# Rules - Why don't we adhere to them



## AndrewandShirley (Oct 13, 2007)

This post is meant as a genuine debate about rules.

It can be a forum rule or campsite rules, just a fair and exchange of views.

Here are our thoughts:
Campsites
The owners work hard and have rules for the protection of fellow campers and their own financial investment. Therefore why should we break them? If we do not like them dont go to their site?

Forum
The rules we think are clear to protect against litigation, individuals etc


Whilst we may not agree with them, why should we object to them, when they are clearly available to one and all.

Discuss.......


----------



## flyingpig (Jan 14, 2009)

My opinion is thus on both counts. If you don't agree with the rules on ANY issue, then vote with your feet, like the T.V, if you don't like the program, switch off! Simple!


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

There is another way work within them to get them changed. Our allotment has several perverse rules but I am challenging the council to either explain the why of them or change them. For example one says no bonfires on Mondays. Now the days of Monday being washing day have long gone. So many people ignore it. I obey it but have challenged it. When I was in the Army I even got a piece of Army legislation changed!


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS (Jul 24, 2006)

There are some good rules and bad ones, just the same as the laws of the land.
Bad laws have been amended after people power protests.

Dave p


----------



## Techno100 (May 8, 2010)

The Highways department erected some traffic lights on a junction local to me because traffic could not get out of a side road at peak period. The other 23hrs of the day/night these lights serve no purpose but to have people stop and waste petrol for up to 4 minutes whilst in all that time there are countless opportunities to negotiate a turn on an empty road. The result is that most people ignore the red light.
The bigger picture is that there must be 1000's of lights like these around the country causing a waste of time and fuel for the sake of some signage and a time clock.
The Government come up with all sorts of ****e about reducing our carbon footprint but are blind to ways of achieving real savings.
Likewise roadworks on minor roads that have heavy traffic DO IT AT NIGHT!!!!!!!! :twisted:

The moral is that if something is blatantly against the majority feeling it will be largely ignored.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

AndrewandShirley said:


> Whilst we may not agree with them, why should we object to them, when they are clearly available to one and all


That is a viewpoint that I can endorse totally,

but then I did manage to pick up 3 points for going above 30mph.........

and I don't think I am unique...... 

Dave


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Techno100 said:


> The other 23hrs of the day/night these lights serve no purpose


until someone gets killed..............

No need for the time clock, just vehicle controlled lights. If they haven't been installed the lights could be there for some other as yet undisclosed reason.

Vehicle controlled lights would allow a given number of vehicles out in a pre-set maximum period of time whenever traffic l flows demanded it.

Has anyone asked the local Councillor to find out why vehicle controlled lights have not (apparently) been installed there?


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

Rules have a propensity to profligate. Often transgressions are anticipated and before you know where you are you are regimented.

Don’t get me wrong I’m not one of life’s rebels but I do think that the more rules we have the less of a moral sense we have to develop.

Dick


----------



## lucky-1 (Jun 3, 2009)

rules....read 'em, decide they're ok, and abide with them.........or go somewhere else - simples! :wink:


----------



## richardjames (Feb 1, 2006)

interpretation and method of application by individuals can always be misleading 8O 8O 
e.g. my understanding is that persons over a certain age are not allowed to cycle on a footpath but our local council has decreed that a 300m length of footpath can be be cycled on 8O 8O 8O 8O

And talking of traffic lights - in the local town centre there are main 4 way traffic lights and 2 sets of pedestrian crossing lights and until a recent redevelopment (which was a c***up from the very start) messed about with the pedestrian crossing timings so that they go to red almost instantly instead of having to wait so that traffic from lights about 400m away will have to stop thus causing constant tail backs ( Ihope you get the gist!!!!)


----------



## DABurleigh (May 9, 2005)

Perhaps start by asking yourself why you exceeded 30 mph in a 30 limit.

Dave


----------



## locovan (Oct 17, 2007)

Rules create order out of chaos or individual preferences of personal action.
We need law and order.


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

Those who put rules into place or who pass laws have been put in the position to do so either by a democratic vote or by implicit acceptance by the majority. The laws or rules they pass can be challenged, _through the proper channels, _ by any or all of us if found to be unneccessary or plain wrong.

This is one of the great things about living in a democracy where free speech prevails.

What we cannot do, if order is to prevail, is to challenge these rules or laws arbitrarily. I might not agree with the 30mph limit on my local road but I must not disobey it by driving at 40 mph. I can- and should- ask for the reasons why it is necessary and, if I find this reason wanting, put forward my objections in a reasonable manner.

G


----------



## jimmyd0g (Oct 22, 2009)

Why do I get the feeling (not for the first time on these forums) that some members want to be able to pick & choose the laws they will adhere to? If you believe in law & order to run a civilized, modern, society then surely you have to accept _all_ of those laws or, as Frank has suggested earlier, get off your back side & lobby the authorities to change the laws you think are injust or simply wrong.


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

jimmyd0g said:


> Why do I get the feeling (not for the first time on these forums) that some members want to be able to pick & choose the laws they will adhere to?


Following on from Grizzly's comments, this is an inevitable problem with living in a benevolent democracy Jimmy.

To all intents and purposes we are *asked *to obey many of our laws, and neither policing nor punishment is very rigorous or draconian in comparison with a lot of other countries. 8O

Which would we prefer?? :?

I'm with you and Grizzly, but I do despair when people openly admit (for example) ignoring the rules on ferries by leaving their fridges running on gas!! (I can recall a number of posts to this effect during the last two or three years!)

Just a further thought for the melting pot.

Dave


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

What a strange world we would be living in if the choice was as simple as some suggest. There would be no political campaigns, no pressure groups, no marches or demonstrations of any sort. 

It does not boil down to obey the rules or go elsewhere. That simplistic view does not reflect the reality of change. Life never was like that and never will be. Wars have been fought to ensure that such a mind set does not prevail.

There is nothing wrong in seeking to change rules from within, it's what Politicians and Judges do. There is nothing wrong in asking for clarification if a rule is confusing or seems to be being used for other than it's intended purpose, Alan.


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

Zebedee said:


> I do despair when people openly admit (for example) ignoring the rules on ferries by leaving their fridges running on gas!!


Oh Hear Hear ! to that one Dave.

To widen the debate a little; isn't this one symptom of the attitude that seems to prevail today of " I didn't do it /it wasn't me/I'm going to cheat, lie or bribe my way out of trouble ?

What happened to the " I cannot tell a lie" attitude ? Society can only run efficiently on trust. If no-one can be trusted then how can society run at all ?

G

(Edit to change "Can't" to "can " in last sentence!)


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

Blame culture. :roll:

Someone *must *be blamed . . . . anybody else, but not me!!!! 8O

Dave


----------



## Techno100 (May 8, 2010)

Going back to my post. The lights are induction loop operated but respond far too slowly leading to everyone's frustration when for 23hrs of the day there is not enough traffic to justify them at all. 
I often pull up at the lights on an empty road and I could have turned right 30 times over but they always seem to wait until a car is coming the other way just so they can take pleasure in stopping them so I can go :lol: They're so intelligent that they take great pleasure in causing MAXIMUM annoyance


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

There seems to be confusion (traffic lights, speed limits, society deciding etc. ) between rules and laws. 

Dick


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

I didn't distinguish between the two because I think it is fair to consider both in this context Dick.

What we are really being asked is whether they are written in stone or are subject to challenge.

Logic dictates that there can be only one answer to that question. 

What makes a difference is the nature and timing of challenges and perhaps who does the challenging.

The argument seems to be that if a judge strikes down a law, or the Caravan Club introduces a new rule these are the actions of the legitimate authority and we must comply without question. I think that logic is flawed because they may be bad laws or rules which we are obliged obey but are equally obliged to seek to change, Alan.


Edit: I missed an element out in the above.

Anyone who owns anything is entitled to make rules governing how others may use it, however when that owner sells the right to use his facility to others they become customers and that confers rights on them too. Among these rights is the right to comment on the conditions of use and to seek to have the owner change those conditions.


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

I think it helps if you think of them as different. In fact I think people regarding them as the same causes a lot of the strife.

Take the marked one way system in a private car park like a supermarket. Very useful at busy times, but to do a full circuit when it is virtually empty? 

Surely that illustrates the difference.

Dick


----------



## Spacerunner (Mar 18, 2006)

Some feel that rules are a means for our rulers to keep the population not only in order but to cow them into a mass of obedient workers for the benefit of the moneyed, land-owning ruling classes. This feeling is heightened even more when we learn of blatant rule-breaking by the rule makers themselves. Hence the unparalleled feeling of outrage over the MP's expenses scandal.

