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 |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 20:27:23 -0500, nospam
wrote: 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. You are either changing the context of the argument or stupid, and I don't think you are stupid. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Ads |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 20:10:28 -0500, nospam
wrote: 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. All of which do not apply to the situation where there are traffic signals. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
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...-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. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
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. All of which do not apply to the situation where there are traffic signals. wrong. |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 00:29:01 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: 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. 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. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On 12/02/2019 15:54, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 02/12/2019 9:36 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. Given these are international forums, in most countries around the world vehicles always have to give way to pedestrians. No matter how "idiotic" they may be. The obligation is on the driver to avoid hitting pedestrians. 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. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 10:00:00 -0500, Wolf K
wrote: On 2019-02-12 04:36, KWills Shill #3 wrote: [...] It's worth noting [MS's continued W7 support] charge is only if people want to get updates, not to use Windows 7. If one wants to take the risk, they can continue to use 7 without having to pay anything. If they should ever try charging, for any OS, as you suggest, I expect a mass migration to iOS or Linux. I know from personal experience that the Mint distro of Linux has a look and feel like Windows, so there won't be much of a learning curve. Yes, I like Mint too, but it doesn't run WordPerfect. :-( It used to. But that was way back when WordPerfect 6 was a thing. When I use Linux, I use LibreOffice. -- Shill #3. Los Angeles Branch. Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp counselor. https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5...202191d3_b.jpg All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/ |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:32:10 -0600, Mark Lloyd
wrote: On 2/12/19 3:37 AM, KWills Shill #3 wrote: [snip] I pay $40/month for unlimited data and text. But at a cost of only 100 minutes a month. And they don't roll over. For me, this has not been an issue. Oh, after a set amount of data, it goes from 4G LTE to 3G. But there is no additional cost for me. I've yet to reach the limit, so this is also not an issue for me. I'm on Verizon. They say they're going to eliminate 2G and 3G at the end of the year (voice calls will use VOLTE). I wonder what they're going to then. [snip] I'm on T-Mobile through Metro PCS. I admit I don't pay attention to its plans for 2G and 3G termination. If it becomes an issue, I'll face it then. -- Shill #3. Los Angeles Branch. Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp counselor. https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5...202191d3_b.jpg All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/ |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
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'. I don't see any mention of vehicle emergency braking systems on here but they are available in many new cars. |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
Wolf K wrote:
If it fixed some of the flaws of MS Word, such as the lack of fine-grained control Just curious, what do you mean by "fine-grained control"? (BTW was a WP user back at the ol' 5.1 days but 6.0 killed it for me...) trimmed the conspiracy, no string connected pin-ups on my wall -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On 12/02/2019 19.12, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 2/11/19 10:34 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: [snip] It was sold "as is". According to the deceptive fine print, it wasn't sold at all. Maybe, but in any case, "as is". No assurance of being fit for any purpose expressly or implied, bla bla bla. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
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...-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. |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , Chris
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. Given these are international forums, in most countries around the world vehicles always have to give way to pedestrians. No matter how "idiotic" they may be. The obligation is on the driver to avoid hitting pedestrians. 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. correct. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , Wolf K
wrote: On 2019-02-12 23:16, nospam wrote: i highly, highly doubt you taught anything beyond the basics, which is whatever is sufficient to obtain a license. Doubt all you want. You're getting really good at denying facts that contradict your nonsense. not at all. you haven't answered what type of driving you supposedly taught. it's quite clear you only taught the basics, and probably not very well at that. |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On 2/13/2019 2:21 AM, Chris wrote:
Given these are international forums, in most countries around the world vehicles always have to give way to pedestrians. No matter how "idiotic" they may be. The obligation is on the driver to avoid hitting pedestrians. In my state (AZ/US) it is the same. Even though the car may have the right of way, the driver must still *TRY* to avoid hitting any pedestrian, even if the pedestrian is in the wrong (such as walking against a red light). If the collision does occur, the offending pedestrian would be listed as 'at fault' in the accident report and (if he survives) issued a traffic citation. However if the driver took a "bought and paid for" attitude and ran down the at fault pedestrian even though he could have avoided the accident then the driver could be charged with aggravated assault or in the event of a death, vehicle homicide. In my prior life having investigated thousands of traffic accidents over a 25 year period I don't ever remember such a cold-hearted accident. However there were several where the driver could have stopped but didn't because he was impaired... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|