Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

Now, enuogh of your diversion. Answer the question which is central to your argument...

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
OK i'll answer the question, but that question isn't "central to my argument". My only argument, to which my opposition have finally conceded, hopefully once and for all, was with the assertion that motorists don't have the right to be on the road, which I was arguing that they do. As soon as someone else (Regulator) realised what I was saying was the truth, he backed me up and everyone caved in.
If I was rounding a corner (I assume you mean driving) and round the bend a pedestrian was crossing the road in front of me what would I have to do. Practically, probably nothing - as it's likely that the pedestrian would hurry to the other side of the road on realising I was approaching before I even had chance to think about reacting, and it's likely I would correctly evaluate that he would make it on account of the fact I would have slowed to a slow enough speed to take into account the (then potential) hazard he posed before I even knew he was there, based on the reduced visibility ahead that the corner posed.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
Taxing motorists has little to do with any of it. Why do you bring that into it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It is an argument that is regularly used in interviews in the press, television and radio by those who want to see greater public funding of public transport - by raising taxes on private motoring.

Transport 2000 is an organisation that supports raising taxes from motorists and ringfencing the revenue for public transport.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Motorists are taxed because it takes so much to get people away from their cars. The government aren't stupid. They know that people won't stop buying petrol. Not necessarily can't, but won't.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Then you would agree that emissions banding on VED is therefore a means only of raising revenues for the government, and not actually part of any coherent policy on the environment?

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domd1979

You may not believe it, but its true. The direct costs paid by users of private transport (cars and HGVs) do not cover the external costs they impose. You won't find any credible evidence to prove otherwise...

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin
I have already said I do not believe that motorists are subsidised.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Neither have I seen any credible evidence to substantiate that claim.

domd1979 · June 2007

My statement wasn't opinion - its fact. But you can't cope with facts, because they disprove your obscure view of the world.

And we're also back to the tedious bonj argument that people making non-car journeys apparently have no worthwhile purpose. In fact, the opposite is true: cars encourage journeys for the hell of it. Car owners travel three times as much as non-car owners. Obviously all for good reason though, so that's OK.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domd1979

You may not believe it, but its true. The direct costs paid by users of private transport (cars and HGVs) do not cover the external costs they impose. You won't find any credible evidence to prove otherwise...

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin
I have already said I do not believe that motorists are subsidised.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Your pie in the sky opinion doesn't really count for the actual truth of the matter, which is that the only vehicle on the road that is subsidised is our good old friend the bus. This is largely to do with the fact that there is only usually about 2 old biddies on it on their way to the bingo, and a student on his way to the fish and chip shop because he can't be bothered to cook. Their 59p fares aren't enough to cover the cost of running the great hulk of a thing.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

dondare · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

If I saw anybody beeping a pedestrian on a crossing, I'd be minded to report them to the police. The roads aren't exclusively for any particular group, they're for everybody.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It's not dangerous, and therefore not illegal.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Incorrect use of the horn is illegal.
It's just another illegal thing that motorists do all the time without knowing (or caring) that they're breaking the law.

You're not the boss of me.

dondare · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

Now, enuogh of your diversion. Answer the question which is central to your argument...

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
OK i'll answer the question, but that question isn't "central to my argument". My only argument, to which my opposition have finally conceded, hopefully once and for all, was with the assertion that motorists don't have the right to be on the road, which I was arguing that they do. As soon as someone else (Regulator) realised what I was saying was the truth, he backed me up and everyone caved in.
If I was rounding a corner (I assume you mean driving) and round the bend a pedestrian was crossing the road in front of me what would I have to do. Practically, probably nothing - as it's likely that the pedestrian would hurry to the other side of the road on realising I was approaching before I even had chance to think about reacting, and it's likely I would correctly evaluate that he would make it on account of the fact I would have slowed to a slow enough speed to take into account the (then potential) hazard he posed before I even knew he was there, based on the reduced visibility ahead that the corner posed.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The answer is that you'd stop and wait for them to cross before proceeding. (That's the law, not an opinion.)
It's you that pose a hazard, not the pedestrian.

You're not the boss of me.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domd1979

Why is it not happening? Politics. Self-interested politicians who are too weak to actually make decisions for the good of society because it might make them a bit unpopular. The fact that there is not enough investment in public transport is not down to value for money.

Turning your question round: how come as the road network is congested, private companies aren't investing in building new toll roads?

The road network will never be able to cope with rising travel demand, because private vehicles are such a hideously inefficient use of infrastructure.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I completely agree about your reasoning on why its not happening. To some extent I think its a pity.

Private road building has already happened - the M6 Toll for instance. The reason it isn't more popular is probably because of the severe restrictions on planning permissiosn for new roads. You can't just buy a few hundred acres of land and decide to put a toll road down the middle of it - its not that simple.

The road network is congested because government has not built enough capacity to cope with the demand for many years. This isn't completely dissimilar to the way in which it has also treated public transport. The difference is that private motoring taxes have contributed massively to the treasury, whereas public transport has mostly been a cost to the treasury.

The roads can actually cope quite well with the demands placed upon them, but not if local councils insist on closing lanes, installing bus lanes, reducing throughput by retiming traffic lights to increase the gap between a red light in one direction and a green light in the other, by installing traffic lights on free-flowing roundabouts, the list goes on.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domd1979

My statement wasn't opinion - its fact. But you can't cope with facts, because they disprove your obscure view of the world.

And we're also back to the tedious bonj argument that people making non-car journeys apparently have no worthwhile purpose. In fact, the opposite is true: cars encourage journeys for the hell of it. Car owners travel three times as much as non-car owners. Obviously all for good reason though, so that's OK.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I don't know if you're responding to me but I'll presume you are, in which case I have to question your integrity if you have to resort to silly little digs.

I never said that people making journies not by car are worthless. Why would I when I own two bicycles?

Of course car owners travel more than non-car owners. I wouldn't expect someone who didn't own a car to jump onto a bus and nip over to Aunt Beryl's for a cup of tea. They wouldn't be able to, because public transport probably wouldn't go to Aunt Beryl's. But beside that point, I don't see why anybody should have to justify their use of a car - I certainly won't, I enjoy driving too much.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare
The answer is that you'd stop and wait for them to cross before proceeding. (That's the law, not an opinion.)
It's you that pose a hazard, not the pedestrian.

You're not the boss of me.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That law exists for junctions; not corners. The two are very different entities. Pedestrians are not allowed to block the flow of traffic by standing or walking in the road. Ask a policeman if he/she would disagree.

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
Taxing motorists has little to do with any of it. Why do you bring that into it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It is an argument that is regularly used in interviews in the press, television and radio by those who want to see greater public funding of public transport - by raising taxes on private motoring.

Transport 2000 is an organisation that supports raising taxes from motorists and ringfencing the revenue for public transport.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Motorists are taxed because it takes so much to get people away from their cars. The government aren't stupid. They know that people won't stop buying petrol. Not necessarily can't, but won't.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Then you would agree that emissions banding on VED is therefore a means only of raising revenues for the government, and not actually part of any coherent policy on the environment?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

VED has nothing to do with buying petrol.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Cretin · June 2007

It is still a tax.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Uh uh. I'm using a figure of speech here, posing a question in the form of a statement. I see a very clear distinction between what I would call a legal right and what Regulator calls a conditional right. Neither are God-given, fundamental or intrinsic human rights so there's no need to complicate the argument by considering these concepts.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Oh right, is that what you say every time something you're swore blind is true is proved not to be the case, that it was "a figure of speech" ? I see now.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

The problem is that neither you or Regulator have suggested a word for a "right" that is enshrined in the Constitution of one country but not another. You, in particular, wish to degrade the word to include something that can be granted or refused or removed, bought or hired with only the most cursory nod at any legal process or none at all. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Neither have you, despite many times of asking...
The problem is you started off making sweeping, seemingly irrefutable, statements, that "motorists don't have a right to be on the road", yet when it comes down to it, it turns out that what you actually mean by a right is, in your own words, what you would call a right.
You swore blind that what you meant was the LEGAL definition of a right. I asked repeatedly for you to show me where it was defined what this supposed legal definition was, yet finally, it transpires that what you meant, was nothing like the legal definition of a right (if indeed there is one), but "what I would call" a legal right.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

You would only lose your "Right" to walk on the footpath (or on the carriageway) if you transgressed the Law of the land and a Court of Law subjected you to some form of constraint.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Similar to the way you would only lose your "Right" to drive on the carriageway if you committed a motoring offence worthy of being banned or imprisoned, or if you failed to pay your tax disc, etc.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

But you do not have the "Right" to drive on the carriageway at all, until you've satisfied various conditions and bought a licence, and even then this "right" is temporary.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
But once you have, you DO have the right. You (and others) were claiming this wasn't the case, that simply because you are obliged to satisfy the conditions, that even when you have done so, your entitlement to drive on them wasn't a right - this is only the case according to the definition of a 'right' you had in your mind(s), which you insisted was synonymous with 'the legal' definition, but this synonymity turns out to be uncorroboratable, because it's not the case. This is the only area where I have (or had) an issue.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

You can lose this "right" simply by not renewing the licence or in a host of other ways which do not involve you breaking the law or the law being invoked against you. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
This has never been in question.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

So that's a pretty pi55-poor sort of "right"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well it's not really, because it's not too difficult to refrain from breaking the law, and it's not too difficult to renew your other obligations such as insurance, tax disc and MOT. What other ways "that do not involve you breaking the law or the law being invoked against you" can lead to the loss of your right to drive on the road?
At the moment I can only think of one reason, which is that a medical condition causes you to become declared unfit to drive by a doctor. Yes this could happen and it would lead you to lose your right to drive possibly through no fault of your own, but it is pretty unfortunate, pretty unlucky, and at the end of the day, pretty unlikely if you keep healthy and safe. Are there any others?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">and it should be distinguished both in language and in law from what I understand a "Right" to be.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Maybe it should! But it isn't, at the moment - is it?! So no offence, but it's not the best idea to go mouthing off on one as if you know that it is - because you will be asked to show where you 'know' it from.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

Now when regulator gets back he can explain but I'm pretty sure that you won't be able to.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Maybe he can. I'd be interested to know (not in a cynically questionning way but more curiously) what sort of position he's in that qualifies him to know, and where his expertise comes from.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

You're not the boss of me.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">(Alright, keep your hair on...)

(edit: sorry , quoted this post wrong first time)

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare
The answer is that you'd stop and wait for them to cross before proceeding. (That's the law, not an opinion.)
It's you that pose a hazard, not the pedestrian.

You're not the boss of me.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That law exists for junctions; not corners. The two are very different entities. Pedestrians are not allowed to block the flow of traffic by standing or walking in the road. Ask a policeman if he/she would disagree.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Nope. Read your highway code. Crossing a road is not illegal. If a pedestrian is crossing a road when a car arrives, the driver is bound to give way.

Something which Bonj doesn't like, so he tries to avoid answering the question.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Cretin · June 2007

Would you say that a pedestrian is free to willfully block the progress of traffic on a road by walking along the highway?

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

But it could be construed as threatening behaviour, and I don't think it should be tolerated - in the same way that revving one's engine at a pedestrian is also not tolerated.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, maybe it could, certainly on a crossing. Like I say, I'm not the sort of person that would do it willy nillily. Let's not get into an argument about it, I only said it to wind Mister Paul up in response to his winding me up with his repetition of his (true) story about waiting for cars to approach a zebra crossing so he could step out and deliberately stop them.

Cretin · June 2007

You shouldn't let yourself get wound up then.

Interestingly, I've found nothing in the highway code that would suggest pedestrians have a right of way on the highway, except on pedestrian crossings or at a junction while already crossing (something which I mentioned on the last page). Perhaps Mr Paul could correct me on this by pointing me to the relevant part of the Highway code which says MUST.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domd1979

My statement wasn't opinion - its fact. But you can't cope with facts, because they disprove your obscure view of the world.

And we're also back to the tedious bonj argument that people making non-car journeys apparently have no worthwhile purpose. In fact, the opposite is true: cars encourage journeys for the hell of it. Car owners travel three times as much as non-car owners. Obviously all for good reason though, so that's OK.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domd1979

You may not believe it, but its true. The direct costs paid by users of private transport (cars and HGVs) do not cover the external costs they impose. You won't find any credible evidence to prove otherwise...

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin
I have already said I do not believe that motorists are subsidised.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Your pie in the sky opinion doesn't really count for the actual truth of the matter, which is that the only vehicle on the road that is subsidised is our good old friend the bus. This is largely to do with the fact that there is only usually about 2 old biddies on it on their way to the bingo, and a student on his way to the fish and chip shop because he can't be bothered to cook. Their 59p fares aren't enough to cover the cost of running the great hulk of a thing.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

First, would you mind not top-posting, no-one else but you does it and it's disconcerting.
You think car-owners go on journeys 'for the hell of it'. So, why would someone go and sit in a traffic jam in congestion just for the hell of it?
Wouldn't that be largely as pointless as hitting yourself over the head with a hammer 'for the hell of it'?

