Only one EV charger at home?!...

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 13/06/2023 11:00, Ian Jackson wrote:

In message <u69cuh$3hshm$3@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
tnp@invalid.invalid> writes
On 12/06/2023 21:31, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <frKhM.16126$sXTc.15557@fx11.iad>, Scott Lurndal
scott@slp53.sl.home> writes
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> writes:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 17:32:27 +0100, SteveW wrote:

I think that they were initially against the idea, as the first
versions
were very different to ours, with cars on the roundabout having to
give
way to those entering - leading to no end of chaos and accidents.

In the \'70s I had to get a Massachusetts drivers license. Rotaries and
roundabouts were very popular in that state and in studying for the
written exam I was surprised to find that the only regulation was
traffic
must go counterclockwise.

That was apparently a study failure on your part.  The rule in MA
has always been that traffic already in a roundabout has the
right-of-way;
traffic in roteries depends on site signage, most are signed that
incoming
traffic must yield.

Without checking, I\'m not sure when we first had roundabouts
(full-size  and mini) in the UK. However, with very few exceptions,
the rule has  always been \'priority to traffic on your right\'. As we
drive on the  left, and circulate clockwise, this means that traffic
on the roundabout  has priority, and traffic on the left (entering
the roundabout) must  give way. [There are some rare, well-marked
exceptions.]

I cannot remember a time without roundabouts so  it must be earlier
than around 1955...

DOT says 1956, but I lived on a roundaboiut as the turnaround end of a
private road cul de sac from 1953, and no one went round that the
\'wrong way\'


I don\'t know when Continental Europe (where, like the USA, they drive
on  the right) adopted roundabouts, but historically, in many
countries,  they had a legendary \'priority to the right\' rule for all
road  junctions. This meant that you could be hacking along a major
road, and  someone could come straight into your path from a
side-road on the  right. This meant that traffic already circulating
anti-clockwise on a  roundabout had to give way to traffic entering
(from the right). The  obvious consequence was that a busy roundabout
could soon seize up  solid. [I recall being obliged to drive three
times around the Arc de  Triomphe in Paris before being able to peal
off down one of the side  roads.]

Yep, BTDTGTTS. To ceate a fuckup takes a bureaucrat, To create a world
class clusterfuck takes a French bureaucrat...They now work for the EU.


In more recent years, the European \'priority to the right\' rule was
relaxed and replaced. On roundabouts, traffic on a roundabout now
usually does have priority, and traffic joining or crossing main
roads no longer are allowed to barge in from the right. However, in
the absence of signs specifically indicating that the \'priority to
the right\' rule does not apply, \'priority to the right\' is still the
default situation.

Which is fun when you are barrelling down a dual carriageway at 115mph
and some Belgian decides to pull out on to it, and then panic and
start changing lanes randomly in an effort to get out of your way. I
didn\'t care if I passed right or left, but a weaving car presented a
problem...

IIRC, the Arc de Triomphe (Place de l\'Etoile) roundabout was sanitized
about 30 years ago. Also, these days you\'re unlikely to find \'priority
to the right\' on busy roads.

Even in those days (35 years ago) most drivers didn\'t exercise their
rights, but used common sense. This was IIRC the Belgian equivalent of a
wingnut in a morris minor.

I didn\'t have time to examine him closely




--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 13/06/2023 10:49, NY wrote:

\"The Natural Philosopher\" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:u69c6s$3hshm$1@dont-email.me...
On 12/06/2023 18:03, rbowman wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 16:39:19 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

Yes, I know - but many drivers still can\'t get the hang of them.
Mini-roundabouts don\'t exist, and they still prefer the \'Four Way Stop\'

Some of the residential intersections have adopted mini-roundabouts.
Essentially you take a normal intersection and plant flowers in the
middle. The flowers tend to have a hard life since you can\'t really
navigate it with anything larger than a passenger car.

Most of the affected intersections were either two-way stops or no stop
signs at all. On narrow residential streets where typical speeds are 25
mph or less drivers seem to have been able to work out negotiating
unsigned intersections without running into each other.

They work best where traffic density is high and all roads leading to
them have approximately equal traffic.

The theory is that the rules are very simple. Give way to traffic on
the roundabout. This is a lot easier than a 4 way stop.

And in light traffic they do not result in a mandatory stop either.

Used for their own sake in inappropiate locations they are crap.

The problem with mini roundabouts is their very small radius so they are
very tight. Essentially a white disc is painted on a road whose kerbs
are designed for a cross roads, so you need to slow to a crawl to turn
very hard left to get onto the roundabout and then very hard right to go
round it, and then very hard left to leave. Ok, so a lot of people drive
over the painted disc, using it as a means to establish priority while
still allowing you to take the normal straight-on or turn-right path
that you would take at a cross roads. When the disc is painted, that it
OK in the Highway Code, but some roundabouts are raised and you are
supposed (somehow!) to steer round them.

That was the original rule in the Highway code. Some anti-car bureaucrat
changed that to it being illegal to cross them

Larger roundabouts are fine: they work well and (crucially) you don\'t
have to stop completely if you can see that your way is clear; small
roundabouts retro-fitted into unsuitable kerbs are a pain.

AS a mark of priority they are excellent,. As a thing you must drive
around it is almost EU like in its petty bureaucratic enforcement of
stupid rules, just because you can.

Anything is better than the American four-way-stop junctions. They fail
badly (as far as I am concerned) for two reasons: they force everyone to
stop even if there is no other traffic; they rely on *time* of arrival
to determine who goes next, whereas UK junctions always use *position*
(traffic on minor road gives way to traffic on major road, or traffic
wanting to enter a roundabout gives way to traffic coming from the right
which is already on the roundabout). The best junctions are those where
everyone can agree who has priority over whom, based on position and
road markings; the worst (which we mostly avoid in the UK) is a junction
where everyone has equal priority and no-one has a f-ing clue who should
go next. At least all (most) cross roads in the UK which don\'t have
lights or a roundabout have a clearly defined and marked/signed major
road and minor road. not a meeting of two roads of equal status which is
a recipe for a free-for-all.

OTOH, on very light traffic, where more than one car waiting is a
rarity, they are fine


I was on a fast straight cross country road near here, when I saw a
vehicle coming on a road at right angles. Assuming I had right of way I
kept going until I finally saw the dreaded triangle of \'give way\' I only
just stopped in time.

At leats with a 4 way stop you know you have to stop

I was watching a driver\'s eye view of a car journey in the early 60s and
at one roundabout the driver commented that he would go ahead and not
give way to traffic from his left. Looks as if the
priority-from-the-right rule at roundabouts was less well understood in
those days. He made it sound as if in those days it was a matter of
courtesy who went first, rather than a rule that was defined in the
Highway Code.

By the time I passed my test in the 60s, it was well drilled into you as
part of the highway code. Prior to that and indeed prior to 1956,
roundabouts existed but there were no formalised rules

There was a junction (Ryde seafront, on the Isle of Wight) always caught
me out because I saw it as a roundabout and then had to think \"on this
occasion, priority from the right does *not* apply\". I think it was this
one https://goo.gl/maps/YjwzFiEKv92xPs5d8 which would seem to have been
redesigned since I was last there - or maybe I\'ve not got the correct
location.

I remember hitching on the exit to a roundabout in the West country and
seeing a small family car drive onto the roundabout without slowing and
get hit by a substantial l big saloon that had it up on two wheels and
nearly flipping..

Not as bad as the car that I saw roll over twice, who was obeying the
speed limit but failed to notice that concrete piece of \'traffic
calming\' placed directly in his path.

Road rules have moved from \'keep cars moving, give them hazard warnings
and clear simple rules\' to \'if possible fuck the motorist up at every
possible turn, stop them for no reason at traffic lights that have no
traffic, tax him, fine him and wreck his car for him\'.


--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 8:36:34 PM UTC+10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 13/06/2023 10:49, NY wrote:
\"The Natural Philosopher\" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:u69c6s$3hshm$1...@dont-email.me...
On 12/06/2023 18:03, rbowman wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 16:39:19 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

<snipped tedious drivel>

Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

Richard Lindzen used to have more sense than that.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

says that that the global temperature has gone up by about 1 degree Celcius.. Nobody has panicked - in fact there isn\'t enough attention being paid to slowing
down and reversing the effect, and the computer projections are all too plausible.

Nobody sane is contemplating any rollback of the industrial age - the idea only comes up in climate change denial propaganda where it is attributed to a non-existent lunatic fringe of the green movement. In reality renewable energy sources - solar cells and wind turbines - are perfectly capable of supplying the all the energy we use at the moment - and rather more - and rather more cheaply than you can get it by burning fossil carbon. They are intermittent sources so we need more grid storage than we have at the moment - batteries and pumped hydroelectric storage, but that is perfectly practical and is is getting installed.

It\'s gibbering idiocy, and the Natural Philosopher posts quite a lot of that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Mon, 15 May 2023 16:54:31 +0100, Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:

On 15/05/2023 00:42, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 22:17:47 +0100, Carlos E.R.
robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:


On 2023-04-18 13:04, SteveW wrote:
On 17/04/2023 23:45, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-04-18 00:27, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 23:15:39 +0100, Carlos E.R.
robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-04-17 19:42, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 11:59:15 +0100, Carlos E.R.
robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2023-04-17 11:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/04/2023 20:02, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-04-16 20:44, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 16/04/2023 19:12, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 18:18:20 +0100, Colin Bignell
cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

On 16/04/2023 08:34, Commander Kinsey wrote:
https://www.smarthomecharge.co.uk/features/do-you-need-two-home-charge-points-if-you-have-two-evs/

\"Some products will have the ability to “load
share”, which means they will communicate with
each if two vehicles are plugged in. In this
scenario, they will evenly split the power
available so both cars charge at the same rate,
but this will be at around 3-3.6kW – in other
words half of the available 7.4kW from the
supply.\"

WTF? A UK home supply is 24kW.

