|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
On 03/08/2013 09:40, Norman Wells wrote:
JNugent wrote: On 03/08/2013 09:06, Adrian wrote: On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 23:41:43 +0100, JNugent wrote: The signals displayed by a traffic light mean stop, stop, stop, and give way. There is no Go, as even a green only allows you to proceed if the way is clear. Can you give the Highway Code reference (page number, etc) for that, please? Well it must be against some law to run someone over deliberately. I was referring to Lee LJ's claim that there are three traffic light phases ("stop / stop / stop / give way" as he put it). I count four there, tbh. And he's right. Red - Stop. Amber - Stop. Red & Amber - Stop. Green - Proceed if the way is clear. As for reference, is this authoritative enough...? http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum...ssets/@dg/@en/ documents/digitalasset/dg_070561.pdf Absolutely. Thank you. It confirms that green means "go" and not "give way". Only if you're deficient in English. You're wrong, and you're wrong because you are focusing on the wrong thing. See my adjacent reply. |
Ads |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:12:09 +0100, JNugent wrote:
"GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear. I did read it and there is no problem. No mention of "give way". Well, apart from the "IF THE WAY IS CLEAR" bit. All Lee was doing was trying to "prove" that a cyclist breaking the law at a set of lights has priority over everyone else and that it's someone else's fault if he gets run over. If Road User A is going over a green light and _avoidably_ hits Road User B, then A most certainly DOES carry a degree of culpability. Sure, B shouldn't have been there. They also contributed. But if A could have avoided the impact and didn't, then they are not blameless. Even if A didn't see B because their observation was lacking. If A could reasonably have been expected to see and avoid B, but didn't, then A is just as much at fault as B is. The mode of transport of either A or B is utterly irrelevant. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:12:09 +0100, JNugent wrote: "GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear. I did read it and there is no problem. No mention of "give way". Well, apart from the "IF THE WAY IS CLEAR" bit. All Lee was doing was trying to "prove" that a cyclist breaking the law at a set of lights has priority over everyone else and that it's someone else's fault if he gets run over. If Road User A is going over a green light and _avoidably_ hits Road User B, then A most certainly DOES carry a degree of culpability. Sure, B shouldn't have been there. They also contributed. But if A could have avoided the impact and didn't, then they are not blameless. Even if A didn't see B because their observation was lacking. If A could reasonably have been expected to see and avoid B, but didn't, then A is just as much at fault as B is. The mode of transport of either A or B is utterly irrelevant. You think that will be seen as a "knock-for-knock" situation by the insurance companies? Isn't A likely to keep their no-claim bonus intact while B is not? |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
On 03/08/2013 10:17, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:12:09 +0100, JNugent wrote: "GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear. I did read it and there is no problem. No mention of "give way". Well, apart from the "IF THE WAY IS CLEAR" bit. Why have you either (a) failed to read, or (b) ignored, my rebuttal of that point? All Lee was doing was trying to "prove" that a cyclist breaking the law at a set of lights has priority over everyone else and that it's someone else's fault if he gets run over. If Road User A is going over a green light and _avoidably_ hits Road User B, then A most certainly DOES carry a degree of culpability. It *might* be; that certainly is not automatic. Sure, B shouldn't have been there. They also contributed. But if A could have avoided the impact and didn't, then they are not blameless. "If". Even if A didn't see B because their observation was lacking. If A could reasonably have been expected to see and avoid B, but didn't, then A is just as much at fault as B is. The mode of transport of either A or B is utterly irrelevant. Of course it is. But not to Lee LJ. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:40:53 +0100, JNugent wrote:
No mention of "give way". Well, apart from the "IF THE WAY IS CLEAR" bit. Why have you either (a) failed to read, or (b) ignored, my rebuttal of that point? If you're going to complain about failing to read or ignoring, then at least try not to do the exact same within one post... If Road User A is going over a green light and _avoidably_ hits Road User B, then A most certainly DOES carry a degree of culpability. It *might* be; that certainly is not automatic. ^ "and _avoidably_" Sure, B shouldn't have been there. They also contributed. But if A could have avoided the impact and didn't, then they are not blameless. "If". ^ "and _avoidably_" |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:36:42 +0100, Alexis wrote:
All Lee was doing was trying to "prove" that a cyclist breaking the law at a set of lights has priority over everyone else and that it's someone else's fault if he gets run over. If Road User A is going over a green light and _avoidably_ hits Road User B, then A most certainly DOES carry a degree of culpability. Sure, B shouldn't have been there. They also contributed. But if A could have avoided the impact and didn't, then they are not blameless. Even if A didn't see B because their observation was lacking. If A could reasonably have been expected to see and avoid B, but didn't, then A is just as much at fault as B is. The mode of transport of either A or B is utterly irrelevant. You think that will be seen as a "knock-for-knock" situation by the insurance companies? No such thing as "knock-for-knock" these days. Isn't A likely to keep their no-claim bonus intact while B is not? No. Both will be held at fault. Correctly so. The insurers will split the costs 50/50. (K-f-K implies A's insurers pay A's repairs, B's pay B's. It's simpler than that.) |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
On 03/08/2013 10:53, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:40:53 +0100, JNugent wrote: No mention of "give way". Well, apart from the "IF THE WAY IS CLEAR" bit. Why have you either (a) failed to read, or (b) ignored, my rebuttal of that point? If you're going to complain about failing to read or ignoring, then at least try not to do the exact same within one post... The whole diversion about proceeding only if the way is clear had been dealt with. It has nothing to do with traffic lights per se. It applies everywhere, all the time. If Road User A is going over a green light and _avoidably_ hits Road User B, then A most certainly DOES carry a degree of culpability. It *might* be; that certainly is not automatic. ^ "and _avoidably_" Sure, B shouldn't have been there. They also contributed. But if A could have avoided the impact and didn't, then they are not blameless. "If". ^ "and _avoidably_" Just highlighting that needs to be highlighted. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:59:22 +0100, JNugent wrote:
The whole diversion about proceeding only if the way is clear had been dealt with. It has nothing to do with traffic lights per se. It applies everywhere, all the time. Yes, it does. That's true. But it is explicitly given as the definition of a green light. Don't assume that green means it's clear to cross the junction. If there's somebody else in the junction, let 'em go, whether they should be there or not. Give Way to 'em, in other words... |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
On 03/08/2013 11:02, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:59:22 +0100, JNugent wrote: The whole diversion about proceeding only if the way is clear had been dealt with. It has nothing to do with traffic lights per se. It applies everywhere, all the time. Yes, it does. That's true. But it is explicitly given as the definition of a green light. Don't assume that green means it's clear to cross the junction. If there's somebody else in the junction, let 'em go, whether they should be there or not. Give Way to 'em, in other words... We'll have to differ on that. My take is that the writers of the code are simply putting in a reminder to the effect that you might (even if you usually won't) encounter someone passing a red light, or, more frequently, that the junction itself might not have been cleared of queuing traffic in congested conditions. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 22:46:47 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote: On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 22:02:23 +0100, Judith wrote: On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 19:48:42 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 17:40:29 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 02/08/2013 16:08, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 14:54:20 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 02/08/2013 11:12, Bertie Wooster wrote: JNugent wrote: ITYF that the car driver is still expected to anticipate such hazards I will *not* "find" that, for the simple and obvious reason that it is not true. You are mistaking the general duty to react in amelioration (where possible) of other peoples' bad behaviour as a duty to ensure or guarantee that the bad behaviour cannot have any negative effects on the person behaving badly. That people may act negligently does not oblige others to act as if the negligence is permanently under way. Everyone has a right to expect everyone else to obey the rules insofar as they might impinge on one's own rights. If that is the case, what do you make of the cyclist who, as described in another thread, mowed down a young child on a pedestrian crossing. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-23492094 From what you appear to be saying, so long as the lights on the pedestrian crossing were green for the cyclist, and the cyclist wasn't engaged in wanton or furious cycling, no offence occurred (section 170 of the 1988 road traffic act does not apply to cyclists). Was it a pelicon, or a zebra, crossing? Please be pinpoint clear in your answer (one patent possibility being that you don't know the answer, which need not be your fault) and be aware that I may have a supplementary question upon the answer to which any response to your question would hang. Pelicon, he http://goo.gl/maps/bMJI8 http://goo.gl/maps/1XfpP http://goo.gl/maps/CPhwL Supplementary question(s): 1. Was the light red for the carriageway traffic when the collision occurred? Choose from: (a) Yes (b) No (c) I don't know. 2. If the answer to (1) is (b), could the cyclist nevertheless has avoided huitting and injuring the pedestrian using the crossing (whether the pedestrian was using the crossing properly or not)? Choose from: (a) Yes (b) No (c) I don't know. c, c. Well what a surprise. It shouldn't be... I'd already said as much. Crispin does not know. What a surprise. Whooooosh. We know that you don't know: it is never a surprise. You live up to your reputation as the failed school teacher. (Why not start suggesting that certain things are "decriminalised" so that LAs can collect money from motorists. That sounds a good plan, and you will go right up in everyone's estimation of you. Unless it goes up your arse of course) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|