Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

Mister Paul · 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">

That's all it's ever been about cretin. It all started because old Bonjy was unhappy about pedestrians getting in the way of his big engine on his roads. And it really just went downhill from there.

If you read that link that I've posted on here a thousand times, and which Bonj refuses to read because he knows he won't like what it says, it provides some very interesting historical background to the false belief that drivers have had about priorities and rights on the roads. Most interesting is the fact that pedestrian crossings weren't invented because they were the only places where pedestrians were allowed to cross the road, but in fact they were created because that was the easiest way of making drivers conform to their obligations, which is to give priority on the roads to pedestrians.

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

Nope. That's just another lie.

__________________________________________________________
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

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

Then you'd better dust off your copy of the HC then.

__________________________________________________________
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

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

No I didn't.

__________________________________________________________
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 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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Ok, I do dislike it. Whatever you say King Paul.

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

It's not a hypothetical situation, silly Bonjy. It happens thousands of times, every day, all over the country.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well it never happens to me. It may happen a lot in Birmingham, Paul, if there's a lot of people like you around who like getting in the way of cars, but it never happens to me. Maybe that's because I'm such a good judge of a safe speed to be able to know how long any pedestrians are going to need to get across the road and time it accordingly.

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

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?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
How many times do they stop or slow down to find the pedestrian has also stopped, and when they put the brakes on, the pedestrian still doesn't cross, instead waiting for them because they assume the motorist has the priority? Quite a lot.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

Plenty of occasions. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I'm not going to argue about the relative incidence of various different giving-way situations, because such argument is unprovable, entirely anecdotal, and frankly fruitless.

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

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. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Oh for god's sake. They don't have 'less priority' because there are some situations in which the car has priority, some in which the pedestrian / cycle / horse* has priority. 'Priority' can't be quantified in the same way that sugar, or butter, or money, or flour, or milk, can - so you can't say one group of road users has 'more' than the other. It's a POINTLESS argument, and the same old one you've always been making just with 'right' changed to 'priority', and you're only making it because you think it winds me up because you view me as a 'typical arrogant motorist'. Well it doesn't, it just bores me.

*I'm not sure horses ever have priority, but I'll go along with it for the sake or argument.

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

Nope. That's just another lie.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You're only saying that because you know it's safely escaped outside the 4 week cut-off period.

Cretin · June 2007

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

Anecdotally I have been told that the landowners around the M6 Toll are pursuing the government through the courts, something to do with them not being adequately compensated for the loss of their land. I can't substantiate it though.

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

Well with respect I disagree with those conclusions. There are only a finite number of people that can ever use the roads, any growth in traffic levels cannot continue unabated for this reason. Most of the problems with congestion are for reasons I have already mentioned, and others I have not which include lack of flexibility in working hours, and road traffic incident management.

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

I believe the economic benefits more than outweigh all those factors, and since our economy depends on private motoring I think its spurious to suggest that the economy is somehow operating at a net loss. The loss of landscape is miniscule - travel outside any urban conurbation and the amount of green space is immense, even in this country. Travel north of Carlisle and generally speaking, theres nothing in every direction for miles and miles.

Its disingenuous to quote these examples without also considering the social and material benefits to our society that having private transport brings.

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

The M4 bus lane doesn't represent a very efficient use of road space. And I can think of several recent examples where onslips have been converted from 2 lanes to 1 lane, and even where 4 lane single carriageway roads have been converted to 2 lanes for no apparent reason.

I'm not aware of 'SCOOT' (would appreciate some info), but this would not explain the traffic lights that are on 24/7 on the 2 motorway junctions nearest my house.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
No I didn't.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

<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

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

Then you'd better dust off your copy of the HC then.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

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

You keep mentioning the highway code. I'd appreciate it if you could show me where in the Highway Code it states that pedestrians have right of way on the highway, in any location other than at a junction while already crossing, or on a pedestrian crossing. I have not been able to find any such entry. You could end this little argument right now by showing me, and I'll quite honestly accept it and move on.

