Harry's Place

I thought it was the Irish.

Not only do the Brits whinge about the snow but others also whinge about those who whinge about the snow… what a bunch of whingers. Also don’t you think that a country where it snows alot, like Canada is of course going to be better prepared than a country where such (relatively) prolonged snow fall is unusall.

But enough of that just stop whinging.

don’t you think that a country where it snows alot, like Canada is of course going to be better prepared than a country where such (relatively) prolonged snow fall is unusall.

Yes, but it’s going to be gone in a few days and then quickly forgotten. The media coverage is excessive.

I think London should invest a billion pounds in snow-chain tyres for all the bendy-busses, snow ploughs (for both road an rail), snow-mobiles for essential services and ice-scates for metermaids. It’s a disgrace that the mayor has allowed us to lose another day’s work – the second in only a quarter-century. We need to start preparing for 2028 NOW!!! This cannot be allowed to happen again. Please think of the children.

Well, no, it isn’t. There are villages in Oxford that are all but cut off. Mine is almost cut off. It is perfectly reasonable to cover this.

And yes, the Canucks can enjoy their pompous astonishment if they like. They have a lot of snow every year, so they have had to develop very different systems to cope with it.

In Oxfordshire, I meant.
We even had the leccy cut off earlier – and even the microwaves failed to get through the snowflakes, so no Sky until just now.

We don’t use salt any more for environmental reasons. In Canada we use SAND on the roads.

You can’t be out of sand can you?

How does sand work? Salt works by lowering the freezing point of water.

We don’t use salt any more for environmental reasons. In Canada we use SAND on the roads.

There are US states that are experimenting with using Treacle instead. Apparently it works better than Salt.

How does sand work?

Traction. I think the point is that the Canadians don’t bother melting the snow, they just drive on top of it.

Whereas British drivers are fecking idiots, with absolutely no theoretical understanding, even accepting they don’t get much practice, of how to drive on low friction surfaces. Cluelessly, they accelerate like normal, and then wonder why their wheels are spinning or why they bumped the car in front when they couldn’t stop.

I recently heard that molasses is now often mixed with rock salt and that the biggest rock salt mine in the UK is in Carrickfurgus, County Antrim on the Northern banks of Belfast Lock. Gosh and I thought the only thing that came from Carrick, was Van Morrison and 1/9 UDR!

I don’t know if it’s still the case, but when I lived in Stockholm in the 70s the main roads in the city centre were heated so that the snow immediately melted and was drained away. I’m sure something could be done along similar lines using photovoltaic panels on top of bus shelters.

Ah right, that makes much more sense, especially as grit doesn’t really help with the amount of snow we’ve been getting (I say we, but it’s barely snowed at all up here in Liverpool).

On the heated roads, if the black tarmac doesn’t warm up enough in the sun to melt ice then there’s no way a photovoltaic cell will produce enough energy to do it.

Why would ANYONE want to GET RID of snow?? It’s the best!!

SOC – WHAT SUN? I haven’t seen any proper sun for over 2 years now!!
If PVPs and GSHPs can power underfloor heating, why not under road heating? You’d only have to raise the temperature by a few degrees, surely? Alternatively, there seems to be a lot of hot air coming out of a certain building in Westminster which I’m sure could be put to good use. Lateral thinking!!

Cat litter works very well.

On the heated roads, if the black tarmac doesn’t warm up enough in the sun to melt ice then there’s no way a photovoltaic cell will produce enough energy to do it.

Tarmac with snow or ice on it is white, Einstein. A large % of the radiation is reflected rather than absorbed.

Ha ha yeah I suppose it is with snow anyway. The frozen roads outside my office are definitely still black though.

All this talk of heated roads reminds me of the Hammersmith Flyover disaster . They put underground heating in and forgot to put in any antifreeze, so the first year it all froze up and burst -as it had been built into the cocrete it coudln’t be fixed.

Belfast Lock

Belfast Lough you mean. I wasn’t aware Belfast was famous for its canals…

Montreal still uses salt on its streets, although it is mixed with an abrasive. Even at that, when the temperature drops below -25C even salt is no longer effective.

Some car tips:

When you’re heading into a coldsnap, always make sure you fill your gas-tank RIGHT up full. This prevents any condensation that could then freeze up your gas line. I have a block-heater in my car, but haven’t the means to plug it in as I park on the street. In any case, with a full gas tank and a decent battery (less than 5 years old) my car still starts at -30C

But it DOES groan when doing so, though.

And as for the panic and all that? Well, a couple of years ago Toronto (Boo! Hiss!)- mayor Mel Lastman called in the armed forces after the city had recieved all of 10 CM. Everyone in Montreal laughed their heads off.

