Should I or shouldn't I?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: Alex Heney on 10 Jul 2008 16:56 On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 23:26:55 +0100, Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: >On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 21:29:55 +0100, Alex Heney <me8(a)privacy.net> >wrote: > >>I have seen barristers suggest a 70% chance of outright wins in cases >>they have then lost completely. > >Less than 30%, perhaps. Sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say there at all. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Backups? We doan *NEED* no steenking baX%^~,VbKx NO CARRIER To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Tom Crispin on 10 Jul 2008 19:03 On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:56:42 +0100, Alex Heney <me8(a)privacy.net> wrote: >On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 23:26:55 +0100, Tom Crispin ><kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: > >>On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 21:29:55 +0100, Alex Heney <me8(a)privacy.net> >>wrote: >> >>>I have seen barristers suggest a 70% chance of outright wins in cases >>>they have then lost completely. >> >>Less than 30%, perhaps. > >Sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say there at all. If a barrister suggests a 70% chance of an outright win, it is likely that less than 30% will be a complete loss.
From: Alex Heney on 11 Jul 2008 16:33 On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:03:25 +0100, Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: >On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:56:42 +0100, Alex Heney <me8(a)privacy.net> >wrote: > >>On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 23:26:55 +0100, Tom Crispin >><kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 21:29:55 +0100, Alex Heney <me8(a)privacy.net> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>I have seen barristers suggest a 70% chance of outright wins in cases >>>>they have then lost completely. >>> >>>Less than 30%, perhaps. >> >>Sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say there at all. > >If a barrister suggests a 70% chance of an outright win, it is likely >that less than 30% will be a complete loss. Yes. Although many of the cases I know of have been of the type where it is either a complete win or a complete loss, unlike yours. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Life is uncertain...eat dessert first! To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Nick Finnigan on 12 Jul 2008 15:01 Alex Heney wrote: > On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:08:18 +0100, 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. > > > You clearly have a very different definition of "reasonably and safely > take avoiding action" than that any reasonable person would use. In the first context reasonable => "moderate, not excessive". I do not regard an emergency stop as being moderate.
From: Nick Finnigan on 12 Jul 2008 15:05
Steve Firth wrote: > 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. > > Can you point to any legal precedent for this statement? No. I admit that I know of no case where causing a cyclist to take avoiding action was regarded as reasonable and safe. > BTW, did you manage to find even a single case of someone being > prosecuted for opening a door? I wasn't aware of being asked to find one. |