I think the pedestrian should have priority because the bicycle can
cause them more harm than they can cause to bicycle. Realising and
appreciating that is what makes the cyclist reasonable and
You make the judgement and if you are wrong then you will have to face
Because it is a reasonable and responsible thing for a cyclist to do.
No. As a pedestrian, I keep out of the way of cars just as I would
keep out of the way of bicycles. But I fully expect drivers and
cyclists to be doing their best to avoid colliding with me at all
times and in all circumstances. A bully in a car or on a bicycle could
easily use their machine to their unfair advantage.
A bicycle, appropriately ridden, is hardly less maneuverable than a
person. A ship doesn't come into it.
Everyone tries to avoid each other yet many don't manage it, often
because someone's common sense is a bit lacking.
It is also a reasonable and responsible thing for a pedestrian to step to the side of the cyclist, which is why I always do so. What magically gives the pedestrian more rights than the cyclist? They are the SAME PEOPLE! One chose to get on his bike, they are both humans, probably living in the same town, they are no different to one another.
Make up your mind. If you want to cross the road, do you give way to the cars or expect them to give way to you?
A person can sidestep, a bicycle can't.
Ships are a valid analogy, as they come in different sizes, and different manoeuvrabilities.
No, because two people's common sense is lacking. You only need one person to react to avoid the collision.
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 19:36:25 GMT, email@example.com
This is where, as usual, you are wrong. In the eyes of the law a
cyclist is a vehicle
That may be true, but under maritime law, the canoe has the right of
way. Now there IS the concept of being "dead right", and stepping
aside for a bike is a good thing to do.
If a "sidewalk" is very lightly used and the road is very busy, and
there are no "cycling lanes" using the "sidewalk" (or as you Brits
call it - the "pavement" makes sense and is sensible - providing the
cyclist makes way for pedestrians, on who's turf he is impinging.
I've been cycling for some 50 years and have never had a mishap on the
road.. I have had my face scratched by impinging hedges while riding
on the "sidewalks" leading to the trailways. I use the sidewalk from
the nearest intersection to the trailway so I don't need to climb the
kerb to get to the trailway where there is no kerb-cut.
The law is not always right. Consider the mass and power of each.
Why are you replying to me if I'm killfiled? Absence makes the heat grow fonder?
I don't believe you. Under maritime law the most manoeuvrable vessel must give way. E.g. consider a windsurf and a car ferry.
The pavement is not designated for pedestrians. It's anything low speed that fits on it, including walkers, runners, wheelchairs, mobility scooters, and cyclists. There are no priorities, just common sense and courtesy.
The reason your print job died unexpectedly is because we lost coolant to the firewall and the ether in the net blew up.
The law is still legal, regardless of whether or not you consider it
right or wrong. Which means, you lose. You don't get to pick and choose
which laws you'll obey. Well, you can, but then you deal with the
And you're wrong. Vessels under sail have the right of way in a channel,
unless the other traffic cannot maneuver, such as an oil tanker. The
rulings on vessels under sail seem to vary, based on whether or not the
channel has been designated as narrow. That being said, sailboats often
cannot maneuver based on wind and other conditions. In those instances,
hopefully the people in the boat are wearing life jackets because they
may need them.
So, are you claiming that all laws are based on whether or not someone
is observed committing an infraction? IOW, if no one actually witnesses
the act, it's not illegal?
If someone enters your home, while you're away and steals everything you
own, then leaves, all without being seen by another, does that mean no
crime has been committed?
As far as the criminal is concerned, yes. As he is Scot free.
I break the speed limit every day, but I haven't been caught for about 8 years. As far as I'm concerned, I've not broken the law, as nothing happened.
What do black men do after sex?
15 years to life.
Well no, that's an assumption that isn't based on anything. Just
because one isn't seen doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that
there isn't evidence left behind. Some people have security cameras,
some criminals leave fingerprints. He's not scot free, he just hasn't
been caught yet.
Just because you've haven't gotten caught doesn't mean you haven't
broken the law. You have, by your own admission.
On 3/31/2016 3:51 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I didn't know that about canoes. I sailed on tankers and the only
vessels we were concerned with were those under sail, which have the
right of way. Unfortunately, a tanker in a relatively narrow channel
cannot stop or turn, so regardless of having the right of way, a vessel
under sail is gonna lose.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.