Old 35 mm movie of San Francisco
George W Frost
If you are not interested in what I post, then fuck off
But, for those who are interested in old cars, then go right ahead,
unfortunately, I didn't see any motorcycles
The first one is a full screen version
the second one is a small version
the third one is what the same street looked like 100 years after
The fourth one, is I think, maybe the original movie before editing and
cleaning up
This film, originally thought to be from 1905 until David Kiehn with the
Niles Essanay Silent Film Museum figured out exactly when it was
shot. From New York trade papers announcing the film showing to the wet
streets from recent heavy rainfall & shadows indicating time of year &
actual weather and conditions on historical record, even when the cars were
registered (he even knows who owned them and when the plates were
issued!).. It was filmed only four days before the quake and shipped by
train to NY for processing. Amazing but true!
This film was "lost" for many years. It was the first 35mm film ever.
It was taken by camera mounted on the front of a cable car
The number of automobiles is staggering for 1906. Absolutely amazing!
The clock tower at the end of Market Street at the Embarcadero wharf is
still there.
And no traffic lights, no cross walks, no painted lanes, no road signs
AND NO RULES - yet folks seem to survive okay...!
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=NINOxRxze9k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NINOxRxze9k&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=Vqcz_tllnwM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=nHqpHf_Znzs&feature=related
!!::!!::
lot would be covered in
parking tickets ! Ah simpler times :-)
"George W Frost" <george...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8g5zn.20261$pv.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
George W Frost
"!!::!!::" <some...@onthecoast.org> wrote in message
news:12717307...@zuxdc2y.zurich.com.au...
> Look at all those double parked horses, if that was North Sydney the whole
> lot would be covered in
> parking tickets ! Ah simpler times :-)
I liked the way that cars went in both directions on both sides of the tram
tracks
and the way the pedestrians played chicken with the traffic
VTR250
> "!!::!!::" <somewh...@onthecoast.org> wrote in message
I've seen this before (1st link). I'm sure the reason the film was
made was because the tram company was pissed off: they knew they could
go at more than twice the speed and they wanted to get a law against
'jaywalking.'
To me, the significance of this film is it shows what jaywalking
really is; what was banned: walking around on the road not paying
attention to the traffic at all. The way the law is enforced these
days leaves you thinking they were crossing at a sensible place,
looking left and right, just not crossing at an approved crossing
place!
Marty H
sadly...Jaywalking in Melbourne is getting so bad it is becoming
ridiculous.
My office is in the bottom end of Flinders Lane in Melbourne and I am
driving through the CDB several time each day. The amount of
pedestrians that just walk out onto the road without looking or worse
still, looking and simply not caring is astounding, Ipods and mobiles
phones don't help either.
I am in a 1800kg moving sledgehammer and even at the speed limit its
going to win against skin and bone. But people just walk out and
expect you to slam on the brakes or serve for them. Which I will keep
on doing cos I dont want a death on my hands.
I drive the length of Flinders Lane fair a bit, my record for near
misses (having to either brake , honk or swerve to not hit someone) is
9, thats at under 50kmh and in about 10 mins
With all this crap that is thrown on drives that every KM over is a
killer and fines for 3 kmh over the speed limit, lets put some money
back into Hector the safety cat
Seeing that more Pedistians get killed and injuried each year than
motorcyclist in Vic and dont pay one read cent to TAC/insurance, they
also dont get fined for their stupid acts... something has to be done
about it
mh
George W Frost
"Marty H" <hyt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aca81c4b-8034-4795...@v12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
mh
*******************
Haven't been into the city proper for a while now, but they used to have
coppers on point duty at each intersection, directing traffic and other
stuff.
The point I am getting at, is there used to be a particular copper on point
at Flinders and Swanston Street intersection, directing traffic and if any
pedestrian decided to chance the lights and walk against his direction, he
would call them back to the footpath from where they came from, then talk to
them for about two ot three mniutes about the dangers of the traffic, thus
holding them up from catching their train or whatever, making them late for
an appointment, then he would let them go with the green light, when he was
good and ready to.
There were not many who tried to cross against the lights when he was on
duty, even if they hadn't been caught before.
Could you imagine the embarrasment?
If they don't have them now, maybe they should bring back more coppers on
foot patrol.
I have seen pedestrians walk across the lanes of Melbourne against a red
light not giving a fuck about the cars who have the green light
Zebee Johnstone
Marty H <hyt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My office is in the bottom end of Flinders Lane in Melbourne and I am
> driving through the CDB several time each day. The amount of
> pedestrians that just walk out onto the road without looking or worse
> still, looking and simply not caring is astounding, Ipods and mobiles
> phones don't help either.
>
So tell me.
How many pedestrians have you seen being hit?
Zebee
JohnO
None probably... Marty was too busy watching for the ones walking out
in front of his van.
JohnO
Beer zebs?
Moike
> Haven't been into the city proper for a while now, but they used to have
> coppers on point duty at each intersection, directing traffic and other
> stuff.