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

Nope. Read your highway code. Crossing a road is not illegal. If a pedestrian is crossing a road when a car arrives, the driver is bound to give way.

Something which Bonj doesn't like, so he tries to avoid answering the question.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I don't dislike that fact, I admit that you're probably right that legally yes the driver does have the obligation to give way. But it's a hypothetitical siituation.
It never usually happens that he has to slow down, let alone stop - as the pedestrian normally isn't considering the legal position but their own safety. Consequently, aside from on crossings, they don't normally stay in the road in the path of the traffic for long enough for it to need to slow down.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Would you say that a pedestrian is free to willfully block the progress of traffic on a road by walking along the highway?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

This debate has been done to death aswell, the eventual outcome was concluded that you would probably be sectioned.

domd1979 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin
Private road building has already happened - the M6 Toll for instance. The reason it isn't more popular is probably because of the severe restrictions on planning permissiosn for new roads. You can't just buy a few hundred acres of land and decide to put a toll road down the middle of it - its not that simple.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

M6(T) was pushed by the government, and as far as I know the conditions of the agreement signed with Midland Expressway Ltd aren't known.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> The road network is congested because government has not built enough capacity to cope with the demand for many years. This isn't completely dissimilar to the way in which it has also treated public transport.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Nothing to do with that. Its been known for decades that "predict and provide" does not work, and is not in the least bit sustainable (in every sense of the word). Even the government's own research has shown that.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
The difference is that private motoring taxes have contributed massively to the treasury, whereas public transport has mostly been a cost to the treasury.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Er, nope. The amount paid by private motorists does not cover the costs they impose. Consider the cost to the treasury of: NHS treatment of those involved in accidents; cost to NHS of treating ill health due to air pollution from private transport; cost to NHS of treating conditions due to lack of exercise attributable to relying solely on the car to get around; cost of emergency services to deal with policing of traffic and dealing with accidents; provision and maintenance of road infrastructure. Then there's also other costs in terms of: cost to the economy of congestion/accidents (lost employee time, cost of extended delivery times etc) - this one is absolutely massive; loss of amenity; loss of landscape due to road construction. That should do for starters. Private transport users do not cover the cost of the above through the direct costs of using private transport.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The roads can actually cope quite well with the demands placed upon them, but not if local councils insist on closing lanes, installing bus lanes, reducing throughput by retiming traffic lights to increase the gap between a red light in one direction and a green light in the other, by installing traffic lights on free-flowing roundabouts, the list goes on.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Bus lanes can represent a more efficient use of road space in terms of their capacity measured in the number of people per hour that can use that road space. With regards to traffic signals, the installation of urban traffic control systems (SCOOT etc) has improved the capacity of junctions, but traffic growth just uses up all of the additional capacity.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

You shouldn't let yourself get wound up then.

Interestingly, I've found nothing in the highway code that would suggest pedestrians have a right of way on the highway, except on pedestrian crossings or at a junction while already crossing (something which I mentioned on the last page). Perhaps Mr Paul could correct me on this by pointing me to the relevant part of the Highway code which says MUST.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, good point - perhaps he could. I admitted above he's probably right, as this time, I'm assuming he's actually read it in his little copy of the highway code that he keeps on his bedside table, but maybe this is in fact something else he has just wilfully believed for ages without any actual corroboration?

domd1979 · June 2007

Was replying to bonjtheboss....

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domd1979

My statement wasn't opinion - its fact. But you can't cope with facts, because they disprove your obscure view of the world.

And we're also back to the tedious bonj argument that people making non-car journeys apparently have no worthwhile purpose. In fact, the opposite is true: cars encourage journeys for the hell of it. Car owners travel three times as much as non-car owners. Obviously all for good reason though, so that's OK.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I don't know if you're responding to me but I'll presume you are, in which case I have to question your integrity if you have to resort to silly little digs.

I never said that people making journies not by car are worthless. Why would I when I own two bicycles?

