Should I or shouldn't I?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: Nick Finnigan on 7 Jul 2008 17:42 Steve Firth wrote: > Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: > > >> If the act of opening the door (rather than leaving it open) causes >>him to stop, then the other road user can not reasonably and safely take >>avoiding action. > > > Errm if the act of opening the door causes someone to stop then the > other user has demonstrably been able to safely take the appropriate > avoiding action, which was to stop before hitting the obstruction. No, the appropriate 'reasonable and safe' avoiding action was to slow and steer around the obstacle without stopping. Not that stopping without injury means stopping without hitting the obstruction.
From: Steve Firth on 7 Jul 2008 17:56 Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: > Steve Firth wrote: > > Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > >> If the act of opening the door (rather than leaving it open) causes > >>him to stop, then the other road user can not reasonably and safely take > >>avoiding action. > > > > > > Errm if the act of opening the door causes someone to stop then the > > other user has demonstrably been able to safely take the appropriate > > avoiding action, which was to stop before hitting the obstruction. > > No, the appropriate 'reasonable and safe' avoiding action was to slow > and steer around the obstacle without stopping. Can you point to any legal precedent for this statement? > Not that stopping without injury means stopping without hitting the > obstruction. Or that it necessarily means stopping after hitting an obstruction. BTW, did you manage to find even a single case of someone being prosecuted for opening a door?
From: JNugent on 7 Jul 2008 17:59 Alex Heney wrote: > On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 22:16:28 GMT, Periander <4rubbish(a)britwar.co.uk> > wrote: > >> Alex Heney <me8(a)privacy.net> wrote in >> news:blg274dn5u835jfn4s7uhfvhpb5p5fpds9(a)4ax.com: >> >>> If you are opening a vehicle door on the "traffic" side of the parked >>> vehicle, it is your responsibility to make sure you are not opening it >>> into the path of another road user. >> Road user includes pedestrians old bean, passengers can also be stuck on >> for this offence for giving someone a ding (and quite rightly so in my >> never humble opinion). > > Good point. > > It is *less* likely that there will be a pedestrian just about to pass > who cannot avoid the door you open in front of them, but you certainly > still need to be careful there isn't, agreed. A passenger may be on the "road" side of the vehicle - even nearside passengers in a one-way street.
From: JNugent on 7 Jul 2008 18:01 Nick Finnigan wrote: > David Taylor wrote: >> On 2008-07-07, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> Alex Heney wrote: >>> >>>> I don't think causing him to stop would count, provided he reasonably >>>> could do so. >>>> >>>> It is only endangering him if it is done at such time that the other >>>> road user cannot reasonably and safely take avoiding action. >>> >>> If the act of opening the door (rather than leaving it open) causes >>> him to stop, then the other road user can not reasonably and safely >>> take avoiding action. >> >> >> Eh? That makes no sense. Stopping _is_ an action that avoids hitting >> the door. > > It may not be. Even if it is, it may not be reasonable to do so. Eh? It may not be reasonable to stop? Are you trying to claim that it would more reasonable (or less unreasonble) to not attempt to stop and to hit the door?
From: ®i©ardo on 8 Jul 2008 04:31
BrianW wrote: > On 6 Jul, 10:08, �i�ardo <h...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> Brimstone wrote: >>> �i�ardo wrote: >>>> Tom Crispin wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 00:00:22 +0100, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Perhaps they should >>>>>> be made to sit a test before being allowed on the roads? >>>>> With a little modification, a great idea. �One of Cycling England's >>>>> objectives is that every primary child should have the opportunity to >>>>> take Bikeability Levels 1 and 2. >>>>> Thanks to the local scheme I run, 285 children in Lewisham have >>>>> passed Bikeability Levels 1 and 2 before their 11th birthday. �Of >>>>> the 7 who chose not to take the course I suspect most will never >>>>> ride a bike. >>>> Why are there so few children in lewisham? >>> Doug has frightened tham all away. >> LOL! The Bogey Man, or perhaps even Smokey Joe who I seem to recall from >> my childhood. > > Photographic evidence: > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/gollumofcatford/2620828748/ Er, Smokey Joe, as I remember him, was not only better dressed but cleaner as well! -- Moving things in still pictures! |