> The point I am getting at, is there used to be a particular copper on point
> at Flinders and Swanston Street intersection, directing traffic and if any
> pedestrian decided to chance the lights and walk against his direction, he
> would call them back to the footpath from where they came from, then talk to
> them for about two ot three mniutes about the dangers of the traffic, thus
> holding them up from catching their train or whatever, making them late for
> an appointment, then he would let them go with the green light, when he was
> good and ready to.
> There were not many who tried to cross against the lights when he was on
> duty, even if they hadn't been caught before.
> Could you imagine the embarrasment?
Do you mean the copper we knew as the skull, or skullface in the early
70's?
I have spoken to him.....
Moike
--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
Marty H
about the same number as I have seen seriously injured or killed on
Motorcycles or cars
mh
G-S
2.
1 died [1][2][3]
G-S
[1] both were crossing at traffic lights when the pedestrian lights were
red.
[2] my office looks out into an intersection.
[3] I miss tow truck call out bonuses :)
George W Frost
"Moike" <Ym13bW9pa2VAZ21haWwuY29t@REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au> wrote in
message news:hqljas$5tv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
after you tried running the red light?
George W Frost
"Zebee Johnstone" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhssh9k...@gmail.com...
Bloody pedestrians are twenty to the deener in Melbourne
G-S
> On 21/04/2010 5:47 PM, G-S wrote:
>
>>> So tell me.
>>> How many pedestrians have you seen being hit?
>>>
>>
>> 2.
>>
>> 1 died [1][2][3]
>>
>> G-S
> >
>
>
> Nev..
No idea... the ambos didn't pay much I gather.
Phone calls leading to towing of cars used to pay $20 when I started,
when it stopped it was worth $50.
G-S
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Haven't been into the city proper for a while now, but they used to have
> coppers on point duty at each intersection, directing traffic and other
> stuff.
> The point I am getting at, is there used to be a particular copper on point
> at Flinders and Swanston Street intersection, directing traffic and if any
> pedestrian decided to chance the lights and walk against his direction, he
> would call them back to the footpath from where they came from, then talk to
> them for about two ot three mniutes about the dangers of the traffic, thus
> holding them up from catching their train or whatever, making them late for
> an appointment, then he would let them go with the green light, when he was
> good and ready to.
> There were not many who tried to cross against the lights when he was on
> duty, even if they hadn't been caught before.
> Could you imagine the embarrasment?
> If they don't have them now, maybe they should bring back more coppers on
> foot patrol.
> I have seen pedestrians walk across the lanes of Melbourne against a red
> light not giving a fuck about the cars who have the green light
A CBD like Melbourne *should* be for pedestrian convenience rather
than for the convenience of idiots in tin boxes. There's more of
them. They're taking the sensible mode of transport for the
conditions.
At Swinburne, there was often 50 people milling about on one side of
Burwood Rd trying to get to the other side. Particularly at lunch
time. The road was not particularly busy most times of the day, with
a constant trickle of cars coming through. They could have been
buffered up by the light sequences and let through in bursts, allowing
the large amount of pedestrians to cross regularly. Instead, there
was a +5 minute cycle of red for pedestrians, and 15 seconds on green,
and the cars came through spasmodically, but with not enough gap
between cars to leasurely stroll across the road unaided.
I usually just ran across the road in the 4 second gap between cars
rather than deal with that fricking light. When I was pissed off, I
walked slower. Fuck the tin boxes.
--
TimC
}> Is "wrongest" an actual word?
} It's a perfectly cromulent word.
Which, when used, embiggens us all.
-- Jeff Ramsey, Steed and D. Joseph Creighton in ASR
George W Frost
"TimC" <tcon...@rather.puzzling.no-spam-accepted-here-astro.org> wrote in
message news:127186283...@hexane.ssi.swin.edu.au...
Would you wear a bright red jacket next time you cross?
Then it will be easier to make you a bonnet mascot
Marty H
yup...just get rid of the vehicles, just because people are stupid and
risk their own lives by playing hide the chicken with moving objects,
lets punish the people obeying the law by banning them from using road
for their intended purpose...
the problem here is stupid pedestrians, not idiots in tin boxes (thou,
they do exist)
speak to Just Al, he collected a stupid jaywalking pedestrian on his
CX.. let ban motorcycles too..
I hate this "let ban or fine them" attitude instead of working out the
true problem and fixing it
mh
Marty H
here-astro.org> wrote:
>
> I usually just ran across the road in the 4 second gap between cars
> rather than deal with that fricking light. When I was pissed off, I
> walked slower. Fuck the tin boxes.
Darwin award?
mh
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> On 21/04/2010 8:58 AM, Marty H wrote:
>>
>> > Seeing that more Pedistians get killed and injuried each year than
>> > motorcyclist in Vic and dont pay one read cent to TAC/insurance, they
>>
>> premiums, probably more.
>
> so am I, but that is not the point, if you went down that alley, then
> there should be a medicare style levy put in place for every tax payer
> to pay instead of the TAC/3rd party that we now pay per vehicle.
