Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 17 2011, 03:29 PM

Bloggo inspired me to ask: if you were the present Government, what laws would you change or introduce?

Posted by: Simon Aug 17 2011, 03:49 PM

I would change the laws on people moving into the country.

I would block all requests unless they had a skill that this country needed, a valuable job to come to, or had enough money to support themselves.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 17 2011, 03:57 PM

You'll be pinned as a racist then. Wait for it...

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 17 2011, 04:04 PM

I would allow Euthanasia for those people who are so ill that they have no quality of life. Its humane to put down a dog but we are not humane to humans.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Aug 17 2011, 04:22 PM

A little unfair on the Scots and Irish. But no matter.

At the moment we do indeed have a points based system similar to that which you mention, operated by the U.K Borders Agency.


Tier 1 – for highly skilled individuals, who can contribute to growth and productivity;
Tier 2 – for skilled workers with a job offer, to fill gaps in the United Kingdom workforce;
Tier 3 – for limited numbers of low-skilled workers needed to fill temporary labour shortages;
Tier 4 – for students;
Tier 5 – for temporary workers and young people covered by the Youth Mobility Scheme, who are allowed to work in the United Kingdom for a limited time to satisfy primarily non-economic objectives.

In addition, there is presently a cap on non EU immirgants of 24,100 p.a.

Also under the Immigration Rules, if you want to travel to, or remain in the UK, you must show that you can live and support yourself and any dependants without claiming public funds.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 17 2011, 04:38 PM

But not house yourself....

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=17183

Posted by: Strafin Aug 17 2011, 05:02 PM

I would make all lanes of a motorway the same, so that you could stay in any lane and overtake or undertake so that traffic flow is maintained. It would take a bit of getting used too, but would ease a lot of congestion.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 17 2011, 05:07 PM

Where practical, children to have compulsory lessons in First Aid, nutrition & hygiene, animal welfare, and financial matters.

School to have two streams, one that is academically focused, and one that focuses on practical subjects.

All web-based entities to be legally bound to a performance charter in the way they handle complaints (supported by an ombudsman).

A scheme where fast food companies keep the town free of it's waste.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Aug 17 2011, 05:45 PM

Ah, yes. another 'report' from MigrationWatch what can you say?

"MigrationWatch has received criticism in some sections of the media and from academics,....... An August 2002 editorial about MigrationWatch in The Independent carried the title "A nasty little group playing an old, and unwelcome, trick" and stated that "Migration Watch is, of course, no think tank, but a pressure group with a distinctly unpleasant agenda". It has been argued that MigrationWatch's messages "can be taken advantage of by people with Islamophobia and prejudice". The accuracy of the group's research has also been questioned. Academic Richard De Zoysa, for instance, argues that MigrationWatch's predictions of future immigration are exaggerated, while David Robinson, Professor of Housing and Public Policy at Sheffield Hallam University, argues that the group's assertion that immigrants are placing strain on social housing lacks evidence. Economist Philippe Legrain has argued that "MigrationWatch's xenophobic prejudice is causing it to twist the truth" about the impact of immigration on the employment prospects of British people."

But, if it suits your purpose...

Posted by: Strafin Aug 17 2011, 06:05 PM

To be fair the question was "what laws would you change?", doesn't need to be a good idea, justifiable or even fair, it is just a bit of fun.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 17 2011, 06:30 PM

Exactly.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 17 2011, 06:31 PM

Exactly. It would be nice if we could avoid any rowing.

Posted by: Vodabury Aug 17 2011, 06:50 PM

Before anyone can be elected as an MP, they have to have had a proper job in the private sector for at least 10 years.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Aug 17 2011, 06:59 PM

What he / she said,

PLUS two years in work before becoming a teacher, and the Australian system of Compulsory voting.

Posted by: user23 Aug 17 2011, 07:11 PM

A dustman or a doctor couldn't become an MP?

Posted by: Nothing Much Aug 17 2011, 07:15 PM

Before anyone can be elected as an MP, they have to have had a proper job in the private sector for at least 10 years

Such as Big Bob Maxwell, a decorated war veteran. OOOOps that's another one overboard.
I don't have a law to add or take away.
ce.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Aug 17 2011, 07:20 PM

I would make two totally unconnected changes.

1) For traffic lights a) adopt the Belgian system of flashing amber lights at night which are then treated as give way; adopt the US system of allowing (left for the UK) turns against a red light where safe to do so.

2) Adopt the Seven vote system outlined by Nevil Shute in his novel "In the Wet", One vote automatically for registering (as now); a second for obtaining a graduate degree; a third for having undertaken military service; a fourth for a level of charity/philanthropic works; a fifth for raising 2 children to school leaving age in a stable marriage; a sixth for having a certain level of income and a seventh in the personal gift of the Monarch as an honour. So everybody would have between 1 and 7 votes depending on their life experience and success.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 17 2011, 07:44 PM

In the case of the later: too busy...