So we, being small people, sometimes find the only way to make our feeble protest is to break minor rules just to make ourselves feel better.

The human spirit tends to be unruly and loves the freedom of personal expression. Being civilised and social animals we know that our survival depends on being able to live together in an ordered way. But bubbling just beneath the surface is the yearning for freedom and independance.

*Why else do you think we are motorhomers?*


----------



## locovan (Oct 17, 2007)

Glandwr said:


> I think it helps if you think of them as different. In fact I think people regarding them as the same causes a lot of the strife.
> 
> Take the marked one way system in a private car park like a supermarket. Very useful at busy times, but to do a full circuit when it is virtually empty?
> 
> ...


Ahh now thats like speed limits, great when its busy but when it is night time and no traffic around why cant they lift the rule's 
Doing 30 MPH on a empty road is frustrating.
Doing 40 through traffic works when your the only one about, and worse thing waiting at a red light at traffic works and your the only one on the road.
Rules are frustrating but we still abide by the rules. :wink:


----------



## Bill_H (Feb 18, 2011)

Did you all read and understand every single rule before you joined this site, and for fear of transgressing any of them, do you know and remember them all?
Do the sites we stay on list every rule and regulation before you pay your money? And if, after paying you come across a notice on the wall of the shower block with which you disagree, would you get your fee refunded if you chose to 'vote with your feet' and leave?
Do we know and therefore are able to implicitly comply with every single rule, regulation and law relating to driving a motor vehicle before we get behind the wheel?
Have you read all the conditions relating to your credit card agreement?
Do you know and comply with all the local council rules relating to walking through the local park?
If you plan to take your motorhome abroad, do you spend the preceding months poring over all the rules relating to the countries you propose driving through?

Yes, I obey the rules, of course I do, every single one of them.

Even the unwritten ones.
:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

Spacerunner said:


> Some feel that rules are a means for our rulers to keep the population not only in order but to cow them into a mass of obedient workers for the benefit of the moneyed, land-owning ruling classes.


But our rulers are, for the most part, people like us. In other words, if I wanted to become a " ruler" then I could work my way up through the lower echelons of the local council and, if I convinced sufficient ordinary people that I had their interests at heart, I could be elected to parliament and be part of the law-making process.

If, as an ordinary member of the public, I don't like the rules and laws that are being made, then I am at liberty to say so and, if simply saying so gets no-where, I can even protest, peacefully, to try and get them overthrown. I do have to convince the majority however that the law or rule is counter-productive.

G


----------



## Spacerunner (Mar 18, 2006)

Bill_H said:


> Did you all read and understand every single rule before you joined this site, and for fear of transgressing any of them, do you know and remember them all?
> Do the sites we stay on list every rule and regulation before you pay your money? And if, after paying you come across a notice on the wall of the shower block with which you disagree, would you get your fee refunded if you chose to 'vote with your feet' and leave?
> Do we know and therefore are able to implicitly comply with every single rule, regulation and law relating to driving a motor vehicle before we get behind the wheel?
> Have you read all the conditions relating to your credit card agreement?
> ...


No. Because most rules are only stating the obvious.
They are just formulating, in the main, how we react to our fellows and make life bearable for the majority.
Some rules, however, are just plain barmy, these we tend to fiercely resent as they have no practical purpose. Political correctness pettiness comes to mind!


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

Bill_H said:


> Did you all read and understand every single rule .....
> :


No, of course not but the great majority of rules are simple common sense ways of ensuring a harmonious society. Someone who does not lie, cheat or steal would find it easier to abide by those rules, even if they did not know their exact wording.

When I see a road sign saying " 40 mph" I slow down to 40 or less even if I can't see a reason for it. I try always to drive in a manner that is safe and not to exceed a sensible speed for any road, even if not marked with a limit. I use my common sense.

When I write a letter to a forum I try not to deliberately upset other posters by going beyond the bounds of what I call "good manners."

What many in society do not have is this automatic, self-limiting, inner voice that, in most people, tells them when they are exceeding the bounds of common sense and good manners.

G


----------



## Bill_H (Feb 18, 2011)

Grizzly said:


> Bill_H said:
> 
> 
> > Did you all read and understand every single rule .....
> ...


Whilst I understand the words you write, surely good manners are a cultural thing, in some societies, it is considered rude not to belch heartily after eating a meal, were this to be the prevalent 'good manners' in the UK, would we then feel the need to comply?
My experiences of driving in Italy suggest that very very few of the local drivers comply with their speed limits. Now, do I comply with the rules because they are the rules, and presumably were imposed for a good reason, or do speed along side all the others because it is considered good manners not to impede the flow of traffic?

