Should I or shouldn't I?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: Brimstone on 6 Jul 2008 12:24 Tom Crispin wrote: > On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 15:18:43 +0100, "Brimstone" > <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> Tom Crispin wrote: >>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 15:00:15 +0100, "Brimstone" >>> <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> Tom Crispin wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 12:52:55 +0100, "Brimstone" >>>>> <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> A competent driving instructor would not put himself in that >>>>>>>> situation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Really? How, exactly? >>>>>> >>>>>> You're the instructor. Work it out. >>>>> >>>>> I see... You can't answer the question. >>>> >>>> You're confusing "can't" and "won't". >>> >>> So you won't answer the question because you can't? >> >> As I said, you're confusing willingness and ability. What someone is >> willing to do and what they're able to do are two different things. > > So you would be willing to answer the question if you were able? Why are you still making that assumption?
From: JNugent on 6 Jul 2008 12:52 Nick Finnigan wrote: > JNugent wrote: >> Nick Finnigan wrote: >>> Periander wrote: >>>> Actually much as I like to laugh when a cyclist gets taken out as the >>>> result of his own folly (especially if there's blood, broken bones >>>> and a >>>> wrecked cycle) there is actually an offence of "Opening a door to the >>>> danger of road users". Don't ask me to quote act and section it's to >>>> late and I can't be arsed but it's there none the less. >>> Construction and Use regulations. >>> A person shall not open, or cause or permit to be opened, any door of >>> a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger anyone. >>> So you don't have to hit the cyclist, causing him to stop would count. >> "Count" as what? > Count as an a contravention of the regulation. What, even if he comes along while you're loading the vehicle with goods and passengers and have the door(s) open for that purpose? >> It isn't an injury. It isn't an endangerment. > Why else would a cyclist stop, other than being endangered? Empirically, that is probably a damned good question. Legally, it's obvious nonsense. Obviously, things like the way ahead being obstructed (even by a red traffic light or pedestrians crossing a zebra or peilcon) couldn't possibly actually mean "stop", I suppose?
From: JNugent on 6 Jul 2008 12:55 Nick Finnigan wrote: > JNugent wrote: >> Danny Colyer wrote: >>> On 06/07/2008 10:46, Nick Finnigan wrote: Periander (IIRC): >>>> Construction and Use regulations. >>>> A person shall not open, or cause or permit to be opened, any door >>>> of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger anyone. NF: >>>> So you don't have to hit the cyclist, causing him to stop would >>>> count. Still unclear as to whether a door left open would be dangerous. DC: >>> Thanks, Nick, for looking that up. It saves me trying to help Steve >>> any further. I'm pretty sure now that he's beyond help, anyway - he >>> certainly comes across as someone who is unfit to be in charge of any >>> type of vehicle on the public highway. JN: >> What, even though the PP's post was a complete non-sequitur? NF: > Quoting the actual regulation is a complete sequitur. Was it? It seemed relevant. What was sheer nonsense was interpreting "causing him to stop" as being the same as "injuring" or "causing danger".
From: JNugent on 6 Jul 2008 13:01 Brimstone wrote: > Tom Crispin wrote: >> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> Tom Crispin wrote: >>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> Tom Crispin wrote: >>>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>> A competent driving instructor would not put himself in that >>>>>>>>> situation. >>>>>>>> Really? How, exactly? >>>>>>> You're the instructor. Work it out. >>>>>> I see... You can't answer the question. >>>>> You're confusing "can't" and "won't". >>>> So you won't answer the question because you can't? >>> As I said, you're confusing willingness and ability. What someone is >>> willing to do and what they're able to do are two different things. >> So you would be willing to answer the question if you were able? > Why are you still making that assumption? Brimstone: You're making the PP feel unjustifiedly self-righteous. Crispin: He *can* provide the answer (of course he can), but takes the principled position that those who claim the sort of expertise that you do shouldn't need to have it explained to them. He is therefore *unwilling* to spoonfeed you. The fact that you seem to ned it tells its own strory.
From: JNugent on 6 Jul 2008 13:04
JNugent wrote: > Nick Finnigan wrote: > >> JNugent wrote: >>> Danny Colyer wrote: >>>> On 06/07/2008 10:46, Nick Finnigan wrote: > > Periander (IIRC): >>>>> Construction and Use regulations. >>>>> A person shall not open, or cause or permit to be opened, any door >>>>> of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger anyone. > > NF: >>>>> So you don't have to hit the cyclist, causing him to stop would >>>>> count. Still unclear as to whether a door left open would be >>>>> dangerous. > > DC: >>>> Thanks, Nick, for looking that up. It saves me trying to help Steve >>>> any further. I'm pretty sure now that he's beyond help, anyway - he >>>> certainly comes across as someone who is unfit to be in charge of >>>> any type of vehicle on the public highway. > > JN: >>> What, even though the PP's post was a complete non-sequitur? > > NF: >> Quoting the actual regulation is a complete sequitur. > > Was it? It seemed relevant. Sorry - I see that I missed the absence of "non" there. Mind you, I'm not sure that "sequitur", used without the "non-" as a positive, is in use in English. It's a bit like describing someone as "gruntled" to indicate that they are content and therefore the opposite of disgruntled. |