Posted by: JeffG Aug 17 2011, 08:57 PM

I read that at first as being directed against city-dwellers.

Posted by: blackdog Aug 18 2011, 07:56 AM

There goes half our Olympic gold medals.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 18 2011, 08:14 AM

I thought that, driving on most motorways, we already had that law!!

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 18 2011, 08:21 AM

I think the rules on vehicle MOT's are somewhat outdated and a bit of a money spinner.
Suggest that up to 3 years no MOT required (as is now) 3 to 10 years old every 2 years and older than 10 years annually.
A minor thing I know in the grand scheme of things, but modern vehicles do age better than those of old when the MOT was introduced,

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 18 2011, 08:29 AM

Phlippe Legrian.... Author of Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them

http://twitter.com/#!/PLegrain

Interesting views... He does not like Tories much.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Aug 18 2011, 09:33 AM

Laws I would introduce:

Set up levels of minimum income:

Set up levels of minimum income. Each person has to contribute toward this leve no less that 60 percent. If you can't find a job, one will be given to you. If you don't like that job and fail to do it, you lose all your subsidies/benefits.

Benefits: only benefits for those who are here legally, no execeptions. If you are an asylum seeker, you must work at least 2 years before you get any state benefits. As a condition for me to get my leave to remain visa, I could not get any state benefits at all for 12 months, or I would not get my visa

Immigration: Swift hearings for asylum seekers. If you are convicted of a crime while awaiting either your hearing for asylum or illegal immigration status, your are removed from the UK, no exceptions. Also, if you are not an native english speaker, you must take and pass an english exam 12 months after arriving in the UK. This way if you are successful in staying you have an understanding of the language and can assimulate into the community.

National service: Create a national service organization which not only will put people into the military, but can be used for cleaning parks, streets, reclaiming derlict housing and other community care programs.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 18 2011, 12:14 PM

I'd like to abolish all of them and start again. With today's technology we could make the classic Greek system work. Just imagine an on line forum for real!

Posted by: Simon Aug 18 2011, 12:31 PM

Introduce a one year full pay maternity package for all first time mums if they have been employed for more than 2 years

Posted by: JeffG Aug 18 2011, 02:30 PM

Seriously? The tax payer should fund those that decide to stay at home? (Which used to be the norm in any case.)

Posted by: Simon Aug 18 2011, 02:43 PM

Why not? The mother would have been paying her fair share in tax, and chances are the father would have been too

I think we should be promoting mums to stay home with their children, especially the first

As a working couple, myself and my wife do not qualify for any any help from the government at all and are about to lose a large chunk of my wifes wages and like all the other working parents, this is going to put financial pressure on us, My wife and I have been paying taxes for around 16 years now and it would be nice to have something back.

There seems to be no rewards for the hard working people of this country, just taxes and taxes and taxes

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 18 2011, 03:17 PM

You're aware that English isn't the only national language of the UK, right?

Posted by: Strafin Aug 18 2011, 03:54 PM

It is the only official language though.

Posted by: Vodabury Aug 18 2011, 03:56 PM

English is the language of education, business and government in the UK. My wife (whom I met whilst working overseas) had to pass an English exam before getting entry clearance for the UK, and I totally agree with the policy of requiring immigrants to speak and read/write English if they wish to settle here.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 18 2011, 04:00 PM

Actually the UK doesn't have an official language.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 18 2011, 04:03 PM

Yes it does, it's English.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Aug 18 2011, 04:04 PM

Yes, but what is the official language? When you step outside your door and go to the post office, what should be the langauge? Or in shops?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 18 2011, 04:04 PM

No, it isn't. Welsh and Scottish Gaelic are the first languages in parts of the UK.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Aug 18 2011, 04:06 PM

They are "recognised" languages...

Posted by: Strafin Aug 18 2011, 04:08 PM

Those would be recognised regional languages. English is the only official language of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I know Wikipedia isn't the be all and end all but it's all detailed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_kingdom

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 18 2011, 04:08 PM

It is the de facto language of government and commerce in large parts of the UK, but so too are welsh and scottish gaelic in some areas, and the UK has no de jure official language as is the case in many other countries.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Aug 18 2011, 04:18 PM

English is the de facto language in the U.S., but if you don't speak it, you won't get very far in terms of jobs and services.

Sure, there are some cases where you get street name signs in chinese or spanish, and may even take a drivers test in different languages, but you need to read the road signs while driving.

When you move to a new country, isn't the polite thing to do is assimilate by learning the language and culture. Should you not try to work to better the society you are now in?

Surely the first step is to learn the language.

And you wonder why people do get along, they can't communicate with each other.

I lived in Italy for a couple of years. I could of went where the other American's partied and hung out. I could of spent 8 hours riding a bus every friday to shop for American foods. I wanted to experience and live like the people where I lived.

I learned Italian. I shopped at a market where everything was fresh. I hung out where no other Americans went and made some great friends :-) For those two years I did everything I could to live like and Italian. I had a great time.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 18 2011, 04:20 PM

Either way the same point as I made before still applies - it was a question about what laws would people like to introduce themselves, so it doesn't matter.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 18 2011, 04:21 PM

And Phil, it's could have, would have or should have.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 18 2011, 04:22 PM

Yes. Take a trip to the Western Isles or parts of North Wales (both areas of the UK) and bang on loudly in a pub about the need to assimilate the language and culture of England. Please.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Aug 18 2011, 04:32 PM

You obviously didn't understand when I wrote



If I lived in Wales, I would try to learn Welsh if that was the "recognised language" spoke by everyone. When we lived in Ireland, we did learn a little gaelic and my son studied it in school, even though everyone spoke english.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Aug 18 2011, 04:36 PM

I am speaking my "recognised" language of New Yorkese American English in the Republic of Phil...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_dialect

Posted by: JeffG Aug 18 2011, 06:11 PM

Sorry, I didn't spot where 'have' is replaced by 'of' in that dialect.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 18 2011, 09:53 PM

Me neither....

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Aug 18 2011, 11:28 PM

I take it you guys help tutor all those who got A* on the english A levels..

Posted by: Simon Aug 19 2011, 10:16 AM

one day, maybe, we could stick to the topic of the origional post

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 19 2011, 10:18 AM

Nah - Some trolls on this forum only want to criticise peoples grammar!

Posted by: Strafin Aug 19 2011, 05:02 PM

To be fair I only criticised Phil's spelling because he was saying that everyone should learn the mother tongue of the country you live in, whilst demonstrating the opposite. It was an opportunity for sarcasm that overwhelmed me. I am weak, but that has nothing to do with "trolling".

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Aug 19 2011, 05:12 PM

Spelling or grammar, get it right..

BTW - nobody's perfect...

Posted by: GrumblingAgain Aug 19 2011, 05:13 PM

A law I would like to change is the one that dictates how many parking spaces must be made available when new housing is built.

I believe spaces are worked out by multiplying the number of houses by 1.5

Having read that the developers want to turn the land occupied by the Blue Ball pub into 8 houses with just 12 parking spaces, I feel that those houses will attract at least 2 and probably 3 or 4 cars per house when you take into account husband & wife cars, and if old enough their 2 children's cars to say nothing of friends visiting. I would image the area around that pub will get a bit crowded.

I'd like to see the law changed so that parking spaces are calculated based on the number of bedrooms in each house! That would give a much more realistic calculation of parking requirements and would actually force greedy developers to tone down their plans a bit.

So with the Blue Ball application for 2 x 2 bed houses and 6 x 3 beds, it would work out at 22 spaces. Naturally there won't be enough room, so then developers would have to reduce the houses to perhaps just 5 or give up and leave the pub alone so it can remain a pub

Posted by: Strafin Aug 19 2011, 05:28 PM

Do you not see the irony in criticising people for "knowing the lingo" whilst making grammatical errors? It was meant light heartedly.

Posted by: Nothing Much Aug 19 2011, 05:48 PM

I gave up irony after discovering myself talking whilst ironing some shirts.
How sad, no one to bore except your shirts.... as for gram ma,leave her alone.
She paid her taxis.
I'll come back to laws, but I agree about the parking places and housing.
ce

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Aug 19 2011, 07:18 PM

I may make a few grammatical errors (nobody's perfect), but I will stand by my statement (irony, lighthearted or not) that if you immigrate to the UK, you should understand and pass an english exam. I will take any test the government gives me to stand by what I say.

I stand by my comments regarding a language test, as there are people who have been in the UK for decades who still don't know the language, but have expectations that all forms, etc should be in their language.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 19 2011, 07:20 PM

I would legalise all drugs for personal use, disestablish the church of england, abolish all taxes and duties except for income tax, cancel trident, leave NATO, half the size of the armed forces, abolish planning permission and building control, nationalise the rail and utility companies, abolish social services, outlaw all religeous symbols and costumes except for full pirate regalia, abolish every single quango, and abolish all central government ministries and departments except for defence, home office, and transport, and create a new one for the utilities. I'd also make being an MP an unpaid role, and I'd have parliament sit for six weeks a year and limit it to passing only six acts each sitting with no statutory instruments, and only then if they repealed ten times as much legislation as they passed.

Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 19 2011, 10:06 PM

By Jove Sir, you have it !! bang on the jolly old nose as we say in dear old Blighty ! What a simply spiffing idea. hoorah for you !! you did however forget to mention the return of the jolly old "Droite de Signeur" Jolly popular in my family at one time.

Posted by: Nothing Much Aug 20 2011, 11:10 AM

Just spent an amusing spell catching up on "Droite de Signeur".
I was slightly mixing it up with standing up on buses for older folk.

It seems that Lord Coe's ancestors used that in the dim and distant past.
Catherine Cookson more or less used the theme in her bodice ripper stories, usually with Robson as the lead.

The whole idea seems to have been a myth until Voltaire wrote a play produced after his death and the idea took off.
Interestingly in the references there was a Roman Emperor who took it upon himself to see to both the bride and groom.
A fictional account written for a TV programme.

Hackney cab drivers are still allowed in London to p** up against a rear wheel in the street.Not sure about the other needs.

Posted by: blackdog Aug 20 2011, 01:26 PM

No - they are not that generous. The parking spaces for blocks of flats are limited (yes limited) to 2 spaces for every 3 flats. The Blue Ball application could even fail for having too many spaces.

A friend of mine built a small development of luxury houses - his original application was turned down because he designed in too many parking spaces. He removed a space from each house by grassing it over (so the purchasers could add the extra space if they wanted to) and got planning approval.

Posted by: Nothing Much Aug 20 2011, 02:09 PM

Parking spaces. It does seem a policy at present in inner cities to not allow resident parking permits at all.
Many old Victorian schools and playgrounds are being re-used/developed. Streetcar is popular. My daughter sometimes has to use it, often a BMW 1 series. Fine for short journeys to IKEA for example,pricey for longer trips.

I tried streetview to see the "Blue Ball".I only found a rather nice old house. I guess the development would be behind on the carpark or bowling green. Those are disappearing fast.

I am up there with Guido Fawkes, and Simon Kirby.(I suspect a moment of jest!) Let's have a hung Parliament...literally.
(that would sort out the mess).
Too many researchers are just waiting their turn to get on the gravy train. Not to mention the CEOs of Local Authorities.
Silly dreams.
ce

Posted by: On the edge Aug 20 2011, 03:08 PM

What about a law that said anyone promoting or implementing a restrictive regulation like this should have it applied to themselves - immediately. In this case - the Planning Committee and the Planners would all be required to give up their own domestic parking spaces. Sounds fair to me?

Posted by: Cognosco Aug 20 2011, 04:14 PM

You will usually find that the majority of laws that are applied are not indeed fair! They are worded to generally try and exclude those that are making them from any penalty if broken by them if at all possible.

Posted by: Nothing Much Aug 20 2011, 06:17 PM

Donkeys ears ago. The late mrs Nothing Much was a Westminster type employed by Utilities to put forward their
views on "roadworks",.....Not an easy subject at the time.

We all wanted broadband,electricity and gas repairs done yesterday, not to mention old water mains.
Most of the London hold-ups were TFL, local authority EU"Boulevard funded" projects. It mattered not.
Hammer utilities said Blair.

She found the quality of Law Making astoundingly ambiguous following a round of redundancies in the civil service.

A retired lawyer she employed as a consultant was astonished by the lax attitude to new laws.
Ok .It might have cost money, but civil servant lawyers used to check almost every word and phrase for possible errors.
No longer it seems.
ce

Posted by: John C Nov 2 2011, 11:45 AM

Repeal most of the human rights act with regards to convicts, so that thyey are not pampered in prison, are not entitled to multi satalight chanel TV as a right, and if there are here illegaly, or failed asylum seekers the can be deported. Bring back the death penalty.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 2 2011, 03:51 PM

One of the several difficulties with what you propose is that the Human Rights Act hasn't got anything to do with the supposed problems that you take issue with. Why do you think it has?

Posted by: xjay1337 Nov 2 2011, 04:58 PM

What a pleasant fellow you may be.

No-one deserves to be killed. Doth unto others as you want unto done yourself or something.

Posted by: Strafin Nov 2 2011, 06:51 PM

I think some people do deserve to be killed. Pol pot, Hussein, and Bin Laden to name a few.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 2 2011, 07:23 PM

Too late - they're all dead.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 2 2011, 07:40 PM

And they deserved it!

Posted by: John C Nov 2 2011, 09:37 PM

But Baby P's Mother Tracey Connelly and her boyfriend Steven Barker isn't, Ian Huntley the Souham murderer, or, Rose West, + a few others

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 2 2011, 10:04 PM

So you're saying bring back the death penalty. Fine, I agree. But why do you want to repeal the HRA?

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 2 2011, 10:05 PM

Err, because if you have a fair and just society you don't need one !

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 2 2011, 10:06 PM

Don't need one what?

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 2 2011, 10:09 PM

HRA ?

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 2 2011, 10:20 PM

I can't see that a fair and just society is possible with humans. I don't think our instincts permit us to be fair as we have a hierarchical society. We want to win and succeed and to do that someone somewhere has to pay.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 2 2011, 10:40 PM

So you're saying that, being a fair and just society, we should repeal the HRA so that, for example, the state can sumarily execute tradesunionists by smearing them with peanut butter and pegging them out in the woods to be eaten alive by badgers?

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 2 2011, 10:44 PM

OOOh yes, ( and I would even pay for the peanut butter) who says you don't come up with any good ideas ?

Posted by: spartacus Nov 2 2011, 11:28 PM

If it's 'death by peanut butter' then I would suggest that it would be squirrels (those nasty American Grey imports) rather than badgers that would be the killers.....

Posted by: x2lls Nov 3 2011, 06:43 AM

Make it mandatory for cars to have indicators.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 3 2011, 08:31 AM

Don't you mean make the use of them mandatory? Or that when the wheel is turned they come on without human intervention?

Posted by: xjay1337 Nov 3 2011, 08:51 AM

That means when navigating a long left hand turn your indicator will be going off?

Think it through.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 3 2011, 08:53 AM

I suggest the opposite: ban indicators. They are too difficult for people to use!

Posted by: x2lls Nov 3 2011, 09:29 AM

Mandatory would be good, but coming on when the wheel turns is a bit late lol



I have.
Did you not understand my logic?




Quite!!!!




Actually, I was being sarcastic, by implying that due to what appears to be the majority of drivers (Or do they just not use them when they encounter me?) failing to use them, I thought the manufacturers had stopped fitting them. It may be helpful if instead, they include in the price, a training session or two so that we can become psychic!

Posted by: xjay1337 Nov 3 2011, 10:11 AM

If there was any logic to it then I would probably understand it.

Posted by: John C Nov 3 2011, 10:28 AM

Sorry for the delay had to go back furyther than I thought

Just a few
http://www.bukisa.com/articles/421050_human-rights-act-abuse
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/31238/Migrants-abuse-Human-Rights-Act
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23598130-bid-to-rebalance-human-rights-act.do
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-463264/Why-prisoners-human-rights-old-folk-care.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/1161480/Police-chief-Attack-Killers-Abuse-Human-Rights-Act.html
http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/prisoner-vote-ban-is-not-a-human-rights-issue/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392885/Prisoner-allowed-father-child-jail-human-right-family-life.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/83648-migrants-abuse-human-rights-act


I did not say repeal HRA, I said with regards to convicts

Posted by: blackdog Nov 3 2011, 12:34 PM

Strange, women seem to find it a lot easier to use them than men.

Posted by: xjay1337 Nov 3 2011, 05:24 PM

Unfortunately they also find driving a much harder task.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 3 2011, 05:40 PM

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 3 2011, 05:49 PM

And keeping the footwells clear.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 3 2011, 06:03 PM

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 3 2011, 06:03 PM

Not sure why that posted twice but again!

Posted by: Nothing Much Nov 3 2011, 06:14 PM

I think everyone should indicate at all times, regardless of lack of traffic.
There are often jaywalkers who would be happy to see where a car is going.
Such as moi.
It also keeps you thinking about your driving. I always indicate.
Most cars have a 3 or 4 second short burst. In queues at roundabouts
it is easy to do when you are next in line.

Personally I do look for indicators whether as a jaywalker or a driver.
I don't think it should be an end of the world offence though.
ce

Posted by: blackdog Nov 3 2011, 06:54 PM

Well, if they put more into it (indicating, keeping below the speed limit, watching for pedestrians, etc) I guess it is harder.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 3 2011, 07:48 PM

They've even got their own http://women-drivers.net/ and http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/London%27s_Association_of_Women_Drivers !!!!!

Posted by: user23 Nov 3 2011, 07:56 PM

I'd probably change the laws of physics.

Posted by: Nothing Much Nov 3 2011, 08:19 PM

So you are Higg's Bosun then.
ce

Posted by: Nothing Much Nov 3 2011, 08:21 PM

At the speed of light perhaps that should be Bosun Higgs.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Nov 3 2011, 08:51 PM

Actually, it does the opposite as signalling becomes automatic rather than taking account of the immediate conditiods/situation

Posted by: Nothing Much Nov 3 2011, 10:31 PM

Can't agree with that, not an automatic gesture at all.
I just judge the road and who else is there, or likely to appear.
And there is usually someone else to consider these busy days.

ce.

