Article 124

[sosia]

Originally Posted by Perikles

Ah - thanks

On second thoughts, are you sure about the 'level crossing', which in English is specifically for railways?

The rules which apply to these crossings are a, b and c below. This does not make sense if the crossing is to cross a railway track:

1. En zonas donde existen pasos para peatones, los que se dispongan a atravesar la calzada deberán hacerlo precisamente por ellos, sin que puedan efectuarlo por las proximidades y, cuando tales pasos sean a nivel, se observarán, además, las reglas siguientes:
a. Si el paso dispone de semáforos para peatones, obedecerán sus indicaciones.
b. Si no existiera semáforo para peatones pero la circulación de vehículos estuviera regulada por agente o semáforo, no penetrarán en la calzada mientras la señal del agente o del semáforo permita la circulación de vehículos por ella.
c. En los restantes pasos para peatones señalizados mediante la correspondiente marca vial, aunque tienen preferencia, sólo deben penetrar en la calzada cuando la distancia y la velocidad de los vehículos que se aproximen permitan hacerlo con seguridad.

What's your exact question? Why it does not make sense?

Basic: You must crossing the road on the crossings, not near them
If you're on a 'level crossing' (railway) then:
a: you must follow the pedestrian traffic light
b: If there's not pedestrian traffic light, you must follow the car/train traffic light or police officer and cross when the car's are red
c: when there's no traffic light any kind, the pedestrian can enter and has priority, but you can only cross having the suitable distance between you and the car (you can't jump in freely)
suitable distance: the distance good enough for security

as Angelica stated, the "juridiñol" (juridical spanish) is so....
what amazes me is that the 3 rules are specific for "level crossing" (además), but for me are essential ones, for all kinds of crossings.

RCL 19341688 Decreto de 25 septiembre 1934

Paso a nivel.-Se entiende por paso a nivel el encuentro, en un mismo plano, de una vía férrea con otra vía urbana o interurbana.

saludos

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Was this it or was it something else?

This.

Originally Posted by sosia

Why it does not make sense?

Basic: You must crossing the road on the crossings, not near them
If you're on a 'level crossing' (railway) then:
a: you must follow the pedestrian traffic light
b: If there's not pedestrian traffic light, you must follow the car/train traffic light or police officer and cross when the car's are red
c: when there's no traffic light any kind, the pedestrian can enter and has priority, but you can only cross having the suitable distance between you and the car (you can't jump in freely)
suitable distance: the distance good enough for security

what amazes me is that the 3 rules are specific for "level crossing" (además), but for me are essential ones, for all kinds of crossings.

saludos

Thanks both, but can't you see why I am confused? If I understand correctly, you both interpret this as rules a, b, and c apply only if they are railway crossings. This makes no sense because rule c refers to cars.

Am I the only person who sees a problem here?

[sosia]

As I stated, the 3 rules are more for a normal crossing as a "level" one.
vehículo can be car or train, but who knows the security distance of a train?
It's not well written. I think it should be more like
"sin que puedan efectuarlo por las proximidades , especialemente cuando tales pasos sean a nivel, y se observarán además, las reglas siguientes:"

Saludos

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by sosia

As I stated, the 3 rules are more for a normal crossing as a "level" one.

Ah, but that is not what you said here:

Originally Posted by sosia

Basic: You must crossing the road on the crossings, not near them
If you're on a 'level crossing' (railway) then:
a: you must follow the pedestrian traffic light ....

This in English very clearly means a: etc applies only if you are on a level crossing

Originally Posted by sosia

It's not well written. I think it should be more like
"sin que puedan efectuarlo por las proximidades , especialemente cuando tales pasos sean a nivel, y se observarán además, las reglas siguientes:"

OK - if I translate cuando + pres. subjunctive as even if then it begins to make sense.

Thanks for that!

[aleCcowaN]

I'm a little mareado by this time. What problem?

You have pasos a nivel where cars and pedestrians share the same way. Out of cities and towns is uncommon to have sidewalks and the scarce pedestrians use the banquinas (berms?) always facing the transit for security reasons -left banquina-. Well, when you arrive to a paso a nivel usually the banquina disappears and the pedestrian has to step into the central pavement (like the one in that photo). Incisos b) and c) refer to that kind of crossings.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

I'm a little mareado by this time. What problem?

You have pasos a nivel where cars and pedestrians share the same way.

