Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge

In article , Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

...Apparently the dummy doesn't know about traffic lights
and such, Shucks even little kindergarten kids know about traffic
signals and light signals. I guess he must live in a forest or maybe
under a bridge.

ad hominem, and traffic lights aren't the issue.

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:48:12 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 15:26:37 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

Ontario is big. 1,096,395 km^2. Only Alaska and Quebec are bigger.

I found it an interesting fact that Sudbury Ontario is farther south
than much of Washington State.


True, in fact most Canadians live south of the 49th parallel. However,
we have a continental climate over most of the country, so Washington
State is balmy compared to most of Canada.

not last week, when they got hit with a lot of snow...

Person A: "It was sunny yesterday!"
nospam: "not last night, it wasn't!"

:-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:55:50 -0600, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

On 02/12/2019 4:48 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 15:26:37 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

Ontario is big. 1,096,395 km^2. Only Alaska and Quebec are bigger.

I found it an interesting fact that Sudbury Ontario is farther south
than much of Washington State.


True, in fact most Canadians live south of the 49th parallel. However,
we have a continental climate over most of the country, so Washington
State is balmy compared to most of Canada.

not last week, when they got hit with a lot of snow...

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.

(-:
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 11:38:27 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Rene Lamontagne
wrote:


Another example, A month or so ago I went to the downtown staples for
printer supplies, on coming out I have to cross a busy 6 lane street, As
I am waiting for the red light to turn green a woman texting on her
phone starts walking across the street against the red light and very
nearly got hit by a car who had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting her.

pedestrians have the right of way. if said driver had to 'slam on his
brakes' to avoid a collision, then it's the driver who is at fault for
not paying attention.

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.

If that is true it is a most unusual motor vehicle code. Which one i
it. Can you cite/quote it?

although, anyone stepping in front of a moving vehicle does so only
once. it's a problem that solves itself.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 10:51:31 -0600, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

On 02/12/2019 10:38 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Rene Lamontagne
wrote:


Another example, A month or so ago I went to the downtown staples for
printer supplies, on coming out I have to cross a busy 6 lane street, As
I am waiting for the red light to turn green a woman texting on her
phone starts walking across the street against the red light and very
nearly got hit by a car who had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting her.

pedestrians have the right of way. if said driver had to 'slam on his
brakes' to avoid a collision, then it's the driver who is at fault for
not paying attention.

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.

although, anyone stepping in front of a moving vehicle does so only
once. it's a problem that solves itself.


Show me your proof.

Check this
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/636.26


"Military Police"?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Another example, A month or so ago I went to the downtown staples for
printer supplies, on coming out I have to cross a busy 6 lane street, As
I am waiting for the red light to turn green a woman texting on her
phone starts walking across the street against the red light and very
nearly got hit by a car who had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting
her.

pedestrians have the right of way. if said driver had to 'slam on his
brakes' to avoid a collision, then it's the driver who is at fault for
not paying attention.

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.

If that is true it is a most unusual motor vehicle code. Which one i
it. Can you cite/quote it?

nothing unusual about it. see other posts.

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:46:13 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

Another example, A month or so ago I went to the downtown staples for
printer supplies, on coming out I have to cross a busy 6 lane street, As
I am waiting for the red light to turn green a woman texting on her
phone starts walking across the street against the red light and very
nearly got hit by a car who had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting
her.

pedestrians have the right of way. if said driver had to 'slam on his
brakes' to avoid a collision, then it's the driver who is at fault for
not paying attention.

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.

although, anyone stepping in front of a moving vehicle does so only
once. it's a problem that solves itself.

Show me your proof.

Check this
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/636.26

(f) Every driver will exercise due care to avoid colliding with any
pedestrian upon any roadway and will exercise proper precaution
upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated, or
intoxicated person.

random states -

california:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...tion.xhtml?sec
tionNum=21950.&lawCode=VEH
21950.Â*Â*
(a)Â*The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a
pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or
within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise
provided in this chapter.
(b)Â*This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using
due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a
curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a
vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No
pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked
or unmarked crosswalk.
(c)Â*The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any
marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall
reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to
the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of
the pedestrian.
(d)Â*Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the
duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within
any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an
intersection.

minnesota:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/169.21
Subd. 2. Rights in absence of signal. (a) Where traffic-control
signals are not in place or in operation, the driver of a vehicle
shall stop to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the
roadway within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no
marked crosswalk. The driver must remain stopped until the pedestrian
has passed the lane in which the vehicle is stopped. No pedestrian
shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run
into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible
for the driver to yield. This provision shall not apply under the
conditions as otherwise provided in this subdivision.
...
Subd. 3.Crossing between intersections.
(d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section every driver
of a vehicle shall (1) exercise due care to avoid colliding with any
bicycle or pedestrian upon any roadway and (2) give an audible signal
when necessary and exercise proper precaution upon observing any
child or any obviously confused or incapacitated person upon a
roadway.

