Should I or shouldn't I?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: JNugent on 8 Jul 2008 17:31 Alex Heney wrote: > 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? That car passengers may not only endanger pedestrians when opening car doors?
From: Alex Heney on 8 Jul 2008 19:26 On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 22:31:59 +0100, JNugent <JN(a)NPPTG.com> wrote: >Alex Heney wrote: >> 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? > >That car passengers may not only endanger pedestrians when opening car >doors? I'm sorry, but I don't understand why you think that was a point that needed making. Had anybody suggested that might be the case? -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Let's organize this thing and take all the fun out of it. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Alex Heney on 8 Jul 2008 19:31 On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 22:04:22 +0100, Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: >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. You are quite right that a 95% claim is highly unlikely to be awarded by a court. But you are wrong about sending any clear message. That will be seen as a bargaining point, although it is *so* far away from anything they have offered that it will probably not be seen as a serious attempt to bargain. They might go straight to court, or they might make a counter offer. I would be amazed if they accept anything better than 50% without requiring a court case. And I will be somewhat surprised if the court give you much more than 50%. > >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 don't know why you are bothering to make an "offer" of that amount. There is no way they are going to jump from 20% to 95% without court action. >I'm looking forward to treating myself to a Brompton once I have the >cheque in my hands. But remember, if they make an offer which you reject, and the court then award that amount or less, you will probably have to pay their costs too, so your "cheque" in that case would not be worth much. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager I'm not broke, I'm just badly bent. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Tom Crispin on 9 Jul 2008 02:33 On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:31:57 +0100, Alex Heney <me8(a)privacy.net> wrote: >And I will be somewhat surprised if the court give you much more than >50%. Do you have information that no one else does? Recall the barrister's advice is that there is a very good (70%) chance that a court would award me 100%.
From: Alan Braggins on 9 Jul 2008 02:38
In article <6OudndP2Ys7HVO7VnZ2dnUVZ8h2dnZ2d(a)bt.com>, Brimstone wrote: >Ekul Namsob wrote: >> >> 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? Your repeated refusal to do so when asked. Technically this only proves that you are incapable of proving that you can answer the question, but that the reason for that is that you have no good answer is an obvious inference. If you really want to suggest a zero knowledge proof that will allow you to demonstrate knowledge of the secret answer without giving it away, feel free to try. |