Should I or shouldn't I?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: Nick Finnigan on 26 Jul 2008 15:40 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 hairs breadths' away.
From: Tom Crispin on 20 Aug 2008 06:33 On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:28:49 +0100, Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: >Some of you may recall that on 30 April 2007 I was knocked off my >bicycle by a White Van Driver rurning right to reach a parking bay on >the right side of the road. At the time the traffic was either slow >moving or stationary and I was overtaking on the right, and well out >into the right lane of the road which was clear of oncoming traffic. >The van driver did not indicate or did not indicate at a time that I >had any chance of seeing prior to pulling diagonally across the road >to reach the parking bay, the right front side of his van hitting me >from behind. > >I suffered an acromioclavicular shoulder separation and a hard bump to >the head. > >I have been offered �5,100 settlement with a 20% v 80% liability - >meaning I would receive just �1,020, and admit that I was 80% to blame >for the accident. I have rejected that offer. The defendent's solicitors have now increased their offer to �4,000. My solicitor suggests that I reject that offer too on the basis that I have a good claim and am likely to be awarded 100%. However, to avoid a day in court I would still be willing to accept 95% of �5,100. >My no win - no fee solicitors have suggested that I give a counter >offer of �5,100 with a 05% v 95% liability - meaning I would receive >�4,845, and admit that I was 5% to blame for the accident. > >Should I give that counter offer, or should I still go for 100%? > >The difference for 5% of my pride and the possibility of a hassle free >settlement is worth �255. > >It is worth considerably more than that to my no win - no fee >solicitors. > >The no win - no fee barrister says the following (highlights only): > >- On the basis of the written evidence in my opinion Mr Crispin has a >very good (70%) claim that the accident was entirely caused by the >negligence of the Defendent. > >- Mr Crispin's evidence is supported by the witness evidence of [NC]. >Although Mrs [C] knows Mr Crispin [she is the mother of a pupil in my >class] the court would likely find her an independent witness and >would likely accept her evidence. > >- Mr Crispin's account of the accident is clear and persuasive, he >would likely make an excellent witness in court. > >- It is clear from Davis V Schrogin, as well as rule 67 of the highway >code, that cyclists are permitted to overtake queuing traffic. > >- Rule 204 of the HC emphisises that care should be taken in relation >to vulnerable road users. > >- Mr Crispin was not, in my view, cycling in a way to justify a >finding of contributary negligence. In particular he was not cycling >excessively quickly nor did he ignore a signal from the Defendent. The >court would also likely observe that the accident did not occur at a >junction. > >- Mr Crispin's witness statement must contain all the information >contained within his replies to the Defence. It is rare that a party >provides such an [sic] well-reasoned response to another party's case >and although there is technically irrelevant material within the >responses [lol] this is clearly Mr Crispin's own well-researched >response.
From: Trevor A Panther on 20 Aug 2008 09:04 "Tom Crispin" <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message news:vqrna49odannlpluiftcpsjdg5rnrrhtog(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:28:49 +0100, Tom Crispin > <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: > >>Some of you may recall that on 30 April 2007 I was knocked off my >>bicycle by a White Van Driver rurning right to reach a parking bay on >>the right side of the road. At the time the traffic was either slow >>moving or stationary and I was overtaking on the right, and well out >>into the right lane of the road which was clear of oncoming traffic. >>The van driver did not indicate or did not indicate at a time that I >>had any chance of seeing prior to pulling diagonally across the road >>to reach the parking bay, the right front side of his van hitting me >>from behind. >> >>I suffered an acromioclavicular shoulder separation and a hard bump to >>the head. >> >>I have been offered �5,100 settlement with a 20% v 80% liability - >>meaning I would receive just �1,020, and admit that I was 80% to blame >>for the accident. I have rejected that offer. > > The defendent's solicitors have now increased their offer to �4,000. > My solicitor suggests that I reject that offer too on the basis that I > have a good claim and am likely to be awarded 100%. However, to avoid > a day in court I would still be willing to accept 95% of �5,100. > >>My no win - no fee solicitors have suggested that I give a counter >>offer of �5,100 with a 05% v 95% liability - meaning I would receive >>�4,845, and admit that I was 5% to blame for the accident. >> >>Should I give that counter offer, or should I still go for 100%? >> >>The difference for 5% of my pride and the possibility of a hassle free >>settlement is worth �255. >> >>It is worth considerably more than that to my no win - no fee >>solicitors. >> >>The no win - no fee barrister says the following (highlights only): >> >>- On the basis of the written evidence in my opinion Mr Crispin has a >>very good (70%) claim that the accident was entirely caused by the >>negligence of the Defendent. >> >>- Mr Crispin's evidence is supported by the witness evidence of [NC]. >>Although Mrs [C] knows Mr Crispin [she is the mother of a pupil in my >>class] the court would likely find her an independent witness and >>would likely accept her evidence. >> >>- Mr Crispin's account of the accident is clear and persuasive, he >>would likely make an excellent witness in court. >> >>- It is clear from Davis V Schrogin, as well as rule 67 of the highway >>code, that cyclists are permitted to overtake queuing traffic. >> >>- Rule 204 of the HC emphisises that care should be taken in relation >>to vulnerable road users. >> >>- Mr Crispin was not, in my view, cycling in a way to justify a >>finding of contributary negligence. In particular he was not cycling >>excessively quickly nor did he ignore a signal from the Defendent. The >>court would also likely observe that the accident did not occur at a >>junction. >> >>- Mr Crispin's witness statement must contain all the information >>contained within his replies to the Defence. It is rare that a party >>provides such an [sic] well-reasoned response to another party's case >>and although there is technically irrelevant material within the >>responses [lol] this is clearly Mr Crispin's own well-researched >>response. Having been through this process twice in the last 3 years I would recommend that you accept your solicitors advice and go for the lot! I followed the advice of my solicitor each time and in each case the "opposition" gave way -- resulting in over a doubling of their original offers. it is extremely likely that you will not go to court! It costs them ( the opposition) money -- Trevor A Panther In South Yorkshire, England, United Kingdom. www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
From: Rob Morley on 20 Aug 2008 09:35 On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:04:11 GMT "Trevor A Panther" <tapan(a)NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > Having been through this process twice in the last 3 years I would > recommend that you accept your solicitors advice and go for the lot! > I followed the advice of my solicitor each time and in each case the > "opposition" gave way -- resulting in over a doubling of their > original offers. > They've already quadrupled their original offer - I suspect I'd settle at this point, as long as they covered my legal costs too.
From: Tom Crispin on 20 Aug 2008 09:57
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:35:41 +0100, Rob Morley <nospam(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: >On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:04:11 GMT >"Trevor A Panther" <tapan(a)NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> Having been through this process twice in the last 3 years I would >> recommend that you accept your solicitors advice and go for the lot! >> I followed the advice of my solicitor each time and in each case the >> "opposition" gave way -- resulting in over a doubling of their >> original offers. >> >They've already quadrupled their original offer - I suspect I'd settle >at this point, as long as they covered my legal costs too. It is tempting - but the difference �4,000 compared with �4,845, which I would accept, is the cost of a Brompton plus accessories. |