being impaired by chemical imbalances?
Rachel Reeves faces tax rise dilemma over immigration forecast. Chancellor could be forced to make up for a shortfall of billions of pounds as figures predict a collapse in net migration would have consequences for the economy
The OBR have included possibly overestimated immigration numbers in their fiscal forecast. If immigration does drop it will lead to a relative underperformance of the economy and a possible £20 billion hole in public finances.
Or, this will shown up to be a fantasy figure.
Doubt it. People aren't interested in analysis. Zach Polanski had a point when he asked, do you want to stop immigration or do you want your bum wiped? (aimed at broadly the same demographic). Hardly anyone is prepared to make trade-offs, and certainly not that one.
That post is fascinating, because you've pushed aside the point to reassert your belief.
We might find out high immigration actually isn't the key driver of growth. People will be very interested in that analysis.
Aside from the fact that 80% of people “wiping bums” are British, there is also the small issue that letting companies freely recruit abroad just led to fraud, not extra migrants in the care sector.
And if high immigration = high economic performance, where has our high economic performance been?
That last paragraph is key. We’ve had historically , very high levels of immigration, for 25 years, without seeing high growth.
This argument over Grok can produce dodgy images....this same week an Israeli company open sourced a state of the art text to video model, but not as usual just the weights of the model, the whole system, training code, etc. So anybody can take off guardrails and fine tune and even runs on a (higher end) macbook. Its already been widely adopted in cloud system. The reality is with particular text to image, there is no moat, no super secret special sauce. Can't put the genie back in the box.
Agreed, there's no route back from here. There have been open source T2I models for quite some time, and now T2V ones too, and people inevitably train them to produce specific images. There's not much the authorities can do. The models are there and people can run them locally on fairly common hardware.
Same with deepfakes. T2I and I2V models are so good now it's possible to produce videos of famous people that are very difficult to distinguish from reality. No more odd eyes and nine fingers. That genie is well out if its particular box, too.
Ofcom can run around banning sites that host these models in the cloud, but there's nothing they can do about local hosting. Anyone with a gaming PC or a high end Mac can produce all the dodgy images they want.
This argument over Grok can produce dodgy images....this same week an Israeli company open sourced a state of the art text to video model, but not as usual just the weights of the model, the whole system, training code, etc. So anybody can take off guardrails and fine tune and even runs on a (higher end) macbook. Its already been widely adopted in cloud system. The reality is with particular text to image, there is no moat, no super secret special sauce. Can't put the genie back in the box.
Agreed, there's no route back from here. There have been open source T2I models for quite some time, and now T2V ones too, and people inevitably train them to produce specific images. There's not much the authorities can do. The models are there and people can run them locally on fairly common hardware.
Same with deepfakes. T2I and I2V models are so good now it's possible to produce videos of famous people that are very difficult to distinguish from reality. No more odd eyes and nine fingers. That genie is well out if its particular box, too.
Ofcom can run around banning sites that host these models in the cloud, but there's nothing they can do about local hosting. Anyone with a gaming PC or a high end Mac can produce all the dodgy images they want.
There have already been suggestions of a licensing system for computers over a certain capacity.
Rachel Reeves faces tax rise dilemma over immigration forecast. Chancellor could be forced to make up for a shortfall of billions of pounds as figures predict a collapse in net migration would have consequences for the economy
The OBR have included possibly overestimated immigration numbers in their fiscal forecast. If immigration does drop it will lead to a relative underperformance of the economy and a possible £20 billion hole in public finances.
Or, this will shown up to be a fantasy figure.
Doubt it. People aren't interested in analysis. Zach Polanski had a point when he asked, do you want to stop immigration or do you want your bum wiped? (aimed at broadly the same demographic). Hardly anyone is prepared to make trade-offs, and certainly not that one.
That post is fascinating, because you've pushed aside the point to reassert your belief.
We might find out high immigration actually isn't the key driver of growth. People will be very interested in that analysis.
Aside from the fact that 80% of people “wiping bums” are British, there is also the small issue that letting companies freely recruit abroad just led to fraud, not extra migrants in the care sector.
And if high immigration = high economic performance, where has our high economic performance been?
I thought that was a pretty poor thing to say myself, and quite revealing.
"I'm far too good to be wiping arses but its fine for someone from Nigeria to be doing it".
Rachel Reeves faces tax rise dilemma over immigration forecast. Chancellor could be forced to make up for a shortfall of billions of pounds as figures predict a collapse in net migration would have consequences for the economy
The OBR have included possibly overestimated immigration numbers in their fiscal forecast. If immigration does drop it will lead to a relative underperformance of the economy and a possible £20 billion hole in public finances.
Or, this will shown up to be a fantasy figure.
Doubt it. People aren't interested in analysis. Zach Polanski had a point when he asked, do you want to stop immigration or do you want your bum wiped? (aimed at broadly the same demographic). Hardly anyone is prepared to make trade-offs, and certainly not that one.
That post is fascinating, because you've pushed aside the point to reassert your belief.
We might find out high immigration actually isn't the key driver of growth. People will be very interested in that analysis.
Not at all. I was quoting analysis including by the OBR. You reject that analysis in its entirety without explaining why in empirical terms. I don't have a "belief" one way or the other on this - I certainly haven't done the analysis myself - except to note it accords with other analysis I have seen.
I do "believe" however that people in general aren't interested in analysis, including it appears yourself.
You seem incapable of engaging with the point I've made, or perhaps don't want to as this is pure cognitive dissonance.
If that is the case, then further discussion with you is also a waste of my time.
"Sorry HYUFD. You are right and everyone else is wrong. This is yet another subject on which you are clearly the authority and I was foolish to doubt that. I trust you will let us know in due course when DVLA launches the new HYUFD-approved 10TB online version of the Highway Code Map of the UK complete with clickable bends and roundabout entry points and associated tables"
The Highway Code needs to be more detailed and lower speed limits set on many rural roads, it is hardly a very contentious point
I haven't read the highway code since 1961 when I took my test, since when I have driven tens of thousands of miles both here, across Europe, and in Canada, New Zealand and South Africa without needing to be told in a booklet how to take bends and at what speeds
Ultimately you cannot teach driving in a book, but by experience, awareness of your surroundings, anticipation and courtesy to other road users
That is my highway code and as I haven't had an accident or any road conviction it speaks for itself
Very interesting by Jimmy Carr here. Fascinating insights on young men, isolation in society, identity and personal purpose.
I'm not sure I've heard these expressed as well anywhere else. Two conclusions: (1) he's very intelligent, and, (2) it feels like he's ever so slightly politicising now, possibly because he's concerned and feels he has to.
Carr is extremely intelligent and well read. Not just the Cambridge degree, but he has done a lot of podcasts and is able to display breath of knowledge and understanding. For me at a surface level comedy doesn't do justice to actually how smart he is, 100 knob gags and your fat / ugly munter seems like shooting fish in a barrel for him (although keeping that going year after year with new material is impressive, most comedians like musicians have a few greatest hits).
In the past couple of years he has started filming his audience work and putting it on YouTube. Again its dominated by your a moron / your a slag etc, but in there he drops 2-3 serious moments and they are often really interesting.
His explanation is that he is genuinely very curious individual and driven to work hard. So he does an insane number of gigs, but that requires huge amount of travel and sitting around, so he is constantly educating himself via books, podcasts, etc.
I am a huge fan of Jimmy Carr, I've been to his live shows dozens of times, yet people still heckle him, his responses are a thing of beauty.
He said he learned a lot about the human condition from working at Shell's marketing department, and also a lot due to the breakdown in his relationship with his father. I don't think they've spoken for over 20 years.
Can you imagine a Cambridge educated guy making knob jokes and innuendos?
It's not my fight but I really hope he and his father find a way to make up one day.
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
Dealing with other vehicles The manoeuvre should not be started until the road is clear of traffic in both directions. Once you have completed the first leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass behind you if they wanted to, before commencing the second leg. Similarly before commencing the third leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass in front of you if they wanted to. The same would apply if it took further movements forwards and backwards to complete the manoeuvre.
Looks like Bart may need a Highway Code check then!
It's a tricky one. Away from the theory I have come across drivers who wait after each leg of the turn and those who consider it one manoeuvre so assume they have right of way throughout, I didn't know the answer without looking it up. Imagine it does create the odd low speed crash.
Might be both then. I'm almost certain the Code will advise to give someone doing a manoeuvre loads of room, patience etc
HIghway Code Rules 179 and 180 ' Rule 179 'Well before you turn right you should use your mirrors to make sure you know the position and movement of traffic behind you give a right-turn signal take up a position just left of the middle of the road or in the space marked for traffic turning right leave room for other vehicles to pass on the left, if possible.
Rule 180 Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.' https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203
Rule 160,163.
(Glad you're suddenly taking such an interesting though - check out 125)
Rule 160
'be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic. These are more difficult to see than larger vehicles and their riders are particularly vulnerable. Give them plenty of room, especially if you are driving a long vehicle or towing a trailer. You should give way to cyclists when you are changing direction or lane – do not cut across them.'