Posted by: xjay1337 Nov 4 2011, 11:21 AM

Indication is not a right of way nor is it a signal for a manoeuvre. Having an indicator flashing does not mean you can push infront of someone or cut someone up...infact it means you're a complete male chicken.

How many people indicate to turn left and then drive past several junctions/turnings before actually turning right?

How many people drive down a straight road with their indicators on because they are too stupid to notice the big green flashing light on their dashboard or the sound of the relay (the click click click click)?

Additionally how many people indicate about 2 meters before their chosen junction and slam their brakes on...

If you read that website most of it is compilations of crashes, parking dings, and that sort of stuff.

Posted by: JeffG Nov 4 2011, 12:19 PM

Substitute "pedestrians" for "jaywalkers" and you'd be right. And pedestrians are a form of traffic. But as others have said, indicating automatically (a substitute for keeping a good lookout) is not a good habit to get into.

Posted by: Nothing Much Nov 4 2011, 01:08 PM

Well I do walk across the main A1 into Central London. There is a crossing 60 metres away,but most cars and vans are turning into my road to avoid the Angel and congestion zone. I am only heading for the Telegraph from Sainsburys on the other side. So I, as do most others ignore the crossing.
It is handy to see indicators in advance of a turn to judge gaps. That's from a pedestrian's point of view.

From a driving point of view it might appear an automatic thing to do but it is completely necessary.
I am sure Newbury is just as busy as anywhere.
There are pedestrians, such as myself, cyclists such as my daughter, scooters and motorbikes everywhere.
Indicating indeed gives no right to manoevre, but it does give a chance for the opposite side "nose to tail" to
think "shall I leave a small gap?".
ce

Posted by: Nothing Much Nov 4 2011, 01:16 PM

It also keeps you thinking about your driving. I always indicate.

From an earlier post of mine. So I don't think automatic indication is an automatic right to do what you want.
Just to give an ide of what you plan in a while. Which gives others some idea of how to proceed.
ce

Posted by: blackdog Nov 4 2011, 01:35 PM

Perhaps they should modify cars so that they will not turn at a junction unless the indicators have been on for at least 5 secs prior to making the turn?

Posted by: xjay1337 Nov 4 2011, 01:44 PM

I think that quite regularly and then say to myself "since they came barrelling down the outside of everyone to try and fit in 5 cars further up the queue they can shut their face and wait" and I keep as close to the car infront as possible in that situation.

Especially people on the Robin Hood roundabout. People who come out from Northbrook Street heading back towards Thatcham past the Travelodge, who sit in the right hand lane (A34 lane) rather than the left one, despite a HUGE sign saying CLEARLY what lane goes where - I have forced people up the A34 because they have tried to push in and I've sped up/slowed down as required.

Two reasons: A- It'll teach them to read road signs in the future and B- It'll teach them to not try and squeeze into a gap because they're too stupid to try and get behind the traffic or just accept their mistake and go round in a big old loop.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 4 2011, 01:49 PM

Which in my view demonstrates how irresponsible you are as a driver and you don't deserve a licence.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2011, 01:57 PM

So you push them out of the lane they are in and up the A34?

Posted by: Nothing Much Nov 4 2011, 02:09 PM

Sorry XJ. I was simply talking of etiquette in slow moving main road single lane traffic.
Giving a gap to someone to cross over at a junction is not too hard.

I have often ended up in the wrong lane in strange towns and been treated well.
As I do to those racing to the end of the M11 with the well known camera.

ce

Posted by: xjay1337 Nov 4 2011, 02:42 PM

No, I simply drive alongside them (as in, I'm in the correct lane, they are in the lane going up to the A34). They would have been in the correct lane but they try to jump the queue. How would I be able to push people out of the lane? I am not a transformer or something.

It's probably better to explain by pictures.

Here's where I'm talking about.



Heading back towards Thatcham, I would be in the same lane as the Fiesta (the CORRECT lane for my journey). Clearly labeled on the road and there is a big sign by the turning on the left before the Fire Station back entrance.

A car will then come up in the right hand lane, normally jumping the queue of traffic, and try to "jump" everyone off the lights and cut across. This is dangerous, not only is it a willful disrespect of the road layout but can also cause a collision between vehicles as the car in the right hand lane (A34 lane) collides with the car in the correct lane when merging.


Now I am understanding people who are new to the area and out of protection of my own car rather than caring about anyone else, I will generally be the one to back off in a confrontation - if I spot they have a sat nav I will always hang back, however 95% of the people who do this live in Newbury, and I know this either because I recognise their car, or because they manage to get ahead and end up turning into one of the estates to the left, opposite the Mercedes dealer.