The most common UK domestic contract is for a 17kVA supply.

Bollocks. 240V, 100A. Never seen anything else.

There are also 80A and 60A main breakers, but the
limit to what you can draw is not what the circuit is
rated for, but what your contract with the
electricity supply company specifies you can have.

Do you have some kind of hardware enforcing the limit?

A large fuse upstream.

And usually a main house circuit breaker,


The typical contract here for a flat is 3.6 KW. I think the
max is
around 15 or 18.

Its colder in Britain.


Oh, a house with electrical heating will have a bigger contract.
Possibly three-phase.

Air conditioning? Surely you use one or the other?

Me? Yes, on one of the rooms.

Yes, you certainly can have separate electrical house heating and air
conditioning.

At 3.6kW total, the AC would be using at least half that!

So?

If you want more, pay more and get it.

We pay more because using more means using more units. We don\'t pay
extra to have a supply rated to a different power.

Depending upon the capacity of the supply cable and main fuse, UK houses
typically have 14.4KW or 24KW supplies, as standard. We don\'t normally
have to worry about being able to use the electric oven and electric hob
while the dishwasher, washing machine and tumble dryer are on - even
with an EV charger. On time limited boost, a single ring of the
induction hob may take 4.2KW!


Our suppliers are cleverer. They get more money from us without having
to generate all that electricity. More profitable.

And your population just accepts this?

In some countries that lack the \'effectiveness\' of the UK HMRC at
collecting tax, they have resorted to taxing via the electricity
supply (which is difficult to evade, apart from lawless places
like Africa).

I have seen outlets screwed onto power poles.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Mon, 15 May 2023 16:54:31 +0100, Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:

On 15/05/2023 00:42, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 22:17:47 +0100, Carlos E.R.
robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:


On 2023-04-18 13:04, SteveW wrote:
On 17/04/2023 23:45, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-04-18 00:27, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 23:15:39 +0100, Carlos E.R.
robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-04-17 19:42, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 11:59:15 +0100, Carlos E.R.
robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2023-04-17 11:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/04/2023 20:02, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-04-16 20:44, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 16/04/2023 19:12, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 18:18:20 +0100, Colin Bignell
cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

On 16/04/2023 08:34, Commander Kinsey wrote:
https://www.smarthomecharge.co.uk/features/do-you-need-two-home-charge-points-if-you-have-two-evs/

\"Some products will have the ability to “load
share”, which means they will communicate with
each if two vehicles are plugged in. In this
scenario, they will evenly split the power
available so both cars charge at the same rate,
but this will be at around 3-3.6kW – in other
words half of the available 7.4kW from the
supply.\"

WTF? A UK home supply is 24kW.

The most common UK domestic contract is for a 17kVA supply.

Bollocks. 240V, 100A. Never seen anything else.

There are also 80A and 60A main breakers, but the
limit to what you can draw is not what the circuit is
rated for, but what your contract with the
electricity supply company specifies you can have.

Do you have some kind of hardware enforcing the limit?

A large fuse upstream.

And usually a main house circuit breaker,


The typical contract here for a flat is 3.6 KW. I think the
max is
around 15 or 18.

Its colder in Britain.


Oh, a house with electrical heating will have a bigger contract.
Possibly three-phase.

Air conditioning? Surely you use one or the other?

Me? Yes, on one of the rooms.

Yes, you certainly can have separate electrical house heating and air
conditioning.

At 3.6kW total, the AC would be using at least half that!

So?

If you want more, pay more and get it.

We pay more because using more means using more units. We don\'t pay
extra to have a supply rated to a different power.

Depending upon the capacity of the supply cable and main fuse, UK houses
typically have 14.4KW or 24KW supplies, as standard. We don\'t normally
have to worry about being able to use the electric oven and electric hob
while the dishwasher, washing machine and tumble dryer are on - even
with an EV charger. On time limited boost, a single ring of the
induction hob may take 4.2KW!


Our suppliers are cleverer. They get more money from us without having
to generate all that electricity. More profitable.

And your population just accepts this?

In some countries that lack the \'effectiveness\' of the UK HMRC at
collecting tax, they have resorted to taxing via the electricity
supply (which is difficult to evade, apart from lawless places
like Africa).

I have seen outlets screwed onto power poles.

 

[rbowman]

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 09:05:07 GMT, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

The one I\'m thinking of is at the intersection of two 45-mph roads. It\'s
much less of an obstacle to traffic than the previous traffic signal
was. At rush hour, you previously were guaranteed a half-mile backup at
the light.

The two new ones were built to support housing developments that are still
in the process of being constructed. The road where a elementary school is
located tends to be backed up and when they started construction I thought
they were going to fix that problem. If anything the rotary made it worse.

https://www.kpax.com/news/missoula-county/roundabout-construction-occurs-
on-mullan-road

The map sucks but the roundabout is at Mary Jane, not Flynn where the
school is located. The \'completed by the end of summer (2022)\' was a bit
optimistic.

Last month a woman was killed about a half mile past the new roundabouts.
She blew a stop sign and was t-boned by a pickup but that may be used as
an excuse to build yet another. Got to protect the stupid.

 

[Peeler]

On 13 Jun 2023 20:39:05 GMT, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

The two new ones were built to support housing developments that are still
in the process of being constructed. The road where a elementary school is
located tends to be backed up and when they started construction I thought
they were going to fix that problem. If anything the rotary made it worse.

https://www.kpax.com/news/missoula-county/roundabout-construction-occurs-
on-mullan-road

The map sucks but the roundabout is at Mary Jane, not Flynn where the
school is located. The \'completed by the end of summer (2022)\' was a bit
optimistic.

Last month a woman was killed about a half mile past the new roundabouts.
She blew a stop sign and was t-boned by a pickup but that may be used as
an excuse to build yet another. Got to protect the stupid.

You don\'t sometimes get yourself the feeling that you ARE an endlessly
gossiping useless senile chatterbox, lowbrowwoman? No? LMAO

--
More of the resident senile bigmouth\'s idiotic \"cool\" blather:
\"For reasons I can\'t recall I painted a spare bedroom in purple. It may
have had something to do with copious quantities of cheap Scotch.\"
MID: <k89lchF8b4pU1@mid.individual.net>

 

[Rod Speed]

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 19:49:04 +1000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

\"The Natural Philosopher\" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:u69c6s$3hshm$1@dont-email.me...
On 12/06/2023 18:03, rbowman wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 16:39:19 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

Yes, I know - but many drivers still can\'t get the hang of them.
Mini-roundabouts don\'t exist, and they still prefer the \'Four Way
Stop\'

Some of the residential intersections have adopted mini-roundabouts.
Essentially you take a normal intersection and plant flowers in the
middle. The flowers tend to have a hard life since you can\'t really
navigate it with anything larger than a passenger car.

Most of the affected intersections were either two-way stops or no stop
signs at all. On narrow residential streets where typical speeds are 25
mph or less drivers seem to have been able to work out negotiating
unsigned intersections without running into each other.

They work best where traffic density is high and all roads leading to
them have approximately equal traffic.

The theory is that the rules are very simple. Give way to traffic on
the roundabout. This is a lot easier than a 4 way stop.

And in light traffic they do not result in a mandatory stop either.

Used for their own sake in inappropiate locations they are crap.

The problem with mini roundabouts is their very small radius so they are
very tight. Essentially a white disc is painted on a road whose kerbs
are designed for a cross roads,

Ours aren\'t. the kerbs are redone for the new mini roundabout and
most of the mini roundabouts are in fact done when the new roads
are done in the new housing subdivision, what you lot call an estate.

so you need to slow to a crawl to turn very hard left to get onto the
roundabout and then very hard right to go round it, and then very hard
left to leave. Ok, so a lot of people drive over the painted disc, using
it as a means to establish priority while still allowing you to take the
normal straight-on or turn-right path that you would take at a cross
roads. When the disc is painted, that it OK in the Highway Code, but
some roundabouts are raised and you are supposed (somehow!) to steer
round them.

Larger roundabouts are fine: they work well and (crucially) you don\'t
have to stop completely if you can see that your way is clear; small
roundabouts retro-fitted into unsuitable kerbs are a pain.

And then you have multiple roundabouts. The one in Hemel Hempstead is
OK, because it is arranged predictably and logically, with a mini
roundabout at each entrance to the junction, distributed around a large
central roundabout that you may negotiate in either direction, using
which ever is the shorter route. The \"Magic Roundabout\" in Swindon is a
dangerous mess, because the roundabouts are plonked at random and there
is no recovery route if you go the wrong way, whereas a conventional
roundabout allows you to go round again if you have missed your turning.
Any fool can improve road safety by forcing traffic to slow to a crawl
because of confusion or tight turns; it takes skill to design a junction
which causes minimal queuing and maintaining good throughput of traffic.

I used to live in Bracknell and it was said that the Transport and Road
Research Laboratory in Crowthorne, nearby, used Bracknell to experiment
with roundabout design. There was one roundabout (I forget which one)
which was a rounded square, with a point at each entry, so if you wanted
to go 3/4 round it, you had to keep moving your steering wheel back and
forth to go round an island which was not a constant radius of curvature.


Anything is better than the American four-way-stop junctions. They fail
badly (as far as I am concerned) for two reasons: they force everyone to
stop even if there is no other traffic; they rely on *time* of arrival
to determine who goes next, whereas UK junctions always use *position*
(traffic on minor road gives way to traffic on major road, or traffic
wanting to enter a roundabout gives way to traffic coming from the right
which is already on the roundabout). The best junctions are those where
everyone can agree who has priority over whom, based on position and
road markings; the worst (which we mostly avoid in the UK) is a junction
where everyone has equal priority and no-one has a f-ing clue who should
go next. At least all (most) cross roads in the UK which don\'t have
lights or a roundabout have a clearly defined and marked/signed major
road and minor road. not a meeting of two roads of equal status which is
a recipe for a free-for-all.