Rule 163 says cyclists should proceed with caution when passing slow moving or stationary traffic but not that they have to give way completely to cars doing u turns
Rule 125 'The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. Unsafe speed increases the chances of causing a collision (or being unable to avoid one), as well as its severity. Inappropriate speeds are also intimidating, deterring people from walking, cycling or riding horses. Driving at speeds too fast for the road and traffic conditions is dangerous. You should always reduce your speed when the road layout or condition presents hazards, such as bends sharing the road with pedestrians, particularly children, older adults or disabled people, cyclists and horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and motorcyclists weather conditions make it safer to do so driving at night as it is more difficult to see other road users.'
So again very vague as to how far to slow down in poor weather conditions, or when facing bends
This reads like a Waymo vehicle requesting better coding.
Rachel Reeves faces tax rise dilemma over immigration forecast. Chancellor could be forced to make up for a shortfall of billions of pounds as figures predict a collapse in net migration would have consequences for the economy
The OBR have included possibly overestimated immigration numbers in their fiscal forecast. If immigration does drop it will lead to a relative underperformance of the economy and a possible £20 billion hole in public finances.
Or, this will shown up to be a fantasy figure.
Doubt it. People aren't interested in analysis. Zach Polanski had a point when he asked, do you want to stop immigration or do you want your bum wiped? (aimed at broadly the same demographic). Hardly anyone is prepared to make trade-offs, and certainly not that one.
That post is fascinating, because you've pushed aside the point to reassert your belief.
We might find out high immigration actually isn't the key driver of growth. People will be very interested in that analysis.
Aside from the fact that 80% of people “wiping bums” are British, there is also the small issue that letting companies freely recruit abroad just led to fraud, not extra migrants in the care sector.
And if high immigration = high economic performance, where has our high economic performance been?
Yes, absolutely. And I'm struggling to find the big spike in economic growth rates from the Boriswave or, further back, post 2004 when Blair let rip either.
Rachel Reeves faces tax rise dilemma over immigration forecast. Chancellor could be forced to make up for a shortfall of billions of pounds as figures predict a collapse in net migration would have consequences for the economy
The OBR have included possibly overestimated immigration numbers in their fiscal forecast. If immigration does drop it will lead to a relative underperformance of the economy and a possible £20 billion hole in public finances.
Or, this will shown up to be a fantasy figure.
Doubt it. People aren't interested in analysis. Zach Polanski had a point when he asked, do you want to stop immigration or do you want your bum wiped? (aimed at broadly the same demographic). Hardly anyone is prepared to make trade-offs, and certainly not that one.
That post is fascinating, because you've pushed aside the point to reassert your belief.
We might find out high immigration actually isn't the key driver of growth. People will be very interested in that analysis.
Aside from the fact that 80% of people “wiping bums” are British, there is also the small issue that letting companies freely recruit abroad just led to fraud, not extra migrants in the care sector.
And if high immigration = high economic performance, where has our high economic performance been?
I thought that was a pretty poor thing to say myself, and quite revealing.
"I'm far too good to be wiping arses but its fine for someone from Nigeria to be doing it".
"I'm far too good to be wiping arses but it’s excellent for someone from Nigeria to be doing it, below minimum wage.".
"Sorry HYUFD. You are right and everyone else is wrong. This is yet another subject on which you are clearly the authority and I was foolish to doubt that. I trust you will let us know in due course when DVLA launches the new HYUFD-approved 10TB online version of the Highway Code Map of the UK complete with clickable bends and roundabout entry points and associated tables"
The Highway Code needs to be more detailed and lower speed limits set on many rural roads, it is hardly a very contentious point
I haven't read the highway code since 1961 when I took my test, since when I have driven tens of thousands of miles both here, across Europe, and in Canada, New Zealand and South Africa without needing to be told in a booklet how to take bends and at what speeds
Ultimately you cannot teach driving in a book, but by experience, awareness of your surroundings, anticipation and courtesy to other road users
That is my highway code and as I haven't had an accident or any road conviction it speaks for itself
Good for you.
Any half decent lawyer though could easily query whether 'reduce your speed' means to 50, 40, 30 or even 20mph when approaching a bend, when driving at night, in poor weather conditions or whether 20 or 30mph is appropriate when approaching cyclists, horse riders etc in any court case following an accident or collision
This is spot on. X is not primarily a social media platform anymore. It's a power space for America's neo-royalty, and other governments are afraid of Trump's anger if they leave.
That's why "our government communications now happen on a deepfake porn site", and nobody does anything.
Very interesting by Jimmy Carr here. Fascinating insights on young men, isolation in society, identity and personal purpose.
I'm not sure I've heard these expressed as well anywhere else. Two conclusions: (1) he's very intelligent, and, (2) it feels like he's ever so slightly politicising now, possibly because he's concerned and feels he has to.
Carr is extremely intelligent and well read. Not just the Cambridge degree, but he has done a lot of podcasts and is able to display breath of knowledge and understanding. For me at a surface level comedy doesn't do justice to actually how smart he is, 100 knob gags and your fat / ugly munter seems like shooting fish in a barrel for him (although keeping that going year after year with new material is impressive, most comedians like musicians have a few greatest hits).
In the past couple of years he has started filming his audience work and putting it on YouTube. Again its dominated by your a moron / your a slag etc, but in there he drops 2-3 serious moments and they are often really interesting.
His explanation is that he is genuinely very curious individual and driven to work hard. So he does an insane number of gigs, but that requires huge amount of travel and sitting around, so he is constantly educating himself via books, podcasts, etc.
I am a huge fan of Jimmy Carr, I've been to his live shows dozens of times, yet people still heckle him, his responses are a thing of beauty.
He said he learned a lot about the human condition from working at Shell's marketing department, and also a lot due to the breakdown in his relationship with his father. I don't think they've spoken for over 20 years.
Can you imagine a Cambridge educated guy making knob jokes and innuendos?
It's not my fight but I really hope he and his father find a way to make up one day.
Life's too short.
I don't think so.
It stemmed around the time his mother died, it got so bad the police had to get involved and arrested his father (although they had to apologise) and around 2022 his father sued his son for defamation.
It's not just Jimmy Carr, his brother also has a similar relationship with their father.
Very interesting by Jimmy Carr here. Fascinating insights on young men, isolation in society, identity and personal purpose.
I'm not sure I've heard these expressed as well anywhere else. Two conclusions: (1) he's very intelligent, and, (2) it feels like he's ever so slightly politicising now, possibly because he's concerned and feels he has to.
Carr is extremely intelligent and well read. Not just the Cambridge degree, but he has done a lot of podcasts and is able to display breath of knowledge and understanding. For me at a surface level comedy doesn't do justice to actually how smart he is, 100 knob gags and your fat / ugly munter seems like shooting fish in a barrel for him (although keeping that going year after year with new material is impressive, most comedians like musicians have a few greatest hits).
In the past couple of years he has started filming his audience work and putting it on YouTube. Again its dominated by your a moron / your a slag etc, but in there he drops 2-3 serious moments and they are often really interesting.
His explanation is that he is genuinely very curious individual and driven to work hard. So he does an insane number of gigs, but that requires huge amount of travel and sitting around, so he is constantly educating himself via books, podcasts, etc.
Yes, quite, and he's all the more interesting for it. He describes himself as a traditional liberal (in other words, a classical liberal, driven by his belief in freedom - and anti-authoritarianism; be it of the Left or Right) but he also gets the importance of civic society, pubs, clubs and institutions. He is proud of Britain, its values and its legacy. He understands all societies have hierarchies, and thinks solving inequality is impossible, but absolute poverty and isolation is - and tax needs to be low in your 20s and in retirement.
If I were Kemi, I'd be privately consulting with him all the time.
A lot of people tak about lower taxes but to be fair to Jimmy Carr he actually put his money where his mouth was.
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
Dealing with other vehicles The manoeuvre should not be started until the road is clear of traffic in both directions. Once you have completed the first leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass behind you if they wanted to, before commencing the second leg. Similarly before commencing the third leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass in front of you if they wanted to. The same would apply if it took further movements forwards and backwards to complete the manoeuvre.
Looks like Bart may need a Highway Code check then!
It's a tricky one. Away from the theory I have come across drivers who wait after each leg of the turn and those who consider it one manoeuvre so assume they have right of way throughout, I didn't know the answer without looking it up. Imagine it does create the odd low speed crash.
Might be both then. I'm almost certain the Code will advise to give someone doing a manoeuvre loads of room, patience etc
HIghway Code Rules 179 and 180 ' Rule 179 'Well before you turn right you should use your mirrors to make sure you know the position and movement of traffic behind you give a right-turn signal take up a position just left of the middle of the road or in the space marked for traffic turning right leave room for other vehicles to pass on the left, if possible.
Rule 180 Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.' https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203
Rule 160,163.
(Glad you're suddenly taking such an interesting though - check out 125)
Rule 160
'be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic. These are more difficult to see than larger vehicles and their riders are particularly vulnerable. Give them plenty of room, especially if you are driving a long vehicle or towing a trailer. You should give way to cyclists when you are changing direction or lane – do not cut across them.'
