On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 22:10:28 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>judith  wrote:
>
>> A simple question 
>
>The simple question is why did you cross post this crap to uk.transport
>when the person you were responding to had the decency to confine their
>comment to the sewer?
>
>Oh hang on, it's because you're a brainless, trolling numpty, isn't it?


I thought I'd brighten up your sad dull life - sorry for doing so.


--   
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 15:24:51 +0100, "Mortimer"  said
in <W5-dnX9WpYKnU3XVnZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d@posted.plusnet>:

>> O RLY? Perhaps you can cite the statutory instrument which gives us
>> this peerless wisdom.
>
>The same logic which presumes that any vehicle on a major road has priority 
>over one pulling out from a minor road and that a vehicle travelling in a 
>lane on a dual carriageway has priority over one that wants to pull into 
>that lane from an adjacent one.

Um, no, that is actually written down, I think, I'm looking for the
SI which supports the distinct claim (and you're not the first to
make it) that motor traffic has priority away from designated
crossing points.  I do know that pedestrians have priority when you
are turning into a road and they are already crossing, but I don't
know of any SI that supports the idea that motor traffic has
priority over pedestrians on normal roads.  Which was why I asked,
really.

So, do you have the reference?

>I've no idea if it's enshrined in law - is just a standard rule of the road 
>like "drive on the left" (well, in the UK). 

Well, I know a lot of people drive as if it /is/ a rule, but I don't
know that it is.

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

"Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote in message 
news:pujhe492rmro037e7r38s8dn87le4rfct8@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 15:24:51 +0100, "Mortimer"  said
> in <W5-dnX9WpYKnU3XVnZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d@posted.plusnet>:
>
>>> O RLY? Perhaps you can cite the statutory instrument which gives us
>>> this peerless wisdom.
>>
>>The same logic which presumes that any vehicle on a major road has 
>>priority
>>over one pulling out from a minor road and that a vehicle travelling in a
>>lane on a dual carriageway has priority over one that wants to pull into
>>that lane from an adjacent one.
>
> Um, no, that is actually written down, I think, I'm looking for the
> SI which supports the distinct claim (and you're not the first to
> make it) that motor traffic has priority away from designated
> crossing points.  I do know that pedestrians have priority when you
> are turning into a road and they are already crossing, but I don't
> know of any SI that supports the idea that motor traffic has
> priority over pedestrians on normal roads.  Which was why I asked,
> really.
>
> So, do you have the reference?

No.

If itst not enshrined in law, then who actually has priority over whom - who 
must give way to whom when a pedestrian is standing at the side of the road 
waiting to cross: if a pedestrian steps out into the road into the path of a 
vehicle, whose fault is it if the vehicle (whatever speed it may be 
travelling at) hits the pedestrian?

If zebra and pelican crossings exist, where pedestrians *do* have priority 
over vehicles which must stop, does that not imply that the converse rule 
applies everywhere else.


I've always wondered at the logic behind the rule that pedestrians have 
priority over vehicles when they are crossing a side road into which which a 
car is turning. How far along the side road does it extend? Why should that 
bit of kerb be treated differently from any other where you stop at the kerb 
and wait for a gap before crossing?

Mortimer wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote in message
> news:pujhe492rmro037e7r38s8dn87le4rfct8@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 15:24:51 +0100, "Mortimer"  said
>> in <W5-dnX9WpYKnU3XVnZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d@posted.plusnet>:
>>
>>>> O RLY? Perhaps you can cite the statutory instrument which gives us
>>>> this peerless wisdom.
>>>
>>> The same logic which presumes that any vehicle on a major road has
>>> priority
>>> over one pulling out from a minor road and that a vehicle
>>> travelling in a lane on a dual carriageway has priority over one
>>> that wants to pull into that lane from an adjacent one.
>>
>> Um, no, that is actually written down, I think, I'm looking for the
>> SI which supports the distinct claim (and you're not the first to
>> make it) that motor traffic has priority away from designated
>> crossing points.  I do know that pedestrians have priority when you
>> are turning into a road and they are already crossing, but I don't
>> know of any SI that supports the idea that motor traffic has
>> priority over pedestrians on normal roads.  Which was why I asked,
>> really.
>>
>> So, do you have the reference?
>
> No.
>
> If itst not enshrined in law, then who actually has priority over
> whom - who must give way to whom when a pedestrian is standing at the
> side of the road waiting to cross: if a pedestrian steps out into the
> road into the path of a vehicle, whose fault is it if the vehicle
> (whatever speed it may be travelling at) hits the pedestrian?
>
> If zebra and pelican crossings exist, where pedestrians *do* have
> priority over vehicles which must stop, does that not imply that the
> converse rule applies everywhere else.
>
>
> I've always wondered at the logic behind the rule that pedestrians
> have priority over vehicles when they are crossing a side road into
> which which a car is turning. How far along the side road does it
> extend? Why should that bit of kerb be treated differently from any
> other where you stop at the kerb and wait for a gap before crossing?

Very simple. I'm sure you're aware that traffic entering or leaving a side 
turning must give way to traffic proceeding along the major road. 
Pedestrians are traffic.

Thus, give way to pedestrians proceeding along the major road.

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 16:12:36 +0100, "Brimstone"
 wrote:

<snip>

>Very simple. I'm sure you're aware that traffic entering or leaving a side 
>turning must give way to traffic proceeding along the major road. 
>Pedestrians are traffic.
>
>Thus, give way to pedestrians proceeding along the major road. 
>


And you can quote the law which says you must give way to a pedestrian
crossing the road when you are leaving a side road can you?


--   
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

judith wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 16:12:36 +0100, "Brimstone"
>  wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Very simple. I'm sure you're aware that traffic entering or leaving
>> a side turning must give way to traffic proceeding along the major
>> road. Pedestrians are traffic.
>>
>> Thus, give way to pedestrians proceeding along the major road.
>>
>
>
> And you can quote the law which says you must give way to a pedestrian
> crossing the road when you are leaving a side road can you?

Do you not understand the word "traffic"? You might give some thought to 
learning to read so that you can then read and understand the Highway Code 
wherein you will find the information you need.

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 18:05:01 +0100, "Brimstone"
 wrote:

>judith wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 16:12:36 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>  wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Very simple. I'm sure you're aware that traffic entering or leaving
>>> a side turning must give way to traffic proceeding along the major
>>> road.  Pedestrians are traffic.
>>>
>>> Thus, give way to pedestrians proceeding along the major road.
>>>
>>
>>
>> And you can quote the law which says you must give way to a pedestrian
>> crossing the road when you are leaving a side road can you?
>
>Do you not understand the word "traffic"? You might give some thought to 
>learning to read so that you can then read and understand the Highway Code 
>wherein you will find the information you need. 
>



You said traffic entering or leaving a side turning must give way to
traffic proceeding along a major road.

You then said pedestrians are traffic.

If you as a pedestrian are crossing the side road and are already on
that road then you have priority over traffic entering the side road.

As a pedestrian you do not have priority over vehicles leaving the
side road.

You are wrong.





--   
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

judith wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 18:05:01 +0100, "Brimstone"
>  wrote:
>
>> judith wrote:
>>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 16:12:36 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Very simple. I'm sure you're aware that traffic entering or leaving
>>>> a side turning must give way to traffic proceeding along the major
>>>> road.  Pedestrians are traffic.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, give way to pedestrians proceeding along the major road.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And you can quote the law which says you must give way to a
>>> pedestrian crossing the road when you are leaving a side road can
>>> you?
>>
>> Do you not understand the word "traffic"? You might give some
>> thought to learning to read so that you can then read and understand
>> the Highway Code wherein you will find the information you need.
>>
>
>
>
> You said traffic entering or leaving a side turning must give way to
> traffic proceeding along a major road.
>
> You then said pedestrians are traffic.
>
> If you as a pedestrian are crossing the side road and are already on
> that road then you have priority over traffic entering the side road.
>
> As a pedestrian you do not have priority over vehicles leaving the
> side road.
>
> You are wrong.

Evidence either way?

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 19:27:04 +0100, "Brimstone"
 wrote:

<snip>

>> If you as a pedestrian are crossing the side road and are already on
>> that road then you have priority over traffic entering the side road.
>>
>> As a pedestrian you do not have priority over vehicles leaving the
>> side road.
>>
>> You are wrong.
>
>Evidence either way? 
>

At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning
into the road, especially from behind you. If you have started
crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority
and they should give way (see Rule 170).

Please show the equivalent for traffic leaving the side road.



--   
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

judith wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 19:27:04 +0100, "Brimstone"
>  wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> If you as a pedestrian are crossing the side road and are already on
>>> that road then you have priority over traffic entering the side
>>> road.
>>>
>>> As a pedestrian you do not have priority over vehicles leaving the
>>> side road.
>>>
>>> You are wrong.
>>
>> Evidence either way?
>>
>
> At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning
> into the road, especially from behind you. If you have started
> crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority
> and they should give way (see Rule 170).
>
> Please show the equivalent for traffic leaving the side road.

judith wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 19:27:04 +0100, "Brimstone"
>  wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> If you as a pedestrian are crossing the side road and are already on
>>> that road then you have priority over traffic entering the side
>>> road.
>>>
>>> As a pedestrian you do not have priority over vehicles leaving the
>>> side road.
>>>
>>> You are wrong.
>>
>> Evidence either way?
>>
>
> At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning
> into the road, especially from behind you. If you have started
> crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority
> and they should give way (see Rule 170).
>
> Please show the equivalent for traffic leaving the side road.

Are you not familiar with the requirement to give way to traffic on the 
major road? If not then I suggest you desist from using the roads.

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:03:48 +0100, "Brimstone"
 wrote:

>judith wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 19:27:04 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>  wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> If you as a pedestrian are crossing the side road and are already on
>>>> that road then you have priority over traffic entering the side
>>>> road.
>>>>
>>>> As a pedestrian you do not have priority over vehicles leaving the
>>>> side road.
>>>>
>>>> You are wrong.
>>>
>>> Evidence either way?
>>>
>>
>> At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning
>> into the road, especially from behind you. If you have started
>> crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority
>> and they should give way (see Rule 170).
>>
>> Please show the equivalent for traffic leaving the side road. 
>


Excellent - I take it that you have no evidence and you were in fact
wrong.

Many thanks - apology accepted




--   
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

judith wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:03:48 +0100, "Brimstone"
>  wrote:
> 
>> judith wrote:
>>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 19:27:04 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> If you as a pedestrian are crossing the side road and are already on
>>>>> that road then you have priority over traffic entering the side
>>>>> road.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a pedestrian you do not have priority over vehicles leaving the
>>>>> side road.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are wrong.
>>>> Evidence either way?
>>>>
>>> At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning
>>> into the road, especially from behind you. If you have started
>>> crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority
>>> and they should give way (see Rule 170).
>>>
>>> Please show the equivalent for traffic leaving the side road. 
> 
> 
> Excellent - I take it that you have no evidence and you were in fact
> wrong.
> 
> Many thanks - apology accepted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --   
> I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
> Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
> their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
> I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
> Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
> He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
> of last amendment
> 

An unusual twist of logic.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Tony Dragon  wrote:

> judith wrote:
[snip]

> > Excellent - I take it that you have no evidence and you were in fact
> > wrong.
> > 
> > Many thanks - apology accepted
[snip]

> An unusual twist of logic.

Not for "judith". Improbable leaps from fact to fiction are "her" stock
in trade. As witness her telling me that my business is doing badly,
fucknose where it gets that idea from. I'm having to turn work down and
have been doing so for the last ten years.

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:05:13 +0100, "Brimstone"
 wrote:

>judith wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 19:27:04 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>  wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> If you as a pedestrian are crossing the side road and are already on
>>>> that road then you have priority over traffic entering the side
>>>> road.
>>>>
>>>> As a pedestrian you do not have priority over vehicles leaving the
>>>> side road.
>>>>
>>>> You are wrong.
>>>
>>> Evidence either way?
>>>
>>
>> At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning
>> into the road, especially from behind you. If you have started
>> crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority
>> and they should give way (see Rule 170).
>>
>> Please show the equivalent for traffic leaving the side road.
>
>Are you not familiar with the requirement to give way to traffic on the 
>major road? If not then I suggest you desist from using the roads. 
>


As a pedestrian you do have priority over vehicles entering the side
road (if you are already on that road) - this is clearly stated in the
Highway Code.

As a pedestrian you do not have priority over vehicles leaving the
side road as you cross that road.

Please point out any where which disputes what I have said - or just
admit that you were wrong.

I would also appreciate a reference to where pedestrians walking on a
pavement are defined as "traffic" after you've completed your first
task.

--   
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

judith wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:05:13 +0100, "Brimstone"
>  wrote:
>
>> judith wrote:
>>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 19:27:04 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> If you as a pedestrian are crossing the side road and are already
>>>>> on that road then you have priority over traffic entering the side
>>>>> road.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a pedestrian you do not have priority over vehicles leaving the
>>>>> side road.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Evidence either way?
>>>>
>>>
>>> At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning
>>> into the road, especially from behind you. If you have started
>>> crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority
>>> and they should give way (see Rule 170).
>>>
>>> Please show the equivalent for traffic leaving the side road.
>>
>> Are you not familiar with the requirement to give way to traffic on
>> the major road? If not then I suggest you desist from using the
>> roads.
>>
>
>
> As a pedestrian you do have priority over vehicles entering the side
> road (if you are already on that road) - this is clearly stated in the
> Highway Code.
>
> As a pedestrian you do not have priority over vehicles leaving the
> side road as you cross that road.
>
> Please point out any where which disputes what I have said - or just
> admit that you were wrong.
>
> I would also appreciate a reference to where pedestrians walking on a
> pavement are defined as "traffic" after you've completed your first
> task.

Any inteligent discussion of pedestrian movements describes them as traffic. 
Show where they're described as anything else (to avoid you having to prove 
a negative).

Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:29:24 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve
> Firth) said in <1iocu3v.18pr2tx1antt17N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>:
> 
> >Not for "judith". Improbable leaps from fact to fiction are "her" stock
> >in trade.
> 
> Wow, she uses fact before fiction now? That's new :o)

No, she leaps from other people's fact to her own fiction.

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:02:12 +0100, "Brimstone"
 wrote:

>judith wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:05:13 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> judith wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 19:27:04 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>> If you as a pedestrian are crossing the side road and are already
>>>>>> on that road then you have priority over traffic entering the side
>>>>>> road.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a pedestrian you do not have priority over vehicles leaving the
>>>>>> side road.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Evidence either way?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning
>>>> into the road, especially from behind you. If you have started
>>>> crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority
>>>> and they should give way (see Rule 170).
>>>>
>>>> Please show the equivalent for traffic leaving the side road.
>>>
>>> Are you not familiar with the requirement to give way to traffic on
>>> the major road? If not then I suggest you desist from using the
>>> roads.
>>>
>>
>>
>> As a pedestrian you do have priority over vehicles entering the side
>> road (if you are already on that road) - this is clearly stated in the
>> Highway Code.
>>
>> As a pedestrian you do not have priority over vehicles leaving the
>> side road as you cross that road.
>>
>> Please point out any where which disputes what I have said - or just
>> admit that you were wrong.
>>
>> I would also appreciate a reference to where pedestrians walking on a
>> pavement are defined as "traffic" after you've completed your first
>> task.
>
>Any inteligent discussion of pedestrian movements describes them as traffic. 
>Show where they're described as anything else (to avoid you having to prove 
>a negative). 
>


Sorry - you haven't completed your first task yet.

--   
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

judith wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:02:12 +0100, "Brimstone"
>  wrote:
>
>> judith wrote:
>>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:05:13 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> judith wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 19:27:04 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you as a pedestrian are crossing the side road and are
>>>>>>> already on that road then you have priority over traffic
>>>>>>> entering the side road.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As a pedestrian you do not have priority over vehicles leaving
>>>>>>> the side road.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Evidence either way?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic
>>>>> turning into the road, especially from behind you. If you have
>>>>> started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you
>>>>> have priority and they should give way (see Rule 170).
>>>>>
>>>>> Please show the equivalent for traffic leaving the side road.
>>>>
>>>> Are you not familiar with the requirement to give way to traffic on
>>>> the major road? If not then I suggest you desist from using the
>>>> roads.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As a pedestrian you do have priority over vehicles entering the side
>>> road (if you are already on that road) - this is clearly stated in
>>> the Highway Code.
>>>
>>> As a pedestrian you do not have priority over vehicles leaving the
>>> side road as you cross that road.
>>>
>>> Please point out any where which disputes what I have said - or just
>>> admit that you were wrong.
>>>
>>> I would also appreciate a reference to where pedestrians walking on
>>> a pavement are defined as "traffic" after you've completed your
>>> first task.
>>
>> Any inteligent discussion of pedestrian movements describes them as
>> traffic. Show where they're described as anything else (to avoid you
>> having to prove a negative).
>>
>
>
> Sorry - you haven't completed your first task yet.

Both are covered in my response.