new york:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/ope...grams-bureau/r
epository/pedestrian/resources/faq.html
€ When there is no traffic control signal, drivers must yield the
right-of-way to pedestrians in the crosswalk. (Sec. 1151).
€ In addition, every driver approaching an intersection or crosswalk,
must yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian accompanied by a guide
dog or using a white or metallic cane (Sec. 1153).
What if there is no crosswalk?
€ If there is no crosswalk, a pedestrian must yield the right-of-way
to all vehicles on the roadway (Sec. 1152).
What about sidewalks?
€ The driver of a vehicle when entering or exiting from an alleyway,
building, private road or driveway, must yield the right-of-way to
any pedestrian on a sidewalk. (Sec. 1151-a).

washington:
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.235
(1) The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain
stopped to allow a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway within
an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian or bicycle is
upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the
vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For purposes of
this section "half of the roadway" means all traffic lanes carrying
traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of
a one-way roadway.

None of this describes the situation where there is a signal and two
of them specifically describe the situation where there is no signal.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:10:33 -0600, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

On 02/12/2019 11:46 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

Another example, A month or so ago I went to the downtown staples for
printer supplies, on coming out I have to cross a busy 6 lane street, As
I am waiting for the red light to turn green a woman texting on her
phone starts walking across the street against the red light and very
nearly got hit by a car who had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting
her.

pedestrians have the right of way. if said driver had to 'slam on his
brakes' to avoid a collision, then it's the driver who is at fault for
not paying attention.

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.

although, anyone stepping in front of a moving vehicle does so only
once. it's a problem that solves itself.

Show me your proof.

Check this
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/636.26

(f) Every driver will exercise due care to avoid colliding with any
pedestrian upon any roadway and will exercise proper precaution
upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated, or
intoxicated person.

random states -

california:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...tion.xhtml?sec
tionNum=21950.&lawCode=VEH
21950.
(a)Â*The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a
pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or
within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise
provided in this chapter.
(b)Â*This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using
due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a
curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a
vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No
pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked
or unmarked crosswalk.
(c)Â*The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any
marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall
reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to
the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of
the pedestrian.
(d)Â*Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the
duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within
any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an
intersection.

minnesota:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/169.21
Subd. 2. Rights in absence of signal. (a) Where traffic-control
signals are not in place or in operation, the driver of a vehicle
shall stop to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the
roadway within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no
marked crosswalk. The driver must remain stopped until the pedestrian
has passed the lane in which the vehicle is stopped. No pedestrian
shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run
into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible
for the driver to yield. This provision shall not apply under the
conditions as otherwise provided in this subdivision.
...
Subd. 3.Crossing between intersections.
(d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section every driver
of a vehicle shall (1) exercise due care to avoid colliding with any
bicycle or pedestrian upon any roadway and (2) give an audible signal
when necessary and exercise proper precaution upon observing any
child or any obviously confused or incapacitated person upon a
roadway.

new york:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/ope...grams-bureau/r
epository/pedestrian/resources/faq.html
€ When there is no traffic control signal, drivers must yield the
right-of-way to pedestrians in the crosswalk. (Sec. 1151).
€ In addition, every driver approaching an intersection or crosswalk,
must yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian accompanied by a guide
dog or using a white or metallic cane (Sec. 1153).
What if there is no crosswalk?
€ If there is no crosswalk, a pedestrian must yield the right-of-way
to all vehicles on the roadway (Sec. 1152).
What about sidewalks?
€ The driver of a vehicle when entering or exiting from an alleyway,
building, private road or driveway, must yield the right-of-way to
any pedestrian on a sidewalk. (Sec. 1151-a).

washington:
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.235
(1) The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain
stopped to allow a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway within
an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian or bicycle is
upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the
vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For purposes of
this section "half of the roadway" means all traffic lanes carrying
traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of
a one-way roadway.


Your proof does not fit the situation that I saw, What I am saying is an
intersection with traffic lights not just a crosswalk but regular Red,
yellow and green lights and Walk and Don't walk lights for pedestrians.
There, that's fairly easy to understand.

Unless we exercise restraint we will be in for several hundreds posts
which end up discussing an entirely different subject.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:31:03 -0600, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

On 02/12/2019 12:21 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Rene Lamontagne
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.


What part of "traffic control signals" don't you understand?

what part of not hitting someone is not clear?

if there are traffic lights, drivers need to obey those too.

but go ahead, don't yield to pedestrians and see how well that works
out for you.


The driver was obeying his green light and proceeding through the
intersection, The girl was DISOBEYING her red light and stepped onto the
street when the car was only a few feet away. How was he supposed to
stop in about 5 feet?
Do you think he has magic brakes with Instant stop? Or are you too
stubborn to understand ?

Silly question. Of course he is.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Show me your proof.