Rule 163 says cyclists should proceed with caution when passing slow moving or stationary traffic but not that they have to give way completely to cars doing u turns
Rule 125 'The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. Unsafe speed increases the chances of causing a collision (or being unable to avoid one), as well as its severity. Inappropriate speeds are also intimidating, deterring people from walking, cycling or riding horses. Driving at speeds too fast for the road and traffic conditions is dangerous. You should always reduce your speed when the road layout or condition presents hazards, such as bends sharing the road with pedestrians, particularly children, older adults or disabled people, cyclists and horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and motorcyclists weather conditions make it safer to do so driving at night as it is more difficult to see other road users.'
So again very vague as to how far to slow down in poor weather conditions, or when facing bends
Well of course it is vague. It has to be. It depends upon so much, but the police and common sense can usually distinguish between bad luck, careless driving or dangerous driving. You don't need a number. There is a thing called a limit point. It is explained on page 182 to 190 of Roadcraft. You should be adjusting your speed to stop by this ever changing point. It isn't rocket science. Much of this is commonsense.
Again you seem to be implying you only need to slow down for bends, poor weather, etc. On most country lanes, although the speed limit is 60mph it is not safe to travel at 60 mph. The nature of country roads generally makes that impossible. Even straight roads will have small drops or humps in them in which a car or cyclist can be hidden. Also it may have driveways or farm tracks. This is a default speed limit because it isn't a motorway, it doesn't have street lights and there are no marked speed limits. It is known as an unrestricted speed limit for which a national limit applies depending upon the road type (single carriageway, no street lights).
I really can't think of a single occasion where I would actually travel at 60 mph on a proper country lane.
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
Dealing with other vehicles The manoeuvre should not be started until the road is clear of traffic in both directions. Once you have completed the first leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass behind you if they wanted to, before commencing the second leg. Similarly before commencing the third leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass in front of you if they wanted to. The same would apply if it took further movements forwards and backwards to complete the manoeuvre.
Looks like Bart may need a Highway Code check then!
It's a tricky one. Away from the theory I have come across drivers who wait after each leg of the turn and those who consider it one manoeuvre so assume they have right of way throughout, I didn't know the answer without looking it up. Imagine it does create the odd low speed crash.
Might be both then. I'm almost certain the Code will advise to give someone doing a manoeuvre loads of room, patience etc
HIghway Code Rules 179 and 180 ' Rule 179 'Well before you turn right you should use your mirrors to make sure you know the position and movement of traffic behind you give a right-turn signal take up a position just left of the middle of the road or in the space marked for traffic turning right leave room for other vehicles to pass on the left, if possible.
Rule 180 Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.' https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203
Rule 160,163.
(Glad you're suddenly taking such an interesting though - check out 125)
Rule 160
'be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic. These are more difficult to see than larger vehicles and their riders are particularly vulnerable. Give them plenty of room, especially if you are driving a long vehicle or towing a trailer. You should give way to cyclists when you are changing direction or lane – do not cut across them.'
Rule 163 says cyclists should proceed with caution when passing slow moving or stationary traffic but not that they have to give way completely to cars doing u turns
Rule 125 'The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. Unsafe speed increases the chances of causing a collision (or being unable to avoid one), as well as its severity. Inappropriate speeds are also intimidating, deterring people from walking, cycling or riding horses. Driving at speeds too fast for the road and traffic conditions is dangerous. You should always reduce your speed when the road layout or condition presents hazards, such as bends sharing the road with pedestrians, particularly children, older adults or disabled people, cyclists and horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and motorcyclists weather conditions make it safer to do so driving at night as it is more difficult to see other road users.'
So again very vague as to how far to slow down in poor weather conditions, or when facing bends
I've been out, but an interesting conversation, as has been the one going round and round a roundabout.
On this one I'm mainly with Bart, but it's very much a judgement call. I might argue that a reverse into a sideroad could be a better manoeuvre, or a pull off and stop to let people through is appropriate, but it all depends on the circumstances. As the cyclist I would aim to slow down enough to avoid any conflict, but I might gently assert priority if eg I was going uphill.
I've just driven home up my former country lane which is now deep in the town (and is access only plus lawbreakers - we have a no flying motorbikes sign which to my personal knowledge has been heavily ignored since the 1970s), and I have been stopping completely to let pedestrians walk past safely every time I meet one as otherwise they are forced into the frozen snow at the side withy slip risks. They have priority over motor vehicles anyway, so on a 4-5m wide lane my rule is pass at walking or at most jogging pace.
I don't get this thing about stopping distances. There is no need to do calculations; a good ability to estimate and to be familiar with different surfaces should be part of any driver learning. To do calculations means a required good ability to estimate distances, or (in my case, sometimes) running the numbers in my head from the statutory spacing of the white lines.
But in general awareness of stopping distances seems to me to be a skill like throwing a ball for someone else to catch; the basics are built in, and then it is practice and experience, with deliberate learning in the early days, then developing the skill.
Very interesting by Jimmy Carr here. Fascinating insights on young men, isolation in society, identity and personal purpose.
I'm not sure I've heard these expressed as well anywhere else. Two conclusions: (1) he's very intelligent, and, (2) it feels like he's ever so slightly politicising now, possibly because he's concerned and feels he has to.
Carr is extremely intelligent and well read. Not just the Cambridge degree, but he has done a lot of podcasts and is able to display breath of knowledge and understanding. For me at a surface level comedy doesn't do justice to actually how smart he is, 100 knob gags and your fat / ugly munter seems like shooting fish in a barrel for him (although keeping that going year after year with new material is impressive, most comedians like musicians have a few greatest hits).
In the past couple of years he has started filming his audience work and putting it on YouTube. Again its dominated by your a moron / your a slag etc, but in there he drops 2-3 serious moments and they are often really interesting.
His explanation is that he is genuinely very curious individual and driven to work hard. So he does an insane number of gigs, but that requires huge amount of travel and sitting around, so he is constantly educating himself via books, podcasts, etc.
Yes, quite, and he's all the more interesting for it. He describes himself as a traditional liberal (in other words, a classical liberal, driven by his belief in freedom - and anti-authoritarianism; be it of the Left or Right) but he also gets the importance of civic society, pubs, clubs and institutions. He is proud of Britain, its values and its legacy. He understands all societies have hierarchies, and thinks solving inequality is impossible, but absolute poverty and isolation is - and tax needs to be low in your 20s and in retirement.
If I were Kemi, I'd be privately consulting with him all the time.
"Sorry HYUFD. You are right and everyone else is wrong. This is yet another subject on which you are clearly the authority and I was foolish to doubt that. I trust you will let us know in due course when DVLA launches the new HYUFD-approved 10TB online version of the Highway Code Map of the UK complete with clickable bends and roundabout entry points and associated tables"
The Highway Code needs to be more detailed and lower speed limits set on many rural roads, it is hardly a very contentious point
I haven't read the highway code since 1961 when I took my test, since when I have driven tens of thousands of miles both here, across Europe, and in Canada, New Zealand and South Africa without needing to be told in a booklet how to take bends and at what speeds
Ultimately you cannot teach driving in a book, but by experience, awareness of your surroundings, anticipation and courtesy to other road users
That is my highway code and as I haven't had an accident or any road conviction it speaks for itself
Good for you.
Any half decent lawyer though could easily query whether 'reduce your speed' means to 50, 40, 30 or even 20mph when approaching a bend, when driving at night, in poor weather conditions or whether 20 or 30mph is appropriate when approaching cyclists, horse riders etc in any court case following an accident or collision
The appropriate speed is the one where your car stays on the road and doesn't hit another road user. You should be able to figure this out ex ante through the application of experience and common sense. Personally I hate driving on country roads but luckily I hardly ever have to do it. My problem is that by definition as I don't live in the country every country road is an unknown quality to me so I drive as if I don't know what's around the next bend, and I usually end up with some local boy racer on my tail who no doubt could navigate the road in his sleep and doesn't appreciate this cautious city dweller holding him up.
Which may be true but this is a bit like 'inflation'.
The academic answer to the question about migration is that it is falling. But to the non statistician/sociologist/demographics person the question 'Is immigration rising' could sensibly mean 'are a net positive number of people arriving'. Which is 'Yes'.
Just as 'inflation falling' is usually also the same as 'prices are rising'. Which it is and they are. I blame the parents/schools/government. In a world where MPs don't know the difference between debt, deficit and a boiled egg a lot is being asked of the public.
"Sorry HYUFD. You are right and everyone else is wrong. This is yet another subject on which you are clearly the authority and I was foolish to doubt that. I trust you will let us know in due course when DVLA launches the new HYUFD-approved 10TB online version of the Highway Code Map of the UK complete with clickable bends and roundabout entry points and associated tables"
The Highway Code needs to be more detailed and lower speed limits set on many rural roads, it is hardly a very contentious point
I'm not sure on the "more detailed". Try giving a copy to a visiting person from the USA and see what colour they turn !
I think simplification in some respects is possible, but there is not a lot of political will around, and we do not believe on the whole in updating bad ideas from 30 or 60 years ago. That is partly to do with a desire not to invest any money in infrastructure.
