On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 22:24:30 +0100, "Brimstone"
 wrote:

>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. 
>

Just respond to the first point I raised - if you disagree  - just
point out the legislation.


"As a pedestrian you do not have priority over vehicles leaving the
side road as you cross that 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 22:24:30 +0100, "Brimstone"
>  wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Just respond to the first point I raised

I have.

> - if you disagree  - just
> point out the legislation.
>
> "As a pedestrian you do not have priority over vehicles leaving the
> side road as you cross that road."

Evidence?

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 22:34:35 +0100, "Brimstone"
 wrote:

<snip>


>> "As a pedestrian you do not have priority over vehicles leaving the
>> side road as you cross that road."
>
>Evidence? 
>
The Highway code is quite clear if the vehicle is entering the side
road:

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). 

However - there is not the same clarity if you are leaving the side
road.

Please point out the law where it states that pedestrians do have
priority over vehicles leaving the side road.
(I agree that it would be prudent - but I am not aware of a specific
law)

If there is no law to this effect - then it is a reasonable assumption
that they don't have "priority" as such.

"judith"  wrote in message 
news:2ldie4pke2ecag4rtuh680f2dg6ortm2l6@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 22:34:35 +0100, "Brimstone"
>  wrote:
>
>>> "As a pedestrian you do not have priority over vehicles leaving the
>>> side road as you cross that road."
>>
>>Evidence?
>>
> The Highway code is quite clear if the vehicle is entering the side
> road:
>
> 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).
>
> However - there is not the same clarity if you are leaving the side
> road.
>
> Please point out the law where it states that pedestrians do have
> priority over vehicles leaving the side road.
> (I agree that it would be prudent - but I am not aware of a specific
> law)

Why is it prudent. I'd say that the last place where you want vehicles ot 
have to stop for and look out for pedestrains is at a junction wher they 
have other things such as vehilces to look out for.

> If there is no law to this effect - then it is a reasonable assumption
> that they don't have "priority" as such.

I agree. Let's see Brimstone provide evidence to the contary in the HC - or 
is his argument "it must be true cos I say it is"?

judith wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 22:34:35 +0100, "Brimstone"
>  wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>> "As a pedestrian you do not have priority over vehicles leaving the
>>> side road as you cross that road."
>>
>> Evidence?
>>
> The Highway code is quite clear if the vehicle is entering the side
> road:
>
> 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).

I believe that is there to remove ambiguity.

> However - there is not the same clarity if you are leaving the side
> road.
>
> Please point out the law where it states that pedestrians do have
> priority over vehicles leaving the side road.
> (I agree that it would be prudent - but I am not aware of a specific
> law)
>
> If there is no law to this effect - then it is a reasonable assumption
> that they don't have "priority" as such.

Do you accept that the law requires traffic from side roads to give way to 
traffic on the major road? If so, what is it about the concept that 
pedestrians are traffic that you don't understand?

judith wrote:

> Please point out the law where it states that pedestrians do have
> priority over vehicles leaving the side road.
> (I agree that it would be prudent - but I am not aware of a specific
> law)
>
> If there is no law to this effect - then it is a reasonable assumption
> that they don't have "priority" as such.

I believe Brimstone is right - pedestrian traffic making it's way along main 
road X is not obliged to give way to vehicles or persons wishing to join 
from side road Y.    Your "where does it say that?" questions could equally 
be applied to the proposal that cars have a right of way when emerging from 
side roads.

http://www.drivingexpert.co.uk/road-junctions.html might be helpful (or not)



-- 
Criticising the government is not illegal, but on investigation often
turns out to be linked to other offences

On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 20:33:29 +0100, "Steve Walker"
 said in :

>I believe Brimstone is right - pedestrian traffic making it's way along main 
>road X is not obliged to give way to vehicles or persons wishing to join 
>from side road Y.    Your "where does it say that?" questions could equally 
>be applied to the proposal that cars have a right of way when emerging from 
>side roads.

I'm not sure there is anywhere that the law gives drivers right of
way over pedestrians.  I've several times invited those who believe
that such laws exist, to cite them, but thus far no response.

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

On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:58:19 +0100, John Wright
 said in
:

>>> However quick cycles are off the mark, their terminal velocity is quite 
>>> low. They don't *actually* accelerate all that quickly at all, it just 
>>> appears so in a congested environment. In an non congested environment 
>>> they would be slower than cars and *much* slower than motorbikes.

>> So you say.  Me, I tend to be across the junction well before the
>> motor traffic.  Except motorbikes, as you say, but I am quicker than
>> scooters (which are a work of Stan often ridden by the most numpty
>> of the numpties, but that's just my pet hobby-horse).

>Thus proving my point. In most urban circumstances a car driver can only 
>go *so* far - perhaps only using 5% of the available power. Probably not 
>even all the way across the junction. Cyclists can usually see a gap to 
>go into, motorbikes less so - they're often quite a bit bigger.

I don't think that's in dispute.  The question is, whether ASLs are
a good idea.  I think they mostly are, or at least not actively bad,
but the feeder lanes on the left are dreadful. Some have feeder
lanes up the outside, which is much better.

[snip agreement, completely unacceptable, please see charter for
crossposted threads]

>In most circumstances what you say is totally true, but at 3am in the 
>morning (or other circumstances where the traffic level is very low), 
>you might find you were in the way, suddenly surrounded by the cars you 
>started off in front of.

And at 3am there's usually no need to place yourself in that
position anyway.  As with most things, general guidance only gets
you so far, beyond that you need Clue :-)

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:
> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:58:19 +0100, John Wright
>  said in
> :
> 
>>>> However quick cycles are off the mark, their terminal velocity is quite 
>>>> low. They don't *actually* accelerate all that quickly at all, it just 
>>>> appears so in a congested environment. In an non congested environment 
>>>> they would be slower than cars and *much* slower than motorbikes.
> 
>>> So you say.  Me, I tend to be across the junction well before the
>>> motor traffic.  Except motorbikes, as you say, but I am quicker than
>>> scooters (which are a work of Stan often ridden by the most numpty
>>> of the numpties, but that's just my pet hobby-horse).
> 
>> Thus proving my point. In most urban circumstances a car driver can only 
>> go *so* far - perhaps only using 5% of the available power. Probably not 
>> even all the way across the junction. Cyclists can usually see a gap to 
>> go into, motorbikes less so - they're often quite a bit bigger.
> 
> I don't think that's in dispute.  The question is, whether ASLs are
> a good idea.  I think they mostly are, or at least not actively bad,
> but the feeder lanes on the left are dreadful. Some have feeder
> lanes up the outside, which is much better.
> 
> [snip agreement, completely unacceptable, please see charter for
> crossposted threads]
> 
>> In most circumstances what you say is totally true, but at 3am in the 
>> morning (or other circumstances where the traffic level is very low), 
>> you might find you were in the way, suddenly surrounded by the cars you 
>> started off in front of.
> 
> And at 3am there's usually no need to place yourself in that
> position anyway.  As with most things, general guidance only gets
> you so far, beyond that you need Clue :-)

Clue is always a good idea, whatever you're mode of transport if you're 
in control. If not, hope the bus/train/taxi driver isn't pissed :-)
-- 
John Wright

I used to drive a car a lot also, which probably contributes to back
troubles. - Doug Bollen.