(I'm not being deliberately obtuse, just trying to stimulate debate)


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

Bill_H said:


> My experiences of driving in Italy suggest that very very few of the local drivers comply with their speed limits. Now, do I comply with the rules because they are the rules,
> 
> (I'm not being deliberately obtuse, just trying to stimulate debate)


In Italy you comply with the rules. If that impedes the traffic then so be it. There are good reasons for this: most of us are not sufficiently used to Italian roads and drivers -especially in town centres- that we can do as they do and cut corners. Driving a big van means driving more slowly anyway. There is the additional factor that, as a driver of a foreign registered vehicle, you stand out and, in the event of any offence, you are fair game for police intervention. Doing what the rest are doing is no defence.

I see where you are coming from with the belching example however. I've lived abroad much of my life and have always tried to steer a course between. I have tried to be polite and considerate wherever I've been but, if I feel uncomfortable with a particular custom, then I will, if possible explain why or try to avoid it becoming an issue and will never rock the boat. I've no problem with belching when in a belching culture however!

Edit:It helps to understand why a custom is there. Belching I imagine signifies you have enjoyed the meal.

G


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

locovan said:


> Glandwr said:
> 
> 
> > I think it helps if you think of them as different. In fact I think people regarding them as the same causes a lot of the strife.
> ...


But those are laws Mavis

Dick


----------



## BillCreer (Jan 23, 2010)

My two rules for living on this planet are as follows:-

1. Don't do anything that will cause harm or offence to anyone.

2. Don't do anything that will cause loss to anyone or myself.

I'm quite happy to break any rule that does not comply with my rules.

If you don't like my rules find yourself another planet. 8O


----------



## johnthompson (Jul 29, 2010)

When it a Rule, a law or an agreement.

Many people quote the 28 day rule. This in The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 is a piece of law that allows a landowner to have one (or if the holding is more than 5 acres, three caravan) stationed on the land for human habitation for a maximum of 2 nights. The maximum number of nights that this can happen, without holding a site licence, is 28 in a year.

Others quote a 28 day rule for CLs and Temporary Holiday sites. These are agreements between DEFRA (Natural England) and the exempted clubs to limit the stay on these sites to that number of days. There is no limit in the Act for occupancy of paragraph 4 or 5 sites. Therefor this so called rule is just an agreement.

The only stipulated limit is in Paragraph 5 and is that no more than 5 vans can be stationed overnight on the site. This however does not include trailer tents as they come under the camping legislation of the Public Health Act 1937 and there is no limit on numbers other than space permitting, provided the club also holds a camping exemption. 

Paragraph 6 sites have unlimited number of vans but are limited under the act to be of no more than 5 days duration. This has been interpreted as 5 x 24 hours.

The present kick off about the Olympics Site at Chigwell has brought this 28 day agreement (rule) to the publics attention as some residents were claiming the site was open for longer than the law allowed. DEFRA had issued a circular to local authorities informing them that it did not wish this agreement to be applied to sites set up for the Olympics.

It is amazing how many planning officers in local authorities do not actually know the laws that they are enforcing. In the Chigwell case the Chief Planning Officer stated that he did not realise what his department had agreed to with the Caravan Club. He was now going to see if he could go back on the agreement He claimed the Planning Permission had not been given for the event. The club consulted the authority and the planners saw no reason to object, so this actualy confered "assumed consent" under the Town and Country Planning laws.

When applying for a paragraph 5 site as an exemption certificate holder I was told to contact my club about this. When I queries what this meant I received the reply The Caravan Club they do all of that not us. I had to get across to this person that the Caravan Club was only one of 400+ clubs that were exempted under the 1960 Act. and one of 15 that could set up 5 van exempted sites.

A further (rule) agreement limits the use of a site for camping under an exemption on a piece of land to 60 days a year or 40 days of continuous use. I see no reference to this limit in the 1937 Public Health Act.

It is a cosy clique of the Big clubs, ACCEO and DEFRA officers that make these rules. They are not open to discussion for a majority of the clubs that are expected to comply with them.


----------



## locovan (Oct 17, 2007)

Glandwr said:


> locovan said:
> 
> 
> > Glandwr said:
> ...


