Paul Smith
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Peter Clinch on 21 Dec 2007 05:49 MrBitsy wrote: > I am trying to instill a sense of logic - when all looks bad, get out of the > way and forget blame for as long as it takes you to stay alive. Fine. But most of Good Practice is about how to stop it going wrong in the first place. The point I keep trying to get across is that avoiding unpleasantness in the first place with lorries is down to more than "keep clear". Nothing more, but nothing less. I'm not trying to apportion blame, or go on about rights, or the various IQs of anyone on the road, just saying that "keep clear of lorries" is not actually very helpful and could do with a lot of work to rectify that. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
From: David Hansen on 21 Dec 2007 06:09 On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:10:11 +0000 someone who may be JNugent <not.telling(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote this:- >> Your comparison would only be valid if cyclists were to kill >> motorists "just in case". > >Classic Hansen. > >Completely unable to discern principle. The only principle for him is >"What's best for me, me, me?". I note that you appear unwilling or unable to answer the point and instead try a personal attack on me, presumably in the hope of deflecting attention from your lack of answer. Excellent. Do keep it up. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
From: Peter Clinch on 21 Dec 2007 06:23 David Hansen wrote: > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:10:11 +0000 someone who may be JNugent > <not.telling(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote this:- > >>> Your comparison would only be valid if cyclists were to kill >>> motorists "just in case". >> Classic Hansen. >> >> Completely unable to discern principle. The only principle for him is >> "What's best for me, me, me?". > > I note that you appear unwilling or unable to answer the point and > instead try a personal attack on me, presumably in the hope of > deflecting attention from your lack of answer. > > Excellent. Do keep it up. Well, it is "Classic JNugent"... -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
From: Brimstone on 21 Dec 2007 06:52 Rob Morley wrote: > In article <f46dnXJAEpmUaffanZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d(a)bt.com>, Brimstone > brimstone520-ng01(a)yahoo.co.uk says... > >> Can you offer a scenario in which someone gets crushed in which they >> are not even faintly responsible? >> > Me riding on a fairly narrow country road with a high stone hedge to > the left and a woodland to the right, approaching a right hand bend. > Truck starts to overtake me as we turn into the bend, sees something > coming the other way and pulls over on me, presumably in the belief > that once I'm behind the cab I must be gone. Actually I was nearly > under his back wheels, with nowhere to go. There was just room for > me to pull back level with the cab and thump the door rather hard, he > did an emergency stop and I squeezed between the cab and the hedge. > If I had been a less confident cyclist, or not fast enough to keep up > with the truck, they'd have been scraping me off the road. If I had > been squashed, would it have been my fault? Thank you for demonstrating my point.
From: Brimstone on 21 Dec 2007 06:54
raisethe wrote: > MrBitsy wrote: >> Rob Morley wrote: > , Brimstone >>> says... >>> >>>> Can you offer a scenario in which someone gets crushed in which >>>> they are not even faintly responsible? >>>> > > > <megasnip> > > > If I had >>> been squashed, would it have been my fault? >> >> >> He we go again with this fault business. The whole thrust of this >> thread has been this ... >> >> 'When at the point a collision is likely, forget fault and save >> yourself'. > > > Not when the question being responded to asks who is responsible. A > word of advice: read in full the post you are replying to. No, again you misread or misunderstand. I said "faintly responsible". Primary responsibility lies with the dozo making the initial foul up. The person about to be crushed can also shoulder some of the responsibility because they either put themselves in danger or failed to remove themselves from danger. |