On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 18:13:20 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:16:38 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:46:17 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
123456789 wrote:

Pedestrians do NOT have the right of way against a red light at a
traffic light controlled intersection!!! Where in hell did you
get that
idea.

the motor vehicle code.

Not in my state (AZ/US):

(d) Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as
provided in section 28-646, a pedestrian facing a steady red signal
alone shall not enter the roadway.

yes in your state:
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00792.htm
28-792. Right-of-way at crosswalk
A. Except as provided in section 28-793, subsection B, if traffic
control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver
of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping
if need be in order to yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway
within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway
on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is
approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to
be in danger. A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave any curb or other
place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so
close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

"if traffic control signals are not in place or are not in operation".

See?

He is already determinedly trying to change the context of the
argument.

It's weird. nospam makes an argument and even provides multiple URLs
that he claims will support his argument. The weird thing is that none
of the URLs actually support his argument, so I think we're in for a
round of posts that redefine the initial claim so that the URLs can fit
the situation. AKA 'moving the goalposts'. I quickly lose interest,
which is what he hopes to achieve in the first place.

Several days ago I predicted that something like that would happen.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens