Yes but as most of the country does not normally live in another country,
then that could be a red herring.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:t2a3fk$for$1@dont-email.me...
> On 02/04/2022 18:14, MB wrote:
>>
>> On 02/04/2022 12:20, charles wrote:
>>>
>>> I think there was such a plan. I remember a reader's letter in the
>>> Sunday
>>> Expresss saying "It would be much safer if we drove on the right hand
>>> side
>>> of the road, The driver would get out of the car straight on to the
>>> pavement."
>
> LOL!
>
> However, it's a pity that we never actually did change, because the vast
> majority of the world drive on the right. Scroll down to map here:
>
> https://www.rhinocarhire.com/Drive-Smart-Blog/Drive-Left-or-Right.aspx
>
>> I can't remember the title but there is a classic book on road safety.
>> The author made an equation to estimate the number of accidents in a
>> country, using population, number of vehicles, miles of roads etc.
>>
>> It gives a remarkably accurate figure for most countries but a small
>> number of countries have a lower accident rate than predicted by the
>> equation. All drive on the left hand side of the road.
>
> I'd like to see the original stats, because this sounds like classic
> pseudo-science to me.
>
> Here in Scotland in the middle of nowhere you see signs reminding people
> that we drive on the left here, because we have so many visitors from
> countries that drive on the right. The implication is, for this to be
> worth so many signs in odd places, that our driving on the left is a
> significant cause of accidents among visitors here, and this is further
> borne out by statistics relating to UK drivers abroad:
>
> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/513369/FOI_0169-16_Steer_Clear_Press_Release_Final.pdf
>
> "BRITONS DRIVING INTO TROUBLE ABROAD
> - With tourists three times more likely to be involved in road accidents
> than locals, Foreign Office launches 'Steer Clear of Trouble on Foreign
> Roads' campaign -
>
> Two thirds of Brits who have driven abroad have run into problems, Foreign
> and Commonwealth Office (FCO) research reveals today. With studies
> showing that tourists are three times more likely to be involved in a road
> accident than local drivers, an FCO survey has shown that when driving
> abroad, nearly a third (31%) have driven on the wrong side of the road and
> more than one in 10 have driven the wrong way round a roundabout."
>
> Ditto Eire:
>
> https://www.irishtimes.com/news/right-and-wrong-of-way-1.369893
>
> "Right - and wrong - of way
> Sat, Aug 16, 2003, 01:00
>
> The chances of meeting a foreign driver on the wrong side of an Irish road
> are anything but remote. Unlike us, 80 per cent of the world drives on the
> right, writes Anne Lucey.
>
> Every year tourist drivers from the US and Europe are involved in many
> near misses, and some serious road traffic collisions.
>
> Just this week Deirdre O'Brien Vaughan, the Irish traditional musician
> from Newmarket-on-Fergus, Co Clare, was awarded more than ?278,000 in
> damages in the High Court for injuries she received in an August 1999
> crash involving a French tourist. Liability had been conceded by the
> holidaymaker, whose car had been on the wrong side of the road.
>
> Growing concern about the dangers posed by tourist drivers led Kerry
> County Council recently to pass an emergency motion to erect large signs
> and road markings to prevent more collisions at a junction on the N22 near
> Killarney for Kenmare and west Cork. But even while the wheels of
> bureaucracy moved to acquire the paint, poles and danger signs, a serious
> head-on collision occurred and a number of people were hospitalised."
>
> So, as I said, I'd like to see some hard stats.
>
> --
>
> Fake news kills!
>
> I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
> www.macfh.co.uk