>
> you pay your TAC/3rd party for the vehicle you are using, as a
> Pedestrian in Vic (correct me if I am wrong), if you get hit by a car,
> doesn't matter if you are in the right or wrong, the TAC still pays
> for your medical bills, therefore you have a free ride, especially if
> you are at fault.. and seeing more Pedestrians get killed in Vic that
> motorcyclist, the TAC we pay, plus the extra $50 blows chunks
Yes, but it's the vehicle that does the damage. If there was no
vehicle, there would be no damage, so the driver of vehicles in
general need to contribute to a pool that mitigates the risk that
their vehicles pose.
Bicycle riders don't pay a similar tax, because in 99.9% of
collisions, the bicycle doesn't kill or maim anyone other than the
rider (TAC is only personal injury and death remember. Bicycles can
cause property damage, but that's what the civil litigation system is
for).
--
TimC
"It occurred to me this morning that many system design flaws
can be traced to unwarrantedly anthropomorphizing the user."
-- Steven...@dartmouth.edu, in rec.humor.funny
VTR250
> "Marty H" <hyt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> sadly...Jaywalking in Melbourne is getting so bad it is becoming
> ridiculous.
>
> My office is in the bottom end of Flinders Lane in Melbourne and I am
> driving through the CDB several time each day. The amount of
> pedestrians that just walk out onto the road without looking or worse
> still, looking and simply not caring is astounding, Ipods and mobiles
> phones don't help either.
>
One very big (i.e. noticeable) difference between the UK and Australia
is what happens on pedestrian crossings. I thought you were supposed
to "Stop, Look, Listen, Think" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Green_Cross_Code] i.e. stand at the crossing, see if cars are coming,
wait until the traffic has stopped or passed before carefully crossing
the road, (ie. cross defensively). Not march out into the street
without breaking your stride or even looking. If you did that in the
UK, people would tell you you were a complete idiot.
I asked a true blue Aussie mate of mine if many Australians die on
crossings and he seemed to think they did, but I don't have any
numbers. Australian drivers seem to behave differently because, I
assume, they know the pedestrian won't stop look, listen or think.
Moike
> On Apr 21, 10:05 am, "George W Frost" <georgewfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Marty H" <hyt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> <snip>
>>
>> sadly...Jaywalking in Melbourne is getting so bad it is becoming
>> ridiculous.
>>
>> My office is in the bottom end of Flinders Lane in Melbourne and I am
>> driving through the CDB several time each day. The amount of
>> pedestrians that just walk out onto the road without looking or worse
>> still, looking and simply not caring is astounding, Ipods and mobiles
>> phones don't help either.
>>
>> <snip>
>
> One very big (i.e. noticeable) difference between the UK and Australia
> is what happens on pedestrian crossings. I thought you were supposed
> to "Stop, Look, Listen, Think" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Green_Cross_Code] i.e. stand at the crossing, see if cars are coming,
> wait until the traffic has stopped or passed before carefully crossing
> the road, (ie. cross defensively). Not march out into the street
> without breaking your stride or even looking. If you did that in the
> UK, people would tell you you were a complete idiot.
>
I thought that was a code for crossing streets where there was no
pedestrian crossing.
If the idea is to wait until there is no traffic, there'd be no point
painting zebra stripes on the road.
> I asked a true blue Aussie mate of mine if many Australians die on
> crossings and he seemed to think they did, but I don't have any
> numbers. Australian drivers seem to behave differently because, I
> assume, they know the pedestrian won't stop look, listen or think.
No, they stop and give way to pedestrians on pedestrian crossings
because they (mostly) know the rules.
Having said that, I was very nearly the cause of the demise of one
bewildered lady when, "on my recent motorcycling tour of the European
Alps" I was going through a village in Italy and saw a lady apparently
about to step onto the road at a zebra crossing. Of course I stopped to
give way (as you do). She was so astounded that she stepped onto the
road without looking back the other way and was very nearly collected by
a lorry coming the other way!
Apparently in Italy, being about to step off the curb at a pedestrian
crossing is no reason for traffic to stop. When you actually step off,
they will find a way to avoid hitting you (if you are on a zebra crossing).
Moike
Moike
(technically) a "Dont Walk".
The policeman I'm talking about was a tall, silver-haired copper with
rather high cheekbones (hence the nickname). He seemed to be stationed
there for a long time, while other points-duty cops came and went. I
think he liked the job.
When riding past on my 50cc Vespa, I always followed his instructions
carefully, knowing I probably couldn't outrun him without abandoning the
scooter.
Moike
George W Frost
"Moike" <bmwm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4bcf...@newsgate.x-privat.org...
Tall copper............ huh??
from what I have been told about you
everyone is tall
George W Frost
"VTR250" <goo...@m-streeter.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:53abecfc-b2e4-4d2e...@a27g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
**********************************
I seem to recall not very long ago, well, maybe a couple of years ago, but
too long ago for me to remember the names
there was someone who got hit on a pededstrian crossing,
she was in a wheelchair affair because she had been burned in a fire
no fault of hers
neither was it her fault that the car hit her
it was the fault of the wheelchair pusher behind her who pushed the
wheelchair out into the street against the flow of traffic, assuming that
she had right of way over the traffic.
