|
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 20:52:28 +0100, Bod wrote:
On 12/06/2017 20:34, Oren wrote: On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 20:11:20 +0100, Bod wrote: On 12/06/2017 20:06, Oren wrote: On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 16:49:57 +0100, Bod wrote: Why not leave it to peoples common sense. Because common sense is uncommon. It's more important to keep traffic flowing than to let every swinging dick wander across the streets whenever and wherever he wants. Cindy Hamilton We don't seem to have those sort of problems with pedestrians walking across roads. You guys must live in a perfect world, at least by your indications there is nothing ever wrong in the Yewt Kay. I don't buy it! There is *no* Jaywalking law in The UK. That is a fact. So go play in the traffic, I'd not be mad about it. I'll bet your street intersections have signs about looking for cars. Meh. You folks likely don't look both directions when you cross the streets. Americans are smart. Our mothers told us not to play in the street for a reason. What are you rambling on about? You're the ones who get told off for crossing a road. I'm not "rambling". You're the one with an aversion to jaywalking laws. America didn't have such laws until the advent of the car. Maybe you Brit's cross train tracks when trains are coming. Do you nutters cross the tracks when a speeding train is 15 yards from the crossing. Naw, couldn't possibly be true. |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On 06/12/2017 01:11 PM, Bod wrote:
There is *no* Jaywalking law in The UK. That is a fact. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/pr...ike-collisions Rather vague but it would seem that in London alone in 2015 66 pedestrians were too slow to survive. |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
We don't seem to have those sort of problems with pedestrians walking across roads. You guys must live in a perfect world, at least by your indications there is nothing ever wrong in the Yewt Kay. I don't buy it! There is *no* Jaywalking law in The UK. That is a fact. So go play in the traffic, I'd not be mad about it. I'll bet your street intersections have signs about looking for cars. Meh. You folks likely don't look both directions when you cross the streets. Americans are smart. Our mothers told us not to play in the street for a reason. What are you rambling on about? You're the ones who get told off for crossing a road. I'm not "rambling". You're the one with an aversion to jaywalking laws. America didn't have such laws until the advent of the car. Maybe you Brit's cross train tracks when trains are coming. Do you nutters cross the tracks when a speeding train is 15 yards from the crossing. Naw, couldn't possibly be true. We have a few idiots that do, but the US has almost Biblical amounts in comparison: *USA* http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/m...46f8d4fe7.html "Pedestrian railroad accidents are now the leading cause of death on the rails. More than 7,200 pedestrians have been fatally struck by trains in the United States since 1997. An additional 6,400 have been injured. Each year on average about 500 are killed. In the first nine months of 2012" __________________________________________________ ___________________ *UK* 345 people killed on UK railways last year | Rail.co.uk www.rail.co.uk Ί Rail News Ί 2014 28 Sep 2014 - The 308 non-passenger deaths on the mainline railway was an increase of 20 compared with the previous year with 279 (the highest since this system of reporting started 11 years ago) of these suicides or suspected suicides, an increase of 13%. Trespassing caused 21 more deaths, a reduction of a third. |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On 13/06/2017 00:06, rbowman wrote:
On 06/12/2017 01:11 PM, Bod wrote: There is *no* Jaywalking law in The UK. That is a fact. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/pr...ike-collisions Rather vague but it would seem that in London alone in 2015 66 pedestrians were too slow to survive. London and New York both have about 8 million residents so this is a fair comparison: *US* NYPD: 16059 Pedestrians and Cyclists Injured, 178 ... - Streetsblog NYC nyc.streetsblog.org/2014/.../nypd-16059-pedestrians-and-cyclists-injured-178-killed-i... By Brad Aaron Β· Jan 31, 2014; 15 ... Twenty-five people died in New York City traffic in December, and 4,277 were injured, according to the ... Of 134 pedestrian and cyclist fatalities reported in 2013 by Streetsblog and other outlets, 19 were ... *UK* Casualties on London's roads at lowest level ever - Transport for London https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/.../2014...est-level-ever Number of people killed and seriously injured on London's roads at lowest level ever. ... 11 June 2014 ... the second lowest number since records began, with fatalities involving pedestrians down six per cent (65 down from 69 in 2012); Deaths ... |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On 6/13/17 3:00 AM, Bod wrote:
On 13/06/2017 00:06, rbowman wrote: On 06/12/2017 01:11 PM, Bod wrote: There is *no* Jaywalking law in The UK. That is a fact. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/pr...ike-collisions Rather vague but it would seem that in London alone in 2015 66 pedestrians were too slow to survive. London and New York both have about 8 million residents so this is a fair comparison: Actually it is a ****-poor comparison. The only really usable stats in this context would be deaths or injuries per million miles (or km for the Brits) driven. The more miles driven the more accidents will happen. You need context to tell you anything. ' |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On 06/13/2017 12:49 AM, Bod wrote:
We have a few idiots that do, but the US has almost Biblical amounts in comparison: *USA* http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/m...46f8d4fe7.html "Pedestrian railroad accidents are now the leading cause of death on the rails. More than 7,200 pedestrians have been fatally struck by trains in the United States since 1997. An additional 6,400 have been injured. " In the first nine months of 2012" __________________________________________________ ___________________ *UK* 345 people killed on UK railways last year | Rail.co.uk www.rail.co.uk Ί Rail News Ί 2014 28 Sep 2014 - The 308 non-passenger deaths on the mainline railway was an increase of 20 compared with the previous year with 279 (the highest since this system of reporting started 11 years ago) of these suicides or suspected suicides, an increase of 13%. Trespassing caused 21 more deaths, a reduction of a third. Thanks for the links. "Each year on average about 500 are killed." from the first cite. " The 308 non-passenger deaths on the mainline railway was an increase of 20 compared with the previous year with 279" from the second. The UK has a population of 65.14 million, the US 321.4 million so there are roughly 5 times as many people in the US so proportionally there should be about 100 deaths per year in the UK. We won't even go into the 140,490 route miles in the US versus the 10,072 in the UK. Or you could do the math for the first statement: "More than 7,200 pedestrians have been fatally struck by trains in the United States since 1997. 1997 was 20 years ago, so that would be 360 death per year on the average for a country with vastly more people and rail miles. That was almost too easy... Tell us again about math in the UK. |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 10:31:08 -0600, rbowman
