A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 7 » Windows 7 Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #136  
Old February 14th 19, 03:18 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.freeware,alt.conspiracy
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,741
Default 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  
Old February 14th 19, 03:18 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.freeware,alt.conspiracy
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,741
Default 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  
Old February 14th 19, 05:05 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Stan Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,844
Default 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  
Old February 14th 19, 11:11 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 350
Default 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  
Old February 14th 19, 11:13 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.freeware,alt.conspiracy
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 350
Default 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  
Old February 14th 19, 11:16 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.freeware,alt.conspiracy
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 350
Default 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  
Old February 15th 19, 02:49 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,399
Default 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)[email protected]+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  
Old February 15th 19, 03:50 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
123456789[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 86
Default 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  
Old February 15th 19, 06:31 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,741
Default 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
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.