Didn't even allow time for traffic to slow down or even stop,
just barged out into the street with the wheelchair in front of her
assuming again, that the car drivers would not want to scratch their car
with the wheelchair.
Her attitude was apparently, don't care about the girl in the wheelchair,
just get across the street in as short as possible time
Moike
Is there a "woosh" there?
Am I missing something?
I'm what you might call a very ordinary height.
Have you been listening to the voices again?
(trying to imagine who there could be that has met me and has had the
pleasure of your company.)
Moike
George W Frost
You never know who you are talking to Moike
but, someone said you were competing with Betty for the Duck's Disease Award
G-S
Moike is of average height (although that's an imprecise sort of term).
G-S
Moike
two feet on the ground on any bike I've tried to ride.
Perhaps Sir is a little confused?
Moike
Kevin Gleeson
wrote:
Along these lines, I had to go down to Kent St in Sydney CBD the other
day to pick up a security pass for another one of our buildings.
Coming back I crossed Kent St after checking for traffic and saw none
so wandered over the road. It is a quiet little street and there are
road works going on so cars are avoiding it as it is bottlenecked. As
I nearly got to the other side of the street a bicycle screamed past
me and abused me for not looking. He was flying. Way faster than I'd
drive any car or motorcycle through there. Estimate he may have been
doing 60 kph. He nearly hit me. I felt the wind from him as he went
past. He then turned right at the next intersection and collided with
2 people crossing at the pedestrian lights, bringing all 3 of them
down. No-one seemed badly hurt, but for fucks sake dude, slow down in
environments like that. I hope he has bruises and gravel rash to
remind him.
Kev
bikerbetty
I think Sir is mucho confused! 5'10" vs 5'3" isn't much of a contest....
methinks GWF has been sniffing the fumes in his shed again, and yes,
listening to the Voices...
betty
George W Frost
"bikerbetty" <bikerbettyatgmaildotcom> wrote in message
news:4bd0d551$0$10009$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
I always listen to the voices Betty,
most of the time,
it is the only company I have.
Lars Chance
> Having said that, I was very nearly the cause of the demise of one
> bewildered lady when, "on my recent motorcycling tour of the European
> Alps" I was going through a village in Italy and saw a lady apparently
> about to step onto the road at a zebra crossing. Of course I stopped to
> give way (as you do). She was so astounded that she stepped onto the
> road without looking back the other way and was very nearly collected by
> a lorry coming the other way!
>
> Apparently in Italy, being about to step off the curb at a pedestrian
> crossing is no reason for traffic to stop. When you actually step off,
> they will find a way to avoid hitting you (if you are on a zebra crossing).
>
I almost did killed a schoolkid doing this the other day.
The little takker was sprinting along the footpath and looking like
crossing at the crossing but he propped and halted at the gutter.
I then stopped and waved him through but he sprinted across the road
without checking the *other* way (and blind, from behind a parked van)!
Luckily no-one was coming and I don't have a dead kid on my conscience.
--
Elsie.
Lars Chance
> Perhaps Sir is a little confused?
>
A neat summation of "Sir's" life methinks.
--
Elsie.
Lars Chance
> Along these lines, I had to go down to Kent St in Sydney CBD the other
> day to pick up a security pass for another one of our buildings.
> Coming back I crossed Kent St after checking for traffic and saw none
> so wandered over the road. It is a quiet little street and there are
> road works going on so cars are avoiding it as it is bottlenecked. As
> I nearly got to the other side of the street a bicycle screamed past
> me and abused me for not looking. He was flying. Way faster than I'd
> drive any car or motorcycle through there. Estimate he may have been
> doing 60 kph. He nearly hit me. I felt the wind from him as he went
> past. (snip)
>
So you admit you were 100% in the wrong and you probably caused the
subsequent crash (after the *law abiding* cyclist had to avoid the
jaywalking non-attention-paying obstacle) yet you still try and put the
blame on *him*!!
You belong in aus.cars Kev!
--
Elsie.
Kevin Gleeson
I was not in the wrong. I was crossing a clear street. This guy was
traveling way too fast for the conditions. There were bollards around
the road, I had checked the road (I've managed to cross roads for
nearly 50 years now and survive so think I have got an idea how to do
it without accident). HE was totally out of an appropriate zone. He
went on the inside of me and the footpath on the other side of the
road just as I was about to reach the other side. Why the fuck he
chose to go that side of me when there was no other traffic on the
street is beyond me and why the hell he didn't just slow down when he
saw me or slow down after he nearly hit me is also beyond me. He just
kept pedaling like mad then turned flat out into a green pedestrian
light . . .
Kev
Lars Chance
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:42:40 GMT, Lars Chance
> <lars....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Kevin Gleeson wrote:
>>
>>> Along these lines, I had to go down to Kent St in Sydney CBD the other
>>> day to pick up a security pass for another one of our buildings.
