From: jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu 
  
 On 2025-08-07, Jethro_uk  wrote: 
 > On Thu, 07 Aug 2025 16:49:09 +0100, Roland Perry wrote: 
 >> In message <1072eqe$2c33g$16@dont-email.me>, at 14:56:14 on Thu, 7 Aug 
 >> 2025, Jethro_uk  remarked: 
 >> 
 >>>> In other news, yesterday I encountered a family of about six walking 
 >>>> along the tarmac on the side of the very busy A10 between Ely and 
 >>>> Cambridge, with their backs to the traffic. Staring at their phones, 
 >>>> obviously. 
 >>> 
 >>>"Round are way" there are a couple of routes where to cross a road you 
 >>>need to take one dropped kerb (if you can) and then proceed between 100 
 >>>and 400 metres to get to one on the other side of the road. This entails 
 >>>being in the road. And hoping that the dropped kerb at the destination 
 >>>isn't blocked. 
 >> 
 >> That's all very well, but I'm trying to discuss a chap who thinks he 
 >> should drive on the roadway the whole distance, regardless of any 
 >> provision on the pavement. 
 > 
 > I wonder what the situation would be if a pedestrian (old style, on 
 > foot :) ) were to walk in the road blocking traffic, when there is a 
 > perfectly serviceable pavement for them ? 
  
 That's obstructing the highway, which is a minor crime unless you're 
 doing it altruistically to try and save the human race, in which case 
 you'll be sent to prison for five years. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)