Should I or shouldn't I?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: judith on 14 Jul 2008 18:13 On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:50:52 GMT, Digiman(a)nospam.com (Digiman) wrote: >On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:34:31 -0700 (PDT), "Sniper8052(a)yahoo.co.uk" ><Sniper8052(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>If a person can drive a vehicle with 80/100 ml I am damn sure a person >>can walk along a pavement with two cans of Stella washing around >>without too much of a problem. > >No one is suggesting otherwise. And there was me thinking that the fuckwit who said the following was indeed saying otherwise: They *admitted* that she'd drunk two cans of Stella. That's enough to put ee a large man over the drink drve limit and unless she was a *very* large girl certainly enough to make her drunk. I would say there is good evidence that she was drunk for some values of drunk. Not 'falling over' drunk, but evidently sufficiently drunk to be on the road and to move into the path of a rapidly approaching hazzard. PS the fuckwit was you - Proper Dave/Dave Proper or Digiman.
From: judith on 14 Jul 2008 18:28 On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 13:09:42 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: >Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: > >> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 00:00:22 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) >> wrote: >> >> >Perhaps they should >> >be made to sit a test before being allowed on the roads? >> >> With a little modification, a great idea. One of Cycling England's >> objectives is that every primary child should have the opportunity to >> take Bikeability Levels 1 and 2. > >Excellent. Let us hope that the selection of instructors is improved and >that individuals who perform careless overtaking manouevers and who >advocate passing red lights are are excluded from teaching. What is this passing red lights? Are you suggesting that a cycling instructor has advocated such? I find that hard to believe as it would be a stupid thing to do.
From: Nick Finnigan on 26 Jul 2008 15:05 Alex Heney wrote: > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:24:45 GMT, Digiman(a)nospam.com (Digiman) wrote: > > >>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. > > > As will some trolls, as evidenced by your post. > > The problem is that Nick is being silly about the difference between > "opening" and "leaving open". No, I am not. > In actual fact, "emergency stops or otherwise are utterly irrelevant > under his definition, in that *technically*, if it is POSSIBLE for you > to avoid hitting the door, then it MUST have been "left open" rather Not in my mind.
From: Nick Finnigan on 26 Jul 2008 15:22 Alex Heney wrote: > 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. It is a distinction I clearly made several postings before, and which Periander (whose post I responded to) seemed to think was important. I am not arguing against your proposition that it is possible to endanger a cyclist not only by opening a door so that he has to make an emergency stop, but by similar actions a few hair's breadths' away.
From: Nick Finnigan on 26 Jul 2008 15:29
Alex Heney wrote: > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:13:42 GMT, Digiman(a)nospam.com (Digiman) wrote: > > >>On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:25:03 +0100, Alex Heney <me8(a)privacy.net> wrote: >> >> >>It is extremely easy to start arguments and keep them going by being >>unnecessarily pedantic. > > Which was what *Nick* was doing, No, I wasn't. > >>If A says: "opening a car door in front of a cyclist is dangerous", >>anyone with an IQ into double figures knows full well the poster means >>"opening a car door immediately in front of a cyclist is dangerous". >> >>Only a fool or a troll really imagines that they mean "in front of a >>cyclist at any distance". > > > But only a bigger fool or troll thinks it means "only so long as the > door is still in the act of opening when the cyclist reaches it". > > between those two, there is a huge range, and it is within that range > (but strongly towards the closer end) that most of us would assume - > but not Nick. I would agree. For simplicity I chose only to argue the most obvious end of the scale, but some posters took issue even with that. >>Because Nick said 'reasonable' when he obviously meant 'practical' It is not important, but I only used 'reasonable' because the previous poster did. |