Also of course, they change the roads so often, dig them up and all sorts.
I agree though, they probably would be safer than humans in most cases. It
seems we accept accidents if the human element is in play, but not if its a
computerised system. This seems illogical to me, as we can define the
parameters and know what a computer will do, but try that with a distracted
human.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:t2c2ha$6ul$1@dont-email.me...
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 10:12:59 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/04/2022 10:03, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>> It's also a bit pointless when we are being told that self-driving cars
>>>> aren't that many years away.
>>>
>>> I think it will be many more years before we see many self-driving cars
>>> around. Might seem OK for Mr Musk on wide American motorways (though his
>>> cars do seem very prone to accidents and fires). The narrow cluttered
>>> road in the UK and many other countries are quite different and often
>>> difficult enough for human drivers.
>>>
>>
>> We can probably make self driving cars now that would kill fewer
>> people than human drivers, but no politician would want to authorise
>> that. "Fewer deaths" wouldn't be good enough; it would have to be a
>> guarantee of "zero deaths", and how likely is that to happen, ever?
>> When has humanity ever created anything with a zero failure rate?
>>
>> Rod.
>>
>
> To the proponents of self driving cars all I can say is snow. Almost every
> visual clue is changed or obscured.
>

I noticed the original Perry Mason being screened the other day, the sound
on that was quite good, albeit mono. I never could stand that series.

I wonder how far back they can go? There were a lot of old American tv
series made. 77 Sunset Strip, Dragnet,

I did spot a few episodes of a uk series, No hiding place the other day on
Talking pictures, the sound was quit good, but I'm not so soure about Magret
with Rupert Davies which was on somewhere the other night.
It might be nice to see Danger Man again, and unlike many I did think The
Prisoner was quite good if you read between the lines and look at it as an
extreme idea of how we were going as a society.
Brian
--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Jim Lesurf" <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:59d2c52f2cnoise@audiomisc.co.uk...
>I suspect the appeal of many of the old series *is* that they are naff to
> modern eyes!
>
> Space "ninteen and ninepence" always was like watching puppet shows with
> wooden scripts. The Saint can be entertaining because it is also meant to
> be amusing, not just crime. The Saint books in general are also aimed at
> being amusing and entertaining. Quite distinct from the 'hard boiled'
> crime
> stories by many US writers who take a 'blowtorch to the face' approach to
> drama! (Example from a Hadley Chase novel!)
>
> Not seen an "Avengers" recently, but again I think these are aimed at
> being
> amusing and stylish. Light entertainment. Although some of the early
> examples are 'darker' - not just in film terms.
>
> The sound on older examples like "Sgt Cork" can be even worse. But I doubt
> anyone noticed that much via 405 line TV at the time! :-) Come to think of
> it,the gap in time between that series being televised and the time when
> it
> was set is now comparable with the gap between when it was televised and
> now! 8-]
>
> Jim
>
> In article <t290dc$fmu$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)
> <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Space 1999, I do not think that anything set in a time past will work
>> now really. The effects in this were pretty naff. I mean jumping lunar
>> rovers would surely make you puke.
>
>> The Champions was a bit of a laugh, that was one of those ITC things
>> like the Saint (dated) The persuaders (still unbelievable as it was
>> before), and Tales of the Unexpected ( some were very good, others,
>> well silly)
>
>> I obviously cannot comment about the standard of the actual pictures,
>> but the sound was very variable. Some of the early ones made on film,
>> like Avengers etc, seem to have not transferred audio that sounds good.
>> It sounds like a very bad noise gate is in use or like a non Dolby
>> tape played back with Dolby on.
>
> --
> Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
> Electronics
> https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
> biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
> Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
>

On 03/04/2022 10:12, MB wrote:
>
> I think it will be many more years before we see many self-driving cars
> around. Might seem OK for Mr Musk on wide American motorways (though his
> cars do seem very prone to accidents and fires).  The narrow cluttered
> road in the UK and many other countries are quite different and often
> difficult enough for human drivers.

There are probably quite a few people in Ukraine that are glad their
cars had steering wheels. There is a tendency to optimise and automate
to the point where you are highly dependent on infrastructure, that
would no longer be valid in conflict, or after, say, a large meteorite
strike.

On the other hand, I've noticed that very few human drivers are able to
detect pedestrians about to cross at an uncontrolled junction; the new
highway code advises them to give way. I'm not sure that driverless
cars will be any better.

