on 17-04-2005, Ian supposed :
Again a small amount of common sense in interpreting the rules goes a long way....
I am not cable of knowing with any certainty what will happen in the future, which is why I used the words 'reasonable expectation'. If the exit is clear, vehicles free flowing into the exit at the time I move forward then it would not be unreasonable to buttume that my exit will be clear in a few seconds when the traffic juction allows my manouver to be completed. I would therefore move forward into the box. However there is a remote possibilty that a vehicle might break down, a wheel fall off or similar and thus blocking my exit.
Fuel Duty 5418Matt B and And as because those would then one is tankful extraction, etc. hefty chunk. rate of To be honest I don't really care. We all know about the environment...
Then why do they put so many signs up at traffic lights suggesting to ignore this rule and to pull forward?
I think the point is 'stationary vehicles', if there are no stationary vehicles and you can reasonably expect no stationary vehicles then there is not a problem. The offence is caused when you are stranded in the box, with no where to go and any sensible person would have anticiptated this.
--
IBM to build nationwide speedtrapwere saying : Oh, it certianly technically CAN be done... I don't think anybody's claimed it can't. Just not on an economically viable scale for 25 million cars or at all using solely (or...
Regards, Harry (M1BYT) (L)
