Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: ®i©ardo on 8 Jul 2008 05:14 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. But it may be sensible - a bit like stopping at traffic lights! -- Moving things in still pictures!
From: Sniper8052 on 8 Jul 2008 05:21 On 7 Jul, 21:23, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: > Nick Finnigan <n...(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. The offence is opening a car door to danger. The danger exists whether or not the person approaching avoids the danger. If a driver, or passenger for whom the driver is responsible, causes a person to stop or swerve to avoid a collision that would have occurred had they not taken avoiding action in the face of immanent danger then the driver is still liable for the offence. If in taking avoiding action a collision occurs with another road user the driver of the first vehicle will still be liable. Sniper8052
From: Sniper8052 on 8 Jul 2008 05:39 On 7 Jul, 21:23, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: > Nick Finnigan <n...(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. I don't know what happened to my post so here goes again. The offence is opening a car door to danger. The offence is complete whether the approaching traffic avoids the danger or not. The offence may be committed by either the driver or a passenger and the driver is liable for the actions of his passengers. So if a door is opened to danger and that danger is avoided it makes no difference to the offence, the danger still existed, that it caused a reaction that avoided a collision is immaterial the driver is liable. If in avoiding the door a collision ocurres with another road user then the driver is still liable as they 'caused' the collision which is evidence of the danger, unless it can be shown that the action taken in avoiding the initial danger was so extreme as to constitute over reaction to the point of recklessness. Sniper8052
From: Steve Firth on 8 Jul 2008 07:05 Sniper8052(a)yahoo.co.uk <Sniper8052(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 7 Jul, 21:23, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: > > Nick Finnigan <n...(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. > > The offence is opening a car door to danger. The danger exists > whether or not the person approaching avoids the danger. If a driver, > or passenger for whom the driver is responsible, causes a person to > stop or swerve to avoid a collision that would have occurred had they > not taken avoiding action in the face of immanent danger then the > driver is still liable for the offence. If in taking avoiding action > a collision occurs with another road user the driver of the first > vehicle will still be liable. And you have a precedent for this, do you?
From: al Mossah on 8 Jul 2008 07:37
On 4 Jul, 13:57, bugbear <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote: > > 5% of e.g. 8000 is more money than 100% of 5100. > > BugBear Er, no it's not. £400 < £5,100. Guess you meant 95% of £8,000? Peter. |