If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , Char Jackson
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, they do support it. |
Ads |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: ask yourself why cops are enforcing something you say doesn't exist: http://richmondsfblog.com/2010/07/20...s-or-it-could- c ost-you-police-planning-stings/ SFAppeal reports that the SFPD will be kicking off targeted pedestrian stings in and around the area of Golden Gate Park, specifically the district patrolled by the Park Police. ... The law states that if a pedestrian is waiting to cross at a crosswalk, vehicles must yield. Drivers must yield even if the pedestrian is in an unmarked crosswalk intersection. If the pedestrian is in an unmarked crosswalk, they must look before stepping off the curb but if it is a marked crosswalk they are free to step into the intersection. Vehicles must yield in both situations. But we should be discussing cross walks with signals. Your quote doesn't cover that situation yes it does. Let me know when you argue that succesfully before a judge. learn to read. The law states that if a pedestrian is waiting to cross at a crosswalk, vehicles must yield. that refers to *any* crosswalk, with or without traffic control signals. No it doesn't. it does, and why the cops set up stings, usually at such intersections. |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 22:19:49 -0500, Paul wrote:
I don't own a cellphone/smartphone either. I do use VOIP, because it's cheaper than the $55 per month they expect here for a landline. Where is "here", Paul? Non-US, I'm guessing? I've been using Consumer Cellular for a few years now, and I'm generally satisfied. It's $20 a month ($24 and change with all the fees and taxes) for unlimited talk, and $5 more gets you unlimited texts and 256 MG of data. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://BrownMath.com/ http://OakRoadSystems.com/ Shikata ga nai... |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 17:51:28 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 12:45:42 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 18:35:22 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: In message , Mark Lloyd writes: On 2/12/19 7:02 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: [snip] Person A: "It was sunny yesterday!" nospam: "not last night, it wasn't!" Bang on, Char. Dammit! I at first wrote that but then thought it was unnecessarily provocative and deleted it. (-: I have deleted a post, but not before someone replied so my words weren't really deleted. Even if they hadn't, I doubt you have "deleted your post": unless the server you are using honours delete requests _and_ processed it before communicating with its peers, there is little you can do to delete a post. I deleted it before I posted. OK, but in that case, don't say "I have deleted a post." That only confuses people. If you didn't post it, it wasn't a post. I didn't say "I have deleted a post". That was Mark Lloyd. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
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 |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 21:18:08 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Char Jackson 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. they do support it. You missd a bit. I put it back. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
(When you change the followup-to 'groups in a thread [e. g. by removing
some], it's usually considered polite to say you are doing so.) In message , mechanic writes: On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 09:21:53 +0000, Chris wrote: In the UK, if you hit a pedestrian wiht your car you will be charged with either "Dangerous driving" or "Driving without due care and attention" and you have to make the case that it was unavoidable. Yes we have very much a blame culture in the UK, there's no such thing as an 'accident'. Has there ever been a case where - *especially where there is a pedestrian light against which they crossed* - a _pedestrian_ has been penalised, especially if they caused a vehicle to swerve to avoid them and hit another vehicle, street furniture, etcetera? (_Harder_ to prove as - AFAIK! - "leaving the scene of an accident" may not be an offence, and is certainly easier, for pedestrians.) In UK, AFAIK, it isn't actually an _offence_ - though it may be stupid - for a _pedestrian_ to cross against a red light, though it is for a vehicle. I think it is in Germany (or was about 40 years ago, and I doubt it's changed); and I have heard mention of "jaywalking" in the USA, so I think it is there too? I don't see any mention of vehicle emergency braking systems on here but they are available in many new cars. Do you mean _automatic_ such systems (i. e. obstruction-sensor-triggered)? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf The thing about smut is it harms no one and it's rarely cruel. Besides, it's a gleeful rejection of the dreary and the "correct". - Alison Graham, RT 2014/10/25-31 |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On 2/14/2019 6:49 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Has there ever been a case where - *especially where there is a pedestrian light against which they crossed* - a _pedestrian_ has been penalised In downtown Phoenix (AZ/US) cops periodically run pedestrian stings and write hundreds of tickets to the jaywalkers, red light walkers, etc, who tie up traffic and cause near accidents. After the word gets around things get better for awhile until after some time it needs to be done again. leaving the scene of an accident" may not be an offence, and is certainly easier, for pedestrians. True. But if they can be later located they can be cited for the accident cause. So walk fast... |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote: In the UK, if you hit a pedestrian wiht your car you will be charged with either "Dangerous driving" or "Driving without due care and attention" and you have to make the case that it was unavoidable. Yes we have very much a blame culture in the UK, there's no such thing as an 'accident'. Has there ever been a case where - *especially where there is a pedestrian light against which they crossed* - a _pedestrian_ has been penalised, especially if they caused a vehicle to swerve to avoid them and hit another vehicle, street furniture, etcetera? (_Harder_ to prove as - AFAIK! - "leaving the scene of an accident" may not be an offence, and is certainly easier, for pedestrians.) if that does happen, it's very rare. cops like to go after the drivers because the fines are a lot higher. it's all about money and quotas. In UK, AFAIK, it isn't actually an _offence_ - though it may be stupid - for a _pedestrian_ to cross against a red light, though it is for a vehicle. I think it is in Germany (or was about 40 years ago, and I doubt it's changed); and I have heard mention of "jaywalking" in the USA, so I think it is there too? jaywalking does exist and is generally stupid, however, it's not always illegal, and in new york city, jaywalking is expected. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|