From: Lars Chance on
Lee wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 00:56:26 +1000, Lars Chance
> <lars.chance(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> JL wrote:

>>> Logic failure. Regardless of any illegality Kev may or may not have
>>> made, the requirement to give way to pedestrians who have a green walk
>>> signal is absolute, and not relieved by any other negligence.
>>>
>> Fact failure. No green walk signal in original story.
>>
>
> <pedant> but there was in the followup post
> http://groups.google.com/group/aus.motorcycles/msg/2b14ae4769e1aeeb
> </pedant>
>
Ahh; you mean the post-avoiding-Kev, cyclist careening out of control
into the innocent pedestrians bit.
Yep, there was a green light there that I missed.
My bad; I should've written "Relevance Failure" or "Sequence of Events
Failure" or something more accurate.

--
Elsie.
From: Lars Chance on
Kevin Gleeson wrote:
> Lars Chance <lars.chance(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Fact failure. No green walk signal in original story.
>
> I was not anywhere near pedestrian lights. The people he hit were
> crossing at green pedestrian lights. The point is still he simply
> should not have been traveling that fast in a built up area.
>
> And cars are required to give way to pedestrians regardless of whether
> they are crossing illegally or not.
>
Yes, so are bicycles.
Of course; he DID manage to give way to you. Due to his somewhat heroic
effort your way was totally unimpeded thus he broke no law.

The only law-breaker there was the jaywalker.

--
Elsie.
From: F Murtz on
Lars Chance wrote:
> Kevin Gleeson wrote:
>> Lars Chance <lars.chance(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Fact failure. No green walk signal in original story.
>>
>> I was not anywhere near pedestrian lights. The people he hit were
>> crossing at green pedestrian lights. The point is still he simply
>> should not have been traveling that fast in a built up area.
>>
>> And cars are required to give way to pedestrians regardless of whether
>> they are crossing illegally or not.
>>
> Yes, so are bicycles.
> Of course; he DID manage to give way to you. Due to his somewhat heroic
> effort your way was totally unimpeded thus he broke no law.
>
> The only law-breaker there was the jaywalker.
>
Is it illegal to walk across the road?
Where was jaywalking mentioned?
From: Marts on
!!::!!:: wrote...

> Look at all those double parked horses, if that was North Sydney the whole
> lot would be covered in
> parking tickets ! Ah simpler times :-)

Or have locked clamps around their feet...
From: Zebee Johnstone on
In aus.motorcycles on Mon, 26 Apr 2010 13:06:24 +1000
F Murtz <haggisz(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Lars Chance wrote:
>>
>> The only law-breaker there was the jaywalker.
>>
> Is it illegal to walk across the road?

It is if you are within a certain distance of a marked crossing and
are not using that crossing.

Whether this was the case has not been mentioned.

IT is also required that the ped cross safely and with due care for
any lawful traffic which doesn't seem to ahve been done. The traffic
was lawful, and as far as I can tell the ped was not paying attention
to what was happening on the road he was crossing.

I find it very difficult to believe the bike was doing 60kmh on a
small suburban street, takes a while for a pushy to get to that speed
on the flat.

Zebee
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Prev: Changes to the NSW
Next: Unaugural 8.0 - Roll Call