|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
"JNugent" wrote in message
... On 02/08/2013 11:12, Bertie Wooster wrote: 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). Is a bicycle not a "mechanically propelled vehicle" for the purposes of the act? Presumably there are other more general obligations that apply to anyone who injures someone else, irrespective of the circumstances. Presumably the cyclist would still be guilty offences relating to failure to stop at the crossing to let pedestrians cross (and relating to causing injury if anyone was injured) - *please* tell me that cyclists are not exempt from this requirement too (!) Years ago I witnessed a cyclist who injured a pedestrian who was already on a zebra crossing: I was walking towards the crossing and heard someone behind me yell "Out of my f**cking way" so I turned round and saw a cyclist overtake two cars that had stopped to give way to a woman pushing a pram on the crossing. Again yelling "Out of my f**cking way, he swerved between the offside of the leading car and the traffic island in the centre of the road, and clipped the woman as she scurried into the central island. Having come off his bike he skidded across the road and narrowly avoided going under the wheels of an oncoming HGV. He tried to run off but my mate who was built like a brick outhouse restrained him and "persuaded" him to wait until the police arrived. There were a lot of witnesses so the police moved most of us on and didn't take statements, but my mate who did give a statement said the cyclist was ranting and raving about how the pedestrian and the cars had got in his way, and was livid that the police didn't release him as the innocent party. Utterly bewildering that a tiny minority of cyclists think that they have priority over everyone else on the road, and give the vast majority a bad name. I never heard how it ended, but I presume he was convicted - hard to see how he could not be in the circumstances and with so many witnesses. |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
"Truebrit" wrote in message ... NY" wrote in message Turning left/right (delete as applicable) is probably a good one. What do pedestrian lights show during this time? Green/walk? It needs pedestrians to be aware that cars will turn, even if they (cars) *should* give way to them. "Thumper" wrote: When the pedestrian green man goes out there is about 20-30 seconds before the traffic lights start to change from red to green. So no excuse for a pedestrian to still be crossing. "Bertie Wooster" wrote: Is there any legal requirement for pedestrians to wait while the red symbol is showing? Or do pedestrians have an unrestricted right to cross the highway (other than motorways and other restricted use highways)? Do you not have jaywalking laws? Generally speaking, no. https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians...e-road-7-to-17 -- John Dean |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
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. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
"John Dean" wrote in message
... "Truebrit" wrote in message ... Is there any legal requirement for pedestrians to wait while the red symbol is showing? Or do pedestrians have an unrestricted right to cross the highway (other than motorways and other restricted use highways)? Do you not have jaywalking laws? Generally speaking, no. https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians...e-road-7-to-17 That's general advice rather than what's legal and what isn't. -- Max Demian |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
"tim....." wrote in message
... Is there any legal requirement for pedestrians to wait while the red symbol is showing? Or do pedestrians have an unrestricted right to cross the highway (other than motorways and other restricted use highways)? Do you not have jaywalking laws? We have them here and for the most part they are quite vigorously enforced. Truebrit. Where is here? Does you name refer to your location or your birthplace (perhaps)? IME whilst ignoring a red man does constitute jaywalking in the UK, your chances of being "ticketed" for it are somewhat less than negligible. My understanding is that jaywalking refers to reckless crossing of the road by a pedestrian, and wouldn't apply to crossing against a red man if there is no traffic in sight. In any case, neither jaywalking, nor crossing against a red pedestrian signal, is illegal in Britain, and I've never heard of anyone even being ticked off for it. OTHO in the US and Germany it is quite possible. No doubt. In Portugal, a green man doesn't mean that the traffic is held up for you, just that you have right of way. You still have to check that any vehicles have time to stop. You have to learn the laws and customs of the country you are in. -- Max Demian |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
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. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
On 02/08/2013 18:40, Phil W Lee wrote:
"tim....." considered Fri, 2 Aug 2013 06:41:50 +0100 the perfect time to write: "Truebrit" wrote in message ... NY" wrote in message Turning left/right (delete as applicable) is probably a good one. What do pedestrian lights show during this time? Green/walk? It needs pedestrians to be aware that cars will turn, even if they (cars) *should* give way to them. "Thumper" wrote: When the pedestrian green man goes out there is about 20-30 seconds before the traffic lights start to change from red to green. So no excuse for a pedestrian to still be crossing. "Bertie Wooster" wrote: Is there any legal requirement for pedestrians to wait while the red symbol is showing? Or do pedestrians have an unrestricted right to cross the highway (other than motorways and other restricted use highways)? Do you not have jaywalking laws? We have them here and for the most part they are quite vigorously enforced. Truebrit. Where is here? Does you name refer to your location or your birthplace (perhaps)? IME whilst ignoring a red man does constitute jaywalking in the UK, your chances of being "ticketed" for it are somewhat less than negligible. Probably because there is no offence with which you could be charged. The red man is advisory only for pedestrians. Motorists, on the other had, are only permitted to drive through a green light if the way is clear. Cyclists, on the same "had", are also only permitted to move through a green light if the way is clear. Aren't they? |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
On 02/08/2013 18:45, Phil W Lee wrote:
Bertie Wooster considered Fri, 02 Aug 2013 11:12:20 +0100 the perfect time to write: On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 07:50:58 +0100, 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). 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? |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
On 02/08/2013 19:48, 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. Thank you for your honest answers. If you know so little about the incident and have no way of forming a well-founded opinion on the question of who is (more) to blame for it: (a) why do you expect me to know any more than the zero you know about it, (b) how do you expect me to be able to form a relevant opinion on it, and (c) if I were to express an uninformed opinion on it, how would you judge its validity, given that you know nothing of what happened? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|