demerit points and speading fines

Sigh, I would point you to another poster who commented about comments
about spelling, but I'm guessing (which really means I'm making a gross
generalization, of the type I'm accusing ZeBee of) that you don't want
to hear what I'm saying, even if I was telling you the world was round,
you'd insist it was flat, even if I showed you photographic and
scientific proof, and offered to launch you into space for a few orbits
so you could see for yourself. (See, I can demonise with the best of
them based on no evidence what so ever.)

Next thing you know you will be saying that you can't take anything I
say seriously because I type with an accent. (If I can keep this up,
maybe someone will accuse me of being Rod Speed)

Rob.

 

Both peds and drivers have a duty of care.

Please - and this is not aimed particularly at you - don't read that
when I say that "a driver should give way to pedestrians" that that
implies that "pedestrians have a right of way". I have a feeling that
much of the argument that has transpired from my original comment is
probably due to that inference being made.

---
Cheers

PeterC [aka MildThing]
'81 Suzuki GS450-s (gone on to better and brighter things - I hope)
'87 BMW K100RT (write-off)
'81 Yamaha Virago (XV) 750H (work in progress)
'01 Yamaha FJR1300

www.dmcsc.org.au
http://eladesom.com.au/ulysses/
# 37181

 

Don't take anything I say seriously. I don't.

I would not reply to any of this stuff at all, except that it gets my
goat (no jokes please, goats are people too) when people state myth as
law, jump to conclusions based on emotion rather than facts, or make
gross generalizations about things they don't like, and how bad everyone
is that does not agree wholeheartedly (possibly blindly) agree with
their opinion.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and you will never get an
argument from me if you say 'I believe that.....'. You should be
prepared for an argument, however, if you try to pass off your own
opinion as fact, without some reference to some independent verifiable
source.

When arguing points of traffic law, I always try to include a link to
actual rules. Not always actual legislation, as it's really hard to
read, but the simplified version that is supplied to the likes of the
RTA/VicRoads. I generally try not to demonise, or name call, except
when someone is trying to nullify an argument base on 'you can't spell',
or 'you smell', or 'stick your car up your arse'.

If you want to 'discuss' based on what was written, fact or even common
sense, great. If you think you can make a name for yourself by
attacking the person, not the argument, your no better than SerialPest
or Rod Speed. (Now if that's not name calling, I don't know what is!
)

Rob.

 

Actually... as you have worded it, that isn't the case. Not in Victoria
at least anyway.

One has a responsibility to avoid an accident if possible, and a duty of
care exists to drive in an 'appropriate' manner at an 'appropriate'
speed. Those extend to pedestrians, but a blanket 'pedestrian right of
way over other vehicles' doesn't exist.


G-S

 

The rule is 'give way to pedestrians at crossings or corners', not a blanket
law.

G-S

 

That's just an extension of the 'avoid an accident if possible' law.

It doesn't imply a right of way as you have implied.


G-S

 

JL wrote:

Well, **** me, I believed the handbook which said drivers must always
give pedestrians right of way.

Here it is again:

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregulations/internationalinterstate/pedestrians.html

I'm not gonna be dead in the water for doing that. No one's gonna be
dead mate. I'm always gonna give them right of way, no matter what. On
principle. **** having to defend myself over someone's death because I
was standing on my own rights.

Yes, you're right but I'm still going to follow the handbook.

 

No "right of way" exists.
But if the two are going to collide a vehicle has give way to pedestrians.

 

You are indeed entirely correct, both parties do, there were several
citations of that in the Alldridge case I linked.

You are also entirely correct to differentiate between the two, they are
different things.

JL

 

Probably a mistake to rely on the RTA - their website has more
inaccuracies and furphies than you can poke a stick at. Maybe Vicroads
is better(couldn't be any worse).

JL

 

Well there's your first mistake, the RTA couldn't get the law straight
with a map and a compass.

Yeah I saw it. And if you go to my response to your last posting of it,
you'll find where I distinguished between you said, and what they said.

Both drivers and pedestrians have a duty to take due care, that doesn't
even vaguely translate into your assertion that a car must come to a
screaming halt the second someone looks like they might step on a road.

Yup, you are sunshine, you're dead wrong.

No one's gonna be

Good on ya, you're my hero, can I have a signed photo please ?

My my, your dummy seems to be over here - did you want it back ?

Good on ya, don't go letting the facts get in the way of your
misapprehensions now will you ?

JL

 

Eggszackly, both the driver and the pedestrian have a duty to take
reasonable care to avoid injury or collision.

JL

 

JL wrote:

Nah mate you can have it.

Giving way to pedestrians is not a problem for me.

 

JL wrote:

Trouble with common sense is that it isn't.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

I detect a common theme here

JL

 

Common sense is defined as experience you've had so long you think everybody
was born with it. Your 'common sense' is a product of your environment.

Theo