This is one problem. It was stated that pasos a nivel refer specifically to railways, not cars. Here you disagree. The other problem is the grammar of the sentence, and I seem to be the only person here to see (or care about) a logical inconsistency.

Never mind, I think we should move on....

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Perikles

This is one problem. It was stated that pasos a nivel refer specifically to railways, not cars. Here you disagree. The other problem is the grammar of the sentence, and I seem to be the only person here to see (or care about) a logical inconsistency.

Never mind, I think we should move on....

Hold your horses! ... (houyhnhnms)

First of all, a paso a nivel is the intersection of a railroad -where the train won't stop; at most will honk- with a transverse way for automobiles and/or pedestrians and/or tracción a sangre -that's why it's called paso, not because of the railroad-. The whole intersections is in the same level so the trains, cars and mammals will have similar coordinate in the z axis -that's why it's called a nivel-.

b) and c) are regulating how pedestrians and assorted vehicles must behave while using and sharing the crossing, that is, while there's no train in sight

I hope you'll realize you depicted in your mind a wrong 90° crossing for pedestrians and cars and obstinately obstinately obstinately obstinately obstinately obstinately tried to adapt what you read to that wrong idea.

If you can't dispel that wrong image, try to imagine people and cars sharing a ford on a shallow part of one of those tiny little things they call rivers in Europe.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by Perikles

1. En zonas donde existen pasos para peatones, los que se dispongan a atravesar la calzada deberán hacerlo precisamente por ellos, sin que puedan efectuarlo por las proximidades y, cuando tales pasos sean a nivel, se observarán, además, las reglas siguientes:
a. Si el paso dispone de semáforos para peatones, obedecerán sus indicaciones.
b. Si no existiera semáforo para peatones pero la circulación de vehículos estuviera regulada por agente o semáforo, no penetrarán en la calzada mientras la señal del agente o del semáforo permita la circulación de vehículos por ella.
c. En los restantes pasos para peatones señalizados mediante la correspondiente marca vial, aunque tienen preferencia, sólo deben penetrar en la calzada cuando la distancia y la velocidad de los vehículos que se aproximen permitan hacerlo con seguridad.

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Hold your horses! ... (houyhnhnms)

First of all, a paso a nivel is the intersection of a railroad -where the train won't stop; at most will honk- with a transverse way for automobiles and/or pedestrians and/or tracción a sangre -that's why it's called paso, not because of the railroad-. The whole intersections is in the same level so the trains, cars and mammals will have similar coordinate in the z axis -that's why it's called a nivel-.

Yes, I know, I know

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

b) and c) are regulating how pedestrians and assorted vehicles must behave while using and sharing the crossing, that is, while there's no train in sight

This is a bottomless pit of confusion. The article above relates to people crossing a road (= A ROAD) when there are oncoming cars. It has nothing directly to do with railways (except they are mentioned en passant).

My question is, an always was: do rules a, b and c relate to all crossings, or only to pasos a nivel . ???

Logically, they relate to all crossings, but grammatically, only to pasos a nivel, which makes no sense.

Have some pity on me. Does anybody understand my simple question?

[chileno]

Originally Posted by Perikles

En zonas donde existen pasos para peatones, los que se dispongan a atravesar la calzada deberán hacerlo precisamente por ellos, sin que puedan efectuarlo por las proximidades y, cuando tales pasos sean a nivel, se observarán, además, las reglas siguientes:

In areas where there are crossings for pedestrians, those who intend crossing the road must do so exactly on these crossings, without being able to do so in their vicinity, and, when these crossings are flat, the following rules must be followed:

Is this translation correct? Specifically the sin que puedan ... in bold.

Thanks

There isn't a single mention of railway here... When irma mentioned it, I thought to myself it must a Spain thing...

As to your translation I would change "in their vicinity" for "in the vicinity"?

Else, your translation is eggcellent.

EDIT: fixed a misspelling and added the following:


Maybe "in its vicinity" meaning the vicinity of the pedestrian crossing.

[aleCcowaN]

Oh! Oh!

"pasos sean a nivel" is a description of a generic concept while "paso a nivel (con o sin barrera)" end up associated with railroads. The title of the article -something missing in the question?- is "pasos para peatones..." so "pasos que sean a nivel" doesn't mean "pasos a nivel" but "pasos para peatones que son a nivel" (y no son los peatones los que son a nivel, pues los hay muy pedestres).

Who would've said that a little context would solve it.