On 03/04/2022 13:26, Jeff Layman wrote:
> Indeed, and perhaps dense fog could be included. But whereas many humans
> pay no attention to the fact they can't see anything and continue
> driving at the same speed, a car programmed correctly will slow down as
> its visual clues (I'm not sure if IR "sees" better through snow or fog)
> and its communications with nearby cars become less certain, and its
> sensors show slipping wheels. It might not prevent crashes, but they
> will be at much lower speed, and nothing like the carnage resulting from
> multi-car pile-ups on a motorway.

You might find that some think they can use the auto systems to drive
faster in fog - many do not understand how slow you really need to drive
in real fog.

On 03/04/2022 13:06, Wilf wrote:
> I also think about how a self driving car would deal with single track
> country roads with passing places.

In the Western Isles they just drive down the middle of the road and
hope they do not meet anyone, I heard of one driver who left his lights
off when drunk so the police would not see him.

On 03/04/2022 at 22:17, MB wrote:
> On 03/04/2022 13:06, Wilf wrote:
>> I also think about how a self driving car would deal with single track
>> country roads with passing places.
>
> In the Western Isles they just drive down the middle of the road and
> hope they do not meet anyone, I heard of one driver who left his lights
> off when drunk so the police would not see him.
>

Sounds like a dubious strategy!

--
Wilf

On 03/04/2022 16:31, David Woolley wrote:

> On the other hand, I've noticed that very few human drivers are able to
> detect pedestrians about to cross at an uncontrolled junction; the new
> highway code advises them to give way. I'm not sure that driverless
> cars will be any better.
>
I did my first "give way to pedestrians about to cross a road" last
Friday. The group of three stopped and had a short discussion about
whether they should cross the road before or after I turned into their
side road.

It is one thing inventing rules of the road, but convincing the general
public they are sensible rules is another problem entirely.

Jim

On 03/04/2022 14:41, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>
> Yes but as most of the country does not normally live in another country,
> then that could be a red herring.

Yes, perfectly true, but there again, no! A claim was made that driving
on the left of the road is safer than driving on the right, but no
pertinent statistics were given to back up the claim, a claim which
immediately sounded to me as being likely to be an attempt at
rationalising our current situation with pseudo-science, and unlikely to
be even true, let alone prove actual causation even supposing it is (it
should be remembered that correlation is not causation).

So, in the absence of any pertinent specific statistics being given to
back up the claim, the first search term I tried yielded only
information about countries with foreign driver problems, wrt which, I
wasn't trying to claim that stats about drivers in countries foreign to
them were meaningful stats about the safety of driving on a particular
side of the road, rather I was pointing out that the fact that various
countries, regardless of which side of the road they drive, seem to have
a similar level of problem regarding foreign drivers driving on the
wrong side of the road, rather suggests that no one country and no one
side of driving was likely to prove significantly safer than another.

And now trying a different search term has proved this deduction to be
correct, for example here is a rather badly designed webpage, but it
does have some recent stats from a 56 country research study undertaken
by international driver education company Zutobi ...

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/the-worlds-safest-most-dangerous-countries-to-drive/safest-norway/slideshow/81589360.cms

Most dangerous:
1 ​S Africa LHS
2 Thailand RHS
3 USA RHS
4 India LHS

Safest:
1 Norway RHS
2 Japan LHS
3 Sweden RHS

So, no obvious correlation between safety and driving side of road
there, nor here:

https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/report/state_of_road_safety_en.pdf

"WHO: The state of road safety around the world

[...]

Low-income and middle-income countries have the highest burden and road
traffic death rates.

Most (91%) of the world’s fatalities on the roads occur in low-income
and middle-income countries, which have only 48% of the world’s
registered vehicles."

In short, just as I suspected all along, there are myriads of factors
determining how safe a nation's roads are, many of which are given in
the final link below - so many that I'm not going to attempt to
provide a summarising quote, people need to read it for themselves -
and whichever side of the road is driven is apparently so unimportant
that it is not even mentioned there:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 03/04/2022 23:31, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 03/04/2022 16:31, David Woolley wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, I've noticed that very few human drivers are able to
>> detect pedestrians about to cross at an uncontrolled junction; the new
>> highway code advises them to give way. I'm not sure that driverless
>> cars will be any better.
>>
> I did my first "give way to pedestrians about to cross a road" last
> Friday. The group of three stopped and had a short discussion about
> whether they should cross the road before or after I turned into their
> side road.
>
> It is one thing inventing rules of the road, but convincing the general
> public they are sensible rules is another problem entirely.

Yes, I've done that a few times in the past couple of weeks. Of course,
the problem is that once the pedestrians get used to the cars stopping
to let them across, they'll think that *all* cars will do it, Then
they'll come across the first car which doesn't stop...

--

Jeff

On 03/04/2022 16:31, David Woolley wrote:
> On the other hand, I've noticed that very few human drivers are able to
> detect pedestrians about to cross at an uncontrolled junction; the new
> highway code advises them to give way. I'm not sure that driverless
> cars will be any better.

Could be that the software will identify any pedestrian as a potential
person crossing the road where a human can get a better appreciation of
whether they are likely to cross.

By the way, the Highway Code as always said to give way to people
crossing at a junction.

Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@omitthisgooglemail.com> wrote:
> On 03/04/2022 16:31, David Woolley wrote:
>
> > On the other hand, I've noticed that very few human drivers are able to
> > detect pedestrians about to cross at an uncontrolled junction; the new
> > highway code advises them to give way. I'm not sure that driverless
> > cars will be any better.
> >
> I did my first "give way to pedestrians about to cross a road" last
> Friday. The group of three stopped and had a short discussion about
> whether they should cross the road before or after I turned into their
> side road.
>
> It is one thing inventing rules of the road, but convincing the general
> public they are sensible rules is another problem entirely.
>
It mostly works pretty well in France, we just need to change habits
and expectations, hence the changes in the Highway Code.

--
Chris Green
·

On 03/04/2022 22:10, MB wrote:
> On 03/04/2022 13:26, Jeff Layman wrote:
>> Indeed, and perhaps dense fog could be included. But whereas many humans
>> pay no attention to the fact they can't see anything and continue
>> driving at the same speed, a car programmed correctly will slow down as
>> its visual clues (I'm not sure if IR "sees" better through snow or fog)
>> and its communications with nearby cars become less certain, and its
>> sensors show slipping wheels. It might not prevent crashes, but they
>> will be at much lower speed, and nothing like the carnage resulting from
>> multi-car pile-ups on a motorway.
>
> You might find that some think they can use the auto systems to drive
> faster in fog - many do not understand how slow you really need to drive
> in real fog.

That appears to be a contradiction in terms! Either it's automatic or
it's manual. It's no different from overriding an automatic gearbox by
forcing it into a lower gear to speed up and overtake. Once you do that,
you're in control, not the auto programming.

If, for example, the car had radar which detected something ahead and
slowed down, and you decided that the "something" was actually further
ahead and not a hazard and ignored the radar and accelerated, then
that's manual control.

--

Jeff

On 04/04/2022 09:49, Jeff Layman wrote:

> If, for example, the car had radar which detected something ahead and
> slowed down, and you decided that the "something" was actually further
> ahead and not a hazard and ignored the radar and accelerated, then
> that's manual control.
>
That assumes the car will let you override its decision.
I had an automatic hire car once, and found myself in a situation where
I had a best option of accelerating hard to avoid a problem and the
engine management system turned the power down half way through my
manoeuvre because the exhaust was outside the range it thought was
permissible. I had to use full throttle and move the selector lever to
engage a lower gear briefly before putting it back into drive to confuse
the management system enough to give me proper control of the
accelerator. I never hired one of that model again.

Jim

On 04/04/2022 01:47, Java Jive wrote:
> On 03/04/2022 14:41, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>>
>> Yes but as most of the country does not normally live in another country,
>> then that could be a red herring.
>
> Yes, perfectly true, but there again, no! A claim was made that driving
> on the left of the road is safer than driving on the right, but no
> pertinent statistics were given to back up the claim

A further complication is that if a country is used to driving on one
side of the road and it decides to change over to the other, there is
the resulting problem of the sheer number of existing cars with the
steering wheel now on the wrong side of the car for good visibility of
the traffic conditions around.