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

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

It's not a hypothetical situation, silly Bonjy. It happens thousands of times, every day, all over the country.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well it never happens to me. It may happen a lot in Birmingham, Paul, if there's a lot of people like you around who like getting in the way of cars, but it never happens to me. Maybe that's because I'm such a good judge of a safe speed to be able to know how long any pedestrians are going to need to get across the road and time it accordingly.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
so you have never rounded a corner and there's been someone crossing the road? Safe speeds have nothing to do with it, unless you also drive using a very long periscope.

Note your use of language again (in bold). It's more revealing than what you are trying to type.
<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

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?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
How many times do they stop or slow down to find the pedestrian has also stopped, and when they put the brakes on, the pedestrian still doesn't cross, instead waiting for them because they assume the motorist has the priority? Quite a lot.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, it happens. Whether a pedestrian knows what is in the HC is irrelevant.

Also, crossing the road when an engine-revver like yourself arrives is a bit of an unnerving experience. Whether or not the peds knows the HC, he also knows that he's going to come off worse.
<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

Plenty of occasions. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I'm not going to argue about the relative incidence of various different giving-way situations, because such argument is unprovable, entirely anecdotal, and frankly fruitless.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
If you think these incidents are purely anecdotal and hypothetical, then you have never driven past the end of your street. But you know the truth, and you're jsut blathering on regardless.

Originally posted by The Boss

Originally posted by Mister Paul

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. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Oh for god's sake. They don't have 'less priority' because there are some situations in which the car has priority, some in which the pedestrian / cycle / horse* has priority. 'Priority' can't be quantified in the same way that sugar, or butter, or money, or flour, or milk, can - so you can't say one group of road users has 'more' than the other. It's a POINTLESS argument, and the same old one you've always been making just with 'right' changed to 'priority', and you're only making it because you think it winds me up because you view me as a 'typical arrogant motorist'. Well it doesn't, it just bores me.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Thanks for clarifying your beliefs. But we've been there. you're the one who started this pointless argument, remember?

If it bores you then please feel free to shut up.

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

Mister Paul · June 2007

Cretin

Did you read the link I had to keep posting for the Bonj?

I'd be interested to find out the reasoning behind the 'at junctions' bit. It does not say that pedestrians only have priority at junctions. It says that if you turn at a junction you must give way to the pedestrian, as they have priority once they have started to cross.

Or are you talking about another part?

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

Cretin · June 2007

No I haven't read any links. I wasn't reading that part of the discussion.

You are correct in what you say - but I am asking for clarification where you say that pedestrians have right of way on a highway. It it something you have said many times now (quote: if a pedestrian is crossing the road when a car arrives), and referred to the Highway code to back it up, but haven't actually pointed out which section of the HC contains this rule.

I would appreciate you demonstrating where in the Highway Code this information is.

Oh and I did not say that pedestrians only have priority at junctions - I said they have right of way at junctions when already crossing, and pedestrian crossings.

Rhythm Thief · 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 dondare

<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 dondare

God you're thick.
The problem is that you don't understand, because you're stupid; or that you're pretending that you don't understand. Because you're stupid.
A right is something that you don't need a licence for.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So you've given up all attempts at proving it, and just gone back to stating it. It's not true, then, is it.

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

How can I prove anything to you if you don't know the meanings of the words that I use or understand the concepts that I'm trying to explain? Either your stupidity, or your ignorance or your plain bloody-mindedness makes it impossible.
YOU prove me wrong. I have found a definition of the word "right" and you won't accept it. O.K. then find a definition that you will accept and cite it.

Baby elephants? Pah!!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You can't prove anything to Bonj because <s>if you show him the proof he refuses to read it, and then says that you have no proof.</s>he's a total arse.
__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Honestly Bonj. I've found myself agreeing with your points occasionally in the past, but I really don't know why you're doing this to yourself. Still, your contributions to this thread have generally given me a good laugh.

________________________
I'm the national treasure, and I hate noise.
My fixie
My two main modes of transport

Rhythm Thief · 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 Regulator

Just to settle the argument:

A fundamental right is something that is not granted by the state, but which arises from social mores and is immutable (e.g. a human right). Fundamental rights cannot be revoked, but may be derogated from under certain conditions (for example see the derogations in the Human Rights Act 1998) and only in the wider interest.

There are also conditional rights (often referred to as privileges). These are granted by the state and can be revoked. A driving license is a conditional right - it is granted by the state and can be revoked if you don't stick to the rules.

Fundamental rights do not carry obligations on the individual - other than to respect the same rights for other individuals.

Conditional rights normally carry obligations (hence the use of 'conditional') - you can have a driving license but in order to do so you must pass a test, keep to the rules of the road, etc.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Exactly. This is exactly what I've been trying to drill through these thick, thick skulls, but it doesn't seem to be getting through.

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

Then why didn't you just post it as lucidly and concisely as The Regulator did then, instead of getting bogged down in a playground argument of your own making? You utter goon.

________________________
I'm the national treasure, and I hate noise.
My fixie
My two main modes of transport

Rhythm Thief · 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 domd1979
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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Anecdotally I have been told that the landowners around the M6 Toll are pursuing the government through the courts, something to do with them not being adequately compensated for the loss of their land. I can't substantiate it though.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I recently drove down the road alongside the north end of the M6 Toll and saw a sign erected by a disgruntled farmer urging motorists to "Use the Old Road" as the land hadn't been paid for. How much basis in fact his annoyance had, I don't know.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I'm not aware of 'SCOOT' (would appreciate some info), but this would not explain the traffic lights that are on 24/7 on the 2 motorway junctions nearest my house.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Or indeed the traffic lights on roundabouts which are on 24/7 in Wolverhampton. As well as causing unneccessary stopping and starting for motorised traffic, these also annoyed the arse off me as a cycle commuter. Traffic lights on motorway junctions, incidentally, are usually nothing but a menace.

________________________
I'm the national treasure, and I hate noise.
My fixie
My two main modes of transport

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

Cretin

Did you read the link I had to keep posting for the Bonj?

I'd be interested to find out the reasoning behind the 'at junctions' bit. It does not say that pedestrians only have priority at junctions. It says that if you turn at a junction you must give way to the pedestrian, as they have priority once they have started to cross.

Or are you talking about another part?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Not just any and all junctions.
A T-junction that the ped is crossing simply in order to continue along the main road.
The reasoning is that the pedestrian is using the main road, while the motor vehicle is turning off the main road into the side road.

The Bosscp · June 2007

Because of the fact that pedestrians DON'T have actual priority on the road other than at a crossing or T-junction, what that actually means is that if a pedestrian is crossing in front of me on a nice junctionless, crossingless piece of road, if I would have to slow down to avoid him then not only is it in his best interest to hurry up, but that he is also legally obliged to hurry up.

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

Bonj- you are simply wrong, so do stop saying the same thing. Now you are being even more wrong that before by saying that pedestrians are 'legally obliged' to hurry up. That is the biggest nonsense I have ever heard. No normal road user is allowed deliberately to obstruct traffic, but that is not remotely the same thing. I am quite amazed how you continually make a complete fool of yourself but don't appear to realise it at all...

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

eternal_headwind · June 2007

Hello The Boss of the Flies
Is 20mph a suitable ramming speed for you then? Apparently this is significantly below the average fatal impact speed so you are being denied the right to teach pedestrians and their families a lesson.
I hate to criticise a particular person as opposed to an attitude or concept, but I think you need to try re reading some of your own posts.
Legally obliged to hurry up? You have no opinions, only symptoms

Rhythm Thief · June 2007

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

You have no opinions, only symptoms

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

[:D]Nice turn of phrase.

________________________
I'm the national treasure, and I hate noise.
My fixie
My two main modes of transport

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">
Does this mean that you wouldn't apply the brakes?
"Oh, I don't have to do anything here, as they're bound to hurry out of my way."

You're not the boss of me.

dondare · 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">
Pedestrians are not allowed to willfully obstuct traffic, but they are allowed to walk in the road (no footpath, footpath obstructed for instance) and to cross the road; and the drivers of vehicles have to give them the time and space that they need for this, even if it means slowing down or stopping.

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">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.

>I swore blind nothing, nothing has been proved, my arguments haven't changed. <

<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 word I use is "right".<

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
>no I didn't<
that what you meant was the LEGAL definition of a right. I asked repeatedly for you to show me where it was defined
>I found such a definition, and you refused to accept it <
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?
>Moving house and not informing the DVLA for instance, how many ways do there need to be?<
<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?!
>Yes, it is. Right as opposed to permission or privilege.<

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.
>You won't accept any qualification any way, so why even wonder?<

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

You want the word "Right" to include anything that isn't illegal.
Except, for some reason, crossing the road on foot.

You're not the boss of me.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare
Pedestrians are not allowed to willfully obstuct traffic, but they are allowed to walk in the road (no footpath, footpath obstructed for instance) and to cross the road; and the drivers of vehicles have to give them the time and space that they need for this, even if it means slowing down or stopping.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Of course pedestrians can use the highway, but I've yet to see anything that suggests that I 'have to' give them time and space for this. The Highway Code only says that I 'should' (I am aware the HC isn't strictly a list of motoring laws).

I ask because on a very narrow single track road, where a pedestrian is walking alongside a hedgerow, who is required to wait? The pedestrian by squeezing into the hedgerow to allow the vehicle to pass, or the driver by following the pedestrian at 4mph?

I'm genuinely interested to know.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

Bonj- you are simply wrong, so do stop saying the same thing. Now you are being even more wrong that before by saying that pedestrians are 'legally obliged' to hurry up.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well that is taking it to an extreme I admit, but....

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

That is the biggest nonsense I have ever heard. No normal road user is allowed deliberately to obstruct traffic<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Take note, Mister Paul... Not. Allowed. To. Obstruct. Traffic.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

Does this mean that you wouldn't apply the brakes?
"Oh, I don't have to do anything here, as they're bound to hurry out of my way."
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well I would always cover the brakes, and would apply them if they didn't hurry up out of the way, but they usually do.

Tourist Tony · June 2007

Definition of "traffic", Knob, includes non-motorised.

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

dondare · 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
Pedestrians are not allowed to willfully obstuct traffic, but they are allowed to walk in the road (no footpath, footpath obstructed for instance) and to cross the road; and the drivers of vehicles have to give them the time and space that they need for this, even if it means slowing down or stopping.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Of course pedestrians can use the highway, but I've yet to see anything that suggests that I 'have to' give them time and space for this. The Highway Code only says that I 'should' (I am aware the HC isn't strictly a list of motoring laws).

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well, I couldn't tell you if I've ever seen it written down anywhere, but I do remember my driving instructor telling me this.
But then, what does he know?
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

I ask because on a very narrow single track road, where a pedestrian is walking alongside a hedgerow, who is required to wait? The pedestrian by squeezing into the hedgerow to allow the vehicle to pass, or the driver by following the pedestrian at 4mph?

I'm genuinely interested to know.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You could go your entire life without this happening.
Now I'd say that you were each entitled to eactly the same amount of room. Not the ped's fault if you happen to need more.

Cretin · June 2007

Driving instructors teach people how to pass a driving test, they don't teach people how to drive safely. This is why I want there to be more than just a 'pass for life' in a person's driving lifetime. I want advanced driving courses after say 5 years, I want skidpan courses, and I want re-evaluations every 10 years or so.

I'd agree on your final point and in the real world you'd expect both people to accomodate oneanother. but since in this thread people have suggested that a pedestrian has right of way, it needs clarification - otherwise its not a valid assertion. In fact judging by the number of teenage children who seem to enjoy slowing traffic deliberately by taking their sweet time to cross a road at 0.5mph, I'd say it would be very useful to know who is correct.

Mister Paul · June 2007

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

Oh and I did not say that pedestrians only have priority at junctions - I said they have right of way at junctions when already crossing, and pedestrian crossings.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The Highway code says that they have priority when they are already crossing the road that you turn into.

S.146 of the HC does not, as we, said state that peds only have priority at junctions. If this is the case, then what is that suggesting?

__________________________________________________________
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 Mister Paul

Cretin

Did you read the link I had to keep posting for the Bonj?

I'd be interested to find out the reasoning behind the 'at junctions' bit. It does not say that pedestrians only have priority at junctions. It says that if you turn at a junction you must give way to the pedestrian, as they have priority once they have started to cross.

Or are you talking about another part?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Not just any and all junctions.
A T-junction that the ped is crossing simply in order to continue along the main road.
The reasoning is that the pedestrian is using the main road, while the motor vehicle is turning off the main road into the side road.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You've made that up Bonj.

Read what the HC says properly.

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

Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

Comments

Categories