>>> Coming back I crossed Kent St after checking for traffic and saw none
>>> so wandered over the road. It is a quiet little street and there are
>>> road works going on so cars are avoiding it as it is bottlenecked. As
>>> I nearly got to the other side of the street a bicycle screamed past
>>> me and abused me for not looking. He was flying. Way faster than I'd
>>> drive any car or motorcycle through there. Estimate he may have been
>>> doing 60 kph. He nearly hit me. I felt the wind from him as he went
>>> past. (snip)
>>>
>> So you admit you were 100% in the wrong and you probably caused the
>> subsequent crash (after the *law abiding* cyclist had to avoid the
>> jaywalking non-attention-paying obstacle) yet you still try and put the
>> blame on *him*!!
>>
>> You belong in aus.cars Kev!
>
> I was not in the wrong. I was crossing a clear street. This guy was
> traveling way too fast for the conditions.
>
>
> There were bollards around
> the road, I had checked the road (I've managed to cross roads for
> nearly 50 years now and survive so think I have got an idea how to do
> it without accident). HE was totally out of an appropriate zone. He
> went on the inside of me and the footpath on the other side of the
> road just as I was about to reach the other side.
>
were crossing illegally.
He saw you, you didn't see him.
He swerved and avoided you (while on the roadway) yet you maintain HE
was in the wrong!!
It's A U S . C A R S Kev. It's just over there <--.
--
Elsie.
Kevin Gleeson
<lars....@hotmail.com> wrote:
I was not crossing the road illegally. And to be quite honest I reckon
he was traveling above the 50km/h speed limit in the CBD but I have no
way of proving that.
And I don't know why I keep biting at your trolls, I must be bored or
something . . .
Kev
Lars Chance
Since when is it legal to stroll out onto a road in front of a moving
vehicle?
--
Elsie.
(except maybe on a zebra crossing)
Lars Chance
> And I don't know why I keep biting at your trolls, I must be bored or
> something . . .
>
Got a history of setting out unthinkingly and then blaming others when
it goes bad have you Kev?
--
Elsie.
G-S
Before the jaywalking laws were introduced it was legal :)
G-S
Diogenes
<keving...@imagine-it.com.au> wrote:
>And I don't know why I keep biting at your trolls, I must be bored or
>something . . .
I reckon it's cos you're not gettin any...
=================
Onya bike
Gerry
BT Humble
>
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 01:00:58 GMT, Kevin Gleeson
> <keving...@imagine-it.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> >And I don't know why I keep biting at your trolls, I must be bored or
> >something . . .
>
> I reckon it's cos you're not gettin any...
+1
BTH
--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
Kevin Gleeson
YnRAaHVtYmxldG93bi5vcmc=@REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au (BT Humble)
wrote:
>Diogenes wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 01:00:58 GMT, Kevin Gleeson
>> <keving...@imagine-it.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >And I don't know why I keep biting at your trolls, I must be bored or
>> >something . . .
>>
>> I reckon it's cos you're not gettin any...
>
>+1
>
>
>BTH
Stop predicting correctly. I need to get out more.
Kev
JL
Logic failure. Regardless of any illegality Kev may or may not have
made, the requirement to give way to pedestrians who have a green walk
signal is absolute, and not relieved by any other negligence.
JL
Lars Chance
> On Apr 24, 10:15 am, Lars Chance <lars.cha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Kevin Gleeson wrote:
>>>>> Along these lines, I had to go down to Kent St in Sydney CBD the other
>>>>> day to pick up a security pass for another one of our buildings.
>>>>> Coming back I crossed Kent St after checking for traffic and saw none
>>>>> so wandered over the road. It is a quiet little street and there are
>>>>> road works going on so cars are avoiding it as it is bottlenecked. As
>>>>> I nearly got to the other side of the street a bicycle screamed past
>>>>> me and abused me for not looking. He was flying. Way faster than I'd
>>>>> drive any car or motorcycle through there. Estimate he may have been
>>>>> doing 60 kph. He nearly hit me. I felt the wind from him as he went
>>>>> past. (snip)
>
>> were crossing illegally.
>> He saw you, you didn't see him.
>> He swerved and avoided you (while on the roadway) yet you maintain HE
>> was in the wrong!!
>
> Logic failure. Regardless of any illegality Kev may or may not have
> made, the requirement to give way to pedestrians who have a green walk
> signal is absolute, and not relieved by any other negligence.
>
--
Elsie.
Lee
<pedant> but there was in the followup post
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.motorcycles/msg/2b14ae4769e1aeeb
</pedant>
--
Lee
Kevin Gleeson
I was not anywhere near pedestrian lights. The people he hit were
crossing at green pedestrian lights. The point is still he simply
should not have been traveling that fast in a built up area.
And cars are required to give way to pedestrians regardless of whether
they are crossing illegally or not.
Kev
Lars Chance
Ahh; you mean the post-avoiding-Kev, cyclist careening out of control
into the innocent pedestrians bit.
