From: David Taylor on
On 2008-07-07, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> 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.

It _may_ not be possible to stop, but if they can it is certainly more
reasonable to stop than to continue on and hit the door! Somehow you
are claiming that even if they stop, the rider CAN NOT reasonable and
safely take avoiding action. As I said, it makes no sense.

> Even if it is, it may not be reasonable to do so.

What? Assuming no other avoiding action is possible (e.g., passing
traffic to your right), it'd be unreasonable to do anything other than
stop.

--
David Taylor
From: al Mossah on
On 6 Jul, 19:19, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> 165
>
> You MUST NOT overtake
>
> * if you would have to cross or straddle double white lines with a
> solid line nearest to you (but see Rule 129)
> * if you would have to enter an area designed to divide traffic, if
> it is surrounded by a solid white line
> * the nearest vehicle to a pedestrian crossing, especially when it
> has stopped to let pedestrians cross
> * if you would have to enter a lane reserved for buses, trams or
> cycles during its hours of operation
> * after a 'No Overtaking' sign and until you pass a sign cancelling
> the restriction
>
> [Laws RTA 1988 sect 36, TSRGD regs 10, 22, 23 & 24, ZPPPCRGD reg 24]
>
> * 127-132: Lines and lane markings on the road
Actually rule 165 doesn't apply to all drivers; a bus or cyclist may
overtake if "you would have to enter a lane reserved for buses, trams
or cycles during its hours of operation"
Peter.
From: al Mossah on
On 7 Jul, 17:45, "Sniper8...(a)yahoo.co.uk" <Sniper8...(a)yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

Lots snipped ....
>
> 3 Law lords all agreeing with the motorcyclist, what more ammunition
> do you need?
>
> Sniper8052

Thanks, Sniper; good to have your usual authoritative contributions.
Haven't had enough of them recently. More please.

Peter.
From: Ekul Namsob on
Brimstone <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>
> > You should answer the question in order to demonstrate that, as a
> > cycling instructor, Tom should know the answer.
> >
> What wonderfully perverse logic. Well done.

Try demonstrating that you are, in actual fact, less stupid than you
have been making yourself out to be. You claim the answer should be
obvious, you are incapable of answering the question. Perhaps you could
find someone else who does know the answer.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
From: Brimstone on
Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Brimstone <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>>
>>> You should answer the question in order to demonstrate that, as a
>>> cycling instructor, Tom should know the answer.
>>>
>> What wonderfully perverse logic. Well done.
>
> Try demonstrating that you are, in actual fact, less stupid than you
> have been making yourself out to be. You claim the answer should be
> obvious, you are incapable of answering the question.

What leads you to that conclusion?

> Perhaps you
> could find someone else who does know the answer.
>
If you wish to then carry on.