On 02/11/2023 11:34 am, Simon Misogyny wrote:
How the hell did he miss this? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8uPYfLWgAAs_Sc?format=jpg&name=small
:-o
That is not a lawful or an adequate "No Entry" command.
Just as for speed limits, traffic lights and certain other sorts of
traffic signs, the legal requirement is for a sign on either side of the
road or carriageway.
What is forbidden is to pass between the two signs (in the case of a
properly signed "No Entry"). Without another sign immediately opposite
on the other side of the carriageway, the "No Entry" command is not
valid. And there is no reason why it should be.
QUOTE:
Traffic Signs & General Direction 2002
Direction 8
(3) Subject to paragraphs (4), a sign to which this direction applies
(Sign 616 - No Entry to Vehicular Traffic) shall be placed on the
relevant road at or as near as practicable to the point referred to in paragraph (2) - (start of restriction)
(a) where the relevant road has only one carriageway, on *each* *side*
of that carriageway; ...
ENDQUOTE
Get out of that, M'Lud Misogyny.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)