Yep, there was a green light there that I missed.
My bad; I should've written "Relevance Failure" or "Sequence of Events
Failure" or something more accurate.
--
Elsie.
Lars Chance
> Lars Chance <lars....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Fact failure. No green walk signal in original story.
>
> I was not anywhere near pedestrian lights. The people he hit were
> crossing at green pedestrian lights. The point is still he simply
> should not have been traveling that fast in a built up area.
>
> And cars are required to give way to pedestrians regardless of whether
> they are crossing illegally or not.
>
Yes, so are bicycles.
Of course; he DID manage to give way to you. Due to his somewhat heroic
effort your way was totally unimpeded thus he broke no law.
The only law-breaker there was the jaywalker.
--
Elsie.
F Murtz
Where was jaywalking mentioned?
Marts
> Look at all those double parked horses, if that was North Sydney the whole
> lot would be covered in
> parking tickets ! Ah simpler times :-)
Or have locked clamps around their feet...
Zebee Johnstone
F Murtz <hag...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Lars Chance wrote:
>>
>> The only law-breaker there was the jaywalker.
>>
> Is it illegal to walk across the road?
It is if you are within a certain distance of a marked crossing and
are not using that crossing.
Whether this was the case has not been mentioned.
IT is also required that the ped cross safely and with due care for
any lawful traffic which doesn't seem to ahve been done. The traffic
was lawful, and as far as I can tell the ped was not paying attention
to what was happening on the road he was crossing.
I find it very difficult to believe the bike was doing 60kmh on a
small suburban street, takes a while for a pushy to get to that speed
on the flat.
Zebee
Lars Chance
> Lars Chance wrote:
>> The only law-breaker there was the jaywalker.
>>
> Is it illegal to walk across the road?
>
Not when there's no traffic no. Stepping out in front of a moving
vehicle is illegal though.
>
> Where was jaywalking mentioned?
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking
"Jaywalking is an informal term commonly used in the USA to refer to
illegal or reckless pedestrian crossing of a roadway. Examples include a
pedestrian crossing between intersections (outside a crosswalk, marked
or unmarked) without yielding to drivers (snip)
Seems the appropriate word to me.
--
Elsie.
Kevin Gleeson
<lars....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>F Murtz wrote:
>> Lars Chance wrote:
>
>>> The only law-breaker there was the jaywalker.
>>>
>> Is it illegal to walk across the road?
> >
>Not when there's no traffic no. Stepping out in front of a moving
>vehicle is illegal though.
I did not step in front of a moving vehicle. I was almost at the other
side of the road. And there is no SMIDSY here. For fuck sake I know
how to cross a road and I also know this dude was travelling at
inappropriate speeds for the area he was in. Can't you get that
through your head? If I go to cross a highway and someone comes around
a sweeper travelling at 250km/h then no, I am not going to be able to
predict that and he is the one in the wrong. Unfortunately I'd
probably be the dead one.
I am NOT in the habit of stepping in front of traffic. Ye gods. Dunno
why I bother replying.
Kev
Lars Chance
>> Not when there's no traffic no. Stepping out in front of a moving
>> vehicle is illegal though.
>
> I did not step in front of a moving vehicle. I was almost at the other
> side of the road. And there is no SMIDSY here. For fuck sake I know
> how to cross a road and I also know this dude was travelling at
> inappropriate speeds for the area he was in. Can't you get that
> through your head? If I go to cross a highway and someone comes around
> a sweeper travelling at 250km/h then no, I am not going to be able to
> predict that and he is the one in the wrong. Unfortunately I'd
> probably be the dead one.
>
So there's no SMIDSY and yet a cyclist magically materialised out of
thin air and nearly skittled you.
He saw you and swerved to avoid you yet you had not an inkling he was
there until he was past you.
How come attentive-careful-you couldn't see him Kev? (And more
importantly, why do you imagine that all this is *HIS* fault?)
>
> I am NOT in the habit of stepping in front of traffic. Ye gods. Dunno
> why I bother replying.
>
Inability to see the obvious?
--
Elsie.
G-S
However if the pedestrian walks when the pedestrian walk signal is red
the situation IS different and the driver isn't automatically at fault.
G-S
G-S
Yes but the legal situation if they hit them is different.
G-S
Kevin Gleeson
<lars....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Kevin Gleeson wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 05:22:17 GMT, Lars Chance
>> <lars....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Not when there's no traffic no. Stepping out in front of a moving
>>> vehicle is illegal though.
>>
>> I did not step in front of a moving vehicle. I was almost at the other
>> side of the road. And there is no SMIDSY here. For fuck sake I know
>> how to cross a road and I also know this dude was travelling at
>> inappropriate speeds for the area he was in. Can't you get that
>> through your head? If I go to cross a highway and someone comes around
>> a sweeper travelling at 250km/h then no, I am not going to be able to
>> predict that and he is the one in the wrong. Unfortunately I'd
>> probably be the dead one.
>>
>So there's no SMIDSY and yet a cyclist magically materialised out of
>thin air and nearly skittled you.
