Should I or shouldn't I?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: Nick Finnigan on 12 Jul 2008 17:50 JNugent wrote: > Nick Finnigan wrote: > > Is that part of the shipping forecast? No. > That could be further data, but it is not sufficient further data. A > door opening half a mile in front of you in a narrow street with cars > parked on both sides might still require you to stop by the time you got That would be a door left open, rather than a door opening.
From: Nick Finnigan on 12 Jul 2008 17:57 Alex Heney wrote: > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:01:39 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> > wrote: > > >>Alex Heney wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:08:18 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> >>>wrote: >>> > > > ( Context re-inserted) > >>>>>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. >> >> In the first context reasonable => "moderate, not excessive". I do not >>regard an emergency stop as being moderate. > > > Neither do I. > > I did NOT say or suggest that it would be OK if he had to do an > emergency stop. Emergency means unexpected or pressing. If another road user has to stop because a vehicle door opens, that is unexpected and pressing.
From: JNugent on 12 Jul 2008 18:03 Nick Finnigan wrote: > JNugent wrote: >> ... A >> door opening half a mile in front of you in a narrow street with cars >> parked on both sides might still require you to stop by the time you got > That would be a door left open, rather than a door opening. I adhere to the position that a door that you see being opened, some way off as you approach, may still require you to stop (there being various good and bad reasons for keeping a door open). That does not make the stop automatically an emergency stop or the need for it automatically unreasonable. Are we simply on different tacks, or are we hair-splitting?
From: Digiman on 12 Jul 2008 18:22 On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:03:26 +0100, JNugent <JN(a)NPPTG.com> wrote: >Nick Finnigan wrote: > >> JNugent wrote: > >>> ... A >>> door opening half a mile in front of you in a narrow street with cars >>> parked on both sides might still require you to stop by the time you got > >> That would be a door left open, rather than a door opening. > >I adhere to the position that a door that you see being opened, some way >off as you approach, may still require you to stop (there being various >good and bad reasons for keeping a door open). That does not make the >stop automatically an emergency stop or the need for it automatically >unreasonable. > >Are we simply on different tacks, or are we hair-splitting? You are hair splitting (aka trolling). There are all sorts of dangerous behavour where the attribution of 'dangerous' implies some particular condition. Sensible people understand that condition. Idiots and trolls make post after post pointing out the bleeding obvious.
From: Digiman on 12 Jul 2008 18:24
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:57:22 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: >> I did NOT say or suggest that it would be OK if he had to do an >> emergency stop. > > Emergency means unexpected or pressing. If another road user has to >stop because a vehicle door opens, that is unexpected and pressing. JNugnet or another troll will be along in a minute to point out (quite unnecessarily) that if the door is opened when the person who needs to stop is far enough away it will not cause an emergency stop). Sensible readers and non-trolls will have worked that one out for themselves. |