Kronos

@washghost1 that cat at 0:33 just took a dump in the store

I’m willing to bet that they don’t have a rodent problem there

@XOXO123456789XO @brainwave777 @Viralvid_89 We both live in Australia right? how about we put $1000 on it? we'll get a written opinion from an Australian traffic lawyer and vicroads as to whether this counts as obstruction. you said you studied regulation for over 20 years so you should be pretty confident. gentleman's bet

@Kronos165184436 @brainwave777 @Viralvid_89 As said, you don’t understand that this person obstructed traffic. It’s very clear—hundreds of people have told you that he obstructed traffic. You can continue living with your own view; no one really needs to change you. But anyone who behaves like this will face consequences.

Instant karma hit fast for this idiot.

@XOXO123456789XO @brainwave777 @Viralvid_89 Read subrule 3 of the exact rule you just quoted, travelling more slowly is explicitly NOT unreasonable obstruction. And obstruction requires the driver to have a right of way being blocked. Under REG 83 they don't. You cannot obstruct someone legally required to stop for you.

@Kronos165184436 @brainwave777 @Viralvid_89 No, you are wrong. This is from the law and is applicable in a Shared Zone as well: “A pedestrian must not unreasonably obstruct the path of any driver or another pedestrian.”

@morganlmen @RealDeadPixel @Viralvid_89 you think share means something like splitting a cookie? these are specific legal terms. not whatever you think it means. I know it's hard for Americans to grasp the concept of a road that is for pedestrians. maybe just educate yourself

@Kronos165184436 @RealDeadPixel @Viralvid_89 I think YOU misunderstand sharing. If the mother fucker walking was sharing he would’ve gotten the fuck out of the way and let the car pass then continued to walk in the street. Instead he bangs on the hood and continues to walk directly in the middle.

@XOXO123456789XO @brainwave777 @Viralvid_89 Expecting the pedestrian to move aside is itself a breach of the shared zone's legal hierarchy. Expecting the pedestrian to move gives priority to the vehicle when its the other way around.

@Kronos165184436 @brainwave777 @Viralvid_89 The issue is that you don’t understand “obstruct”. Together, these actions clearly count as obstruction:There was space to pass；The pedestrian deliberately slowed the vehicle；He also acted provocatively (e.g. hitting the car, insulting, stopping on purpose)

@XOXO123456789XO @brainwave777 @Viralvid_89 you are going in circles. I already said walking at pace is not obstruction by law. in fact the driver is guilty of driving unreasonably close to a pedestrian, even hitting the back of his legs which causes him to hit the bonnet. he's also abusing the horn

@Kronos165184436 @brainwave777 @Viralvid_89 A Shared Zone gives pedestrians a very high level of priority. However, pedestrians are still not allowed to intentionally create traffic obstruction or danger. A Shared Zone does not mean pedestrians are free to deliberately block vehicles without limits.

@XOXO123456789XO @brainwave777 @Viralvid_89 Apparently you dont understand, because nothing in there indicated that walking at pace is considered obstruction. And you should at least know that in a shared zone a pedestrian takes precedent in all instances. REG 83 says any pedestrian in the zone, full stop. No conditions.

@Kronos165184436 @brainwave777 @Viralvid_89 Take a proper look at how the regulation is actually written. I’ve spent more than twenty years in my professional career studying regulations. I understand much better than you what the law actually looks like. www4.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/c…

@brainwave777 @XOXO123456789XO @Viralvid_89 no its not. in a shared zone the pace of the pedestrian takes precedent. learn the rules

@Kronos165184436 @XOXO123456789XO @Viralvid_89 That is the definition of obstruction, they are slowly moving in front of a car when the road and footpath ahead are free

@XOXO123456789XO @Viralvid_89 Walking at a normal pace is not obstruction. By law. Standing there would be obstruction

@Kronos165184436 @Viralvid_89 Under Victorian law, in a shared zone, “a pedestrian must not unreasonably obstruct the path of any driver or rider of a vehicle.”

@Nymouse__Anno @RealDeadPixel @Viralvid_89 I can't believe you are this dense. I never said curbs were the only way to gather storm water only they are effective. just because you only see one type of shared path in Germany doesnt mean everywhere has to be that way

@Kronos165184436 @RealDeadPixel @Viralvid_89 Are you mentally ill? The point is, that it doesn't need any curbs to drain water! What is wrong with you? Is thinking that hard?

@Nymouse__Anno @RealDeadPixel @Viralvid_89 no they get out of the way because it doesnt have the same rules as a shared zone.

@Kronos165184436 @RealDeadPixel @Viralvid_89 That's the point! So you expect all tram passengers to stay behind some pedestrians for minutes? As you say... it's a pedestrian boulevard!

@Nymouse__Anno @RealDeadPixel @Viralvid_89 🤦lol dude stop thats not even a road for cars

@Kronos165184436 @RealDeadPixel @Viralvid_89 There is no need for curbs to collect water! Even in Australia!

@Nymouse__Anno @RealDeadPixel @Viralvid_89 thats a pedestrian boulevard. you're not even talking about a shared zone anymore. cmon be serious. I dont expect you to know Australian law but dont pretend like you do

@Kronos165184436 @RealDeadPixel @Viralvid_89 There is another road in Sidney, where pedestrians share it with trams. According to your logic, trams have to stay behind a stubborn person all the time?🤡 That's not how social society works! -33.87048882492762, 151.20694801084656 So the teenagers had all right to educate him!

@Nymouse__Anno @RealDeadPixel @Viralvid_89 lol yes the curbs have stormwater drains and the curb directs the flow of water to the drain. idk why you only harp on this unimportant point almost like you had nothing of value to say

@Kronos165184436 @RealDeadPixel @Viralvid_89 "the curbs collect rainwater" ROFL Why would you need curbs to collect rainwater? -37.81287955845769, 144.96396671843627 Melbourne, Little Bourke Street

@chocbloke @Viralvid_89 you think share means something like splitting a cookie with your mum? these are specific terms with legal meanings. not whatever you think it means. educate yourself

@Kronos165184436 @Viralvid_89 So that was sharing the road to you? Were you born with level of stupidity, or did you grow into it?

@MacAtothe @Viralvid_89 no the shared zone starts at the intersection. you see in the video there is more than 1 sign

@Kronos165184436 @Viralvid_89 Then you understand he was walking in front of the car before the shared zone?

@davesadler1971 @Viralvid_89 ay fuckwit you think share means something like splitting a cookie with your mum? these are specific terms with legal meanings. not whatever you think it means. educate yourself

@Kronos165184436 @Viralvid_89 Shared space means exactly that. Shared, not hogged in a self righteous bellend style.

@anon3826272 @ABettorWay @Viralvid_89 ay fuckwit you think share means something like splitting a cookie with your mum? these are specific terms with legal meanings. not whatever you think it means. educate yourself

@Kronos165184436 @ABettorWay @Viralvid_89 Shared wanker just had to let the car go I’m Aussie would have fine the same

@HellaCoorinna @Area_nderCurve @Viralvid_89 Rule 236 doesn't mention footpaths once. You’re thinking of rule 238, which is the footpath rule. But even rule 238 has an explicit exemption written into it. that says it doesn't apply in a shared zone. So you cited the wrong rule, and the right rule still doesn't help you.

@Area_nderCurve @Kronos165184436 @Viralvid_89 I can guarantee @Kronos165184436 will never reply regarding what you said, @Area_nderCurve