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 14:37 Tom Crispin wrote: > On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 18:57:29 +0100, "Brimstone" > <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> JNugent wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Nicely put. >> >> (applause) > > So perhaps now you'd care to explain how a cyclist can prevent a > driver, who the cyclist has just overtaken, from pulling out of a > stream of slow moving or stationary traffic, overtake, then pull > sharply right into the cyclist? > > I am at a loss. > > And this is how the witness Mrs N.C., who was standing at the bus stop > next to the loading bay, describes the van driver's actions. It is > not my description. You're (allegedly) the highly qualified cycling instructor. I haven't ridden a bike to any great degree since the early seventies. You tell me.
From: Nick Finnigan on 6 Jul 2008 15:05 JNugent wrote: > 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? That situation is unclear, as I have already posted. >>> 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? They don't obstruct the way ahead for a cyclist. Nor do they mean stop. Nor are they relevant to door-opening and endangering.
From: ®i©ardo on 6 Jul 2008 15:34 Danny Colyer wrote: > On 06/07/2008 10:46, Nick Finnigan wrote: >> 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. Still unclear as to whether a door left open would be dangerous. > > 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. > Unlike a person who cycles into the open door of a parked car, despite being able to ride round it? -- Moving things in still pictures!
From: ®i©ardo on 6 Jul 2008 15:36 Nick Finnigan wrote: > �i�ardo wrote: >> Tom Crispin wrote: >> >>> >>> 20% of deaths and serious injuries among London's cyclists are by a >>> driver or passenger opening their car door into the path of a cyclist. >> >> >> Perhaps, bearing in mind the substantial difference between "deaths" >> and "serious injuries", you could tell us the number of deaths and >> the number of serious injuries sustained by cyclists riding into car >> doors. > > 4 deaths out of 178 in 1985 - 1992 by opening a door. > > I can only find claims (other than TCs) for 10% of SIs. Thank you for the information. -- Moving things in still pictures!
From: Tom Crispin on 6 Jul 2008 15:47
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 19:37:48 +0100, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >Tom Crispin wrote: >> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 18:57:29 +0100, "Brimstone" >> <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> JNugent wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> Nicely put. >>> >>> (applause) >> >> So perhaps now you'd care to explain how a cyclist can prevent a >> driver, who the cyclist has just overtaken, from pulling out of a >> stream of slow moving or stationary traffic, overtake, then pull >> sharply right into the cyclist? >> >> I am at a loss. >> >> And this is how the witness Mrs N.C., who was standing at the bus stop >> next to the loading bay, describes the van driver's actions. It is >> not my description. > >You're (allegedly) the highly qualified cycling instructor. I haven't ridden >a bike to any great degree since the early seventies. You tell me. Despite your admission that you have little experience of cycling, it is you who claimed a solution. I, on the other hand, freely admit to being at a loss. |