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 13:43 Ekul Namsob wrote: > Brimstone <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> Alan Braggins wrote: >>> In article <VoednTie2d5g_-nVnZ2dnUVZ8qfinZ2d(a)bt.com>, Brimstone >>> wrote: >>>>> 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. >>> >>> It's obvious that your unwillingness is caused by your lack of a >>> good answer. >> >> An assumption without foundation. > > Plenty of foundation. Now, please be a tedious fool elsewhere. > Thanks for the invitation, but I'm quite happy here. If others wish to make baseless assumptions and extend a pointless exchange why should I deny them a small plaesure which which to enrich their obviously empty lives?
From: Alan Braggins on 9 Jul 2008 13:46 In article <D5WdndlrdYWkbenVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)bt.com>, Brimstone wrote: >I'm not sure that you're even fully acquainted with all the facts and the >reasons why I'm not prepared to give TC an answer. I've given a perfectly good explanation of why you refuse to give TC, or anyone else, an answer, which is more than you've been able to.
From: Brimstone on 9 Jul 2008 14:09 Alan Braggins wrote: > In article <D5WdndlrdYWkbenVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)bt.com>, Brimstone wrote: >> I'm not sure that you're even fully acquainted with all the facts >> and the reasons why I'm not prepared to give TC an answer. > > I've given a perfectly good explanation of why you refuse to give TC, > or anyone else, an answer, Wrong. > which is more than you've been able to. You're still confusing ability and willingness. They're not the asme.
From: Alex Heney on 9 Jul 2008 16:21 On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 02:58:14 -0700 (PDT), "Sniper8052(a)yahoo.co.uk" <Sniper8052(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >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? > No. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Why did Kamakazie pilots wear helmets??? To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Alex Heney on 9 Jul 2008 16:23
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 08:28:32 +0100, JNugent <JN(a)NPPTG.com> wrote: >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. No it isn't. It is *just about* possible, by seriously stretching to suggest that the post I replied to might *just* have implied that. But only if you really want to be silly about it. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager People who live in stone houses shouldn't throw glasses. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |