Should I or shouldn't I?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: Nick Finnigan on 13 Jul 2008 06:40 JNugent 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. And in that case keeping the door open causes the stopping. > Are we simply on different tacks, or are we hair-splitting? No.
From: JNugent on 13 Jul 2008 07:10 Nick Finnigan wrote: > JNugent 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. > And in that case keeping the door open causes the stopping. ...which might well be reasonable in the circumstances and cannot be described as unreasonable per se. >> Are we simply on different tacks, or are we hair-splitting? > No. I suspect that we have wandered onto different premises. We seem to have different things in mind.
From: Alex Heney on 13 Jul 2008 16:25 On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:39:50 GMT, Digiman(a)nospam.com (Digiman) wrote: >On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:27:47 +0100, Alex Heney <me8(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:50:04 +0100, "Brimstone" >><brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>JNugent wrote: >>>> Nick Finnigan wrote: >>>> >> >><snip> >>>> >>>>>> Being forced to stop by an obstruction in the crriageway does not >>>>>> equal "emergency stop" without further data. >>>> >>>>> The further data is a door opening. >>>> >>>> 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 to that spot. Not by any stretch of the reasonable man's >>>> imagination could you call it an emergency stop - or even an >>>> emergency. Sometimes, and whether we like it or not, we all have to >>>> stop. It's just life. >>> >>>Are you quite determined to appear silly? >>> >> >>If he is, then what he posted was doing a VERY bad job of it, since >>there was nothing remotely "silly" in what he correctly said. > >He appears silly because he's using a standard troll technique of >imputing obviously inappropriate generality to what someone whrote >purely for the sake of causing or prolonging an argument. Wrong. It was completely appropriate, as it pointed out the absurdity of Nick's claim. > >I had my some doubts this morning as to whether you were a troll >yourself as you did make some reasonably sensible points in amongst your >troll defending. I have never defended what i see as a troll. > >In now appears that my doubts were unfounded. > You should never have had any. >You really do make a habit of defending trolls and as such can be >considered nothing more than a troll yourself. Wrong. On both counts. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Alex Heney on 13 Jul 2008 16:27 On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:22:48 GMT, Digiman(a)nospam.com (Digiman) wrote: >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). They do appear to be hair splitting. But that is not trolling. Perhaps this explains some of your ridiculous accusations of "trolling" about various people > >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. > While perfectly rational and reasonable people make post after post trying to work out just what somebody else means by what they *think* is "bleeding obvious". -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Be nice to other people, they outnumber you 5.5 billion to 1. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Alex Heney on 13 Jul 2008 16:30
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:57:22 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: >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. This is you very much splitting hairs, and stupidly so. To such an extent that most people would just describe that as wrong. I can see what you are getting at, in that if they don't have to make an *emergency* stop, then it is because the door is *left* open, rather than it *being opened*, but that is a very silly distinction at this level. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Funny, only sensible people agree with me. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |