Should I or shouldn't I?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: Alex Heney on 8 Jul 2008 16:18 On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:08:18 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: >Alex Heney wrote: >> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 10:46:30 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >> >>>Periander wrote: >>> >>>>%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote in >>>>news:1ijmqdc.o45wv71p5469sN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Perhaps getting a clue would help you. The prohibition in the HC is on >>>>>opening the door and hitting someone or something with the door. If >>>>>the door has been opened and someone rides or drives into it then they >>>>>are in the wrong. >>>>> >>>>>The stupidity of cyclists seems to be without limit. Perhaps they >>>>>should be made to sit a test before being allowed on the roads? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>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. >>>Still unclear as to whether a door left open would be dangerous. >> >> >> 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. You clearly have a very different definition of "reasonably and safely take avoiding action" than that any reasonable person would use. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Those who can't write, write help files. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Alex Heney on 8 Jul 2008 16:20 On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:42:48 +0100, 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. That could perfectly well have been *an* "appropriate" reasonable and safe avoiding action. But Steve was 100% correct, provided they were able to stop reasonably easily. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager It's easy to be brave from a safe distance. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Alex Heney on 8 Jul 2008 16:22 On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:59:27 +0100, JNugent <JN(a)NPPTG.com> wrote: >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. Of course. Your point? -- Alex Heney, Global Villager The best defense against logic is stupidity. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: John Kane on 8 Jul 2008 16:54 On Jul 7, 5:56 pm, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: > Nick Finnigan <n...(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: > > 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. > > > 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?- Hide quoted text - I don't have a case but I remember the police officer who was doored insisted on the offender being charged but that was in Canada. John Kane Kingston ON Canada
From: Tom Crispin on 8 Jul 2008 17:04
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:28:49 +0100, Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: >Some of you may recall that on 30 April 2007 I was knocked off my >bicycle by a White Van Driver rurning right to reach a parking bay on >the right side of the road. At the time the traffic was either slow >moving or stationary and I was overtaking on the right, and well out >into the right lane of the road which was clear of oncoming traffic. >The van driver did not indicate or did not indicate at a time that I >had any chance of seeing prior to pulling diagonally across the road >to reach the parking bay, the right front side of his van hitting me >from behind. > >I suffered an acromioclavicular shoulder separation and a hard bump to >the head. > >I have been offered �5,100 settlement with a 20% v 80% liability - >meaning I would receive just �1,020, and admit that I was 80% to blame >for the accident. I have rejected that offer. > >My no win - no fee solicitors have suggested that I give a counter >offer of �5,100 with a 05% v 95% liability - meaning I would receive >�4,845, and admit that I was 5% to blame for the accident. I have written to the solicitors advising then that I would accept 95% of the claim, and they may put that offer to the driver's employer's insurer. I think that a 5% sacrifice for a trouble free settlement is worthwhile. I believe that by putting in a 95% offer, which is highly unlikely to be awarded by a court, I am sending a clear message that I believe that a court would award me 100%, and the 5% sacrifice is only for a trouble free settlement. I do not believe that I am in any way putting future claims of cyclists in jeopardy, as some have suggested, by offering a settlement of 95% of the claim. If they do not pay up, I will see them in court. I'm looking forward to treating myself to a Brompton once I have the cheque in my hands. |