And there are a lot of out of date or dangerous practices we can revise to signal far more effectively and consistently what behaviour is expected.
Rachel Reeves faces tax rise dilemma over immigration forecast. Chancellor could be forced to make up for a shortfall of billions of pounds as figures predict a collapse in net migration would have consequences for the economy
The OBR have included possibly overestimated immigration numbers in their fiscal forecast. If immigration does drop it will lead to a relative underperformance of the economy and a possible £20 billion hole in public finances.
Or, this will shown up to be a fantasy figure.
Doubt it. People aren't interested in analysis. Zach Polanski had a point when he asked, do you want to stop immigration or do you want your bum wiped? (aimed at broadly the same demographic). Hardly anyone is prepared to make trade-offs, and certainly not that one.
That post is fascinating, because you've pushed aside the point to reassert your belief.
We might find out high immigration actually isn't the key driver of growth. People will be very interested in that analysis.
Aside from the fact that 80% of people “wiping bums” are British, there is also the small issue that letting companies freely recruit abroad just led to fraud, not extra migrants in the care sector.
And if high immigration = high economic performance, where has our high economic performance been?
I thought that was a pretty poor thing to say myself, and quite revealing.
"I'm far too good to be wiping arses but its fine for someone from Nigeria to be doing it".
"I'm far too good to be wiping arses but it’s excellent for someone from Nigeria to be doing it, below minimum wage.".
Fixed that for you. No charge.
Yours is better.
Mrs Flatlander is dealing with such problems at the moment.
She is more over-qualified than Zach but not so over-privileged to think it beneath her.
"Sorry HYUFD. You are right and everyone else is wrong. This is yet another subject on which you are clearly the authority and I was foolish to doubt that. I trust you will let us know in due course when DVLA launches the new HYUFD-approved 10TB online version of the Highway Code Map of the UK complete with clickable bends and roundabout entry points and associated tables"
The Highway Code needs to be more detailed and lower speed limits set on many rural roads, it is hardly a very contentious point
I haven't read the highway code since 1961 when I took my test, since when I have driven tens of thousands of miles both here, across Europe, and in Canada, New Zealand and South Africa without needing to be told in a booklet how to take bends and at what speeds
Ultimately you cannot teach driving in a book, but by experience, awareness of your surroundings, anticipation and courtesy to other road users
That is my highway code and as I haven't had an accident or any road conviction it speaks for itself
Good for you.
Any half decent lawyer though could easily query whether 'reduce your speed' means to 50, 40, 30 or even 20mph when approaching a bend, when driving at night, in poor weather conditions or whether 20 or 30mph is appropriate when approaching cyclists, horse riders etc in any court case following an accident or collision
The appropriate speed is the one where your car stays on the road and doesn't hit another road user. You should be able to figure this out ex ante through the application of experience and common sense. Personally I hate driving on country roads but luckily I hardly ever have to do it. My problem is that by definition as I don't live in the country every country road is an unknown quality to me so I drive as if I don't know what's around the next bend, and I usually end up with some local boy racer on my tail who no doubt could navigate the road in his sleep and doesn't appreciate this cautious city dweller holding him up.
The answer to the lawyer would usually be something along the lines of "if the driver was unable to keep the car on the read, that is clear evidence of inappropriate speed". And that is then a judgement for the Jury Magistrates or Judge.
"Sorry HYUFD. You are right and everyone else is wrong. This is yet another subject on which you are clearly the authority and I was foolish to doubt that. I trust you will let us know in due course when DVLA launches the new HYUFD-approved 10TB online version of the Highway Code Map of the UK complete with clickable bends and roundabout entry points and associated tables"
The Highway Code needs to be more detailed and lower speed limits set on many rural roads, it is hardly a very contentious point
I haven't read the highway code since 1961 when I took my test, since when I have driven tens of thousands of miles both here, across Europe, and in Canada, New Zealand and South Africa without needing to be told in a booklet how to take bends and at what speeds
Ultimately you cannot teach driving in a book, but by experience, awareness of your surroundings, anticipation and courtesy to other road users
That is my highway code and as I haven't had an accident or any road conviction it speaks for itself
Good for you.
Any half decent lawyer though could easily query whether 'reduce your speed' means to 50, 40, 30 or even 20mph when approaching a bend, when driving at night, in poor weather conditions or whether 20 or 30mph is appropriate when approaching cyclists, horse riders etc in any court case following an accident or collision
The appropriate speed is the one where your car stays on the road and doesn't hit another road user. You should be able to figure this out ex ante through the application of experience and common sense. Personally I hate driving on country roads but luckily I hardly ever have to do it. My problem is that by definition as I don't live in the country every country road is an unknown quality to me so I drive as if I don't know what's around the next bend, and I usually end up with some local boy racer on my tail who no doubt could navigate the road in his sleep and doesn't appreciate this cautious city dweller holding him up.
Being able to navigate the road in your sleep doesn't allow you to see things in the road around the corner.
I remember one vaguely amusing incident on the A889, which is a narrow (and quite dangerous) road in the Highlands with lots of bends.
I was going too slowly for someone and complained to Mrs Flatlander that he had no idea whether or not there was, say, a big milk tanker round the next corner, at which point I went round the next corner and found a big milk tanker occupying most of the road space.
I've never seen one on that road before or since, and it wasn't something I was in the habit of saying.
Very interesting by Jimmy Carr here. Fascinating insights on young men, isolation in society, identity and personal purpose.
I'm not sure I've heard these expressed as well anywhere else. Two conclusions: (1) he's very intelligent, and, (2) it feels like he's ever so slightly politicising now, possibly because he's concerned and feels he has to.
Carr is extremely intelligent and well read. Not just the Cambridge degree, but he has done a lot of podcasts and is able to display breath of knowledge and understanding. For me at a surface level comedy doesn't do justice to actually how smart he is, 100 knob gags and your fat / ugly munter seems like shooting fish in a barrel for him (although keeping that going year after year with new material is impressive, most comedians like musicians have a few greatest hits).
In the past couple of years he has started filming his audience work and putting it on YouTube. Again its dominated by your a moron / your a slag etc, but in there he drops 2-3 serious moments and they are often really interesting.
His explanation is that he is genuinely very curious individual and driven to work hard. So he does an insane number of gigs, but that requires huge amount of travel and sitting around, so he is constantly educating himself via books, podcasts, etc.
You can't call it populism when they win and democracy when you win.
This argument over Grok can produce dodgy images....this same week an Israeli company open sourced a state of the art text to video model, but not as usual just the weights of the model, the whole system, training code, etc. So anybody can take off guardrails and fine tune and even runs on a (higher end) macbook. Its already been widely adopted in cloud system. The reality is with particular text to image, there is no moat, no super secret special sauce. Can't put the genie back in the box.
Agreed, there's no route back from here. There have been open source T2I models for quite some time, and now T2V ones too, and people inevitably train them to produce specific images. There's not much the authorities can do. The models are there and people can run them locally on fairly common hardware.
Same with deepfakes. T2I and I2V models are so good now it's possible to produce videos of famous people that are very difficult to distinguish from reality. No more odd eyes and nine fingers. That genie is well out if its particular box, too.
Ofcom can run around banning sites that host these models in the cloud, but there's nothing they can do about local hosting. Anyone with a gaming PC or a high end Mac can produce all the dodgy images they want.
There have already been suggestions of a licensing system for computers over a certain capacity.
Don’t think they won’t go there.
For licensing to be anything but pointless it would have to be accompanied with a compulsory system that monitors everything being done on the computer. And given the rate of progress 'a certain capacity' would mean pretty much every PC and laptop in a few years.
That would be the most intrusive surveillance system in existence outside of North Korea. I may be an optimist, but I firmly believe no British government would propose such a scheme and the people wouldn’t tolerate it if they did.
Give how easy even kernel level DRM and anti-cheat software gets cracked open, the system would need support at hardware, firmware and OS levels to be effective. The privacy and security issues would be legion, and to be honest I don't see Microsoft, Apple, Intel or AMD touching it with a bargepole. The UK market isn't worth the enormous reputation hit they'd take from building a blatant back-door into their systems.
This argument over Grok can produce dodgy images....this same week an Israeli company open sourced a state of the art text to video model, but not as usual just the weights of the model, the whole system, training code, etc. So anybody can take off guardrails and fine tune and even runs on a (higher end) macbook. Its already been widely adopted in cloud system. The reality is with particular text to image, there is no moat, no super secret special sauce. Can't put the genie back in the box.
Agreed, there's no route back from here. There have been open source T2I models for quite some time, and now T2V ones too, and people inevitably train them to produce specific images. There's not much the authorities can do. The models are there and people can run them locally on fairly common hardware.
Same with deepfakes. T2I and I2V models are so good now it's possible to produce videos of famous people that are very difficult to distinguish from reality. No more odd eyes and nine fingers. That genie is well out if its particular box, too.
Ofcom can run around banning sites that host these models in the cloud, but there's nothing they can do about local hosting. Anyone with a gaming PC or a high end Mac can produce all the dodgy images they want.