Laws rules what is the difference Dick they are laid down and we abide by them or we are in trouble. :wink:


----------



## sooty10 (Feb 22, 2009)

Does the OP have any particular rules in mind.

Sooty


----------



## MyGalSal (Dec 8, 2008)

sooty10 said:


> Does the OP have any particular rules in mind.
> 
> Sooty


I am ahead of you Sooty! 

Sal


----------



## AndrewandShirley (Oct 13, 2007)

The OP had no specific rules in mind but just from observing camp site life and the world at large wanted to know peoples thoughts.

We seem to hear on a daily basis, people questioning why they should abide by a rule (or law), as if the rule is there just for them to ignore. Or is it just an attitude of todays society?

Or could it just be we are taught to question everything?


----------



## Techno100 (May 8, 2010)

It takes a year to train a soldier to not question anything. It's the only way to get them to stare death in the face. Normal intelligent humans and animals will naturally question everything.
Many rules and laws can be clearly seen to be for the common good but very many are questionable through poor thinking or changing circumstances


----------



## Techno100 (May 8, 2010)

I can stand on the side of a main road in Leeds and probably witness a 1000 drivers with a phone to their ear in a couple of hours. This goes on all over the country every day. This is a dreadfully serious disregard for the safety of themselves and worse other road users/pedestrians. 
In this case the penalty for being caught is pitiful  
A £1000 fine and 6 points or confiscation of your car would stop 99.9% but will it happen? NO
Fining these people would pay for more police and get us out of recession from the revenue :lol:


----------



## rugbyken (Jan 16, 2006)

glandwr logo

"Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools." Douglas Bader CBE.


unfortunately can't provide a certificate to prove i'm one of the wise men with an exemption to your rules.

i think thats why so many of us enjoy france for the mature attitude to rule observance, unfortunately over here the majority prove the "give em an inch and they'll take a mile"


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

This should be the only <rule> needed. From the caption though it seems to be a bit more specific.

Dick


----------



## 5bells (Feb 4, 2009)

Techno100 said:


> It takes a year to train a soldier to not question anything. It's the only way to get them to stare death in the face. Normal intelligent humans and animals will naturally question everything.
> 
> I think you will find the average British soldier has more intelligence than you imply Techno, and IMHO I think you will find he or she will be more concerned about letting their mates down than the danger.
> 
> Ray


----------



## sooty10 (Feb 22, 2009)

Some say they obey ALL the rules so how about this. 
You are staying on a French aire and a sign says maximum stay 48 hours. You have already been there 48 hours and wish to stay another day. This aire will hold 50 vans and at the moment only 5 vans are there. Question, although the rule says max 48 hours would you break the rule and stay on. Knowing full well the aire will not fill up. Or would you move on and miss doing something you would like to do near the almost empty aire. If you asked me personally I would stay on, but then again I have not said that I obey all the rules. 

Sooty


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Mixed messages on speed cameras 




May 25, 2011 




WARNING signs alerting drivers to the presence of speed cameras will continue to be removed from roadsides in France, and will be replaced at each site with an interactive speed display, the government has confirmed.

Interior minister Claude Guéant and prime minister François Fillon contradicted each other yesterday when asked about the controversial plan, which many MPs from the UMP party feared could alienate voters ahead of next year's elections.

Guéant appeared to announce a U-turn on the proposal, saying no more signs would be removed without a local consultation. However, Fillon announced a few minutes earlier that the government would not be going back on the plans.

Later that evening, Guéant changed his tone and announced in an interview with France 2 that the signs would still be removed. He insisted there was no disagreement between him and the prime minister.

Every sign that is taken away will be replaced by an interactive display telling drivers whether they are breaking the limit and allowing them to correct their speed before they reach the actual camera.

"There will always be a speed display before a fixed speed camera," Guéant said. The signs would be placed at a "random" distance ahead of the camera - sometimes a few kilometres.

Philippe Meunier, one of the MPs who had protested about the plan, said the group was happy with the changes.

However road safety body La Ligue Contre la Violence Routière said replacing static warning signs with interactive displays would not do anything to reduce the number of road deaths, which President Sarkozy wants to fall below the 3,000 mark next year.

Last year almost 4,000 people died in road accidents in France, and the first four months of this year have seen an increase on 2011. 

Taken from The Connexion. Ray.


----------



## rosalan (Aug 24, 2009)

I am not sure that rules apply if you are French..... I could be wrong of course! :lol: 

Alan


----------