I was watching a driver\'s eye view of a car journey in the early 60s and
at one roundabout the driver commented that he would go ahead and not
give way to traffic from his left. Looks as if the
priority-from-the-right rule at roundabouts was less well understood in
those days. He made it sound as if in those days it was a matter of
courtesy who went first, rather than a rule that was defined in the
Highway Code.

There was a junction (Ryde seafront, on the Isle of Wight) always caught
me out because I saw it as a roundabout and then had to think \"on this
occasion, priority from the right does *not* apply\". I think it was this
one https://goo.gl/maps/YjwzFiEKv92xPs5d8 which would seem to have been
redesigned since I was last there - or maybe I\'ve not got the correct
location.

 

[Rod Speed]

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:04:14 +1000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

\"Ian Jackson\" <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:guTyWnCrwDikFwMd@brattleho.plus.com...
Are you sure? Even the French have realised that \'Priorité à droit\' no
longer works, and many junctions have a \'Vous n\'avez pas priorité\', or
a \'Priorité à droit\' sign with a red line through it. The time you
really need to be careful is on the minor roads and in urban
back-streets, where the dreaded \'Priorité à droit\' still rules supreme.

I\'m not sure what the French were smoking when they came up with the
rule that a minor road or farm track has priority over a major road.

New Zealand and/or Australia has a rule that oncoming traffic which
wants to turn right (your left) across your path into a minor road has
priority over you.

No Australia does not and NZ doesnt either.

That is almost as bad, but at least it is visible from a distance so you
can lift off the power to create a bit of space ahead of you to let it
happen, whereas traffic on a French side road may be obscured by
hedges/fences.

 

[Ian Jackson]

In message <op.16h9u0j4byq249@pvr2.lan>, Rod Speed
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:04:14 +1000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

\"Ian Jackson\" <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:guTyWnCrwDikFwMd@brattleho.plus.com...
Are you sure? Even the French have realised that \'Priorité à droit\'
no longer works, and many junctions have a \'Vous n\'avez pas
priorité\', or a \'Priorité à droit\' sign with a red line through it.
The time you really need to be careful is on the minor roads and in
urban back-streets, where the dreaded \'Priorité à droit\' still rules supreme.

I\'m not sure what the French were smoking when they came up with the
rule that a minor road or farm track has priority over a major road.

I practice, I expect that that rule simply evolved in the days when the
traffic was all horse and carts and coaches, there few major roads in
the sense we know them today.

New Zealand and/or Australia has a rule that oncoming traffic which
wants to turn right (your left) across your path into a minor road has
priority over you.

No Australia does not and NZ doesnt either.

I certainly hope not! However, I\'d accept proof, if supplied.

That is almost as bad, but at least it is visible from a distance so
you can lift off the power to create a bit of space ahead of you to
let it happen, whereas traffic on a French side road may be obscured
by hedges/fences.

Although I used to go to Europe frequently, I haven\'t been for 20 years.
However, as I\'ve said, my recollections are that \'Priorité à droit\' was
only surviving in areas of minor roads and urban back-streets.
--
Ian
Aims and ambitions are neither attainments nor achievements

 

[Peeler]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 11:46:02 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin\'s latest trollshit unread>

--
Tim+ about trolling Rodent Speed:
He is by far the most persistent troll who seems to be able to get under the
skin of folk who really should know better. Since when did arguing with a
troll ever achieve anything (beyond giving the troll pleasure)?
MID: <1421057667.659518815.743467.tim.downie-gmail.com@news.individual.net>

 

[Peeler]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 11:40:55 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin\'s latest trollshit unread>

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
\"Shit you\'re thick/pathetic excuse for a troll.\"
MID: <ogoa38$pul$1@news.mixmin.net>

 

[NY]

On 14/06/2023 02:46, Rod Speed wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:04:14 +1000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
New Zealand and/or Australia has a rule that oncoming traffic which
wants to turn right (your left) across your path into a minor road has
priority over you.

No Australia does not and NZ doesnt either.

I\'m evidently wrong. I\'m sure I\'ve read about a rule that has caught out
drivers from other RHD countries (eg UK) because the priority is the
opposite way round. But I\'ve just looked now and Google doesn\'t find any
reference to it. I\'m beginning to doubt my sanity or my memory ;-) But
if the rule *had* been true, it would have been a very stupid one.

I gather that Australia is one of the countries which allows cars to
turn left at a red traffic light if it is safe to do so, which catches
out pedestrians who aren\'t aware of this and thing that nothing will by
turning because it\'s got a red light and so start to cross.

 

[Tim+]

NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:

On 14/06/2023 02:46, Rod Speed wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:04:14 +1000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
New Zealand and/or Australia has a rule that oncoming traffic which
wants to turn right (your left) across your path into a minor road has
priority over you.

No Australia does not and NZ doesnt either.

I\'m evidently wrong. I\'m sure I\'ve read about a rule that has caught out
drivers from other RHD countries (eg UK) because the priority is the
opposite way round. But I\'ve just looked now and Google doesn\'t find any
reference to it. I\'m beginning to doubt my sanity or my memory ;-) But
if the rule *had* been true, it would have been a very stupid one.