There have already been suggestions of a licensing system for computers over a certain capacity.
Don’t think they won’t go there.
For licensing to be anything but pointless it would have to be accompanied with a compulsory system that monitors everything being done on the computer. And given the rate of progress 'a certain capacity' would mean pretty much every PC and laptop in a few years.
That would be the most intrusive surveillance system in existence outside of North Korea. I may be an optimist, but I firmly believe no British government would propose such a scheme and the people wouldn’t tolerate it if they did.
Give how easy even kernel level DRM and anti-cheat software gets cracked open, the system would need support at hardware, firmware and OS levels to be effective. The privacy and security issues would be legion, and to be honest I don't see Microsoft, Apple, Intel or AMD touching it with a bargepole. The UK market isn't worth the enormous reputation hit they'd take from building a blatant back-door into their systems.
Well, they are moving forward on the VPN licensing.
Why not, in their view, limit access to “dangerous” computers?
The idea that the Highway Code needs to be made as big as the tax code, in order to cover every possible eventuality, all to stop lawyers lawyering, is one of the most preposterous arguments I’ve read on here. I hope that it’s heroic trolling
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
Dealing with other vehicles The manoeuvre should not be started until the road is clear of traffic in both directions. Once you have completed the first leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass behind you if they wanted to, before commencing the second leg. Similarly before commencing the third leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass in front of you if they wanted to. The same would apply if it took further movements forwards and backwards to complete the manoeuvre.
Looks like Bart may need a Highway Code check then!
It's a tricky one. Away from the theory I have come across drivers who wait after each leg of the turn and those who consider it one manoeuvre so assume they have right of way throughout, I didn't know the answer without looking it up. Imagine it does create the odd low speed crash.
Might be both then. I'm almost certain the Code will advise to give someone doing a manoeuvre loads of room, patience etc
HIghway Code Rules 179 and 180 ' Rule 179 'Well before you turn right you should use your mirrors to make sure you know the position and movement of traffic behind you give a right-turn signal take up a position just left of the middle of the road or in the space marked for traffic turning right leave room for other vehicles to pass on the left, if possible.
Rule 180 Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.' https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203
Rule 160,163.
(Glad you're suddenly taking such an interesting though - check out 125)
Rule 160
'be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic. These are more difficult to see than larger vehicles and their riders are particularly vulnerable. Give them plenty of room, especially if you are driving a long vehicle or towing a trailer. You should give way to cyclists when you are changing direction or lane – do not cut across them.'
Rule 163 says cyclists should proceed with caution when passing slow moving or stationary traffic but not that they have to give way completely to cars doing u turns
Rule 125 'The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. Unsafe speed increases the chances of causing a collision (or being unable to avoid one), as well as its severity. Inappropriate speeds are also intimidating, deterring people from walking, cycling or riding horses. Driving at speeds too fast for the road and traffic conditions is dangerous. You should always reduce your speed when the road layout or condition presents hazards, such as bends sharing the road with pedestrians, particularly children, older adults or disabled people, cyclists and horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and motorcyclists weather conditions make it safer to do so driving at night as it is more difficult to see other road users.'
So again very vague as to how far to slow down in poor weather conditions, or when facing bends
Well of course it is vague. It has to be. It depends upon so much, but the police and common sense can usually distinguish between bad luck, careless driving or dangerous driving. You don't need a number. There is a thing called a limit point. It is explained on page 182 to 190 of Roadcraft. You should be adjusting your speed to stop by this ever changing point. It isn't rocket science. Much of this is commonsense.
Again you seem to be implying you only need to slow down for bends, poor weather, etc. On most country lanes, although the speed limit is 60mph it is not safe to travel at 60 mph. The nature of country roads generally makes that impossible. Even straight roads will have small drops or humps in them in which a car or cyclist can be hidden. Also it may have driveways or farm tracks. This is a default speed limit because it isn't a motorway, it doesn't have street lights and there are no marked speed limits. It is known as an unrestricted speed limit for which a national limit applies depending upon the road type (single carriageway, no street lights).
I really can't think of a single occasion where I would actually travel at 60 mph on a proper country lane.
'Commonsense' ie basically exactly what a jury or magistrates on the day are persuaded by lawyers to believe it to mean when accidents or collisions occurred under the standard speed limit on that road and with no drink or drug driving or mobile phone use.
Even if you only ever drove at 40mph on a country lane could you be done if you only slowed down to 35mph at a bend or in heavy rain and a collision occured?
"Sorry HYUFD. You are right and everyone else is wrong. This is yet another subject on which you are clearly the authority and I was foolish to doubt that. I trust you will let us know in due course when DVLA launches the new HYUFD-approved 10TB online version of the Highway Code Map of the UK complete with clickable bends and roundabout entry points and associated tables"
The Highway Code needs to be more detailed and lower speed limits set on many rural roads, it is hardly a very contentious point
I haven't read the highway code since 1961 when I took my test, since when I have driven tens of thousands of miles both here, across Europe, and in Canada, New Zealand and South Africa without needing to be told in a booklet how to take bends and at what speeds
Ultimately you cannot teach driving in a book, but by experience, awareness of your surroundings, anticipation and courtesy to other road users
That is my highway code and as I haven't had an accident or any road conviction it speaks for itself
Good for you.
Any half decent lawyer though could easily query whether 'reduce your speed' means to 50, 40, 30 or even 20mph when approaching a bend, when driving at night, in poor weather conditions or whether 20 or 30mph is appropriate when approaching cyclists, horse riders etc in any court case following an accident or collision
The appropriate speed is the one where your car stays on the road and doesn't hit another road user. You should be able to figure this out ex ante through the application of experience and common sense. Personally I hate driving on country roads but luckily I hardly ever have to do it. My problem is that by definition as I don't live in the country every country road is an unknown quality to me so I drive as if I don't know what's around the next bend, and I usually end up with some local boy racer on my tail who no doubt could navigate the road in his sleep and doesn't appreciate this cautious city dweller holding him up.
Being able to navigate the road in your sleep doesn't allow you to see things in the road around the corner.
I remember one vaguely amusing incident on the A889, which is a narrow (and quite dangerous) road in the Highlands with lots of bends.
I was going too slowly for someone and complained to Mrs Flatlander that he had no idea whether or not there was, say, a big milk tanker round the next corner, at which point I went round the next corner and found a big milk tanker occupying most of the road space.
I've never seen one on that road before or since, and it wasn't something I was in the habit of saying.
I’ve heard it suggested that driving “in auto-pilot” is a big cause of accidents - the driver has a massive lag in “re engage brain” when something unexpected happens.
There was an interesting experiment in following Dutch practise and removing road signs and markings - some drivers became extremely angry because “I had to think hard what I was doing, all the time”
The idea that the Highway Code needs to be made as big as the tax code, in order to cover every possible eventuality, all to stop lawyers lawyering, is one of the most preposterous arguments I’ve read on here. I hope that it’s heroic trolling
Fine, expect the law on careless driving causing injury or death then to continue to be often decided by what the judge, jury or magistrate of the day decides it in court to mean then
The idea that the Highway Code needs to be made as big as the tax code, in order to cover every possible eventuality, all to stop lawyers lawyering, is one of the most preposterous arguments I’ve read on here. I hope that it’s heroic trolling
Fine, expect the law on careless driving causing injury or death then to continue to be often decided by what the judge, jury or magistrate of the day decides it in court to mean then
That has never troubled me before; I don’t expect it to in the future
"Sorry HYUFD. You are right and everyone else is wrong. This is yet another subject on which you are clearly the authority and I was foolish to doubt that. I trust you will let us know in due course when DVLA launches the new HYUFD-approved 10TB online version of the Highway Code Map of the UK complete with clickable bends and roundabout entry points and associated tables"
The Highway Code needs to be more detailed and lower speed limits set on many rural roads, it is hardly a very contentious point
I haven't read the highway code since 1961 when I took my test, since when I have driven tens of thousands of miles both here, across Europe, and in Canada, New Zealand and South Africa without needing to be told in a booklet how to take bends and at what speeds
Ultimately you cannot teach driving in a book, but by experience, awareness of your surroundings, anticipation and courtesy to other road users
That is my highway code and as I haven't had an accident or any road conviction it speaks for itself
Good for you.
Any half decent lawyer though could easily query whether 'reduce your speed' means to 50, 40, 30 or even 20mph when approaching a bend, when driving at night, in poor weather conditions or whether 20 or 30mph is appropriate when approaching cyclists, horse riders etc in any court case following an accident or collision
The appropriate speed is the one where your car stays on the road and doesn't hit another road user. You should be able to figure this out ex ante through the application of experience and common sense. Personally I hate driving on country roads but luckily I hardly ever have to do it. My problem is that by definition as I don't live in the country every country road is an unknown quality to me so I drive as if I don't know what's around the next bend, and I usually end up with some local boy racer on my tail who no doubt could navigate the road in his sleep and doesn't appreciate this cautious city dweller holding him up.
The answer to the lawyer would usually be something along the lines of "if the driver was unable to keep the car on the read, that is clear evidence of inappropriate speed". And that is then a judgement for the Jury Magistrates or Judge.
No, what happened if the driver kept the car on the road but killed a cyclist round a bend or in heavy rain driving at 35mph on a rural road?
"Sorry HYUFD. You are right and everyone else is wrong. This is yet another subject on which you are clearly the authority and I was foolish to doubt that. I trust you will let us know in due course when DVLA launches the new HYUFD-approved 10TB online version of the Highway Code Map of the UK complete with clickable bends and roundabout entry points and associated tables"
The Highway Code needs to be more detailed and lower speed limits set on many rural roads, it is hardly a very contentious point
I'm not sure on the "more detailed". Try giving a copy to a visiting person from the USA and see what colour they turn !
I think simplification in some respects is possible, but there is not a lot of political will around, and we do not believe on the whole in updating bad ideas from 30 or 60 years ago. That is partly to do with a desire not to invest any money in infrastructure.
And there are a lot of out of date or dangerous practices we can revise to signal far more effectively and consistently what behaviour is expected.
We can do both, the Highway Code is often cited in careless and dangerous driving cases but where it is vague then lawyers can have a field day with what the gaps mean!
"Sorry HYUFD. You are right and everyone else is wrong. This is yet another subject on which you are clearly the authority and I was foolish to doubt that. I trust you will let us know in due course when DVLA launches the new HYUFD-approved 10TB online version of the Highway Code Map of the UK complete with clickable bends and roundabout entry points and associated tables"
The Highway Code needs to be more detailed and lower speed limits set on many rural roads, it is hardly a very contentious point
I haven't read the highway code since 1961 when I took my test, since when I have driven tens of thousands of miles both here, across Europe, and in Canada, New Zealand and South Africa without needing to be told in a booklet how to take bends and at what speeds
Ultimately you cannot teach driving in a book, but by experience, awareness of your surroundings, anticipation and courtesy to other road users
That is my highway code and as I haven't had an accident or any road conviction it speaks for itself
Good for you.
Any half decent lawyer though could easily query whether 'reduce your speed' means to 50, 40, 30 or even 20mph when approaching a bend, when driving at night, in poor weather conditions or whether 20 or 30mph is appropriate when approaching cyclists, horse riders etc in any court case following an accident or collision
The appropriate speed is the one where your car stays on the road and doesn't hit another road user. You should be able to figure this out ex ante through the application of experience and common sense. Personally I hate driving on country roads but luckily I hardly ever have to do it. My problem is that by definition as I don't live in the country every country road is an unknown quality to me so I drive as if I don't know what's around the next bend, and I usually end up with some local boy racer on my tail who no doubt could navigate the road in his sleep and doesn't appreciate this cautious city dweller holding him up.
I also can't stand driving on country roads. Any road that requires you to put two wheels on the grass to pass someone coming the other way is my idea of hell.
At least in Scotland there are proper passing places, rather than a bit where there is an extra six inches between the road and the dry stone wall.
"Sorry HYUFD. You are right and everyone else is wrong. This is yet another subject on which you are clearly the authority and I was foolish to doubt that. I trust you will let us know in due course when DVLA launches the new HYUFD-approved 10TB online version of the Highway Code Map of the UK complete with clickable bends and roundabout entry points and associated tables"
The Highway Code needs to be more detailed and lower speed limits set on many rural roads, it is hardly a very contentious point
I haven't read the highway code since 1961 when I took my test, since when I have driven tens of thousands of miles both here, across Europe, and in Canada, New Zealand and South Africa without needing to be told in a booklet how to take bends and at what speeds
Ultimately you cannot teach driving in a book, but by experience, awareness of your surroundings, anticipation and courtesy to other road users
That is my highway code and as I haven't had an accident or any road conviction it speaks for itself
Good for you.
Any half decent lawyer though could easily query whether 'reduce your speed' means to 50, 40, 30 or even 20mph when approaching a bend, when driving at night, in poor weather conditions or whether 20 or 30mph is appropriate when approaching cyclists, horse riders etc in any court case following an accident or collision
The appropriate speed is the one where your car stays on the road and doesn't hit another road user. You should be able to figure this out ex ante through the application of experience and common sense. Personally I hate driving on country roads but luckily I hardly ever have to do it. My problem is that by definition as I don't live in the country every country road is an unknown quality to me so I drive as if I don't know what's around the next bend, and I usually end up with some local boy racer on my tail who no doubt could navigate the road in his sleep and doesn't appreciate this cautious city dweller holding him up.
You were driving on the road, stayed on the road and hit and killed a motorbiker driving at 100mph? Are you guilty? Almost certainly not
Very interesting by Jimmy Carr here. Fascinating insights on young men, isolation in society, identity and personal purpose.
I'm not sure I've heard these expressed as well anywhere else. Two conclusions: (1) he's very intelligent, and, (2) it feels like he's ever so slightly politicising now, possibly because he's concerned and feels he has to.
Carr is extremely intelligent and well read. Not just the Cambridge degree, but he has done a lot of podcasts and is able to display breath of knowledge and understanding. For me at a surface level comedy doesn't do justice to actually how smart he is, 100 knob gags and your fat / ugly munter seems like shooting fish in a barrel for him (although keeping that going year after year with new material is impressive, most comedians like musicians have a few greatest hits).
In the past couple of years he has started filming his audience work and putting it on YouTube. Again its dominated by your a moron / your a slag etc, but in there he drops 2-3 serious moments and they are often really interesting.
His explanation is that he is genuinely very curious individual and driven to work hard. So he does an insane number of gigs, but that requires huge amount of travel and sitting around, so he is constantly educating himself via books, podcasts, etc.
You can't call it populism when they win and democracy when you win.
Populism isn't defined by the outcome but by the content of the political platform. You can call it populism if it is populism.
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
Dealing with other vehicles The manoeuvre should not be started until the road is clear of traffic in both directions. Once you have completed the first leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass behind you if they wanted to, before commencing the second leg. Similarly before commencing the third leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass in front of you if they wanted to. The same would apply if it took further movements forwards and backwards to complete the manoeuvre.
Looks like Bart may need a Highway Code check then!
It's a tricky one. Away from the theory I have come across drivers who wait after each leg of the turn and those who consider it one manoeuvre so assume they have right of way throughout, I didn't know the answer without looking it up. Imagine it does create the odd low speed crash.
Might be both then. I'm almost certain the Code will advise to give someone doing a manoeuvre loads of room, patience etc
HIghway Code Rules 179 and 180 ' Rule 179 'Well before you turn right you should use your mirrors to make sure you know the position and movement of traffic behind you give a right-turn signal take up a position just left of the middle of the road or in the space marked for traffic turning right leave room for other vehicles to pass on the left, if possible.
Rule 180 Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.' https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203
Rule 160,163.
(Glad you're suddenly taking such an interesting though - check out 125)
Rule 160
'be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic. These are more difficult to see than larger vehicles and their riders are particularly vulnerable. Give them plenty of room, especially if you are driving a long vehicle or towing a trailer. You should give way to cyclists when you are changing direction or lane – do not cut across them.'
Rule 163 says cyclists should proceed with caution when passing slow moving or stationary traffic but not that they have to give way completely to cars doing u turns
Rule 125 'The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. Unsafe speed increases the chances of causing a collision (or being unable to avoid one), as well as its severity. Inappropriate speeds are also intimidating, deterring people from walking, cycling or riding horses. Driving at speeds too fast for the road and traffic conditions is dangerous. You should always reduce your speed when the road layout or condition presents hazards, such as bends sharing the road with pedestrians, particularly children, older adults or disabled people, cyclists and horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and motorcyclists weather conditions make it safer to do so driving at night as it is more difficult to see other road users.'
So again very vague as to how far to slow down in poor weather conditions, or when facing bends
Well of course it is vague. It has to be. It depends upon so much, but the police and common sense can usually distinguish between bad luck, careless driving or dangerous driving. You don't need a number. There is a thing called a limit point. It is explained on page 182 to 190 of Roadcraft. You should be adjusting your speed to stop by this ever changing point. It isn't rocket science. Much of this is commonsense.
Again you seem to be implying you only need to slow down for bends, poor weather, etc. On most country lanes, although the speed limit is 60mph it is not safe to travel at 60 mph. The nature of country roads generally makes that impossible. Even straight roads will have small drops or humps in them in which a car or cyclist can be hidden. Also it may have driveways or farm tracks. This is a default speed limit because it isn't a motorway, it doesn't have street lights and there are no marked speed limits. It is known as an unrestricted speed limit for which a national limit applies depending upon the road type (single carriageway, no street lights).
I really can't think of a single occasion where I would actually travel at 60 mph on a proper country lane.
'Commonsense' ie basically exactly what a jury or magistrates on the day are persuaded by lawyers to believe it to mean when accidents or collisions occurred under the standard speed limit on that road and with no drink or drug driving or mobile phone use.
Even if you only ever drove at 40mph on a country lane could you be done if you only slowed down to 35mph at a bend or in heavy rain and a collision occured?
obviously. If you hit someone at a bend you should have been driving slower.
