Machpoint005

Finally this one: Turning left Rule 182 Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view. Rule 182: Do not cut in on cyclists Perhaps this means they have the freedom to take local conditions into account?

We seem to have an unfortunate tradition in the UK of only obeying traffic rules if they suit us. The opposite is true in Scandinavia (and much of continental Europe, for that matter, especially Germany). For example, when turning right in Germany etc, you give way to pedestrians who are crossing the side road. Everybody does so. The same is true in the UK: (Highway Code) Rule 170 Take extra care at junctions. You should watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way So it's the same rule - but how often does it actually happen? This one is food for thought as well: Rule 178 Advanced stop lines. Some signal-controlled junctions have advanced stop lines to allow cycles to be positioned ahead of other traffic. Motorists, including motorcyclists, MUST stop at the first white line reached if the lights are amber or red and should avoid blocking the way or encroaching on the marked area at other times, e.g. if the junction ahead is blocked. If your vehicle has proceeded over the first white line at the time that the signal goes red, you MUST stop at the second white line, even if your vehicle is in the marked area. Allow cyclists time and space to move off when the green signal shows.

No, cyclists should not go through red lights. Yes, some of them do (I saw one do so early this morning, in fact). What business is it of any motorist?* The motorist isn't risking his/her life. "Mind your own business" as we used to say. * apart from the one who hits the cyclist, of course

If you come off the M60 clockwise at Junction 26 there is one - just after the "motorway ends" sign. I've never worked out why.

I don't, I just know that it tests. Having a CO alarm that responds to the test button correctly is a lot better than not having any alarm at all. I'm neither smug nor confident, it is just that statistically speaking I am more secure, and therefore less likely to become a statistic. The fact that my boat has a reasonable standard of ventilation also helps. It may be what you are getting at, but by keeping the stove flue swept, not leaving the gas stove lit etc I can also improve my chances of survival. See top line of dmr's post?

Unlike half the population of England. I am not fixated on Heathrow/Gatwick/Stansted. There are many other UK airports, both international and regional. I have heard that in terms of passengers' places of residence, Manchester is the biggest Scottish airport. None of which affects the accuracy of my "few thousand" take-offs a day.

I have a CO alarm. I don't need the BSS to tell me it's a good idea, but it is a good idea regardless. I cannot speak for others.

Sorry, would you like me to precede my every post with the words "in my opinion"? You have missed the point (several of them), There is ample evidence that Cameron did not contemplate 'losing' the referendum, which was in any event advisory. May has decided that the result was binding (and so has the Labour Party, at least until Conference). I suggested three reasons why people may not have voted in the referendum, but I did not say there were no other possibilities: you have inferred it. Another reason might be that the non-voters were protesting about a referendum that they thought should not have been held in the first place. It seems to me quite likely that my three reasons above covered most of the non-voters, though. The question was always too complicated for a simple yes/no vote. It was, in practice, poor democracy. We have periodic General Elections, which are a far better way of running a representative democracy. If the government of the day fails to get its legislative programme through Parliament, it calls one. There are plenty of elections in the real world in which the majority sufficient to make a change is defined in advance, those demanded by the Tory government's own Trade Union legislation for one. If we cannot tell either way, the safer option is to stay in, thereby allowing the wealth creators the chance to make better investment decisions.

I'd just like to see a scrap of evidence to confirm that it will be all right in the end. Until I see that evidence, I reserve the right to stick with what I might call "project reality".

About 400 from Manchester, which is the UK's 3rd busiest airport, so likely to be a few thousand altogether.

Or drivers who park their cars on the pavement so that parents/grandparents with buggies have to go into the road to get past?

No. that is not the reason. What makes you think so?

Yes, but the non-voters wouldn't have voted to leave: that argument would have been invalid. The basis for the referendum was fatally flawed, because the third of the voting population who did not trouble to vote were (1) confused, or (2) didn't care or (3) were happy with the status quo. It is well established that any vote for change requires a well-defined majority, for those very reasons.

Yes, life would be so much easier if everyone who disagreed with you would just shut up.

Sorry, wasn't shooting the messenger, just the breeze. I have my doubts about amateur experts wherever they may pop up!