Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The problem, matthew123, is that you are wrong - and your own posts of the Code show that. You have made two points repeatedly: that "pedestrians have right of way at junctions" and that "pedestrians have priority at road junctions". Both statements are dangerously wrong as they miss a very, very important point.


Skidmarks' post is correct, though. The code says that pedestrians have priority provided they have started to cross. This is an important distinction. If a pedestrian steps out into the path of a car turning at that junction they will be at fault: as per highway code rule 7d [pedestrians] If traffic is coming, let it pass and highway code rule 8: [pedestrians] At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning into the road, especially from behind you.


So, if a pedestrian wished to cross the road at a junction and a car wishes to turn at that junction the car has the right of way. If the pedestrian has already begun to cross then - and only then - do they have priority.


The exception to this is at a zebra crossing where pedestrians do indeed have right of way.

What LOZ said?

Totally.



I see so many pedestrians who don?t even bother looking.



Arrogant Footers?

Or death wish Footers?

Or followers of the Matthew123 school of walking?


? It?s bleedin annoying.



When I walk across junctions I look I wait for the cars I?m in no hurry to end up in hospital.


I?ve noticed pedestrians are getting more and more arrogant.


I see pedestrian rage every day at crossings they try to cross on the red man and then get annoyed when you drive through on a green light.



Rush Rush Rush



Pedestrians who are rushing for WHAT? An accident?




Idiotic ARROGANCE.



Edit


Forgot to add


"STUPID FOOTERS"!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake.  So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson ather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 
    • My view is that any party that welcomes a self-declared Marxist would merit a negative point. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...