I gather that Australia is one of the countries which allows cars to
turn left at a red traffic light if it is safe to do so, which catches
out pedestrians who aren\'t aware of this and thing that nothing will by
turning because it\'s got a red light and so start to cross.

If it’s anything like America the pedestrians will still have right of way
over cars turning on red. You do need to be a bit more on your toes and
alert for cars though.

Tim

--
Please don\'t feed the trolls

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2023-06-14, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:

On 14/06/2023 02:46, Rod Speed wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:04:14 +1000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
New Zealand and/or Australia has a rule that oncoming traffic which
wants to turn right (your left) across your path into a minor road has
priority over you.

No Australia does not and NZ doesnt either.

I\'m evidently wrong. I\'m sure I\'ve read about a rule that has caught out
drivers from other RHD countries (eg UK) because the priority is the
opposite way round. But I\'ve just looked now and Google doesn\'t find any
reference to it. I\'m beginning to doubt my sanity or my memory ;-) But
if the rule *had* been true, it would have been a very stupid one.

There was a NZ rule about priority of turning traffic north bound car
turning west had to wait for a south bound car turning west. Apparently
this started in Victoria (AU), SFAIK Vic. dropped that a long time ago
and NZ dropped it about 12 years ago (now north bound has priority)

Here\'s a write-up. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/35-years-of-give-way-eccentricity-the-great-new-zealand-give-way-u-turn-a-decade-on/LSFRV33VDSYGQHJSJB7N6PNVOA/

I gather that Australia is one of the countries which allows cars to
turn left at a red traffic light if it is safe to do so, which catches
out pedestrians who aren\'t aware of this and thing that nothing will by
turning because it\'s got a red light and so start to cross.

I\'m pretty sure turning cars have to wait for pedestrians.

--
Jasen.
🇺🇦 Слава Україні

 

[NY]

\"Jasen Betts\" <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote in message
news:u6c2jb$jdi$1@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org...

On 2023-06-14, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 14/06/2023 02:46, Rod Speed wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:04:14 +1000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
New Zealand and/or Australia has a rule that oncoming traffic which
wants to turn right (your left) across your path into a minor road has
priority over you.

No Australia does not and NZ doesnt either.

I\'m evidently wrong. I\'m sure I\'ve read about a rule that has caught out
drivers from other RHD countries (eg UK) because the priority is the
opposite way round. But I\'ve just looked now and Google doesn\'t find any
reference to it. I\'m beginning to doubt my sanity or my memory ;-) But
if the rule *had* been true, it would have been a very stupid one.

There was a NZ rule about priority of turning traffic north bound car
turning west had to wait for a south bound car turning west. Apparently
this started in Victoria (AU), SFAIK Vic. dropped that a long time ago
and NZ dropped it about 12 years ago (now north bound has priority)

Here\'s a write-up.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/35-years-of-give-way-eccentricity-the-great-new-zealand-give-way-u-turn-a-decade-on/LSFRV33VDSYGQHJSJB7N6PNVOA/

Ah, so it used to be the case but has been changed. And it was only one
state in AU, not the whole of AU, plus NZ. I\'m still puzzled because I have
a vague memory of a diagram showing the counter-intuitive priority at a T
junction rather than a crossroads.

Clearly an example of The Mandela Effect ;-)

I gather that Australia is one of the countries which allows cars to
turn left at a red traffic light if it is safe to do so, which catches
out pedestrians who aren\'t aware of this and thing that nothing will by
turning because it\'s got a red light and so start to cross.

I\'m pretty sure turning cars have to wait for pedestrians.

\"Have to\" is very different to \"will\" :-(

And I imagine, as is the case the world over, any road traffic laws will
only apply to motor vehicles, and bicycles are allowed to ignore any rule
that they find inconvenient (stopping at red traffic lights - even when
going straight ahead or turning right, stopping at pedestrian crossings
which have people on them, not overtaking a vehicle on the side that it is
indicating to turn). Hell, here in the UK we even mark roads so as to
*force* a car to turn left from the right-hand lane, and therefore to give
way to a bike in the left-hand (bike-only) lane which wants to go straight
ahead.

Before you think I\'m being anti-bike, I *do* cycle - but I obey all the
rules that I would if I was a car, about traffic lights, zebra crossings and
not overtaking a car that is indicating left on its left.

 

[rbowman]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 11:54:16 +0100, NY wrote:

And I imagine, as is the case the world over, any road traffic laws will
only apply to motor vehicles, and bicycles are allowed to ignore any
rule that they find inconvenient (stopping at red traffic lights - even
when going straight ahead or turning right, stopping at pedestrian
crossings which have people on them, not overtaking a vehicle on the
side that it is indicating to turn). Hell, here in the UK we even mark
roads so as to *force* a car to turn left from the right-hand lane, and
therefore to give way to a bike in the left-hand (bike-only) lane which
wants to go straight ahead.

In this state bicycles theoretically have all the rights and obligations
of motor vehicles. Enforcement is spotty although there is an annual
campaign to enforce proper lighting as the days get shorter.

https://www.kxlh.com/news/missoula-county/missoula-in-motion-offering-
free-bike-lights

The city has created a lot of bicycle lanes as well as pedestrian/bike
trails. I\'ve gotten wimpier about riding in traffic with age so I
appreciate them. What I don\'t appreciate is people riding on sidewalks
with a perfectly good bike lane available.

 

[Peeler]

On 14 Jun 2023 15:53:23 GMT, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

In this state bicycles theoretically have all the rights and obligations
of motor vehicles. Enforcement is spotty although there is an annual
campaign to enforce proper lighting as the days get shorter.

https://www.kxlh.com/news/missoula-county/missoula-in-motion-offering-
free-bike-lights

The city has created a lot of bicycle lanes as well as pedestrian/bike
trails. I\'ve gotten wimpier about riding in traffic with age so I
appreciate them. What I don\'t appreciate is people riding on sidewalks
with a perfectly good bike lane available.

The most important and exciting info in your latest post is of course
contained in the last two sentences: yet more info about your thrilling,
multi-faceted personality, Trumper. LOL

--
More of the resident senile gossip\'s absolutely idiotic endless blather
about herself:
\"My family and I traveled cross country in \'52, going out on the northern
route and returning mostly on Rt 66. We also traveled quite a bit as the
interstates were being built. It might have been slower but it was a lot
more interesting. Even now I prefer what William Least Heat-Moon called
the blue highways but it\'s difficult. Around here there are remnants of
the Mullan Road as frontage roads but I-90 was laid over most of it so
there is no continuous route. So far 93 hasn\'t been destroyed.\"
MID: <kae9ivF7suU1@mid.individual.net>

 

[NY]

On 14/06/2023 16:53, rbowman wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 11:54:16 +0100, NY wrote:

And I imagine, as is the case the world over, any road traffic laws will
only apply to motor vehicles, and bicycles are allowed to ignore any
rule that they find inconvenient (stopping at red traffic lights - even
when going straight ahead or turning right, stopping at pedestrian
crossings which have people on them, not overtaking a vehicle on the
side that it is indicating to turn). Hell, here in the UK we even mark
roads so as to *force* a car to turn left from the right-hand lane, and
therefore to give way to a bike in the left-hand (bike-only) lane which
wants to go straight ahead.

In this state bicycles theoretically have all the rights and obligations
of motor vehicles. Enforcement is spotty although there is an annual
campaign to enforce proper lighting as the days get shorter.

https://www.kxlh.com/news/missoula-county/missoula-in-motion-offering-
free-bike-lights

The city has created a lot of bicycle lanes as well as pedestrian/bike
trails. I\'ve gotten wimpier about riding in traffic with age so I
appreciate them. What I don\'t appreciate is people riding on sidewalks
with a perfectly good bike lane available.

The problem is when a dedicated off-road cycle track exists (eg a
pavement/sidewalk that is marked with a white line and icons for
pedestrian and bicycle) but cyclists still insist on using the road,
making it harder for faster vehicles to get past them. When I was on a
cruise that went to Amsterdam, we went on a coach tour and the guide
pointed out how many roads had a segregated cycle track alongside the
road, and she said that in the Netherlands it is the law that cyclists
must use a cycle track and not a road if a track exists. We could do
with that law here.



In the UK, bikes are *required* to obey many of the same rules that cars
have to. But with no numberplate for witnesses to report or for cameras
to photograph, and with very few police to catch them at it, they get
away scot free. I saw a TV documentary about the work of the police and
they had a campaign to catch cyclists (mainly couriers) who were riding
through pedestrian crossings and traffic lights at junctions. The main
reaction of the cyclists was indignation and anger that they had been
stopped: there seemed to be a feeling that it was wrong and
\"discriminatory\" for cyclists to have to obey those rules. Some cyclists
want to be treated as part of the traffic (fair enough) but at the same
time want all sorts of exemptions and special treatment.

I\'ve personally witnessed two occasions when cyclists rode straight
through zebra crossings with people on, narrowly escaping injuring people.

The first was when I was walking to a laboratory session at university
along a road with a long gentle hill (Blackboy Hill / Whiteladies Road
in Bristol, for those that know it). At a junction there was a zebra
crossing in two halves with illuminated keep-left bollards in the middle
of the road. I heard some hooting so I turned round and saw a cyclist
overtaking all the cars and weaving onto the wrong side of the road at
times. Several cars were queued at the crossing to let some pedestrians
cross: one was a woman pushing a pram. The cyclist tried to squeeze
between the leading car and the bollards, and swerved violently to avoid
(by a hair\'s breadth) the pram. He skidded and came off his bike,
sliding across the road and very nearly going under the wheels of an
oncoming bus. Covered in blood, he ran towards the woman, yelling abuse
at her for \"daring\" to get in his way. My mate, who was a big burly
chap, decided to intervene because it looked as if the cyclist was about
to attack the woman. My mate restrained him until the police arrived (he
even got the copper\'s collar ID as proof of why he was late for the
lab). I hope the police the book at that cyclist; a car driver who did
something similar would probably face a big fine and points on his licence.

The second was a bit more recent. I was cycling through Oxford, along St
Giles. There is a long zebra crossing which spans the road which is very
wide at that point because it\'s where two roads converge in a Y. I could
see a large group of people approaching the crossing, with someone at
the front carrying a raised umbrella. Ah, tour guide with tourists. They
started to cross. I slowed down and waited - wrily thinking that I may
be there for a little while because there were a lot of people crossing.
Fair enough, frustrating but it\'s one of those things. Suddenly I heard
a yell from behind me \"Out of my f-ing way\" and a cyclist came bombing
past me, riding as if he was pursued by an angry bear, as the queue of
Japanese tourists scattered left and right in panic.

I\'ve also had a cyclist narrowly escape running into the side of me as I
was driving through a green traffic light. I was not the first or last
car through the lights, so I presume they\'d been red for some time for
the road at right angles that the cyclist was on.

Cars tend to go through red lights just after they\'ve changed from amber
to red or just before they change from red-and-amber to green. At those
times, they *may* get way with it because the cars that had a green
light may not have set off yet or may have already stopped. Cyclists
(from my observation) seem to go through lights no matter how long they
have been red, hoping that cars will stop for them.

It is those cyclists who need to be identified (by registration number?)
and face the full weight of the law. OK, they will cause very little
damage (compared with a car) if they hit something, but if something
which is in the right hits them, they will scream blue murder.


As an occasional cyclist (for pleasure and exercise, rather than as a
means of transport) I try to be as considerate as possible. I am well
aware that I am usually the slowest vehicle on the road, so I try to
make it as easy as possible for cars, lorries, buses to overtake me,
while still keeping clear of the kerb and manholes. If I\'m in a
double-white line section of road where nothing is allowed to overtake
me, I will sometimes put on a brief spurt of power to get as soon as
possible to the nearest place where I can pull off for a second (I
probably need a rest anyway!). Likewise if I\'m on a single-track road: I
look for passing places and am prepared to pull into the nearest one -
just as I would if I was driving my car. There\'s a single-track road
near me which is signed as a \"scenic route\" and attracts a lot of
cyclists (and cars). I\'m well aware that the onus is on both me and the
oncoming vehicle to pull in to let the other past: whoever is closer to
a passing place pulls in. But you rarely see cyclists pull in, even if
they were closer to a place where they could pull over and I (as a car
driver) didn\'t have a place for some distance ahead.

So I\'m not anti-cyclist. I\'m anti the inconsiderate cyclist who thinks
that they are exempt from the normal rules and courtesies of using roads.

I;m not sure who hates cyclists more: car/lorry drivers or pedestrians.
I remember I was out for a walk with a friend on the Ridgeway Path which
is an off-road route which is open to walkers, cyclists and horse
riders. We were walking two abreast, but if I heard a cyclist coming up
behind me or saw one coming towards me, I tried to move behind my friend
so as to create a gap for the cyclist to pass. Almost every cyclist
passed as wide and slow as possible. And yet my friend started yelling
at me: \"Why are you making it easy for them? Don\'t let them come past.
They can stay behind us.\" It was a very strange bloody-minded reaction:
I saw a side to her that I\'d never seen before in the several years I\'d
known her. I could understand it if the cyclists had been riding
dangerously fast/close to us, but I didn\'t see any of that. But you get
that: groups of people who walk n-abreast across the whole width of the
track or the pavement alongside a road, and moan if anyone coming
towards then (even another pedestrian) wants to get past.

 

[Rod Speed]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 16:59:54 +1000, Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:

In message <op.16h9u0j4byq249@pvr2.lan>, Rod Speed
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:04:14 +1000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

\"Ian Jackson\" <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:guTyWnCrwDikFwMd@brattleho.plus.com...
Are you sure? Even the French have realised that \'Priorité à droit\'
no longer works, and many junctions have a \'Vous n\'avez pas
priorité\', or a \'Priorité à droit\' sign with a red line through it.
The time you really need to be careful is on the minor roads and in
urban back-streets, where the dreaded \'Priorité à droit\' still
rules supreme.

I\'m not sure what the French were smoking when they came up with the
rule that a minor road or farm track has priority over a major road.

I practice, I expect that that rule simply evolved in the days when the
traffic was all horse and carts and coaches, there few major roads in
the sense we know them today.

New Zealand and/or Australia has a rule that oncoming traffic which
wants to turn right (your left) across your path into a minor road has
priority over you.

No Australia does not and NZ doesnt either.

I certainly hope not! However, I\'d accept proof, if supplied.

We have the road rules online.

That is almost as bad, but at least it is visible from a distance so
you can lift off the power to create a bit of space ahead of you to
let it happen, whereas traffic on a French side road may be obscured
by hedges/fences.

Although I used to go to Europe frequently, I haven\'t been for 20 years.
However, as I\'ve said, my recollections are that \'Priorité à droit\' was
only surviving in areas of minor roads and urban back-streets.