You see, we need at least 15cm here before the city’s road crews are even called in.

Then again, and unlike Toronto, we can get huge blizzards ( 40cm or more) right into the 2nd week of April.

“Whereas British drivers are fecking idiots, with absolutely no theoretical understanding, even accepting they don’t get much practice, of how to drive on low friction surfaces. Cluelessly, they accelerate like normal, and then wonder why their wheels are spinning or why they bumped the car in front when they couldn’t stop.”

We had a situation on Monday where a pedestrian decided abruptly to cross the road at a zebra crossing. Despite only travelling at 20 mph, it was not really possible to safely stop in time so we hooted to warn him. Instead of getting of the way quickly he instead decided to stand in our path, swearing and gesticulating, intimating that he had right of way. Normally he would, but the laws of physics overrule his right of way. Luckily there wasn’t a car behind us, because with the reduced ability to stop, there surely would have been a pile-up.

“Instead of getting of the way quickly he instead decided to stand in our path, swearing and gesticulating, intimating that he had right of way. Normally he would, but the laws of physics overrule his right of way. “

Yeah, I’m betting that one wouldn’t have stood up in court…

“Yeah, I’m betting that one wouldn’t have stood up in court…”

Actually, I bet it would. I don’t think people have an absolute right of way regardless of the environmental conditions. The law requires people to act reasonably. A driver doesn’t have the right to simply mow down people who jaywalk or cross when the red man shows because the car has right of way. Similarly, pedestrians should take reasonable care. The fact that he acknowleged the warning but chose to ignore it and instead defaintly remained in the path of danger, I suspect would not count in his favour.

The fact that he acknowleged the warning but chose to ignore it and instead defaintly remained in the path of danger, I suspect would not count in his favour.

Pedestrians should use extra caution. Brett is quite right about stopping distances on snow covered streets, particularly when the car in question isn’t equipped with snow-tires.

Drivers should put more distance between themselves as well, as it gives one more leeway when braking.

There is still hope for England.

Despite only travelling at 20 mph, it was not really possible to safely stop in time so we hooted to warn him.

That’s an admission you were driving too fast for the road conditions. There’s no excuse for not being able to stop in time for a zebra crossing, regardless of the weather. If you can’t drive without putting pedestrians at risk, you shouldn’t be driving at all.

“That’s an admission you were driving too fast for the road conditions. There’s no excuse for not being able to stop in time for a zebra crossing, regardless of the weather. If you can’t drive without putting pedestrians at risk, you shouldn’t be driving at all.”

I shouldn’t have to point out the absurd science required to make sense of your assertion.

If you don’t want to die, the correct way to approach a zebra crossing is to pause, look left and right, and cross when it is safe to so do. Safe means the cars have stopped to give way to you or you reasonably assume they have sufficient time to see you and stop. Common sense dictates that under certain conditions: low visibility (eg mist or at night) the average speed of traffic on the road in question, the condition of the road, and of course the weather, you make reasonable adjustments.

Couldn’t you see the guy at the zebra… Or did he just ’suddenly appear out of nowhere’?

“Couldn’t you see the guy at the zebra… Or did he just ’suddenly appear out of nowhere’?”

He was walking along the pavement and decided abruptly to cross the road, which he did, without stopping or looking left or right. The ‘zebra’ was covered in snow. At the point he started to cross, there was barely sufficient distance between the car and the crossing line to stop. My point is, a responsible person would behave in a way that did not force cars to slam on brakes on an icy road. But moreover, that one should assert one’s right of way somewhere other than in the path of an oncoming vehicle which may not be able to stop.

Anyone else remember when grattans, great universal, littlewoods etc used to sell snow chains?
So anyway I’d favour a skid pan section to the driving test, There’s tear arse kids behind the wheel who’ve hardly even seen snow in their lives and they scare me, there are a lot of rural roadside walls and hedges round here suddenly got car size holes in them this week.

Takes me longer to find the horn in my car than to stop from urban speeds… Though I dare say I’d be more familiar with it’s whereabouts if I lived in London.
They do give you a hazard recognition test in the driving test these days tho’ you have to spot pedestrians walking near Zebras and stuff to pass it apparently;-)

“The law requires people to act reasonably.”

The law requires you to drive at a speed commensurate with the road conditions, and to give way on a pedestrian crossing.

Where, in the Mail piece, was the link between the grit crisis and plummeting house prices?

Beautiful sunny winter day in North Lancashire, by the way.

“The law requires you to drive at a speed commensurate with the road conditions, and to give way on a pedestrian crossing.”

So you reject the notion of “stopping distance” then? Because it seems obvious to me that if one accepts that a moving vehicle needs X distance to stop, only an unreasonable person would step into the road if that distance were X-1. A reasonable person would also take into account that certain weather conditions make it wise to make extra allowances for unknown factors. One takes extra care crossing a road on a dark and misty day than one might during a bright summer day. This is not because one’s right to use the crossing changes, this is because one isn’t an imbecile.

“There’s tear arse kids behind the wheel who’ve hardly even seen snow in their lives and they scare me, there are a lot of rural roadside walls and hedges round here suddenly got car size holes in them this week.”

Evolution in action !

GW

Y’see it’s down to you as the motorist to recognise and make allowance for the increaced stopping distance caused by adverse road conditions and realise that pedestrians near Zebras sometimes cross the road. If you’ve got time to use your horn to command people out of your way and you’re travelling at a speed appropriate to the road conditions then you had time to clock the pedestrian near the crossing and slow down. The guy on the zebra might not have been the sharpest knife in the box but it sounds like you were not keeping your side of the deal up. But don’t take my word for it, run over pedestrians on zebra crossings and see if the police start taking an interest.

“The guy on the zebra might not have been the sharpest knife in the box but it sounds like you were not keeping your side of the deal up.”

The fact that (a) we didn’t run him over – cos we stopped in time and (b) that we stopped in time even though he stood in the middle of teh road defiantly where under normal conditions he would have been across already demonstartes amply that we were driving within safe perameters.

The point is that icy roads are *unpredictable* therefore the honk on the horn (which is the big button in the middle of the steering wheel and not at all hard to locate in an emergency) was *precautionary*. The correct response to approaching danger is to get out of the way, not to try to stare it own on an icy road.

Incidentally, the Zebra crossing could not actually be seen, since the road was covered in snow.

Had he been run down, our solicitor would have asked him “Mr Smith, were you in fact warned that the car coming towards you might not be able to stop in time?” He’d have to truthfully answer ‘yes’. Then he’d be asked what his response to this warning was, to which he’d have to answer truthfully “I stubornly stood in the path of the on-coming car and refused to move out the way.” At which point, I trust, the case would be closed.

“So you reject the notion of “stopping distance” then?”

Quite the opposite. It seems you are a little confused about it though.

Remember, YOU are the one in control of the potentially lethal vehicle.

“The fact that (a) we didn’t run him over – cos we stopped in time and (b) that we stopped in time even though he stood in the middle of teh road defiantly where under normal conditions he would have been across already demonstartes amply that we were driving within safe perameters.”

‘We’..? How many people were driving this car!?

Because it seems obvious to me that if one accepts that a moving vehicle needs X distance to stop, only an unreasonable person would step into the road if that distance were X-1. A reasonable person would also take into account that certain weather conditions make it wise to make extra allowances for unknown factors.

The legal obligation is on you to give way to pedestrians at a zebra crossing. There is no defence of “inadequate stopping distance” where you do not have the right of way. If necessary you should approach at a crawl and be prepared to stop before it and make sure nobody is trying to cross.

Incidentally, the Zebra crossing could not actually be seen, since the road was covered in snow.

All the more reason for you to proceed at a much slower speed than you admit doing so.

“Incidentally, the Zebra crossing could not actually be seen, since the road was covered in snow.”

And the black and white poles at each side of the road, with flashing yellow beacons? Similarly obsured by snow, were they?

“At which point, I trust, the case would be closed.”

Sorry to spoil your little Perry Mason daydream, but I suspect you would be going home by taxi!

… we stopped in time even though he stood in the middle of teh road defiantly …

He stoiod in the middle of the zebra crossing staring at you defiantly?

I’ve got news for you – it’s not up to you to decide that he’s had “long enough” to use the crossing. He has the right of way and you don’t.

I’m guessing that you didn’t take your driving test in the UK but in South Africa. In the UK drivers are expected to demonstrate in their road test they have an understanding that the Highway Code is not a set of guidelines you can ignore if you think other road users are being unreasonable.

“Remember, YOU are the one in control of the potentially lethal vehicle.”

Which takes X distance to stop, whether I want it to or not, because such are the laws of physics.

And when there’s ice on the roads, it may take a little longer. Which is why my advice is, as frequently a pedestrian myself, to take a little more care crossing roads and make allowances for the fact that drivers have less control over their cars than on clear days. It’s just common sense, isn’t it?

“Which takes X distance to stop, whether I want it to or not, because such are the laws of physics. “

Which takes X distance to stop depending on speed + road conditions. The latter isn’t under your control, nor are the actions of pedestrians, but the former most certainly IS.

As has been pointed out to you, no matter how irrsponsible the actions of pedestrian may seem to you, he has right of way on a pedestrian crossing and YOU bear the responsibility in law.

“He has the right of way and you don’t.”

There is no such thing as an absolute right of way. Eveyone is required to proceed with due care an attention.

Here is the guidance issued by the UK Government:

Crossings
18
At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should

always check that the traffic has stopped before you start to cross or push a pram onto a crossing
always cross between the studs or over the zebra markings. Do not cross at the side of the crossing or on the zig-zag lines, as it can be dangerous
You MUST NOT loiter on any type of crossing.

[Laws ZPPPCRGD reg 19 & RTRA sect 25(5)]

19
Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has stopped.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070108

Brett, approaching a road junction you notice a traffic light displaying a green light. How do you proceed?

Sea kitten is the highway code above not clear enough?

Ever heard of the concept of ‘defensive driving’? This would for example mean starting from the assumption that when the weather is adverse YOU need to watch out for other road users (this includes pedestrians – see highway code) rather than other road users aught to take extra care to watch out for you.
Btw you never know whats going on for the other guy, he could be part blind, fully deaf half crazy, you just never know, maybe a permutation of the above with a bloody painful arthritic hip that stops him dancing out of your path in what you deem a reasonable time. Btw don’t you have Belisha beacons on the Zebras round yours?

“Btw don’t you have Belisha beacons on the Zebras round yours?”

Yup, as I pointed out above, and then enquired if they were also obscured by snow? Brett sems not to have seen that either… ;)

“Sea kitten is the highway code above not clear enough?”

The bit about ‘Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing‘ was pretty clear to me…

Sea kitten is the highway code above not clear enough?

I’m not convinced you know the correct answer, given your responses to the zebra crossing scenario. You sure seem reluctant to say what it is, which isn’t very reassuring for other road users unlucky enough to cross your path.

NB. Brett’s citation of the Highway Code covers how pedestrians navigate road junctions, and how drivers navigate zebra crossings.

My question to Brett is how he should proceed through a road junction he is approaching that is showing a green traffic light.

“My question to Brett is how he should proceed through a road junction he is approaching that is showing a green traffic light.”

I’m guessing ‘Full speed ahead, and damn the torpedos!’… ;)

I’m glad it’s clear to you, because my point from the beginning was that this young man began to cross abruptly and without warning AFTER the point at which sufficient stopping distance could be reasonably expected. That’s my whole point: that pedestrians should be extra careful because stopping distances are compromised. I still think that is good advice.

I’m not convinced that this poor gentleman on the zebra crossing really stood in the middle of the road, glaring at Brett and hurling obscenities.

I think the more likely explanation is that this man was attempting to go about his lawful business when Brett came hurtling out of nowhere (visiblity being very restricted), at a speed which had this man paralysed with fear on the spot, a rictus of terror twisting his face into an ugly visage. Braced for a bone-shattering impact that was very narrowly averted, in a state of shock he may have waived his arms about trying to retain his balance on a slippery surface, and some expletives, heaven-directed, may have escaped his lips as they would for anyone suddenly faced with a life-or-death situation.

(The prosecution rests it case, m’lud)

Hahaha, yes, very funny. ;-)

On that note, it’s friday night and I have Ikea stuff to build.

I blame the BBC, unions and liberal lawyers
Eh Brett

Pedestrians are frequently unaware of the fact that a lot of road traffic laws restrict what they do. They seem to think that traffic consists only of wheeled vehicles. If the police bothered to enforce the many laws pertaining to pedestrian behaviour quite a few of the cockier pedestrians posting above would be in strife. I am always hugely amused when the cops here go out into the CBD and start hauling in people for jay-walking. The indignation when they get fined! It only happens about once a year, the rest of the time they get away with it. Needless to say I jaywalk all the time myself but I’m not one of these whiny types that complain when I get caught (or run over).

Same goes for cyclists. In Oxford, a cyclist displaying a light, never mind wearing reflective clothing or stopping at red lights or stop lines or giving way as required under the HC, are regarded as proof of being a mummy’s boy or girl. Once a year the police mount a raid – it should happen every week, really – and always some of the idiots caught riding illegally write whining letters to the papers about ‘Why ME! Everyone does it!”.

I see that the ghastly prat Hoon has told us all not to ‘whinge’. To me, at least, this proves that we are very right to whinge. But then, we have been ‘governed’ by these incompetent crooks for almost 12 years.

there’s a section of the driving test called the emergency stop where the examiner asks you to simulate a pedestrian unexpectedly dashing into the road in front of your vehicle. Going for the horn is a fail. Acceptable use of the horn imo is pretty much limited to tapping out ’shave and a haircut’ when going through a tunnel and seeing if any other drivers give you the ‘two bob’