"Sorry HYUFD. You are right and everyone else is wrong. This is yet another subject on which you are clearly the authority and I was foolish to doubt that. I trust you will let us know in due course when DVLA launches the new HYUFD-approved 10TB online version of the Highway Code Map of the UK complete with clickable bends and roundabout entry points and associated tables"
The Highway Code needs to be more detailed and lower speed limits set on many rural roads, it is hardly a very contentious point
I haven't read the highway code since 1961 when I took my test, since when I have driven tens of thousands of miles both here, across Europe, and in Canada, New Zealand and South Africa without needing to be told in a booklet how to take bends and at what speeds
Ultimately you cannot teach driving in a book, but by experience, awareness of your surroundings, anticipation and courtesy to other road users
That is my highway code and as I haven't had an accident or any road conviction it speaks for itself
Good for you.
Any half decent lawyer though could easily query whether 'reduce your speed' means to 50, 40, 30 or even 20mph when approaching a bend, when driving at night, in poor weather conditions or whether 20 or 30mph is appropriate when approaching cyclists, horse riders etc in any court case following an accident or collision
The appropriate speed is the one where your car stays on the road and doesn't hit another road user. You should be able to figure this out ex ante through the application of experience and common sense. Personally I hate driving on country roads but luckily I hardly ever have to do it. My problem is that by definition as I don't live in the country every country road is an unknown quality to me so I drive as if I don't know what's around the next bend, and I usually end up with some local boy racer on my tail who no doubt could navigate the road in his sleep and doesn't appreciate this cautious city dweller holding him up.
You were driving on the road, stayed on the road and hit and killed a motorbiker driving at 100mph? Are you guilty? Almost certainly not
In this case it is the motorbike rider who is driving inappropriately, not you.
Given the talk of roads and safe/dangerous activities, curious what people think of an incident I had a few weeks ago.
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
Dealing with other vehicles The manoeuvre should not be started until the road is clear of traffic in both directions. Once you have completed the first leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass behind you if they wanted to, before commencing the second leg. Similarly before commencing the third leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass in front of you if they wanted to. The same would apply if it took further movements forwards and backwards to complete the manoeuvre.
Looks like Bart may need a Highway Code check then!
It's a tricky one. Away from the theory I have come across drivers who wait after each leg of the turn and those who consider it one manoeuvre so assume they have right of way throughout, I didn't know the answer without looking it up. Imagine it does create the odd low speed crash.
Might be both then. I'm almost certain the Code will advise to give someone doing a manoeuvre loads of room, patience etc
HIghway Code Rules 179 and 180 ' Rule 179 'Well before you turn right you should use your mirrors to make sure you know the position and movement of traffic behind you give a right-turn signal take up a position just left of the middle of the road or in the space marked for traffic turning right leave room for other vehicles to pass on the left, if possible.
Rule 180 Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.' https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203
Rule 160,163.
(Glad you're suddenly taking such an interesting though - check out 125)
Rule 160
'be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic. These are more difficult to see than larger vehicles and their riders are particularly vulnerable. Give them plenty of room, especially if you are driving a long vehicle or towing a trailer. You should give way to cyclists when you are changing direction or lane – do not cut across them.'
Rule 163 says cyclists should proceed with caution when passing slow moving or stationary traffic but not that they have to give way completely to cars doing u turns
Rule 125 'The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. Unsafe speed increases the chances of causing a collision (or being unable to avoid one), as well as its severity. Inappropriate speeds are also intimidating, deterring people from walking, cycling or riding horses. Driving at speeds too fast for the road and traffic conditions is dangerous. You should always reduce your speed when the road layout or condition presents hazards, such as bends sharing the road with pedestrians, particularly children, older adults or disabled people, cyclists and horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and motorcyclists weather conditions make it safer to do so driving at night as it is more difficult to see other road users.'
So again very vague as to how far to slow down in poor weather conditions, or when facing bends
Well of course it is vague. It has to be. It depends upon so much, but the police and common sense can usually distinguish between bad luck, careless driving or dangerous driving. You don't need a number. There is a thing called a limit point. It is explained on page 182 to 190 of Roadcraft. You should be adjusting your speed to stop by this ever changing point. It isn't rocket science. Much of this is commonsense.
Again you seem to be implying you only need to slow down for bends, poor weather, etc. On most country lanes, although the speed limit is 60mph it is not safe to travel at 60 mph. The nature of country roads generally makes that impossible. Even straight roads will have small drops or humps in them in which a car or cyclist can be hidden. Also it may have driveways or farm tracks. This is a default speed limit because it isn't a motorway, it doesn't have street lights and there are no marked speed limits. It is known as an unrestricted speed limit for which a national limit applies depending upon the road type (single carriageway, no street lights).
I really can't think of a single occasion where I would actually travel at 60 mph on a proper country lane.
'Commonsense' ie basically exactly what a jury or magistrates on the day are persuaded by lawyers to believe it to mean when accidents or collisions occurred under the standard speed limit on that road and with no drink or drug driving or mobile phone use.
Even if you only ever drove at 40mph on a country lane could you be done if you only slowed down to 35mph at a bend or in heavy rain and a collision occured?
obviously. If you hit someone at a bend you should have been driving slower.
No, a jury may well disagree. If you hit someone at 30mph on a 60mph limit road many juries would acquit, see the Gibbs case
Comments
Picking my daughter up from after school club at her school, after work. School is on a residential road and is 20mph with houses and the school on the road.
I had parked on the road where it is safe and legal to do so. Due to time of day, road was clear, no other kids or moving people about. I pulled off and started a 3-point turn to turn around, when a cyclist entered the road and approached. I was already mid turn by this point. The cyclist then swerved rapidly into the oncoming traffics lane and clearly intended to ride around me while I was turning and I could have hit him.
I hit my brakes and horn simultaneously and stopped, effectively at right angles to the flow of traffic blocking both lanes. Thankfully still nobody other than me and the cyclist on the road.
He came up to my window and shouted "I have right of way!" I yelled back "not when I am already in the middle of a manoeuver!" He was now stationary and back in the right lane blocked by me so I finished the turn and drove off. Nobody hurt.
Any time I have ever approached someone doing a 3 point turn I have always stopped and waited for them to finish and would never think to swerve around them while they are moving, that seems incredibly dangerous and stupud. Obviously if I had not pulled out yet he would have right of way, but I was halfway through before he approached (and he was not on the road when I started) so I was very surprised by his indignation.
2) You should have let him go without remonstration.
3) Re 2) I would have done the same as you anyway !
*If you can supply google street image of road and mark your position, I'll produce a look-up table for HYUFD to use if he ever does a 3 point turn in exactly the same spot.
Shocking Video Captures Calm Police Officers Handling Situation Nonviolently
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejoapWisPbE
For anyone who is interested can I recommend IAM. Early last year I went on a trial drive and found it really useful and decided to join. Before I did I was recommended 3 books. 'The Highway Code' obviously, 'Know Your Traffic Signs' which isn't particularly useful as most are in the Highway Code and finally but most useful 'Roadcraft the Police Handbook'.
The only disappointment was when I got to 'Police Pursuits' section in the book and it told me this would be dealt with elsewhere (and obviously only for Police pursuit drivers). So disappointed.
Membership is only around £40 - £50 and the lessons are £200 odd. That is in fact just for the test. The actual lessons are free for as many as you need. It is a Charity. The instructors are more than Advanced Motorists as they have further qualification (can't remember the details). Most are serving or ex Police drivers (and I don't mean plod footling around, but fully qualified high speed chase drivers).
I have found the experience excellent and I have learnt so much. You don't have to be a skilled driver to benefit from it (I'm not). All you need is basic competence. Although for instance I can and do double declutch when appropriate, it is not expected.
We have an abundance of country roads throughout our area, many with bends with slow marked on the road and chevrons and the speed varies
according to the road condition, not something you have read in the highway code
If you cannot adjust your driving then you should not drive
The Highway Code says do not proceed with a manoeuvre until clear and look out for cyclists, motorbikes and pedestrians especially in your mirrors
Dealing with other vehicles
The manoeuvre should not be started until the road is clear of traffic in both directions. Once you have completed the first leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass behind you if they wanted to, before commencing the second leg. Similarly before commencing the third leg you would allow any traffic that had accumulated to pass in front of you if they wanted to. The same would apply if it took further movements forwards and backwards to complete the manoeuvre.
Time for you to get a cuppa and a rich tea biscuit
A woman recording an ICE agent tells him "Shame on you."
The agent responds, "Have you all not learned from the past couple of days?"
"Learned what?" she asks
Then he knocks her phone out of her hand
https://bsky.app/profile/dominicervolina.com/post/3mc3b6soa222e
Oh well, everyone was safe in the end precisely because I was keeping aware of hazards and able to react and stop to someone being dangerous. Skilled drivers need to be able to react to the unexpected.
But what is reasonable? It needs to be written down for all circumstances.
Rule 179
'Well before you turn right you should use your mirrors to make sure you know the position and movement of traffic behind you give a right-turn signal take up a position just left of the middle of the road or in the space marked for traffic turning right leave room for other vehicles to pass on the left, if possible.
Rule 180
Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.'
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203
I'm not sure I've heard these expressed as well anywhere else. Two conclusions: (1) he's very intelligent, and, (2) it feels like he's ever so slightly politicising now, possibly because he's concerned and feels he has to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNcP1G3coWM
In the past couple of years he has started filming his audience work and putting it on YouTube. Again its dominated by your a moron / your a slag etc, but in there he drops 2-3 serious moments and they are often really interesting.
His explanation is that he is genuinely very curious individual and driven to work hard. So he does an insane number of gigs, but that requires huge amount of travel and sitting around, so he is constantly educating himself via books, podcasts, etc.
Ah, yes, of course:
"Sorry HYUFD. You are right and everyone else is wrong. This is yet another subject on which you are clearly the authority and I was foolish to doubt that. I trust you will let us know in due course when DVLA launches the new HYUFD-approved 10TB online version of the Highway Code Map of the UK complete with clickable bends and roundabout entry points and associated tables"
We might find out high immigration actually isn't the key driver of growth. People will be very interested in that analysis.
(Glad you're suddenly taking such an interesting though - check out 125)
If I were Kemi, I'd be privately consulting with him all the time.
And if high immigration = high economic performance, where has our high economic performance been?
We are in a bit of a mess when a bloke who tell knob gags for living and another who helps flog Dove soap are coming up with more interesting ideas than our politicians.
I do "believe" however that people in general aren't interested in analysis, including it appears yourself.
'be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic. These are more difficult to see than larger vehicles and their riders are particularly vulnerable. Give them plenty of room, especially if you are driving a long vehicle or towing a trailer. You should give way to cyclists when you are changing direction or lane – do not cut across them.'
Rule 163 says cyclists should proceed with caution when passing slow moving or stationary traffic but not that they have to give way completely to cars doing u turns
Rule 125
'The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. Unsafe speed increases the chances of causing a collision (or being unable to avoid one), as well as its severity. Inappropriate speeds are also intimidating, deterring people from walking, cycling or riding horses. Driving at speeds too fast for the road and traffic conditions is dangerous. You should always reduce your speed when the road layout or condition presents hazards, such as bends
sharing the road with pedestrians, particularly children, older adults or disabled people, cyclists and horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and motorcyclists
weather conditions make it safer to do so
driving at night as it is more difficult to see other road users.'
So again very vague as to how far to slow down in poor weather conditions, or when facing bends
He said he learned a lot about the human condition from working at Shell's marketing department, and also a lot due to the breakdown in his relationship with his father. I don't think they've spoken for over 20 years.
Can you imagine a Cambridge educated guy making knob jokes and innuendos?
Same with deepfakes. T2I and I2V models are so good now it's possible to produce videos of famous people that are very difficult to distinguish from reality. No more odd eyes and nine fingers. That genie is well out if its particular box, too.
Ofcom can run around banning sites that host these models in the cloud, but there's nothing they can do about local hosting. Anyone with a gaming PC or a high end Mac can produce all the dodgy images they want.
Don’t think they won’t go there.
"I'm far too good to be wiping arses but its fine for someone from Nigeria to be doing it".
If that is the case, then further discussion with you is also a waste of my time.
Ultimately you cannot teach driving in a book, but by experience, awareness of your surroundings, anticipation and courtesy to other road users
That is my highway code and as I haven't had an accident or any road conviction it speaks for itself
Life's too short.
Fixed that for you. No charge.
Any half decent lawyer though could easily query whether 'reduce your speed' means to 50, 40, 30 or even 20mph when approaching a bend, when driving at night, in poor weather conditions or whether 20 or 30mph is appropriate when approaching cyclists, horse riders etc in any court case following an accident or collision
This is spot on. X is not primarily a social media platform anymore. It's a power space for America's neo-royalty, and other governments are afraid of Trump's anger if they leave.
That's why "our government communications now happen on a deepfake porn site", and nobody does anything.
https://bsky.app/profile/anderspucknielsen.dk/post/3mc3fcbfv7k2o
ABBY PHILLIP: “Scott, do you really think she meant to kill him?”
SMUG SCOTT JENNINGS: “I don’t know, Abby.”
ABBY PHILLIP: “Don’t you think that’s important?
SMUG SCOTT JENNINGS: “Actually, no. I don’t.” 🤔
(They know their “domestic terrorist” narrative has been shattered)
https://bsky.app/profile/thetnholler.bsky.social/post/3mc3ggzktzk27
It stemmed around the time his mother died, it got so bad the police had to get involved and arrested his father (although they had to apologise) and around 2022 his father sued his son for defamation.
It's not just Jimmy Carr, his brother also has a similar relationship with their father.
Again you seem to be implying you only need to slow down for bends, poor weather, etc. On most country lanes, although the speed limit is 60mph it is not safe to travel at 60 mph. The nature of country roads generally makes that impossible. Even straight roads will have small drops or humps in them in which a car or cyclist can be hidden. Also it may have driveways or farm tracks. This is a default speed limit because it isn't a motorway, it doesn't have street lights and there are no marked speed limits. It is known as an unrestricted speed limit for which a national limit applies depending upon the road type (single carriageway, no street lights).
I really can't think of a single occasion where I would actually travel at 60 mph on a proper country lane.
On this one I'm mainly with Bart, but it's very much a judgement call. I might argue that a reverse into a sideroad could be a better manoeuvre, or a pull off and stop to let people through is appropriate, but it all depends on the circumstances. As the cyclist I would aim to slow down enough to avoid any conflict, but I might gently assert priority if eg I was going uphill.
I've just driven home up my former country lane which is now deep in the town (and is access only plus lawbreakers - we have a no flying motorbikes sign which to my personal knowledge has been heavily ignored since the 1970s), and I have been stopping completely to let pedestrians walk past safely every time I meet one as otherwise they are forced into the frozen snow at the side withy slip risks. They have priority over motor vehicles anyway, so on a 4-5m wide lane my rule is pass at walking or at most jogging pace.
I don't get this thing about stopping distances. There is no need to do calculations; a good ability to estimate and to be familiar with different surfaces should be part of any driver learning. To do calculations means a required good ability to estimate distances, or (in my case, sometimes) running the numbers in my head from the statutory spacing of the white lines.
But in general awareness of stopping distances seems to me to be a skill like throwing a ball for someone else to catch; the basics are built in, and then it is practice and experience, with deliberate learning in the early days, then developing the skill.
https://x.com/MattCartoonist/status/2010024966956401106?s=20
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/10/two-thirds-of-uk-voters-wrongly-think-immigration-is-rising-poll-finds
Which may be true but this is a bit like 'inflation'.
The academic answer to the question about migration is that it is falling. But to the non statistician/sociologist/demographics person the question 'Is immigration rising' could sensibly mean 'are a net positive number of people arriving'. Which is 'Yes'.
Just as 'inflation falling' is usually also the same as 'prices are rising'. Which it is and they are. I blame the parents/schools/government. In a world where MPs don't know the difference between debt, deficit and a boiled egg a lot is being asked of the public.
I think simplification in some respects is possible, but there is not a lot of political will around, and we do not believe on the whole in updating bad ideas from 30 or 60 years ago. That is partly to do with a desire not to invest any money in infrastructure.
And there are a lot of out of date or dangerous practices we can revise to signal far more effectively and consistently what behaviour is expected.
Mrs Flatlander is dealing with such problems at the moment.
She is more over-qualified than Zach but not so over-privileged to think it beneath her.
I remember one vaguely amusing incident on the A889, which is a narrow (and quite dangerous) road in the Highlands with lots of bends.
I was going too slowly for someone and complained to Mrs Flatlander that he had no idea whether or not there was, say, a big milk tanker round the next corner, at which point I went round the next corner and found a big milk tanker occupying most of the road space.
I've never seen one on that road before or since, and it wasn't something I was in the habit of saying.
That would be the most intrusive surveillance system in existence outside of North Korea. I may be an optimist, but I firmly believe no British government would propose such a scheme and the people wouldn’t tolerate it if they did.
Give how easy even kernel level DRM and anti-cheat software gets cracked open, the system would need support at hardware, firmware and OS levels to be effective. The privacy and security issues would be legion, and to be honest I don't see Microsoft, Apple, Intel or AMD touching it with a bargepole. The UK market isn't worth the enormous reputation hit they'd take from building a blatant back-door into their systems.
Why not, in their view, limit access to “dangerous” computers?
Even if you only ever drove at 40mph on a country lane could you be done if you only slowed down to 35mph at a bend or in heavy rain and a collision occured?
There was an interesting experiment in following Dutch practise and removing road signs and markings - some drivers became extremely angry because “I had to think hard what I was doing, all the time”
I saw the 12 year old entrepreneur again this afternoon - he was helping his dad with my tenant's roof.
He says he did around £1500 last year, when he was 11, from about 10 regular customers and 10 occasional.
At least in Scotland there are proper passing places, rather than a bit where there is an extra six inches between the road and the dry stone wall.
That’s what happens when you do that.