>He saw you and swerved to avoid you yet you had not an inkling he was
>there until he was past you.
>How come attentive-careful-you couldn't see him Kev? (And more
>importantly, why do you imagine that all this is *HIS* fault?)
I'll explain this one last time for the dense in here then give up.
I'm walking down the road and an F111 comes in under ground following
radar at 700km/h. Oops SMIDSY.
Appropriate fucking speeds for appropriate environments. He was not
doing that.
>> I am NOT in the habit of stepping in front of traffic. Ye gods. Dunno
>> why I bother replying.
>>
>Inability to see the obvious?
Obviously with you.
Kev
Marty H
wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 06:35:21 GMT, Lars Chance
>
>
>
> <lars.cha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Kevin Gleeson wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 05:22:17 GMT, Lars Chance
> >> <lars.cha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Not when there's no traffic no. Stepping out in front of a moving
> >>> vehicle is illegal though.
>
> >> I did not step in front of a moving vehicle. I was almost at the other
> >> side of the road. And there is no SMIDSY here. For fuck sake I know
> >> how to cross a road and I also know this dude was travelling at
> >> inappropriate speeds for the area he was in. Can't you get that
> >> through your head? If I go to cross a highway and someone comes around
> >> a sweeper travelling at 250km/h then no, I am not going to be able to
> >> predict that and he is the one in the wrong. Unfortunately I'd
> >> probably be the dead one.
>
> >So there's no SMIDSY and yet a cyclist magically materialised out of
> >thin air and nearly skittled you.
> >He saw you and swerved to avoid you yet you had not an inkling he was
> >there until he was past you.
> >How come attentive-careful-you couldn't see him Kev? (And more
> >importantly, why do you imagine that all this is *HIS* fault?)
>
> I'll explain this one last time for the dense in here then give up.
>
> I'm walking down the road and an F111 comes in under ground following
> radar at 700km/h. Oops SMIDSY.
was that a F-111C or the D?
seeing the F-111D had the newer Mark II avionics, he should have seen
you and thus avoided the situation
mh
JohnO
wrote:
D as in for diesel? How many MPG?
Johno
Cider moit?
George W Frost
"JohnO" <var...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4eoat5tscii9i2hru...@4ax.com...
Not very many if it was going underground
BT Humble
Nah Johno, the F111C was the one we bought in the sixties, where the
ignition key switch was in the dash. The F111D has it on the steering
column.
Lars Chance
>>> So there's no SMIDSY and yet a cyclist magically materialised out of
>>> thin air and nearly skittled you.
>>> He saw you and swerved to avoid you yet you had not an inkling he was
>>> there until he was past you.
>>> How come attentive-careful-you couldn't see him Kev? (And more
>>> importantly, why do you imagine that all this is *HIS* fault?)
>> I'll explain this one last time for the dense in here then give up.
>>
>> I'm walking down the road and an F111 comes in under ground following
>> radar at 700km/h. Oops SMIDSY.
>
> was that a F-111C or the D?
>
> seeing the F-111D had the newer Mark II avionics, he should have seen
> you and thus avoided the situation
>
--
Elsie.
Lars Chance
--
Elsie.
Lars Chance
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 06:35:21 GMT, Lars Chance
> <lars....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'll explain this one last time for the dense in here then give up.
>
> I'm walking down the road and an F111 comes in under ground following
> radar at 700km/h. Oops SMIDSY.
> Appropriate fucking speeds for appropriate environments. He was not
> doing that.
>
didn't even *look* until after he had already avoided you, did you?
*S*orry *M*ate *I* *W*as *T*oo *S*tupid *T*oo *L*ook *A*t *Y*ou!
(But I love the "pedal-powered-vehicle-was-obviously-speeding" defence)
--
Elsie.
Marty H
time to give it up mate...
mh
Lars Chance
>
> time to give it up mate...
>
I agree Marty.
I can't understand why he's persisted even *this* long!
--
Elsie.
Moike
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 02:39:58 -0700 (PDT), Marty H <hyt...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 26, 7:30 pm, Kevin Gleeson <kevinglee...@imagine-it.com.au>
>>> I'm walking down the road and an F111 comes in under ground following
>>> radar at 700km/h. Oops SMIDSY.
>> was that a F-111C or the D?
>>
>> seeing the F-111D had the newer Mark II avionics, he should have seen
>> you and thus avoided the situation
>>
>> mh
>
> D as in for diesel? How many MPG?
>
> Johno
>
> Cider moit?
>
Don't they all run on diesel?
Moike
JL
Are yer sure G-S ?
JL
(noting also that the road rules aren't truly unified yet so there may
be NSW / Vic differences still)
F Murtz
collide with the pedestrians? Was he not watching where he was going?
G-S
Yah but to be fair they did retro-fit the earlier C model with one of
those after market 3 on the floor shifters so it looked like the later one.
G-S
G-S
Actually it's closer to kerosine...
G-S
G-S
There is (or at least was) a defence specifically relating to
pedestrians crossing when the pedestrian marker was red in Victoria.
I'm somewhat familiar with this because I guy I knew hit a person who
walked out on the red and she died.
Not up on the details and the guy is now in Darwin, not sure how I'd
check the court records...
G-S
Kevin Gleeson
I'm still pretty sure the vehicle has to give way to pedestrians in
all states. Yes, if someone is crossing a red light then if you hit
them, a court will exonerate you from manslaughter if it goes that
far. But the bigger nastier car has to give way to pedestrians as much
as it is possible. It's not just a legal situation, it's common bloody
sense. If you do strike a "jaywalker" then you probably won't end up
in jail. But if you ploughed into a bunch of people on a green
pedestrian light I think you might have a little while of very bland
food and a small room.
Kev
theo
wrote:
> I'll explain this one last time for the dense in here then give up.
>
> I'm walking down the road and an F111 comes in under ground following
> radar at 700km/h. Oops SMIDSY.
> Appropriate fucking speeds for appropriate environments. He was not
> doing that.
I was under the impression it was a bicycle. Whereas 40 is a fairly
achievable rate of travel on a bicycle, it requires a fit person to
maintain that speed. I would think 50 would be beyond 95% of cyclists,
except when riding down a steeep hill. 700? Unlikely. I understood you
to be crossing the road away from a marked pedestrian crossing, you
didn't pay appropriate attention, and you probably were partly the
cause of the cyclist being distracted enough to have a subsequent
accident. Was the speed limit less than 40 km/h and do you think it
would have been inappropriate for another vehicle to be travelling at
or near the posted speed limit?
Theo
Lars Chance
> Lars Chance wrote:
>> (But I love the "pedal-powered-vehicle-was-obviously-speeding" defence)
>>
>>
> If the cyclist was not going too fast for the conditions why did he
> collide with the pedestrians? Was he not watching where he was going?
>
I kinda thought Kev just made up the second incident (to demonise the
cyclist) but for the sake of the argument there could be a few reasons
other than speed.
Of course we've already mentioned the most obvious; that the crash was a
result of him being out of control after having to swerve to avoid Kev.
He might also have turned his head to give Kev a long withering-stare
and not looked back in time.
He may have even just become so angry at meat-head pedestrians that he
decided to ram the next one he saw!
The fact that he was turning when he collided with them tends to
indicate that speed *wasn't* much of a factor (hard to speed around
right-angle corners on a pushie)
--
Elsie.
F Murtz
>
> Nev..
> '08 DL1000K8
Yes they should not have crossed the crossing when the lights were green.
Lars Chance
> On 27/04/2010 6:53 PM, Lars Chance wrote:
>
>> The fact that he was turning when he collided with them tends to
>> indicate that speed *wasn't* much of a factor (hard to speed around
>> right-angle corners on a pushie)
>
> variables. Compare the speed which 125cc bikes carry through corners
> compared to MotoGP bikes as an illustration.
>
They don't have to leave clearance for the pedalling!
--
Elsie.
Andrew
>
> They don't have to leave clearance for the pedalling!
You go really fast round corners on a pushie by coasting with the inside
pedal raised to the top - massively more clearance than any motorcycle on
the planet. Where on earth did you go to school that you didn't learn
that?
--
Regards
Andrew
Andrew
> Yes they should not have crossed the crossing when the lights were
> green.
If you read what Kev actually wrote, rather than what he implied, you'll
see that nowhere does he say the pedestrian lights were green. If they
were, since you never have a Walk / Don't Walk without a matching set of
traffic lights, the cyclist went through a red light.
--
Regards
Andrew
Kevin Gleeson
He was turning from a street with a green light with pedestrians
having an associated green as well. But I cannot recall whether there
was a red arrow at the intersection for a right turn. I don't think
so. But he still has to wait for the pedestrians.
Kev
Lars Chance
>
When they're not pedalling yes.
--
Elsie.
Lars Chance
means that you're losing speed (compared to a motorcycle; the example
Nev was using).
--
Elsie.
BT Humble
> Interesting. Why does a 125cc bike carry more speed through a corner
> than a MotoGP bike? A motogp bike has more grip, therefore should lean
> further. What's the difference? CoG?
I'm guessing that the reason is related to the relative masses of the
machinery.
Maybe kinetic energy to friction ratios.
BTH
--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
Lars Chance
> Nev.. wrote:
>> Interesting. Why does a 125cc bike carry more speed through a corner
>> than a MotoGP bike? A motogp bike has more grip, therefore should lean
>> further. What's the difference? CoG?
>
> I'm guessing that the reason is related to the relative masses of the
>
Psst BT; I think that was Nev's oh-so-subtle point! (in response to the
"weight's not a factor" post).
--
Elsie.
BT Humble
I also think that solar flares might have something to do with it.
Neutrino emissions and all that.
JohnO
YnRAaHVtYmxldG93bi5vcmc=@REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au (BT Humble)
wrote:
... and don't forget the Romans.
JohnO
Girly drink mate?
How's the head today?