So anyway I would be the big black 4x4 and the moron who can't read the road sign will be the silver car, and I would simply slow down/speed up in order to keep alongside the vehicle so it is not able to come across. Childish and immature, yes. Does it prove a point, which is my *point* - well I'd think that person wouldn't do that again - dangerous? Not really.



Oh I agree.
in terms of junctions, blocking turnings etc is stupid, gaps should always be left, for example in traffic, even if nothing is turning at that time.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 4 2011, 02:50 PM

I would just simply out accelerate you and get in the lane that I desired!

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2011, 02:53 PM

Right, but if you are the Fiesta in the first pic & then the 4X4 in the second you have moved lanes - if you had not you'd be off on the A4 towards Hungerford. Meanwhile the chap who has sat at the lights in the R hand lane ( although the incorrectly signed lane ) hasn't actually changed lane.....

Posted by: xjay1337 Nov 4 2011, 02:54 PM

I doubt as a motorcyclist you would perform such a silly action, you'd use your superior observation skills to be in the correct lane anyway.

So what do you think of this? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15596588





No, it's a spiral roundabout, the lanes go outwards. Please see my drawing which is an absolute masterpiece, clearly in 50 years this will be on display in the National Art Museum and will easily sell for millions of pounds.



So the solid grey line indicates the seperation of lanes in terms of direction (a4 and a34) and the dotted line indicates the actual lane layout. Hope you can understand it. So the A34 lane breaks off into the dual carridgeway which goes up and towards the A34. The A4 lane breaks into 2, one for Thatcham and one for Hungerford direction. You can go down and see that in action.
You get me?

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 4 2011, 02:56 PM

Sorry Danny have to agree with xjay on that one - the lh lane is for A4 Thatcham / Hungerford, the rh lane is for the A339 (A34). If you deviate from that you have changed lanes.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 4 2011, 02:57 PM

Posted by: JeffG Nov 4 2011, 03:29 PM

Another agreement with XJay on this one. I've moaned often enough in this forum about exactly the same crass behaviour at that junction (right hand lane cutting in and crossing the clearly marked dotted line thereby changing lanes from the A339 northbound).

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2011, 03:33 PM

Don't get me wrong - I realise Xjay is technically in the right, but the lane markings are not at all clear & the general perception is that the lh is for Hungerford/B3009 & the rh is for A339/A34/A4E. Forcing another road user to 'do the right thing' is two wrongs. Which do not make a right.

Posted by: xjay1337 Nov 4 2011, 03:37 PM

I think it's perfectly clear. My Mum none the less (60-something year old woman) who will do exactly what I'm saying; jump the queue and push in. While I am a passenger and she goes to do this I will have a go at her, to which she says "Don't tell me how to drive, I've been driving for blah blah years" - To which I say "well, that as may be, but you clearly forgot how to obey the rules of the road". She doesn't like that. It's a problem with a lot of elder people in my eyes, awareness of the rules but an arrogance clouded by "years of experience" rather than actual ability (because they two are not directly proportional).

She does it because she doesn't want to wait in a queue like anyone else, she is aware of the rule but disobeys it because she wants to. I feel this is the case for 80-90% (my estimation) of people who do this. It's clearly labelled both on the road and on a big sign on the approach to the traffic lights - if you are new to an area you should be paying extra attention to road signs and markings anyway. Ignorance is not an excuse!

Group hug?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2011, 03:39 PM

Ignorance is not an excuse!


you would have loved the bollarding threads.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2011, 03:41 PM

ps your artwork contains some artistic license!

Posted by: JeffG Nov 4 2011, 03:43 PM

For a while it wasn't, but since they re-painted that dotted line showing the left lane from London Road feeding into the two lanes going past the fire station, it is now perfectly clear.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2011, 03:45 PM

Next time I'm cycling around the RH I'll have a look.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 4 2011, 03:46 PM

And you have forgotten the rule about not distracting the driver.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 4 2011, 03:47 PM

Now we've cleared that one up everyone will carry on doing exactly as they did before!!

Posted by: JeffG Nov 4 2011, 03:49 PM

What we need is a few policemen on point duty

Posted by: xjay1337 Nov 4 2011, 03:52 PM

Probably.



I am quite a distracting passenger. Although between talking on the phone (rare but does happen), smoking and playing with her plastic bag on the gearstick, there's little opportunity for any actual distractions.

When I used to be a passenger (not with her I should add) I would take off my trousers which certainly caused a few close calls and a few red faces!

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 4 2011, 03:56 PM

OK what about this one then?