Sweden changed sides, not because the side of the road was important but
because the majority of cars on Sweden's roads were left hand drive
imports, so they started with a position that the majority of cars had
the steering wheel on the wrong side and by changing the side of the
road to drive on it regularised that anomaly.

Very few other countries have that problem, so for them changing sides
would create a legacy problem for years ahead.

Jim

On 04/04/2022 11:11, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> A further complication is that if a country is used to driving on one
> side of the road and it decides to change over to the other, there is
> the resulting problem of the sheer number of existing cars with the
> steering wheel now on the wrong side of the car for good visibility of
> the traffic conditions around.

Yes, but I wasn't saying that we should change now, when there are far
more vehicles on the roads and far more miles of complex roads that
would need to be converted, I was saying that perhaps it was a pity that
we didn't do it when we first considered doing it, when things were much
simpler.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 12:04:58 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>To the proponents of self driving cars all I can say is snow. Almost every
>visual clue is changed or obscured.

Only to what we can see. There's no reason why the sensory input of an
autonomous vehicle would have to be limited in the same way as ours.

Rod.

On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 16:31:12 +0100, David Woolley
<david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:

>On the other hand, I've noticed that very few human drivers are able to
>detect pedestrians about to cross at an uncontrolled junction; the new
>highway code advises them to give way. I'm not sure that driverless
>cars will be any better.

Indeed. The new Highway Code seems to require that we pay the same
attention to kamikaze pedestrians that we always have, but now we're
supposed to read their minds as well, because when we see one at the
side of the road we're supposed to know their intentions and act
accordingly. That's provided we can see them at all of course, because
at night they often wear black, and by day they sometimes jump out
from behind parked cars without so much of a backward glance. How can
we read their minds when so many of them don't seem to know their own?

We can make electronic devices that can detect things we cannot
perceive ourselves, but I'm not sure about mind reading.

Rod.

On 04/04/2022 11:59, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> and by day they sometimes jump out
> from behind parked cars

The rule I was referring to relates to junctions, and if there are
parked cars to jump out from behind of, close to a junction, they are
breaching a longer standing Highway Code advisory rule. Round here they
tend to be LCVs, which are opaque.

On 04/04/2022 11:59, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> Indeed. The new Highway Code seems to require that we pay the same
> attention to kamikaze pedestrians that we always have, but now we're
> supposed to read their minds as well, because when we see one at the
> side of the road we're supposed to know their intentions and act
> accordingly.

I have an old edition of the Highway Code but cannot find it. I am sure
it is long been the rule that vehicles have to give way to pedestrians
when turning at a road junction but I keep reading people who think this
is new.

Dundee Courier - Saturday 11 May 1935
------
Drivers are specially directed to slow when turning from one road into
another, to give way to pedestrians at such points, and not to overtake
at pedestrian crossings.
------

Roderick Stewart wrote:

> There's no reason why the sensory input of an
> autonomous vehicle would have to be limited in the same way as ours.

What does LIDAR think of snow?

On 04/04/2022 12:42, MB wrote:
>
> On 04/04/2022 11:59, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Indeed. The new Highway Code seems to require that we pay the same
>> attention to kamikaze pedestrians that we always have, but now we're
>> supposed to read their minds as well, because when we see one at the
>> side of the road we're supposed to know their intentions and act
>> accordingly.
>
> I have an old edition of the Highway Code but cannot find it. I am sure
> it is long been the rule that vehicles have to give way to pedestrians
> when turning at a road junction but I keep reading people who think this
> is new.

You are absolutely correct.

Years ago as an FE student in SE London, I was wandering absent-mindedly
down a main road, and began to cross a side road just as a car swung
into it off the main road, and it hit me - nothing more serious than
some minor bruising and a shower of curses from the driver. Only later,
when I was learning to drive myself, and so had to learn the Highway
Code, did I discover that actually I had had the right of way in that
situation, and that the driver had been in the wrong.

