Should I or shouldn't I?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: Brimstone on 9 Jul 2008 03:04 Alan Braggins wrote: > 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. You're doing the same as Tom Crispin which is to confuse willingness with ability. They're not the same. > 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. Wrong. The only inference to be drawn is that I am unwilling to answer. > 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.
From: Ian Smith on 9 Jul 2008 03:06 On Wed, 09 Jul, Tom Crispin <>wrote: > 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%. That has been pointed out to Alex before. The first time it was pointed out he resorted to ad-hominem obscenity in response, and teh second time he just didn't respond. If you think bringing it uip again is going to help rational dioscuission, I think you are forgetting that Alex knows more about teh accident than you do, and more about the legal process than your barrister. Alex must be omniscient. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \|
From: JNugent on 9 Jul 2008 03:28 Alex Heney wrote: > JNugent <JN(a)NPPTG.com> wrote: >> Alex Heney wrote: >>> JNugent <JN(a)NPPTG.com> wrote: >>>> Alex Heney wrote: >>>>> Periander <4rubbish(a)britwar.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> Alex Heney <me8(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>>>>>> 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? Yes - you did. You might not have seen that implication in what you wrote, but it's there.
From: Sniper8052 on 9 Jul 2008 05:58 On 8 Jul, 12:05, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: > Sniper8...(a)yahoo.co.uk <Sniper8...(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? Nearly 15 years experience as a police officer any good? Sniper8052
From: Alan Braggins on 9 Jul 2008 08:52
In article <ott7741l9ddq5f57qk9mlsu9c7ltsptr41(a)4ax.com>, Alex Heney wrote: > >There is no way they are going to jump from 20% to 95% without court >action. Why not? "make a derisory offer and see if they fall for it, but don't bother fighting if it looks like they will stick up for their rights" is a rational strategy if enough victims will fall for it. And your very argument suggests some will. |