At a roundabout with 4 roads converging..........

If you are turning left you indicate left. Obvious
If you are going straight on you don't indicate until you are approaching the exit. Obvious.
BUT.....
If you are turning right do you indicate right as you approach and go round the roundabout and then indicate left as you approach the exit OR do you not indicate until you signal left as you approach your exit?
In other words do you or do you not indicate as you go round the roundabout but only left as you approach your exit?????

Posted by: xjay1337 Nov 4 2011, 03:59 PM

I would indicate right around the roundabout and then left at my exit. Whether that is legal or not (probably is the right thing to do anyway) but if not that's what would make sense.

Unless of course you're supposed to indicate left and then turn right. To really add to the challenge you could drive with your hazard lights on. That'd really confuse people.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2011, 04:02 PM

Posted by: Nothing Much Nov 4 2011, 04:04 PM

ps your artwork contains some artistic license!
I thought it was a bit medical.

I agree you should be more aware in strange towns and follow road markings.
My mum/your mum is not the best person to take advice from.

I refused the SatNav option. I would rather take the long route round than have an electronic
female tell me what to do. The times I have been round a roundabout looking for an out of the way village.
All the while keeping in the correct lane looking for the tiny sign at the bottom of the list.

ce

Posted by: Nothing Much Nov 4 2011, 04:13 PM

Nah XJ I'd have nicked a Corsa and gorn across the middle.

Sorry about that, I believe you have the correct procedure at a roundabout.
I am sure there is a Public Service Broadcast from the 1950s describing the proper methods.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 4 2011, 04:24 PM

Yes but women didn't drive then!!

Posted by: xjay1337 Nov 4 2011, 04:29 PM

Like the PG tips advert; ended up something like this





It started off as a duck with a broken leg but ended up like that.



are you talking about my mum again?

Posted by: Nothing Much Nov 4 2011, 05:16 PM

I think we are having a bit of a laugh at the moment.
I am sure someone will put us all on the naughty step soon.... "Get back on topic"

Xjay and Biker 1, my mother drove a 1952 Buick convertible, in stages from Baghdad to Yorkshire in 1953.
Tricky times in the Balkan regions. Something went wrong with a pothole problem and they pulled up at a town to find a garage.

Speak to the Mayor they all said, so parents did...Mayor said It will be fixed tomorrow."Engineer will be there"
Strange evening in a communal guesthouse. Next morning dead on time the Mayor turns up in overalls
blowtorch at the ready and we were on the road again.
Ahhh the old days of motoring.
ce

Posted by: Vodabury Nov 4 2011, 05:26 PM

Some roundabouts are confusing take, for example, jn 15 M4.

Leaving the M4 Westbound, the 2 lane exit ramp splits into 3 lanes at the roundabout. Normally you would think left lane=left, middle lane=straight over and right lane=right.

But most traffic leaving the M4 here is to go right onto the dual carriageway (A419) to Swindon and Cirencester. So both middle and right lane tend to have traffic turning right (as you would not want to rejoin the motorway again so the middle lane is not really seen for that purpose perhaps). But it is the left lane that splits into two, not the right. So some people (who know the junction) and who are turning right, are initally in the left lane (to move into the middle lane when it splits). And the road markings do not help.

I have seen many car drivers obviously see the extra (middle) lane at the last minute and to beat a queue, move into it from the right - to the blaring of horns from cars in the left lane who see themselves cut up - as it is their lane which is splitting into two, not the right lane.

Posted by: Nothing Much Nov 4 2011, 05:57 PM

Ok I agree it is the University "Road Plan"course that is at fault.

There is a huge roundabout for Shepherds Bush and Notting Hill and to the North.
I use it often. It starts with 3 lanes but in 25 metres has become 6 lanes.
It was always thus and you can't blame Westfield for the extra trouble,but it is
a bit of an Arc de Triomphe to get round to where you want to exit.
Indicators are a waste of time!

Posted by: Strafin Nov 4 2011, 06:07 PM

I am sorry XJay but that is really poor driving - you don't know if someone has made a genuine mistake or not. I don't expect you to just jump out of the way, but speeding up and slowing down is dangerous, necessary and just going out of your way to be a nuisance, which is worse than the actions you are having a go at others for doing.

Posted by: Vodabury Nov 4 2011, 06:24 PM

Not only that; if there were to be a collision and it was suspected (let alone established by admission!) that Xjay was driving in such a manner then (irrespective of whether his vehicle was physically in contact or not) he could find himself on the wrong end of civil or criminal action. Xjay, why put yourself on offer mate? Take a chill pill

Posted by: xjay1337 Nov 5 2011, 12:31 PM

Well if you put it like that..