Of course car owners travel more than non-car owners. I wouldn't expect someone who didn't own a car to jump onto a bus and nip over to Aunt Beryl's for a cup of tea. They wouldn't be able to, because public transport probably wouldn't go to Aunt Beryl's. But beside that point, I don't see why anybody should have to justify their use of a car - I certainly won't, I enjoy driving too much.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

It is still a tax.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yes, but you supposed that because I had made a comment about buying petrol, then I would agree with your view on VED.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Would you say that a pedestrian is free to willfully block the progress of traffic on a road by walking along the highway?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No-one has suggested that (despite Bonj's claims) in all of this discussion.

There are situations where this would be perfectly legitimate though. On a narrow lane, for example. The pedestrian has priority.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

But it could be construed as threatening behaviour, and I don't think it should be tolerated - in the same way that revving one's engine at a pedestrian is also not tolerated.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, maybe it could, certainly on a crossing. Like I say, I'm not the sort of person that would do it willy nillily. Let's not get into an argument about it, I only said it to wind Mister Paul up in response to his winding me up with his repetition of his (true) story about waiting for cars to approach a zebra crossing so he could step out and deliberately stop them.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You wind yourself up by making up something that I never said?

How very fascinating?

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Would you say that a pedestrian is free to willfully block the progress of traffic on a road by walking along the highway?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No-one has suggested that (despite Bonj's claims) in all of this discussion.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, not in this discussion. But in a previous one.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

But it could be construed as threatening behaviour, and I don't think it should be tolerated - in the same way that revving one's engine at a pedestrian is also not tolerated.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, maybe it could, certainly on a crossing. Like I say, I'm not the sort of person that would do it willy nillily. Let's not get into an argument about it, I only said it to wind Mister Paul up in response to his winding me up with his repetition of his (true) story about waiting for cars to approach a zebra crossing so he could step out and deliberately stop them.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You wind yourself up by making up something that I never said?

How very fascinating?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm starting to believe you HAVEN'T actually read it in the highway code - and that if a pedestrian is crossing on the road in the path of a vehicle, then it is the vehicle that has the priority. The pedestrian who is walking along he pavement of a main road and has to cross a T-junction in order to continue along that main road has priority over traffic turning off the main road into that side road (although most pedestrians don't know that), but I'm starting to think this is the ONLY time a pedestrian has priority on the actual road.

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

Nope. Read your highway code. Crossing a road is not illegal. If a pedestrian is crossing a road when a car arrives, the driver is bound to give way.

Something which Bonj doesn't like, so he tries to avoid answering the question.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I don't dislike that fact, I admit that you're probably right that legally yes the driver does have the obligation to give way. But it's a hypothetitical siituation.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You do dislike the fact. You made that very clear in the whole zebra crossing saga which you purposely change the facts of.

It's not a hypothetical situation, silly Bonjy. It happens thousands of times, every day, all over the country.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

It never usually happens that he has to slow down, let alone stop - as the pedestrian normally isn't considering the legal position but their own safety. Consequently, aside from on crossings, they don't normally stay in the road in the path of the traffic for long enough for it to need to slow down.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You're just blabbering now. How often does a car turn into a side road to find a pedestrian crossing, and have to slow down and stop? Or a queue of cars waiting to pull out having to stop and wait for someone to cross. Unlike you, most drivers are courteous and allow the pedestrian across without him having to make use of his priority. Or on roads without footpaths.

Plenty of occasions.

So let's get back to the basics, where this whole thing started, again. You, Bonj, don't like the fact that cars have less priority on the roads than pedestrians, cycles, horses. And those are the facts. So you take us on an elongated, round the houses thread about rights. Knowing all along that you're wrong but if you keep it going long enuogh you'll be able to drag the thread to somewhere where you think you can claim victory.

Oh, and I seem to remember you making comments about revving your engine to intimidate pedestrians off the road.

And that's it. End of, as you say. Or pwned, whatever that means.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Would you say that a pedestrian is free to willfully block the progress of traffic on a road by walking along the highway?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No-one has suggested that (despite Bonj's claims) in all of this discussion.

There are situations where this would be perfectly legitimate though. On a narrow lane, for example. The pedestrian has priority.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm interested to see where this is written. I'll always cede to a pedestrian while reasonably using the road, but I'm not sure I can accept that a pedestrian is legally entitled to use the highway at their discretion. I'm happy to be corrected though.

You mentioned the highway code might include this - would you care to enlighten me as to where exactly?

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domd1979

Was replying to bonjtheboss....
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

In which case I apologise for the confusion.

Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

Comments

Categories