Pedestrian injured in hit and run incident(Doug Mode)
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Squashme on 25 Jun 2010 13:08 On 25 June, 00:25, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: > Squashme <squas...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Oh no, I forgot, it's Roadaholics Unanimous, isn't it? Still they have > > trouble seeing things too. Distracted by the bell, blinded by the sun, > > important incoming call ... > > Have you forgotten what the thread you are posting to is about? Or are > you just off on one of your insane and irrelevant rants? Err, B, I think.
From: Derek C on 25 Jun 2010 20:29 On Jun 25, 2:39 pm, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:i02b1u$ekl$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > > Derek C wrote: > > >> Rules for pedestrians: > > >>http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070108 > > > I am quite familiar with the advice offerered in the Highway code although > > I do not see any references in there relating to litigation/prosecution > > which pedestrians my be subjected to apart from the rules applying to > > motorways and level crossings. > > > I also note that the occurence of the words "Jaywalking" and "Jay-walking" > > or the combination "Jay" and "walking" shows 0 times in this publication. > > Oh I get you now... > > You think that "Rules for pedestrians" in the Highway Code means that these > are "Laws" which pedestrians must obey. They are not. The "rules" in the > Highway Code are in fact Rules of the Code (not rules enshrined in law). > > Where a Highway Code rule *is* a legal requirement it is denoted by the > words MUST/MUST NOT in the rule. > > Otherwise, the Highway Code is just that, a code. If there is not an offence of jaywalking in the UK, there damn well should be! A few weeks ago I had to follow a group of drunken pedestrians staggering along the middle of the main A501 road in London at about 2 mph. A polite request for them to move back onto the footpath was met by the predictable two finger salutes and a torrent of abuse. I can therefore only think that they must have been cyclists in normal life! Derek C
From: The Medway Handyman on 26 Jun 2010 04:38 Derek C wrote: A few weeks ago I had to follow a group of drunken > pedestrians staggering along the middle of the main A501 road in > London at about 2 mph. A polite request for them to move back onto the > footpath was met by the predictable two finger salutes and a torrent > of abuse. I can therefore only think that they must have been cyclists > in normal life! Think it through Derek.. Cyclists don't have normal lives. -- Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.
From: mileburner on 27 Jun 2010 16:40 Derek C wrote: > > If there is not an offence of jaywalking in the UK, there damn well > should be! A few weeks ago I had to follow a group of drunken > pedestrians staggering along the middle of the main A501 road in > London at about 2 mph. A polite request for them to move back onto the > footpath was met by the predictable two finger salutes and a torrent > of abuse. I can therefore only think that they must have been cyclists > in normal life! Ah, so this is a shift from it *is* against the law to it *should* be against the law. Presumably walking in the road should be against the law so as not to hold up all those important motorists and to also hold them to blame when they get hit by cars. I'll bet you read the Daily Mail and vote Tory too :-)
From: The Medway Handyman on 27 Jun 2010 18:00
mileburner wrote: > Derek C wrote: >> >> If there is not an offence of jaywalking in the UK, there damn well >> should be! A few weeks ago I had to follow a group of drunken >> pedestrians staggering along the middle of the main A501 road in >> London at about 2 mph. A polite request for them to move back onto >> the footpath was met by the predictable two finger salutes and a >> torrent of abuse. I can therefore only think that they must have >> been cyclists in normal life! > > Ah, so this is a shift from it *is* against the law to it *should* be > against the law. Not at all fuckwit. Drunk & disorderly is already an offence. > Presumably walking in the road should be against the law so as not to > hold up all those important motorists and to also hold them to blame > when they get hit by cars. Which part of 'drunken pedestrians' are you too thick to comprehend? > > I'll bet you read the Daily Mail and vote Tory too :-) I'll bet you will use any jibe your feeble mind can come up with to try & score a point. -- Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport. |