Grumble Thread

[Sir Velo]

Like speeding, though, these are hard rules to police/enforce.

Au contraire, they are in fact easy to police/enforce: it's just that the political will isn't there to do so. Motonormativity gone mad again I'm afraid!

[french frank]

Au contraire, they are in fact easy to police/enforce: it's just that the political will isn't there to do so. Motonormativity gone mad again I'm afraid!

I cannot see that this is rational. Creating laws is one thing. Preventing people from breaking them is another - that is what I would term policing/enforcing them. How do you stop any e-scooterists from jumping any of the traffic the lights in a town or city? Or prosecuting them if they do?

[Sir Velo]

I cannot see that this is rational. Creating laws is one thing. Preventing people from breaking them is another - that is what I would term policing/enforcing them. How do you stop any e-scooterists from jumping any of the traffic the lights in a town or city? Or prosecuting them if they do?

In your previous post you were referring to motoring offences. Now you have thrown in a straw man argument about e-scooterists for some reason

Of course you can prevent and/or enforce prosecution of motor offences. Any of the following actions for starters:

1. CCTV to capture offenders at junctions etc. Rigorous punishment will soon lead to the cessation of this dangerous activity.
2. Compulsory speed limiter technology to be retro fitted on all cars. The technology exists. It's only not implemented due to lack of political will.
3. Rigorous prosecution of offenders with automatic bans for repeat offenders. This would put a stop to it.
4. Mandatory resitting of driving test if exceeding 12 points on licence. Ditto.
5. No discretionary "exceptional hardship" pleas. Ditto.

From a policing perspective you make a concerted effort for a few months by dedicating resource to the enforcement of these laws. High profile prosections will soon instill a public awareness of the repercussions of transgression and behaviour will change accordingly. The fact that you don't see any of these actions as possible or desirable is an example of motonormativity where as a society we have been conditioned into accepting the risks and hazards of motor ownership as normal!

[kernelbogey]

'motonormativity'

I Iove it - (the word!).

[french frank]

In your previous post you were referring to motoring offences. Now you have thrown in a straw man argument about e-scooterists for some reason

We won't argue that point, I don't think mentioning road-using law-breaking e-scooterists as an analogy was a straw man. Only delicacy prevented me, in view of your pseudonym, naming cyclists rather than e-scooterists. All road-users are bound by the Highway Code but the cost of the measures you mention would in the end fall on the tax payers and car owners.

[James Wonnacott]

Highway Code, Rule 114:

"You MUST NOT[*]use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is seriously reduced. You MUST switch them off when visibility improves to avoid dazzling other road users

Can't think how many times I've opened the window and yelled "it's not foggy!" at people

[James Wonnacott]

And another thing--- Lorries with 200 megawatt lights on their roof (Ok, I exagerate a little)

[Serial_Apologist]

Some potentially unforseen consequences could well hang on the 20 mph limit being widely imposed on mainly urban roads and streets right now. You are coming up behind a parked bus or lorry. You hang back 20 yards, as once instructed to do, wait until the opposite lane appears safe for overtaking, and then do a quick spurt to get past before the driver indicates s/he is about to move out. In the olden days this move would be undertaken with prime intentions focused on getting past the obstruction as quickly as possible; today you'd prioritise eyes constantly on the speedometer to make sure you weren't exceeding that speed limit, rather than paying full attention to all the circumstances, such as pedestrians possibly emerging in front of the parked vehicle. It is also widely claimed that keeping to that 20 mph is extremely difficult in motor vehicles of today. I am sure pedestrians were far more self-aware regarding road safety before the advent of mobile phones and time-depriving job requirements and lifestyles.

[oddoneout]

Some potentially unforseen consequences could well hang on the 20 mph limit being widely imposed on mainly urban roads and streets right now. You are coming up behind a parked bus or lorry. You hang back 20 yards, as once instructed to do, wait until the opposite lane appears safe for overtaking, and then do a quick spurt to get past before the driver indicates s/he is about to move out. In the olden days this move would be undertaken with prime intentions focused on getting past the obstruction as quickly as possible; today you'd prioritise eyes constantly on the speedometer to make sure you weren't exceeding that speed limit, rather than paying full attention to all the circumstances, such as pedestrians possibly emerging in front of the parked vehicle. It is also widely claimed that keeping to that 20 mph is extremely difficult in motor vehicles of today. I am sure pedestrians were far more self-aware regarding road safety before the advent of mobile phones and time-depriving job requirements and lifestyles.

Is that likely to be more of a problem than at 30mph? At least in trying not to exceed 20 mph(how many motorists would actually be bothering though for the brief period involved?) during the manoeuvre, any impact on an unseen pedestrian will be at a lower speed than with a 30 mph limit - which is the purpose.
Is keeping to 20 mph actually a problem for modern vehicles - or is it the human at the wheel? Genuine query, as my car is 16 years old, so the fact I don't have a problem reining it in to keep to the lengthy 20 mph stretch through a nearby village could be due to its age - rather than my lack of an issue at travelling at that speed over that(somewhat difficult, hence 20 mph) stretch of road.

[LMcD]

The 'new-look' iWeekend has drastically reduced its coverage of radio listings to a random selection of highlights from various stations. Thank Heaven for Sounds, which has full details of tomorrow's European Christmas Music Fest.

[oddoneout]

The 'new-look' iWeekend has drastically reduced its coverage of radio listings to a random selection of highlights from various stations. Thank Heaven for Sounds, which has full details of tomorrow's European Christmas Music Fest.

The supplement in the local rag only ever had very basic listings, and then some years ago stopped even those so I took to noting, on the current day's TV page, details from the R3 online schedule. Now that R3 has been refreshed there is mostly nothing to note; Wigmore on Monday, perhaps an evening concert, and Sunday's 'riches', so the niggle of having to remember to make those notes before switching off the PC has largely gone...