Check this
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/636.26

(f) Every driver will exercise due care to avoid colliding with any
pedestrian upon any roadway and will exercise proper precaution
upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated, or
intoxicated person.

random states -

california:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...tion.xhtml?sec
tionNum=21950.&lawCode=VEH

minnesota:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/169.21

new york:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/ope...grams-bureau/r
epository/pedestrian/resources/faq.html

washington:
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.235

None of this describes the situation where there is a signal and two
of them specifically describe the situation where there is no signal.

yes they do.


ask yourself why cops are enforcing something you say doesn't exist:

http://richmondsfblog.com/2010/07/20...-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.


https://www.gainesville.com/article/LK/20100601/News/604151973/GS/
When Kelly Stauff saw the man in the crosswalk, it was too late to
stop. She didn¹t hit the man, who turned out to be a Gainesville
police officer in street clothes, but Stauff was nailed with a $154
ticket for failing to yield to a pedestrian.
....
A study in January showed that only about 20 percent of drivers in
the city yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. Approximately three
crashes a week involve a pedestrian, officers have said. Drivers must
yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk and must yield to a pedestrian
even if there are no pavement markings on the crosswalk.


https://www.statesmanjournal.com/sto...lem-police-beg
in-undercover-pedestrian-safety-campaign/1302233002/
Plainclothes officers will be taking to crosswalks, both marked and
unmarked,*across the city to make sure drivers are yielding to
pedestrians.
....
Officials say failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk and for
passing a stopped vehicle at a crosswalk are class B violations which
carry a fine of up to $265.


https://www.citylab.com/transportati...ngs-drivers-wh
o-dont-yield-crosswalks-does-it-really-work/5221/
There were at least 56 very unhappy people in Fort Lee, New Jersey,
last Friday, after a police sting operation resulted in a flurry of
traffic tickets for drivers who failed to yield for pedestrians in
crosswalks. The blitz, which is part of a more comprehensive effort
to educate both pedestrians and drivers about their responsibility to
follow the law, drew angry comments from motorists who were stopped
and issued $230 tickets, according to NorthJersey.com


https://www.mcall.com/g00/news/local...em-crosswalk-s
tings-20160621-story.html
As officers watched on motorcycles hidden by a leafy tree, volunteers
crossed New Street at Fairview Street again and again as vehicles
whistled past them in daylight. One car stopped inches short of
clipping a foot. Another screeched to a stop as the motorist, talking
on a phone, seemed to suddenly notice the pedestrian.
The motorcycle cops turned on their lights, hit their sirens and
raced off to stop the drivers who didn't yield.


https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...cited-during-c
rosswalk-sting-in-south-salt-lake.html
During the sting, an undercover officer entered the crosswalk to see
if drivers would stop. As the officer walked back and forth in the
crosswalk, other officers in patrol cars and motorcycles stood by.
They didn't have to wait too long to find someone else not yielding
to the pedestrian, which is a violation of state law.


https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/dept...cs/crosswalk_e
nforcementinitiatives.html
The crosswalk awareness initiatives involve an off-duty, undercover
police officer posing as a pedestrian crossing at a crosswalk.* If
oncoming drivers don¹t stop for the pedestrian‹as required by law‹the
vehicle will be pulled over by a police spotter further down the
street.
Motorists can face fines ranging from $50 to $500 for failure to stop
for a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Last year the Police Department
issued more than 1,000 citations for failure to stop for pedestrians
in marked and unmarked crosswalks.*

In article , Eric Stevens
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?

see 'pedestrian shall not enter the roadway'.

except that sometimes they do.

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

stick to the topic.

as usual, you're resorting to ad hominem attacks.

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:40:27 -0600, notX
wrote:

On 2/12/19 8:43 AM, Wolf K wrote:

[snip]

Ontario is big. 1,096,395 km^2. Only Alaska and Quebec are bigger.

I found it an interesting fact that Sudbury Ontario is farther south
than much of Washington State.

Canada extends more than four degrees south of the southernmost
point of Washington state. That southernmost point of Canada is at 41
degrees, 41 minutes north; it is in Ontario.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 15:39:36 -0500, Wolf K
wrote:

[snip]

True, the interior is on the "wrong" side of the mountains, so it has
continental climate variant. FWIW, I was in WA only once, Seattle in a
January ca 1964 or '65. They had pulled the school buses off the roads
and closed most of the schools because it was few degrees below
freezing. When I left Edmonton the day before, it was around -15F there.
Seattle was tropical from my POV. :-)

Did you freak out people by wearing your sweater and jacket
unbuttoned/unzipped?

I made a trip down to Vancouver several years ago just before
Christmas. It was -10C "with the windchill" (as said so breathily by
the radio weather announcers down there). We had just had a cold snap
of about -30 to -35C in my neck of the woods -- Kamloops -- and I was
quite conscious of the fact that people from further north would
snicker at what I thought was cold.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:49:35 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 11:04:48 -0800, Gene Wirchenko
wrote:

[snip]

And this, because of the efforts of many motorists. Many
pedestrians are horribly oblivious.

Drivers, too.

I do not claim otherwise. However, I see too many pedestrians
who are horribly clueless and who would get run over if not for
drivers making efforts to avoid the mess that the pedestrian has set
up.

Dressing in head-to-toe black at night is my favourite.
Looking intently at his cellphone while crossing a busy street.
and the list goes on.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko