Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The video you posted was from an old cartoon comedy show called 'Monkey Dust', it's not real.
Yes, I know where it came from. Monkey Dust is brilliant. It's a lot realer than that government BS you posted. It's the truth that your government is afraid to tell you.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,187 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz
Yes, I know where it came from. Monkey Dust is brilliant. It's a lot realer than that government BS you posted. It's the truth that your government is afraid to tell you.
'Monkey Dust' did bring up some good issues, however it was always over the top in terms of it's content.
I remember the likes of prisoner Ivan Dobsky and the Paedophile Witch Finder General. :
In terms of cyclists, they can be a nuisance, and I welcome any new laws relating to making them more accountable.
As for a cyclists behaving in the manner suggested in the Monkey Dust clip, I would suggest they would be knocked off their bikes and would receive some rough justice by members of the public.
I would also suggest that other than pedestrians, cyclists are fairly low in the pecking order of vehicles and are always going to come off worse in relation to an accident with an HGV, Bus, Van or Car.
I've noticed that in London. Using a zebra crossing when the walk light flashes is no guarantee of safety.
British people are known for being polite and considerate. But behind the wheel ?* I guess it's a Jekyll and Hyde thing
In the US even states and municipalities had screwed citizens when they mess up saying that you can only sue the government when we consent using this old English doctrine to back then. Yes this sometimes outragely includes even cases if a government owned vehicle were driving badly or poorly maintained and caused an over 100% at fault accident. I.e if a city transit bus ran a red light and collided with another vehicle sending it crashing through a building near the intersection. Thus I mentioned even if Harry was riding in the US and Anne was driving a government vehicle he would had faced an uphill battle its just ridiculous. And in the US the jury would likely side against motorcyclists using the stagma they think of when sport bikers are involved.*
Yes there was a case in one state while it consents to liability for motor vehicle accidents but it still kept the doctrine unless we consent. Once a bicyclist was killed due to a street cleaning tractor mishap apparently it lost control and*suddenly crossed the center line and its moving parts caught the bicyclist but the government's district attorney asserted that it doesn't fit the definition of a motor vehicle and screwed him or his family in providing justice and compensation. I am surprised this is allowed to happen in a place like the US.*
Its interesting though how the people who try to do the Beatles walk at Abbey Road are treated by local drivers. Apparently the UK road designers seem to neglect pedestrians and other vulnerable road users and only design for convienence of drivers. And it appears drivers seem to ignore highway code 170 172 when it comes to vulnerable road users kind of shocking for a place like the UK.
The highway code change is a good move but I heard most Highway code provisions in the UK are not statuary laws but driving handbook guidelines unlike other parts of the world, including much of North America where turning traffic at junctions is legally required to give way to bicycles or pedestrians. I be curious how much this had changed driving habits of the locals though.
In places like China its more understandable because the locals had no sense of manners nor waiting their turn in the 19th 20th century since the country became dog eat dog and lack hope. Only the powerful and high ranking seems to trample everyone else and they were the only ones who were able to own cars until about near 1990s when some wealther middle class started to own cars at all with similar mentality. But things had been improving on recent years as China starts to get its global image higher.
Its interesting though how the people who try to do the Beatles walk at Abbey Road are treated by local drivers. Apparently the UK road designers seem to neglect pedestrians and other vulnerable road users and only design for convienence of drivers. And it appears drivers seem to ignore highway code 170 172 when it comes to vulnerable road users kind of shocking for a place like the UK.
The highway code change is a good move but I heard most Highway code provisions in the UK are not statuary laws but driving handbook guidelines unlike other parts of the world, including much of North America where turning traffic at junctions is legally required to give way to bicycles or pedestrians. I be curious how much this had changed driving habits of the locals though.
In places like China its more understandable because the locals had no sense of manners nor waiting their turn in the 19th 20th century since the country became dog eat dog and lack hope. Only the powerful and high ranking seems to trample everyone else and they were the only ones who were able to own cars until about near 1990s when some wealther middle class started to own cars at all with similar mentality. But things had been improving on recent years as China starts to get its global image higher.
That Highway Code 170 - 172 is nothing but driver's handbook material. The changes outlined in that video will do no good. At best the changes will change nothing in people's behavior. People will just continue to travel as they have been. At worst the changes will empower pedestrians and bike riders to take unnecessary risks, by demanding right of way from motor vehicle drivers, who may not give way to them. The changes are a really bad idea, and will likely just result in more conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicle drivers.
That Highway Code 170 - 172 is nothing but driver's handbook material. The changes outlined in that video will do no good. At best the changes will change nothing in people's behavior. People will just continue to travel as they have been. At worst the changes will empower pedestrians and bike riders to take unnecessary risks, by demanding right of way from motor vehicle drivers, who may not give way to them. The changes are a really bad idea, and will likely just result in more conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicle drivers.
I be curious what would had happened if Anne caused the similar crash by violating these "rules" as many do, I guess outcome would likely be the same.
Surprised drivers in UK pretend walkers and bike riders don't exist when turning even though they are more aware of jaywalkers midblock than across the pond. Throughout history There are two ways to change behavior though one is carret measure other is sticks measure. I be curious what type of encouragement is the best. Sticks method may establish bad relations between citizens and law enforcement. As other parts of the world use law enforcement stings including parts of China in recent years that walkers and bicyclists now has much less encounters of drivers all of a sudden rounding a corner and almost mowing them down missing them by centimeters compared to years ago. But I am guessing there are carrots way of changing behavior as well. I.E how behaviors change when there is a big international event and people would like to look their best to international visitors. In China many people stopped spitting and many other bad habits in public after the 2008 olympics and 2010 Expo after public behavior compaigns and rewards for good behavior. It was really miraculous they were able to make massive behavior change voluntarily compared just years ago when it was just unthinkable when nothing seemed to work.
I be curious what would had happened if Anne caused the similar crash by violating these "rules" as many do, I guess outcome would likely be the same.
Surprised drivers in UK pretend walkers and bike riders don't exist when turning even though they are more aware of jaywalkers midblock than across the pond. Throughout history There are two ways to change behavior though one is carret measure other is sticks measure. I be curious what type of encouragement is the best. Sticks method may establish bad relations between citizens and law enforcement. As other parts of the world use law enforcement stings including parts of China in recent years that walkers and bicyclists now has much less encounters of drivers all of a sudden rounding a corner and almost mowing them down missing them by centimeters compared to years ago. But I am guessing there are carrots way of changing behavior as well. I.E how behaviors change when there is a big international event and people would like to look their best to international visitors. In China many people stopped spitting and many other bad habits in public after the 2008 olympics and 2010 Expo after public behavior compaigns and rewards for good behavior. It was really miraculous they were able to make massive behavior change voluntarily compared just years ago when it was just unthinkable when nothing seemed to work.
More than likely they never see the pedestrians or bike riders. Here is the problem with the video posted above. It explained that drivers turning left should give way to cyclists riding on the sidewalk. That is just wrong. Even if the driver attempts to comply with that regulation, there is no guarantee that he will not hit a cyclist. The bike rider could easily be traveling over 30 mph. Which doing that on a pedestrian sidewalk is reckless in itself. The bike rider has no damn business being on the sidewalk. He should be riding on the roadway. Meanwhile, the motor vehicle driver being overly cautious while trying to comply with those new regulations, has to slow way down before making the turn and would be traveling well under 30 mph, which creates a traffic hazard in itself, and puts the driver at risk of being rear ended by a distracted driver. Let's say the motorist comes to a complete stop, looks in his side mirror, and doesn't see anything, so he starts turning. Now the bike rider blazing down the sidewalk at over 30 mph, will be visible in the drivers mirror for only a split second before he plows into the side of the car.
Who is at fault for the collision? The reckless bike rider blazing down the sidewalk at 30 mph or the overly cautious motor vehicle driver trying to comply with the new regulations? Well under the regulations, the motor vehicle driver is at fault. Not because of his conduct, but because his vehicle can cause more damage.
The new regulations, while politically correct, defy common sense.
In the US even states and municipalities had screwed citizens when they mess up saying that you can only sue the government when we consent using this old English doctrine to back then. Yes this sometimes outragely includes even cases if a government owned vehicle were driving badly or poorly maintained and caused an over 100% at fault accident. I.e if a city transit bus ran a red light and collided with another vehicle sending it crashing through a building near the intersection. Thus I mentioned even if Harry was riding in the US and Anne was driving a government vehicle he would had faced an uphill battle its just ridiculous. And in the US the jury would likely side against motorcyclists using the stagma they think of when sport bikers are involved.*
Yes there was a case in one state while it consents to liability for motor vehicle accidents but it still kept the doctrine unless we consent. Once a bicyclist was killed due to a street cleaning tractor mishap apparently it lost control and*suddenly crossed the center line and its moving parts caught the bicyclist but the government's district attorney asserted that it doesn't fit the definition of a motor vehicle and screwed him or his family in providing justice and compensation. I am surprised this is allowed to happen in a place like the US.*
Any other way and citizens would be screwed even more as already high taxes are be raised to pay out for never ending lawsuits and/or government simply goes bankrupt for having to pay out for the same.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,187 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz
More than likely they never see the pedestrians or bike riders. Here is the problem with the video posted above. It explained that drivers turning left should give way to cyclists riding on the sidewalk. That is just wrong. Even if the driver attempts to comply with that regulation, there is no guarantee that he will not hit a cyclist. The bike rider could easily be traveling over 30 mph. Which doing that on a pedestrian sidewalk is reckless in itself. The bike rider has no damn business being on the sidewalk. He should be riding on the roadway. Meanwhile, the motor vehicle driver being overly cautious while trying to comply with those new regulations, has to slow way down before making the turn and would be traveling well under 30 mph, which creates a traffic hazard in itself, and puts the driver at risk of being rear ended by a distracted driver. Let's say the motorist comes to a complete stop, looks in his side mirror, and doesn't see anything, so he starts turning. Now the bike rider blazing down the sidewalk at over 30 mph, will be visible in the drivers mirror for only a split second before he plows into the side of the car.
Who is at fault for the collision? The reckless bike rider blazing down the sidewalk at 30 mph or the overly cautious motor vehicle driver trying to comply with the new regulations? Well under the regulations, the motor vehicle driver is at fault. Not because of his conduct, but because his vehicle can cause more damage.
The new regulations, while politically correct, defy common sense.
Cyclists don't ride on the sidewalk, they either use the road or a cycle lane.
"Certain rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and are identified by the words 'must' or 'must not', presented in bold red block capitals. In these cases, the rules also include references to the corresponding legislation. Offenders may be cautioned, given licence penalty points, fined, banned from driving, or imprisoned, depending on the severity of the offence. "
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,187 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19519
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizensadvocate
I be curious what would had happened if Anne caused the similar crash by violating these "rules" as many do, I guess outcome would likely be the same.
Surprised drivers in UK pretend walkers and bike riders don't exist when turning even though they are more aware of jaywalkers midblock than across the pond. Throughout history There are two ways to change behavior though one is carret measure other is sticks measure. I be curious what type of encouragement is the best. Sticks method may establish bad relations between citizens and law enforcement. As other parts of the world use law enforcement stings including parts of China in recent years that walkers and bicyclists now has much less encounters of drivers all of a sudden rounding a corner and almost mowing them down missing them by centimeters compared to years ago. But I am guessing there are carrots way of changing behavior as well. I.E how behaviors change when there is a big international event and people would like to look their best to international visitors. In China many people stopped spitting and many other bad habits in public after the 2008 olympics and 2010 Expo after public behavior compaigns and rewards for good behavior. It was really miraculous they were able to make massive behavior change voluntarily compared just years ago when it was just unthinkable when nothing seemed to work.
In the UK driving on the wrong side of the road is Dangerous Driving, and any penalty is for the Courts to decide, and any sentencing will be in related to mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and the same is true of many other countries.
What happens in the US is not relevant when driving on the roads in other countries, and you have to respect other countries laws.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
:
