Surprised to be undertaken

[revian]

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=russels+hall+hospital&aq=&sll=53.800651,1.40625&sspn=15.35132,46.538086&ie=UTF8&hq=russels+hall+hospital&hnear=&layer=c&cbll=52.504023,-2.101087&panoid=C9wVZhSJsyjw_c9Dcp27dA&cbp=12,222.5,,0,2.48&ll=52.504023,-2.101087&spn=0,0.077162&z=14

But not a right turn... I've list the will to live in reading all the thread...again..

Ian

[vonhosen]

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=russels+hall+hospital&aq=&sll=53.800651,1.40625&sspn=15.35132,46.538086&ie=UTF8&hq=russels+hall+hospital&hnear=&layer=c&cbll=52.504023,-2.101087&panoid=C9wVZhSJsyjw_c9Dcp27dA&cbp=12,222.5,,0,2.48&ll=52.504023,-2.101087&spn=0,0.077162&z=14

But not a right turn... I've list the will to live in reading all the thread...again..

Ian

They don't look like they satisfy TSRGD.

[GJD]

Why are you attempting to ascribe to this road marking a level of mandatory-ness that simply does not exist? If the law meant the road marking to be mandatory, the law would say the road marking is mandatory. The fact that it doesn't leaves only one possible conclusion: it must be the case that going against this road marking is not necessarily illegal. The alternative conclusion is irrational.

It's a little more muddy than that... in finest fashion the 'must' in the Highway Code is indeed that - something which is proscribed by law and automatically attracts points. 'should' means you can do it, but if anything happens whatsoever, including inconveniencing other drivers, then it's contrary to s3.

That's exactly my point. One would expect it to be frowned upon if one's discretion turned out to have been mis-deployed. If you're going to take advantage of the freedom that comes from such rules being for the guidance of the wise and the blind obedience of fools, you have to accept the responsibility that comes with that freedom and be prepared to face the music if you're shown not to have been as wise as you thought you were. The law allows you to decide that you know best, but don't expect the law to look kindly on you if it turns out that you don't.

Perhaps I misunderstood Von's example, but it seemed to me to have been deliberately constructed as a case where a) the assessment of whether to apply discretion was fairly simple and b) as it transpired, the drivers discretion was, in fact, applied appropriately - nothing untoward did happen. The driver had not, on this occasion, overestimated their own wisdom. Such a case leaves me utterly bewildered as to what on earth there could be to criticise. There's nothing to criticise about not choosing to overtake the lorry either, obviously.