Many years passed, and I was taking the bus to work in a major southern
conurbation. In the city centre, the driver swung round a corner and
hit an old gentleman who was crossing the road just as I had been all
those years earlier. He was knocked over, but, although obviously
shaken and shocked, was able to get up and stagger off, and, as he did
so, the driver opened the bus door and hurled a stream of abuse and
invective after him. I confronted the driver and told him he was in the
wrong, which merely resulted in his abusing me. As I arrived at work,
my boss, who was due to leave for somewhere else, immediately started to
give me instructions, but I said: "Sorry, A, but there's something more
important that I have to do first!", and picked up the nearest phone to
ring the bus company to complain about the driver, describing his
appalling behaviour, and giving them information from the ticket needed
to identify him. As I did so, work colleagues, equally appalled,
started to look on the internet for the relevant part of the Highway
Code and found it, enabling me to quote to the company its section
number and its exact wording. I'm glad to say that I never saw that
driver at the wheel of a bus again.

>  Dundee Courier - Saturday 11 May 1935
> ------
> Drivers are specially directed to slow when turning from one road into
> another, to give way to pedestrians at such points, and not to overtake
> at pedestrian crossings.
> ------

Quite so. But I think originally it was more specific, that when
turning off a major road into a minor road, a pedestrian beginning to
cross or already crossing had right of way.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 04/04/2022 12:43, Andy Burns wrote:
> What does LIDAR think of snow?

A friend worked at RSRE and was involved in one project where they
wondered if a helicopter radar altimeter displayed height above the
surface of snow or height above the ground.

He spent a pleasant couple of weeks in the Cairngorm with a helicopter!

"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:t2eodb$nnd$1@dont-email.me...
> Many years passed, and I was taking the bus to work in a major southern
> conurbation. In the city centre, the driver swung round a corner and hit
> an old gentleman who was crossing the road just as I had been all those
> years earlier. He was knocked over, but, although obviously shaken and
> shocked, was able to get up and stagger off, and, as he did so, the driver
> opened the bus door and hurled a stream of abuse and invective after him.
> I confronted the driver and told him he was in the wrong, which merely
> resulted in his abusing me. As I arrived at work, my boss, who was due to
> leave for somewhere else, immediately started to give me instructions, but
> I said: "Sorry, A, but there's something more important that I have to do
> first!", and picked up the nearest phone to ring the bus company to
> complain about the driver, describing his appalling behaviour, and giving
> them information from the ticket needed to identify him. As I did so,
> work colleagues, equally appalled, started to look on the internet for the
> relevant part of the Highway Code and found it, enabling me to quote to
> the company its section number and its exact wording. I'm glad to say
> that I never saw that driver at the wheel of a bus again.

I was once stationary in a traffic jam on a motorway. I was in Lane 1, so
had the hard shoulder on my left. A coach was level with me in Lane 2.
Suddenly I saw his left indicator start to flash and he started to turn
towards me. I blew my horn and kept it on because he kept on coming.
Eventually I had to swerve onto the hard shoulder. I saw one of the coach
passengers rush to the front of the coach, probably to say "Driver, haven't
you seen and heard that car that you are about to hit".

I made a note of his number plate, and when the traffic had started moving
again I came off at the next junction and rang the number of coach firm that
had been painted on the back. They were horrified and said they'd phone the
driver, tell him to stop as soon as safe, and the passengers would have to
wait for a replacement driver who would have the present driver's P45. I
felt a bit guilty: I'd expected him to be given a bollocking, not to be
summarily dismissed.

On 04/04/2022 13:30, Java Jive wrote:
>
> On 04/04/2022 12:42, MB wrote:
>>
>>   Dundee Courier - Saturday 11 May 1935
>> ------
>> Drivers are specially directed to slow when turning from one road into
>> another, to give way to pedestrians at such points, and not to
>> overtake at pedestrian crossings.
>> ------
>
> Quite so.  But I think originally it was more specific, that when
> turning off a major road into a minor road, a pedestrian beginning to
> cross or already crossing had right of way.

Having only just noticed the date of 1935, perhaps I had better clarify
that AFAICR the wording from the previous version of the HC that I
learned as a trainee driver had by then become more specific as
described above.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk