just what does this mean?

[Zebee Johnstone]

From
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/downloads/nsw_road_rules_2012.pdf

which is the latest change to NSW road rules.

I quote verbatim:

Pedestrians or cyclists crossing roads at lights

If traffic lights change to yellow or red while a
pedestrian or cyclist is crossing the road at the lights,
they may continue to the far side of the road (as
intended).
Penalty: $66

Just what are we paying 66 bucks for?

Zebee

[John Henderson]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> From
> http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/downloads/nsw_road_rules_2012.pdf
>
> which is the latest change to NSW road rules.
>
> I quote verbatim:
>
> Pedestrians or cyclists crossing roads at lights
>
> If traffic lights change to yellow or red while a
> pedestrian or cyclist is crossing the road at the lights,
> they may continue to the far side of the road (as
> intended).
> Penalty: $66
>
> Just what are we paying 66 bucks for?

That's for NOT complying with the relevant rule. The mention of
the penalty seems out of place in that context (where you're not
specifically told what you SHOULDN'T do).

But it's the way they word these things. Another example:

"Drivers of vehicles that are required to travel in particular
lanes (e.g. ¡trucks use left lane¢ sign) are permitted to move
out of such a lane if they are positioning the vehicle to turn
off the road or make a U-turn.

"Penalty: 3 demerit points and $298"

John

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on 31 Oct 2012 20:32:23 GMT
John Henderson > wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>> From
>> http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/downloads/nsw_road_rules_2012.pdf
>>
>> which is the latest change to NSW road rules.
>>
>> I quote verbatim:
>>
>> Pedestrians or cyclists crossing roads at lights
>>
>> If traffic lights change to yellow or red while a
>> pedestrian or cyclist is crossing the road at the lights,
>> they may continue to the far side of the road (as
>> intended).
>> Penalty: $66
>>
>> Just what are we paying 66 bucks for?
>
> That's for NOT complying with the relevant rule. The mention of
> the penalty seems out of place in that context (where you're not
> specifically told what you SHOULDN'T do).
>

So if you stop for a yellow you are fined?

It doesn't even make much sense if you work out the alternatives.
Presumably they want to say "unless you are already in the
intersection you shouldn't cross if the lights are red" but then why
mention yellow?

I blame the English teaching fads of the past couple of generations.
Mrs Parkin would have slapped my palm with a ruler for coming up with
that little gem...

Zebee

[Rob]

On 1/11/2012 7:52 AM, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on 31 Oct 2012 20:32:23 GMT
> John Henderson > wrote:
>> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>
>>> From
>>> http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/downloads/nsw_road_rules_2012.pdf
>>>
>>> which is the latest change to NSW road rules.
>>>
>>> I quote verbatim:
>>>
>>> Pedestrians or cyclists crossing roads at lights
>>>
>>> If traffic lights change to yellow or red while a
>>> pedestrian or cyclist is crossing the road at the lights,
>>> they may continue to the far side of the road (as
>>> intended).
>>> Penalty: $66
>>>
>>> Just what are we paying 66 bucks for?
>>
>> That's for NOT complying with the relevant rule. The mention of
>> the penalty seems out of place in that context (where you're not
>> specifically told what you SHOULDN'T do).
>>
>
> So if you stop for a yellow you are fined?
>
> It doesn't even make much sense if you work out the alternatives.
> Presumably they want to say "unless you are already in the
> intersection you shouldn't cross if the lights are red" but then why
> mention yellow?
>
> I blame the English teaching fads of the past couple of generations.
> Mrs Parkin would have slapped my palm with a ruler for coming up with
> that little gem...
>
> Zebee
>

What's more the Feds want to introduce a second language into schools
when they can't even handle English, even the dictionary has to be
changed when words are spoken, out of context.

[John Henderson]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> So if you stop for a yellow you are fined?

Before you start crossing?

In the middle of the road whan the colour changes?

> It doesn't even make much sense if you work out the alternatives.
> Presumably they want to say "unless you are already in the
> intersection you shouldn't cross if the lights are red" but then why
> mention yellow?

It needs to be understood in the context of the rule or rules
it's trying to clarify.

That'll be rule 232 of the Australian Road Rules, as far as I
can work out, and that's what the penalty applies to. It's about
crossing where there are traffic lights but no pedestrian lights.

> I blame the English teaching fads of the past couple of generations.
> Mrs Parkin would have slapped my palm with a ruler for coming up with
> that little gem...

Miss Clatworthy would have done worse to me. Married women
weren't allowed to be teachers when I was at primary school in
Queensland.

John

[TimC[_2_]]

On 2012-10-31, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In aus.bicycle on 31 Oct 2012 20:32:23 GMT
> John Henderson > wrote:
>> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
....
>>> which is the latest change to NSW road rules.
....
>>> If traffic lights change to yellow or red while a
>>> pedestrian or cyclist is crossing the road at the lights,
>>> they may continue to the far side of the road (as
>>> intended).
>>> Penalty: $66
>>>
>>> Just what are we paying 66 bucks for?

A road crossing tax :)

>> That's for NOT complying with the relevant rule. The mention of
>> the penalty seems out of place in that context (where you're not
>> specifically told what you SHOULDN'T do).
>>
>
> So if you stop for a yellow you are fined?
>
> It doesn't even make much sense if you work out the alternatives.
> Presumably they want to say "unless you are already in the
> intersection you shouldn't cross if the lights are red" but then why
> mention yellow?
>
> I blame the English teaching fads of the past couple of generations.
> Mrs Parkin would have slapped my palm with a ruler for coming up with
> that little gem...

Without having RTFA, I'm guessing it's a delta. A change, added to a
previous clause. The previous clauses all list the exclusions and
allowances, and this just adds another one (a motorvehicle shouldn't
be in the intersection when it turns from *amber* (grrr) to red. It
should have stopped prior, and it shouldn't have entered blocking the
intersection if there wasn't room to exit).

--
TimC
Just don't create a file called -rf. :-)
-- Larry Wall in >

[Tomasso[_8_]]

"John Henderson" > wrote in message ...
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>> From
>> http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/downloads/nsw_road_rules_2012.pdf
>>
>> which is the latest change to NSW road rules.
>>
>> I quote verbatim:
>>
>> Pedestrians or cyclists crossing roads at lights
>>
>> If traffic lights change to yellow or red while a
>> pedestrian or cyclist is crossing the road at the lights,
>> they may continue to the far side of the road (as
>> intended).
>> Penalty: $66
>>
>> Just what are we paying 66 bucks for?
>
> That's for NOT complying with the relevant rule. The mention of
> the penalty seems out of place in that context (where you're not
> specifically told what you SHOULDN'T do).

Maybe a good legal defence: The published details don't make any f*cking sense, your honour...

T.