wrote: On 06/13/2017 12:49 AM, Bod wrote: We have a few idiots that do, but the US has almost Biblical amounts in comparison: *USA* http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/m...46f8d4fe7.html "Pedestrian railroad accidents are now the leading cause of death on the rails. More than 7,200 pedestrians have been fatally struck by trains in the United States since 1997. An additional 6,400 have been injured. " In the first nine months of 2012" __________________________________________________ ___________________ *UK* 345 people killed on UK railways last year | Rail.co.uk www.rail.co.uk Rail News 2014 28 Sep 2014 - The 308 non-passenger deaths on the mainline railway was an increase of 20 compared with the previous year with 279 (the highest since this system of reporting started 11 years ago) of these suicides or suspected suicides, an increase of 13%. Trespassing caused 21 more deaths, a reduction of a third. Thanks for the links. "Each year on average about 500 are killed." from the first cite. " The 308 non-passenger deaths on the mainline railway was an increase of 20 compared with the previous year with 279" from the second. The UK has a population of 65.14 million, the US 321.4 million so there are roughly 5 times as many people in the US so proportionally there should be about 100 deaths per year in the UK. We won't even go into the 140,490 route miles in the US versus the 10,072 in the UK. Or you could do the math for the first statement: "More than 7,200 pedestrians have been fatally struck by trains in the United States since 1997. 1997 was 20 years ago, so that would be 360 death per year on the average for a country with vastly more people and rail miles. That was almost too easy... Tell us again about math in the UK. Maybe he can tell us why Las Vegas has ~400 pedestrian deaths since 2011 while much/most of Nevada has none. Math is hard! |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
Thanks for the links. "Each year on average about 500 are killed." from the first cite. " The 308 non-passenger deaths on the mainline railway was an increase of 20 compared with the previous year with 279" from the second. The UK has a population of 65.14 million, the US 321.4 million so there are roughly 5 times as many people in the US so proportionally there should be about 100 deaths per year in the UK. We won't even go into the 140,490 route miles in the US versus the 10,072 in the UK. Or you could do the math for the first statement: "More than 7,200 pedestrians have been fatally struck by trains in the United States since 1997. 1997 was 20 years ago, so that would be 360 death per year on the average for a country with vastly more people and rail miles. That was almost too easy... Tell us again about math in the UK. Fair point :-) |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:26:47 +0100, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 12:23:14 AM UTC-4, Bod wrote: Hmm, I've heard that Americans can be arrested just for walking across a road. Called Jaywalking I believe. Not arrested, but ticketed. And you're ok with that?! No freedom to choose when you cross the road? -- "I'll have the rump steak, rare, please." He said, "Aren't you worried about the mad cow?" "Nah, she can order for herself." And that's when the fight started.... |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:16:09 +0100, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 8:26:55 AM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote: On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 12:23:14 AM UTC-4, Bod wrote: Hmm, I've heard that Americans can be arrested just for walking across a road. Called Jaywalking I believe. Not arrested, but ticketed. Cindy Hamilton If the jaywalker belongs to a certain racial group and can't control that mouth, there is a very good chance they will be Tased and arrested. I have seen Homie get arrested when all he had to do was STFU and walk away but that mouth just kept running and ran him right to jail. I don't know what it is with Homie's lack of mouth control but it lands him in jail regularly.γ½(γ )γ [8~{} Uncle Home Monster https://youtu.be/B97w0QrDmZY -- "An abstract noun," the teacher said, "is something you can think of, but you can't touch it. Can you give me an example of one?" "Sure," a teenage boy replied. "My father's new car." |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:38:27 +0100, rbowman wrote:
On 06/11/2017 10:44 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote: They weren't tased and arrested for jaywalking, though. It would have had to be Resisting Arrest, or perhaps Looking at a Police Office in a Funny Way. While there certainly are aggressive and hair-triggered cops, it's usually for being an asshole. My brother in law specialized in the technique; his big mouth got us arrested in my hometown by a cop I went to school with. And the arsehole cop didn't let you off because he knew you? That's not on. -- What is the punishment for bigamy? Two mother-in-laws. |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 06:17:11 +0100, Bod wrote:
On 11/06/2017 05:37, Uncle Monster wrote: On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:23:14 PM UTC-5, Bod wrote: On 11/06/2017 01:46, Uncle Monster wrote: On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 3:14:52 PM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote: On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 20:40:24 +0100, Uncle Monster wrote: What if your attacker outweighs you by 45 kg and is 10 cm taller? Plus what if the ****** really, really means to rip your throat out and eat your face? What are you gonna do? Perhaps you could get Trator_4 to call him a racist and he would go away with his feelings hurt? γ½(γ )γ I'd be worried he'd steal my gun and shoot me with it. Unless a gun is programmed to only work using your own fingerprints, it's not safe. -- You don't let the thug get close enough before shooting him in the groin. When he bends down in pain and reaches for his mangled testicles, you shoot him in the head. Self defense with a firearm is easy if you have training and practice at a gun range. (γ-_ο½₯) οΈ»γδΈ Έ And if he does too? -- You seem to be making excuses to not be armed. I believe it's ingrained in your culture to be unarmed because the ruling class of royals disarmed you peasants centuries ago. Only the King's knights and soldiers were allowed to have weapons. Fortunately my ancestors from that part of the world left because they didn't like having a boot on their neck and having to bow down to royalty. They fought to be free of the tyranny of a King and go on to build the greatest nation on Earth. In your little island nation, you'll be arrested and charged with a crime if you harm an attacker or home invader. Hell, you'll be charged with a crime if you hurt someone's feelings. I'm so glad I don't live in a place like that. γ½(γ )γ [8~{} Uncle Glad Monster Hmm, I've heard that Americans can be arrested just for walking across a road. Called Jaywalking I believe. It's something that could happen in a city where there is a lot of vehicular traffic and some idiot pedestrian ignores the crosswalk or the traffic signals. I believe the ordinance is for public safety. If some idiot decides to cross in the middle of a block by running between moving vehicles, the idiot could be run down by a vehicle or cause an accident. If it was up to me, I'd use snipers. There are a lot of military vets who could use a job. γ½(’Ώ’)γ [8~{} Uncle Ballistic Monster Hmm, we can walk across any road freely. The obvious exception being motorways where no pedestrians are allowed anyway. They are if you've broken down. -- 40,000 Americans are injured by toilets each year. |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 05:37:45 +0100, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:23:14 PM UTC-5, Bod wrote: On 11/06/2017 01:46, Uncle Monster wrote: On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 3:14:52 PM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote: On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 20:40:24 +0100, Uncle Monster wrote: What if your attacker outweighs you by 45 kg and is 10 cm taller? Plus what if the ****** really, really means to rip your throat out and eat your face? What are you gonna do? Perhaps you could get Trator_4 to call him a racist and he would go away with his feelings hurt? γ½(γ )γ I'd be worried he'd steal my gun and shoot me with it. Unless a gun is programmed to only work using your own fingerprints, it's not safe. -- You don't let the thug get close enough before shooting him in the groin. When he bends down in pain and reaches for his mangled testicles, you shoot him in the head. Self defense with a firearm is easy if you have training and practice at a gun range. (γ-_ο½₯) οΈ»γδΈ Έ And if he does too? -- You seem to be making excuses to not be armed. I believe it's ingrained in your culture to be unarmed because the ruling class of royals disarmed you peasants centuries ago. Only the King's knights and soldiers were allowed to have weapons. Fortunately my ancestors from that part of the world left because they didn't like having a boot on their neck and having to bow down to royalty. They fought to be free of the tyranny of a King and go on to build the greatest nation on Earth. In your little island nation, you'll be arrested and charged with a crime if you harm an attacker or home invader. Hell, you'll be charged with a crime if you hurt someone's feelings. I'm so glad I don't live in a place like that. γ½(γ )γ [8~{} Uncle Glad Monster Hmm, I've heard that Americans can be arrested just for walking across a road. Called Jaywalking I believe. It's something that could happen in a city where there is a lot of vehicular traffic and some idiot pedestrian ignores the crosswalk or the traffic signals. I believe the ordinance is for public safety. If some idiot decides to cross in the middle of a block by running between moving vehicles, the idiot could be run down by a vehicle or cause an accident. If it was up to me, I'd use snipers. There are a lot of military vets who could use a job. γ½(’Ώ’)γ [8~{} Uncle Ballistic Monster If I hit a pedestrian with my car, the only person hurt is the pedestrian. So no point in making it illegal for him to get in my way. -- Why do blondes have more fun? They are easier to keep amused. |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 09:11:04 +0100, Bod wrote:
On 11/06/2017 08:26, Uncle Monster wrote: On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 1:35:22 AM UTC-5, Bod wrote: On 11/06/2017 07:25, Uncle Monster wrote: On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 12:17:14 AM UTC-5, Bod wrote: On 11/06/2017 05:37, Uncle Monster wrote: On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:23:14 PM UTC-5, Bod wrote: On 11/06/2017 01:46, Uncle Monster wrote: On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 3:14:52 PM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote: On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 20:40:24 +0100, Uncle Monster wrote: What if your attacker outweighs you by 45 kg and is 10 cm taller? Plus what if the ****** really, really means to rip your throat out and eat your face? What are you gonna do? Perhaps you could get Trator_4 to call him a racist and he would go away with his feelings hurt? γ½(γ )γ I'd be worried he'd steal my gun and shoot me with it. Unless a gun is programmed to only work using your own fingerprints, it's not safe. -- You don't let the thug get close enough before shooting him in the groin. When he bends down in pain and reaches for his mangled testicles, you shoot him in the head. Self defense with a firearm is easy if you have training and practice at a gun range. (γ-_ο½₯) οΈ»γδΈ Έ And if he does too? -- You seem to be making excuses to not be armed. I believe it's ingrained in your culture to be unarmed because the ruling class of royals disarmed you peasants centuries ago. Only the King's knights and soldiers were allowed to have weapons. Fortunately my ancestors from that part of the world left because they didn't like having a boot on their neck and having to bow down to royalty. They fought to be free of the tyranny of a King and go on to build the greatest nation on Earth. In your little island nation, you'll be arrested and charged with a crime if you harm an attacker or home invader. Hell, you'll be charged with a crime if you hurt someone's feelings. I'm so glad I don't live in a place like that. γ½(γ )γ [8~{} Uncle Glad Monster Hmm, I've heard that Americans can be arrested just for walking across a road. Called Jaywalking I believe. It's something that could happen in a city where there is a lot of vehicular traffic and some idiot pedestrian ignores the crosswalk or the traffic signals. I believe the ordinance is for public safety. If some idiot decides to cross in the middle of a block by running between moving vehicles, the idiot could be run down by a vehicle or cause an accident. If it was up to me, I'd use snipers. There are a lot of military vets who could use a job. γ½(’Ώ’)γ [8~{} Uncle Ballistic Monster Hmm, we can walk across any road freely. The obvious exception being motorways where no pedestrians are allowed anyway. So what happens to pedestrians who tread where they're not allowed? γ½(γ )γ [8~{} Uncle Rolling Monster The police would probably pick them up and take them off of the motorway. The corpses? Β―\_(γ)_/Β― [8~{} Uncle Curious Monster Fortunately very few are that stupid to walk cross a motorway Cyclists though.... -- The scientific name for an animal that doesn't either run from or fight its enemies is "Lunch." |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 09:44:26 +0100, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 3:11:08 AM UTC-5, Bod wrote: On 11/06/2017 08:26, Uncle Monster wrote: On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 1:35:22 AM UTC-5, Bod wrote: On 11/06/2017 07:25, Uncle Monster wrote: On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 12:17:14 AM UTC-5, Bod wrote: On 11/06/2017 05:37, Uncle Monster wrote: On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:23:14 PM UTC-5, Bod wrote: On 11/06/2017 01:46, Uncle Monster wrote: On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 3:14:52 PM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote: On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 20:40:24 +0100, Uncle Monster wrote: What if your attacker outweighs you by 45 kg and is 10 cm taller? Plus what if the ****** really, really means to rip your throat out and eat your face? What are you gonna do? Perhaps you could get Trator_4 to call him a racist and he would go away with his feelings hurt? γ½(γ )γ I'd be worried he'd steal my gun and shoot me with it. Unless a gun is programmed to only work using your own fingerprints, it's not safe. -- You don't let the thug get close enough before shooting him in the groin. When he bends down in pain and reaches for his mangled testicles, you shoot him in the head. Self defense with a firearm is easy if you have training and practice at a gun range. (γ-_ο½₯) οΈ»γδΈ Έ And if he does too? -- You seem to be making excuses to not be armed. I believe it's ingrained in your culture to be unarmed because the ruling class of royals disarmed you peasants centuries ago. Only the King's knights and soldiers were allowed to have weapons. Fortunately my ancestors from that part of the world left because they didn't like having a boot on their neck and having to bow down to royalty. They fought to be free of the tyranny of a King and go on to build the greatest nation on Earth. In your little island nation, you'll be arrested and charged with a crime if you harm an attacker or home invader. Hell, you'll be charged with a crime if you hurt someone's feelings. I'm so glad I don't live in a place like that. γ½(γ )γ [8~{} Uncle Glad Monster Hmm, I've heard that Americans can be arrested just for walking across a road. Called Jaywalking I believe. It's something that could happen in a city where there is a lot of vehicular traffic and some idiot pedestrian ignores the crosswalk or the traffic signals. I believe the ordinance is for public safety. If some idiot decides to cross in the middle of a block by running between moving vehicles, the idiot could be run down by a vehicle or cause an accident. If it was up to me, I'd use snipers. There are a lot of military vets who could use a job. γ½(’Ώ’)γ [8~{} Uncle Ballistic Monster Hmm, we can walk across any road freely. The obvious exception being motorways where no pedestrians are allowed anyway. So what happens to pedestrians who tread where they're not allowed? γ½(γ )γ [8~{} Uncle Rolling Monster The police would probably pick them up and take them off of the motorway. The corpses? Β―\_(γ)_/Β― [8~{} Uncle Curious Monster Fortunately very few are that stupid to walk cross a motorway So you admit that some of your people are mentally defective enough to do something extremely stupid. γ½(’Ώ’)γ [8~{} Uncle Smug Monster Usually the old folk (like Bod) driving the wrong way up a motorway. -- The scientific name for an animal that doesn't either run from or fight its enemies is "Lunch." |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 09:58:56 +0100, Bod wrote:
On 11/06/2017 09:44, Uncle Monster wrote: On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 3:11:08 AM UTC-5, Bod wrote: On 11/06/2017 08:26, Uncle Monster wrote: On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 1:35:22 AM UTC-5, Bod wrote: On 11/06/2017 07:25, Uncle Monster wrote: On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 12:17:14 AM UTC-5, Bod wrote: On 11/06/2017 05:37, Uncle Monster wrote: On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:23:14 PM UTC-5, Bod wrote: On 11/06/2017 01:46, Uncle Monster wrote: On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 3:14:52 PM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote: On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 20:40:24 +0100, Uncle Monster wrote: What if your attacker outweighs you by 45 kg and is 10 cm taller? Plus what if the ****** really, really means to rip your throat out and eat your face? What are you gonna do? Perhaps you could get Trator_4 to call him a racist and he would go away with his feelings hurt? γ½(γ )γ I'd be worried he'd steal my gun and shoot me with it. Unless a gun is programmed to only work using your own fingerprints, it's not safe. -- You don't let the thug get close enough before shooting him in the groin. When he bends down in pain and reaches for his mangled testicles, you shoot him in the head. Self defense with a firearm is easy if you have training and practice at a gun range. (γ-_ο½₯) οΈ»γδΈ Έ And if he does too? -- You seem to be making excuses to not be armed. I believe it's ingrained in your culture to be unarmed because the ruling class of royals disarmed you peasants centuries ago. Only the King's knights and soldiers were allowed to have weapons. Fortunately my ancestors from that part of the world left because they didn't like having a boot on their neck and having to bow down to royalty. They fought to be free of the tyranny of a King and go on to build the greatest nation on Earth. In your little island nation, you'll be arrested and charged with a crime if you harm an attacker or home invader. Hell, you'll be charged with a crime if you hurt someone's feelings. I'm so glad I don't live in a place like that. γ½(γ )γ [8~{} Uncle Glad Monster Hmm, I've heard that Americans can be arrested just for walking across a road. Called Jaywalking I believe. It's something that could happen in a city where there is a lot of vehicular traffic and some idiot pedestrian ignores the crosswalk or the traffic signals. I believe the ordinance is for public safety. If some idiot decides to cross in the middle of a block by running between moving vehicles, the idiot could be run down by a vehicle or cause an accident. If it was up to me, I'd use snipers. There are a lot of military vets who could use a job. γ½(’Ώ’)γ [8~{} Uncle Ballistic Monster Hmm, we can walk across any road freely. The obvious exception being motorways where no pedestrians are allowed anyway. So what happens to pedestrians who tread where they're not allowed? γ½(γ )γ [8~{} Uncle Rolling Monster The police would probably pick them up and take them off of the motorway. The corpses? Β―\_(γ)_/Β― [8~{} Uncle Curious Monster Fortunately very few are that stupid to walk cross a motorway So you admit that some of your people are mentally defective enough to do something extremely stupid. γ½(’Ώ’)γ [8~{} Uncle Smug Monster Every nation has some people with mental issues. You have your fair share too or do you deny that? Since almost everyone has a trick cyclist in America, I'd be guessing they're all nuts. -- If there's a fire why not just open the fire exit to let it out? |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 10:02:54 +0100, Bod wrote:
Hmm, I've heard that Americans can be arrested just for walking across a road. Called Jaywalking I believe. It's something that could happen in a city where there is a lot of vehicular traffic and some idiot pedestrian ignores the crosswalk or the traffic signals. I believe the ordinance is for public safety. If some idiot decides to cross in the middle of a block by running between moving vehicles, the idiot could be run down by a vehicle or cause an accident. If it was up to me, I'd use snipers. There are a lot of military vets who could use a job. γ½(’Ώ’)γ [8~{} Uncle Ballistic Monster Hmm, we can walk across any road freely. The obvious exception being motorways where no pedestrians are allowed anyway. So what happens to pedestrians who tread where they're not allowed? γ½(γ )γ [8~{} Uncle Rolling Monster The police would probably pick them up and take them off of the motorway. The corpses? Β―\_(γ)_/Β― [8~{} Uncle Curious Monster Fortunately very few are that stupid to walk cross a motorway So you admit that some of your people are mentally defective enough to do something extremely stupid. γ½(’Ώ’)γ [8~{} Uncle Smug Monster Every nation has some people with mental issues. You have your fair share too or do you deny that? You actually have more with mental issues: Why More Americans Suffer From Mental Disorders Than Anyone Else ... https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...ers.../246035/ 4 Oct 2011 - Americans suffer from all sorts of psychological issues, and the evidence ... despite (or because of?) an increasing number of treatment options. ... The WHO has come up with vast catalogues of mental health data, which they No they just THINK they have a mental disorder. Makes the quacks more money doesn't it? -- Computers can never replace human stupidity. |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On 23/06/2017 18:25, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 06:17:11 +0100, Bod wrote: On 11/06/2017 05:37, Uncle Monster wrote: On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:23:14 PM UTC-5, Bod wrote: On 11/06/2017 01:46, Uncle Monster wrote: On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 3:14:52 PM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote: On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 20:40:24 +0100, Uncle Monster wrote: What if your attacker outweighs you by 45 kg and is 10 cm taller? Plus what if the ****** really, really means to rip your throat out and eat your face? What are you gonna do? Perhaps you could get Trator_4 to call him a racist and he would go away with his feelings hurt? γ½(γ )γ I'd be worried he'd steal my gun and shoot me with it. Unless a gun is programmed to only work using your own fingerprints, it's not safe. -- You don't let the thug get close enough before shooting him in the groin. When he bends down in pain and reaches for his mangled testicles, you shoot him in the head. Self defense with a firearm is easy if you have training and practice at a gun range. (γ-_ο½₯) οΈ»γδΈ Έ And if he does too? -- You seem to be making excuses to not be armed. I believe it's ingrained in your culture to be unarmed because the ruling class of royals disarmed you peasants centuries ago. Only the King's knights and soldiers were allowed to have weapons. Fortunately my ancestors from that part of the world left because they didn't like having a boot on their neck and having to bow down to royalty. They fought to be free of the tyranny of a King and go on to build the greatest nation on Earth. In your little island nation, you'll be arrested and charged with a crime if you harm an attacker or home invader. Hell, you'll be charged with a crime if you hurt someone's feelings. I'm so glad I don't live in a place like that. γ½(γ )γ [8~{} Uncle Glad Monster Hmm, I've heard that Americans can be arrested just for walking across a road. Called Jaywalking I believe. It's something that could happen in a city where there is a lot of vehicular traffic and some idiot pedestrian ignores the crosswalk or the traffic signals. I believe the ordinance is for public safety. If some idiot decides to cross in the middle of a block by running between moving vehicles, the idiot could be run down by a vehicle or cause an accident. If it was up to me, I'd use snipers. There are a lot of military vets who could use a job. γ½(’Ώ’)γ [8~{} Uncle Ballistic Monster Hmm, we can walk across any road freely. The obvious exception being motorways where no pedestrians are allowed anyway. They are if you've broken down. Brits don't cry on a motorway ;-)) |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On 23/06/2017 18:26, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 09:44:26 +0100, Uncle Monster wrote: On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 3:11:08 AM UTC-5, Bod wrote: On 11/06/2017 08:26, Uncle Monster wrote: On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 1:35:22 AM UTC-5, Bod wrote: On 11/06/2017 07:25, Uncle Monster wrote: On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 12:17:14 AM UTC-5, Bod wrote: On 11/06/2017 05:37, Uncle Monster wrote: On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:23:14 PM UTC-5, Bod wrote: On 11/06/2017 01:46, Uncle Monster wrote: On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 3:14:52 PM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote: On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 20:40:24 +0100, Uncle Monster wrote: What if your attacker outweighs you by 45 kg and is 10 cm taller? Plus what if the ****** really, really means to rip your throat out and eat your face? What are you gonna do? Perhaps you could get Trator_4 to call him a racist and he would go away with his feelings hurt? γ½(γ )γ I'd be worried he'd steal my gun and shoot me with it. Unless a gun is programmed to only work using your own fingerprints, it's not safe. -- You don't let the thug get close enough before shooting him in the groin. When he bends down in pain and reaches for his mangled testicles, you shoot him in the head. Self defense with a firearm is easy if you have training and practice at a gun range. (γ-_ο½₯) οΈ»γ δΈ Έ And if he does too? -- You seem to be making excuses to not be armed. I believe it's ingrained in your culture to be unarmed because the ruling class of royals disarmed you peasants centuries ago. Only the King's knights and soldiers were allowed to have weapons. Fortunately my ancestors from that part of the world left because they didn't like having a boot on their neck and having to bow down to royalty. They fought to be free of the tyranny of a King and go on to build the greatest nation on Earth. In your little island nation, you'll be arrested and charged with a crime if you harm an attacker or home invader. Hell, you'll be charged with a crime if you hurt someone's feelings. I'm so glad I don't live in a place like that. γ½(γ )γ [8~{} Uncle Glad Monster Hmm, I've heard that Americans can be arrested just for walking across a road. Called Jaywalking I believe. It's something that could happen in a city where there is a lot of vehicular traffic and some idiot pedestrian ignores the crosswalk or the traffic signals. I believe the ordinance is for public safety. If some idiot decides to cross in the middle of a block by running between moving vehicles, the idiot could be run down by a vehicle or cause an accident. If it was up to me, I'd use snipers. There are a lot of military vets who could use a job. γ½(’Ώ’)γ [8~{} Uncle Ballistic Monster Hmm, we can walk across any road freely. The obvious exception being motorways where no pedestrians are allowed anyway. So what happens to pedestrians who tread where they're not allowed? γ½(γ )γ [8~{} Uncle Rolling Monster The police would probably pick them up and take them off of the motorway. The corpses? Β―\_(γ)_/Β― [8~{} Uncle Curious Monster Fortunately very few are that stupid to walk cross a motorway So you admit that some of your people are mentally defective enough to do something extremely stupid. γ½(’Ώ’)γ [8~{} Uncle Smug Monster Usually the old folk (like Bod) driving the wrong way up a motorway. Ho ho. |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 1:22:12 PM UTC-4, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:26:47 +0100, Cindy Hamilton wrote: On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 12:23:14 AM UTC-4, Bod wrote: Hmm, I've heard that Americans can be arrested just for walking across a road. Called Jaywalking I believe. Not arrested, but ticketed. And you're ok with that?! No freedom to choose when you cross the road? It's very rarely enforced. The cops could stake out Ann Arbor when the classes at the university let out and make a mint, but they don't. Personally, I like to cross the road where there's a stoplight. It is considerably safer. It's like seat belt laws. I'd wear mine whether there was a law or not, so I don't care that there's a law. Cindy Hamilton |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On 6/23/2017 1:22 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:26:47 +0100, Cindy Hamilton wrote: On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 12:23:14 AM UTC-4, Bod wrote: Hmm, I've heard that Americans can be arrested just for walking across a road. Called Jaywalking I believe. Not arrested, but ticketed. And you're ok with that?! No freedom to choose when you cross the road? Usually enforced only in the cities where it can be a danger if a lot of people just crossed at will in any place. Some town have marked crosswalks and cars must stop for pedestrians. In some places, it really does prevent chaos and keeps kids safer. |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 20:00:32 +0100, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 1:22:12 PM UTC-4, James Wilkinson Sword wrote: On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:26:47 +0100, Cindy Hamilton wrote: On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 12:23:14 AM UTC-4, Bod wrote: Hmm, I've heard that Americans can be arrested just for walking across a road. Called Jaywalking I believe. Not arrested, but ticketed. And you're ok with that?! No freedom to choose when you cross the road? It's very rarely enforced. The cops could stake out Ann Arbor when the classes at the university let out and make a mint, but they don't. Personally, I like to cross the road where there's a stoplight. It is considerably safer. Not for anyone with eyes. You wait until there's a gap in traffic big enough to walk or run across, then go. It's really not rocket science. It's like seat belt laws. I'd wear mine whether there was a law or not, so I don't care that there's a law. I never wear mine. A law forbidding me to risk my own life is absurd. -- A mistake is evidence that someone has tried to do something. |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 20:29:22 +0100, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 6/23/2017 1:22 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote: On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:26:47 +0100, Cindy Hamilton wrote: On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 12:23:14 AM UTC-4, Bod wrote: Hmm, I've heard that Americans can be arrested just for walking across a road. Called Jaywalking I believe. Not arrested, but ticketed. And you're ok with that?! No freedom to choose when you cross the road? Usually enforced only in the cities where it can be a danger if a lot of people just crossed at will in any place. Some town have marked crosswalks and cars must stop for pedestrians. In some places, it really does prevent chaos and keeps kids safer. Try the Green Cross code, or are all your pedestrians mindless idiots? -- Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia - The fear of long words. |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On 06/23/2017 11:24 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:38:27 +0100, rbowman wrote: On 06/11/2017 10:44 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote: They weren't tased and arrested for jaywalking, though. It would have had to be Resisting Arrest, or perhaps Looking at a Police Office in a Funny Way. While there certainly are aggressive and hair-triggered cops, it's usually for being an asshole. My brother in law specialized in the technique; his big mouth got us arrested in my hometown by a cop I went to school with. And the arsehole cop didn't let you off because he knew you? That's not on. No, he arrested us because my brother in law was an asshole. He apologized to me but it was a package deal; arrest asshole, arrest all of us. |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On 06/23/2017 01:00 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
Personally, I like to cross the road where there's a stoplight. It is considerably safer. We have a lot of 4-way stops without crosswalks. Crossing in the middle of the street leading to the intersection means you only have to worry about cars coming from two directions. |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 05:56:32 +0100, rbowman wrote:
On 06/23/2017 01:00 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote: Personally, I like to cross the road where there's a stoplight. It is considerably safer. We have a lot of 4-way stops without crosswalks. Crossing in the middle of the street leading to the intersection means you only have to worry about cars coming from two directions. One, as they should have a bit of pavement in the centre, like this: https://goo.gl/maps/AkvKcxW7uTB2 -- In 1272, the Arabic Muslims invented the condom, using a goat's lower intestine. In 1873, the British refined the idea by taking the intestine out of the goat first. |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 05:52:57 +0100, rbowman wrote:
On 06/23/2017 11:24 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote: On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:38:27 +0100, rbowman wrote: On 06/11/2017 10:44 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote: They weren't tased and arrested for jaywalking, though. It would have had to be Resisting Arrest, or perhaps Looking at a Police Office in a Funny Way. While there certainly are aggressive and hair-triggered cops, it's usually for being an asshole. My brother in law specialized in the technique; his big mouth got us arrested in my hometown by a cop I went to school with. And the arsehole cop didn't let you off because he knew you? That's not on. No, he arrested us because my brother in law was an asshole. He apologized to me but it was a package deal; arrest asshole, arrest all of us. Why not just arrest the arsehole? It's not your fault you were with an arsehole. -- Remember when you were a kid and you used to blow bubbles? Well, I saw him the other day and he says hello. |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On 06/24/2017 09:28 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 05:56:32 +0100, rbowman wrote: On 06/23/2017 01:00 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote: Personally, I like to cross the road where there's a stoplight. It is considerably safer. We have a lot of 4-way stops without crosswalks. Crossing in the middle of the street leading to the intersection means you only have to worry about cars coming from two directions. One, as they should have a bit of pavement in the centre, like this: https://goo.gl/maps/AkvKcxW7uTB2 A few of the busier streets do have islands. The city engineer also has a fascination for micro-roundabouts and bulb-outs. Both are pains in the ass for everyone involved. They may 'calm' traffic but they do nothing for the state of mind of drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On 06/24/2017 09:29 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 05:52:57 +0100, rbowman wrote: On 06/23/2017 11:24 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote: On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:38:27 +0100, rbowman wrote: On 06/11/2017 10:44 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote: They weren't tased and arrested for jaywalking, though. It would have had to be Resisting Arrest, or perhaps Looking at a Police Office in a Funny Way. While there certainly are aggressive and hair-triggered cops, it's usually for being an asshole. My brother in law specialized in the technique; his big mouth got us arrested in my hometown by a cop I went to school with. And the arsehole cop didn't let you off because he knew you? That's not on. No, he arrested us because my brother in law was an asshole. He apologized to me but it was a package deal; arrest asshole, arrest all of us. Why not just arrest the arsehole? It's not your fault you were with an arsehole. Actually it was. At the time I was going with his sister and eventually married her. He was the sort of person that after he was fatally struck by lightning his sister said "Maybe it was all for the best." When we were stopped he had taken an illegal knife from his pocket and tried to hide it under the seat. He denied ownership so all in the car were guilty. |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 18:07:33 +0100, rbowman wrote:
On 06/24/2017 09:28 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote: On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 05:56:32 +0100, rbowman wrote: On 06/23/2017 01:00 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote: Personally, I like to cross the road where there's a stoplight. It is considerably safer. We have a lot of 4-way stops without crosswalks. Crossing in the middle of the street leading to the intersection means you only have to worry about cars coming from two directions. One, as they should have a bit of pavement in the centre, like this: https://goo.gl/maps/AkvKcxW7uTB2 A few of the busier streets do have islands. Turn left at the link I gave, and observe the island which cannot be used as there's a fence! I've actually see someone walk across, encounter the fence, then panic in heavy traffic. Absolute ****ing stupidity. The city engineer also has a fascination for micro-roundabouts I assume that's like our "mini roundabout": https://goo.gl/maps/hpNGGj5j2gt They work fine, better than a junction where one road has less priority, as everyone gets a turn. and bulb-outs. I assume that's like our "chicanes": https://goo.gl/maps/FiJZFWppM5t Now those are unbelievably stupid. They invite head on collisions. Particularly this one, which is just after a sharp blind bend, going downhill, then you're suddenly presented with cars coming uphill, which have priority! I actually emailed the council and told them to reverse the priority before someone skids on ice trying to stop going downhill and mows down a pedestrian, but they said they didn't want people to have to do hill starts. I pointed out a hill start was part of the driving test, and didn't receive further replies. Both are pains in the ass for everyone involved. They may 'calm' traffic but they do nothing for the state of mind of drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. If someone is coming the other way, I usually stop and flash them through. Unless they're a ****ing dimwit with headlights on during the day, then I charge through and assume they must be flashing me :-) No other reason to light up your car during daylight hours. -- A worried father confronted his daughter one night. "I don't like that new boyfriend, he's rough and common and bloody stupid with it." "Oh no, Daddy," the daughter replied, "Fred's ever so clever, we've only been going out nine weeks and he's cured me of that illness I used to get once a month." |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 18:11:43 +0100, rbowman wrote:
On 06/24/2017 09:29 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote: On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 05:52:57 +0100, rbowman wrote: On 06/23/2017 11:24 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote: On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:38:27 +0100, rbowman wrote: On 06/11/2017 10:44 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote: They weren't tased and arrested for jaywalking, though. It would have had to be Resisting Arrest, or perhaps Looking at a Police Office in a Funny Way. While there certainly are aggressive and hair-triggered cops, it's usually for being an asshole. My brother in law specialized in the technique; his big mouth got us arrested in my hometown by a cop I went to school with. And the arsehole cop didn't let you off because he knew you? That's not on. No, he arrested us because my brother in law was an asshole. He apologized to me but it was a package deal; arrest asshole, arrest all of us. Why not just arrest the arsehole? It's not your fault you were with an arsehole. Actually it was. At the time I was going with his sister and eventually married her. He was the sort of person that after he was fatally struck by lightning his sister said "Maybe it was all for the best." When we were stopped he had taken an illegal knife from his pocket and tried to hide it under the seat. He denied ownership so all in the car were guilty. Hardly your fault, you married his sister, not him. If the police can't prove ownership, nobody should be arrested. Do you not have "innocent until proven guilty"? -- If you're bothered by a god-botherer, does that make you god? |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On Saturday, June 24, 2017 at 11:28:53 AM UTC-4, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 05:56:32 +0100, rbowman wrote: On 06/23/2017 01:00 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote: Personally, I like to cross the road where there's a stoplight. It is considerably safer. We have a lot of 4-way stops without crosswalks. Crossing in the middle of the street leading to the intersection means you only have to worry about cars coming from two directions. One, as they should have a bit of pavement in the centre, like this: https://goo.gl/maps/AkvKcxW7uTB2 That would take up valuable space used for cars. Cindy Hamilton |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On 06/24/2017 11:17 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
If the police can't prove ownership, nobody should be arrested. Do you not have "innocent until proven guilty"? you're riding in a car with three friends. 4 8 balls are discovered after a traffic stop. No one claims the coke. What happens next in the UK? |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 11:15:42 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
wrote: On Saturday, June 24, 2017 at 11:28:53 AM UTC-4, James Wilkinson Sword wrote: On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 05:56:32 +0100, rbowman wrote: On 06/23/2017 01:00 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote: Personally, I like to cross the road where there's a stoplight. It is considerably safer. We have a lot of 4-way stops without crosswalks. Crossing in the middle of the street leading to the intersection means you only have to worry about cars coming from two directions. One, as they should have a bit of pavement in the centre, like this: https://goo.gl/maps/AkvKcxW7uTB2 That would take up valuable space used for cars. Cindy Hamilton Aside from that. Taking space using imminent domain is expensive. Las Vegas did not plan for westward expansion of freeways. It cost a lot of money to buy land, move utilities, etc., to buy land from homeowners to increase the number of lanes. and limit the size of a homes backyard and then build sound barrier walls so they look good. Brit's live on a tiny island in a far distant land. Far away from reality. Plus they drive on the wrong side of the road. |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 12:31:17 -0600, rbowman
wrote: On 06/24/2017 11:17 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote: If the police can't prove ownership, nobody should be arrested. Do you not have "innocent until proven guilty"? you're riding in a car with three friends. 4 8 balls are discovered after a traffic stop. No one claims the coke. What happens next in the UK? They fall to their knees and beg for forgiveness? Or claim they didn't steal the Lindbergh baby! With enough chocolate the Bobbies might get a confession! |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On 06/24/2017 11:16 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
I assume that's like our "mini roundabout": https://goo.gl/maps/hpNGGj5j2gt They work fine, better than a junction where one road has less priority, as everyone gets a turn. Smaller. https://tinyurl.com/y8gslqo4 |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 19:50:52 +0100, rbowman wrote:
On 06/24/2017 11:16 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote: I assume that's like our "mini roundabout": https://goo.gl/maps/hpNGGj5j2gt They work fine, better than a junction where one road has less priority, as everyone gets a turn. Smaller. https://tinyurl.com/y8gslqo4 I'd say they were both the same size. -- When launching a boat, always back the boat into the water. Pulling the boat into the water can really mess up your carburettor. |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 19:31:17 +0100, rbowman wrote:
On 06/24/2017 11:17 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote: If the police can't prove ownership, nobody should be arrested. Do you not have "innocent until proven guilty"? you're riding in a car with three friends. 4 8 balls are discovered after a traffic stop. No one claims the coke. What happens next in the UK? What should happen is nobody gets arrested, because firstly they don't know who's guilty, and secondly drugs shouldn't be illegal. But I think in the UK the driver gets in trouble. We even get done if our kids in the back seat have removed their seatbelts without us knowing. Our cops are ****wits. -- What do you call an aerobics instructor who doesn't cause pain & agony? Unemployed. |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 19:38:46 +0100, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 11:15:42 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton wrote: On Saturday, June 24, 2017 at 11:28:53 AM UTC-4, James Wilkinson Sword wrote: On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 05:56:32 +0100, rbowman wrote: On 06/23/2017 01:00 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote: Personally, I like to cross the road where there's a stoplight. It is considerably safer. We have a lot of 4-way stops without crosswalks. Crossing in the middle of the street leading to the intersection means you only have to worry about cars coming from two directions. One, as they should have a bit of pavement in the centre, like this: https://goo.gl/maps/AkvKcxW7uTB2 That would take up valuable space used for cars. Cindy Hamilton Aside from that. Taking space using imminent domain is expensive. Las Vegas did not plan for westward expansion of freeways. It cost a lot of money to buy land, move utilities, etc., to buy land from homeowners to increase the number of lanes. and limit the size of a homes backyard and then build sound barrier walls so they look good. Brit's live on a tiny island in a far distant land. Far away from reality. Plus they drive on the wrong side of the road. You're not making sense. Your country is huge, so you don't have the problem of space. -- 63% of men have had sex in the shower. The other 37% have never been to prison. |
Another London attack from religious nutcases
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 16:47:16 +0100, rbowman wrote:
On 06/12/2017 12:00 AM, Bod wrote: On 11/06/2017 19:30, rbowman wrote: On 06/11/2017 07:10 AM, Bod wrote: Why we made jaywalking a crime in America | Charlotte Observer http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opi...e65032222.html https://www.bikewalkmontana.org/reso...destrian-laws/ (1) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (2) Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (3) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk. Summary: if you're not at a crosswalk, don't get run over. If you are too lazy to walk a few feet to a crosswalk you may get a jaywalking ticket if someone hits you. Unless a cop is extremely bored he isn't going to get out of his car to ticket you unless you're obviously incapacitated and then the ticket will be for public intoxication. Jaywalking is more often enforced in cities like NYC where traffic is dense and highly choreographed. Why not leave it to peoples common sense. The average American doesn't have any. People get the government they deserve, hence the nanny state. Let the average American die by getting run over. Protect your stupid, and there will be more of them when they reproduce. -- Auctioneer, n. The man who proclaims with a hammer that he has picked a pocket with his tongue. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:50 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter