Re: No fault cell phone law

Liste des GroupesRevenir à cm android 
Sujet : Re: No fault cell phone law
De : noemail (at) *nospam* none.com (AJL)
Groupes : comp.mobile.android
Date : 17. Mar 2024, 18:26:07
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <ut793f$3krla$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
On 3/17/2024 9:03 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
All comments below apply to my state AZ/US only. YMMV.

There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with the right of
way." It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of way.
A driver can have the right of way.

Instead, there are various situations where you must yield the right
 of way. You only proceed when none of those situations exist.
If you must legally yield, you do it for another driver who has the
right of way. An example would be yielding the right of way to oncoming
traffic when making a left turn.

One of those situations, of course, is a pedestrian in your path. No
 matter how heedless or annoying they may be, you have no right to
hit them with your vehicle
A pedestrian only has the right of way in a crosswalk. Cars have the
right of way everywhere else. In a non-crosswalk car-pedestrian ACCIDENT
the driver in not held at fault and would not receive a ticket. (Unless
he has violated some other law like speeding or driving on the wrong
side of the road, etc.)
Pedestrians occasionally do get ticketed when they fail to yield to
oncoming vehicles when crossing the street outside of a crosswalk by
making the car slow or stop.

or even drive in a way that threatens to do so.
There are several laws that apply if a driver intentionally threatens a
pedestrian with a car depending on the circumstance. But they are
criminal laws, not traffic laws...

Date Sujet#  Auteur
17 Mar 24 * Re: No fault cell phone law36The Real Bev
17 Mar 24 `* Re: No fault cell phone law35Stan Brown
17 Mar 24  +* Re: No fault cell phone law7Frank Slootweg
17 Mar 24  i+- Re: No fault cell phone law1Stan Brown
17 Mar 24  i`* Re: No fault cell phone law5The Real Bev
17 Mar 24  i `* Re: No fault cell phone law4Frank Slootweg
17 Mar 24  i  `* Re: No fault cell phone law3The Real Bev
18 Mar 24  i   `* Re: No fault cell phone law2Frank Slootweg
18 Mar 24  i    `- Re: No fault cell phone law1Andrew
17 Mar 24  +* Re: No fault cell phone law4AJL
17 Mar 24  i+- Re: No fault cell phone law1Frankie
18 Mar 24  i`* Re: No fault cell phone law2Stan Brown
18 Mar 24  i `- Re: No fault cell phone law1AJL
17 Mar 24  `* Re: No fault cell phone law23Andrew
17 Mar 24   +* Re: No fault cell phone law2The Real Bev
18 Mar 24   i`- Re: No fault cell phone law1Andrew
20 Mar 24   `* Re: No fault cell phone law20Carlos E.R.
20 Mar 24    +* Re: No fault cell phone law17AJL
20 Mar 24    i+* Re: No fault cell phone law10Carlos E.R.
20 Mar 24    ii`* Re: No fault cell phone law9Carlos E.R.
20 Mar 24    ii `* Re: No fault cell phone law8Andrew
21 Mar 24    ii  `* Re: No fault cell phone law7Hank Rogers
21 Mar 24    ii   `* Re: No fault cell phone law6Andrew
21 Mar 24    ii    +- Re: No fault cell phone law1Andrew
23 Mar 24    ii    `* Re: No fault cell phone law4The Real Bev
23 Mar 24    ii     +- Re: No fault cell phone law1Your Name
24 Mar 24    ii     +- Re: No fault cell phone law1Harry S Robins
29 Mar 24    ii     `- Re: No fault cell phone law1sms
20 Mar 24    i`* Re: No fault cell phone law6The Real Bev
20 Mar 24    i `* Re: No fault cell phone law5Carlos E.R.
20 Mar 24    i  `* Re: No fault cell phone law4The Real Bev
21 Mar 24    i   `* Re: No fault cell phone law3Indira
21 Mar 24    i    `* Re: No fault cell phone law2The Real Bev
21 Mar 24    i     `- Re: No fault cell phone law1Indira
21 Mar 24    `* Re: No fault cell phone law2Frank Slootweg
24 Mar 24     `- Re: No fault cell phone law1Andrew

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal