Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!decwrl!labrea!jade!ucbvax!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ism780c!mikep From: mikep@ism780c.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: Re: Quiz 2 Message-ID: <7659@ism780c.UUCP> Date: Wed, 28-Oct-87 21:15:11 EST Article-I.D.: ism780c.7659 Posted: Wed Oct 28 21:15:11 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 31-Oct-87 11:37:14 EST References: <342@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM> <1332@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> <7552@ism780c.UUCP> <1990@gryphon.CTS.COM> Reply-To: mikep@ism780c.UUCP (Michael A. Petonic) Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica CA Lines: 75 In article <1990@gryphon.CTS.COM> mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM (Miriam Nadel) writes: >In article <7552@ism780c.UUCP> I write: >>Anyway, it just goes to show. Pedestrians seem to think they have the >>absolute right of way. I'm sorry, but when *I'm* a pedestrian, I >>obey the laws of the jungle: The biggest and baddest go first! >>Some fool may jump right out on a crosswalk in front of my car >>and guess what I'll put on his tombstone??? "I was in the right." >> >The California Motor Vehicle Code says that PEDESTRIANS HAVE THE RIGHT >OF WAY. The California Motor Vehicle Code says that THERE IS AN >IMPLIED CROSSWALK AT EVERY INTERSECTION. Just a minute. I thought I explained that the joker wasn't at an intersection... He was about 30 feet from the intersection which I wanted to take a right into. Let me draw a picture: --------- ----------- Pico --------- ----------- | || | ^ | || | 30 ft. | || | v La Cienega | || X| <- Dipshit | || | | || | | || H| <- Me 'n My Automobile | || | | || | I was going to take a right on to Pico from La Cienega. This shithead gets out there to walk across. There was a crosswalk 30 ft down the road at the intersection, but he was too lazy to get off his fat ass and truck down there [boy, it no fun flaming shitheads not on the net]. Since I was going to take a right, for me to get in the left lane (with traffic in it, mind you) would have been a severe hassle. I don't think I was in the wrong legally in this case. Had he been at an intersection, I would have plumb stopped instead of going around him. Anyway, the whole argument is moot since in the original paragraph, I wasn't describing legality (or at least in the U.S. Court of Law sense) but rather in a mortal sense. I don't argue with something that is X times bigger than I am. If I'm at a crosswalk and it looks like a guy would nuke me if I didn't move, I don't play chicken. First things, I get the hell out of the way, and THEN I take his liscense plate number for later use. 'Tis common sense for survival. This guy was in the wrong (conventional sense of the law) in my opinion and he was stupid. > ... >The unfortunate fact is that the overwhelming majority of Californians are >so conditioned to believing that a ton of metal protects them from having >to be polite. If you don't like the rules move to New Jersey where it >is perfectly legal to run over a pedestrian. > >This is supposed to be civilizaton, not a goddamn jungle. Yeah, remember that. And laws are supposed to facilitate the majority of the people (oh shit, I think I'm going to get flamed). At least most of the laws, anyway. Just think of how hard it would be to drive down Wilshire Blvd if every car had to stop for every pedestrian no matter where he was? Wouldn't happen, would it? >Miriam Nadel Michael Petonic Miriam - nothing personal on this flame (not directed towards you) and I think it was mostly a lack of communiction (didn't the RAND Corp say that in their survey of E-Mail?)