On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 10:46:30 +0100, Nick Finnigan 
wrote:

>Periander wrote:
>> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote in
>> news:1ijmqdc.o45wv71p5469sN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk: 
>> 
>>>
>>>Perhaps getting a clue would help you. The prohibition in the HC is on
>>>opening the door and hitting someone or something with the door. If
>>>the door has been opened and someone rides or drives into it then they
>>>are in the wrong.
>>>
>>>The stupidity of cyclists seems to be without limit. Perhaps they
>>>should be made to sit a test before being allowed on the roads?
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> Actually much as I like to laugh when a cyclist gets taken out as the
>> result of his own folly (especially if there's blood, broken bones and a
>> wrecked cycle) there is actually an offence of "Opening a door to the
>> danger of road users". Don't ask me to quote act and section it's to
>> late and I can't be arsed but it's there none the less. 
>
>  Construction and Use regulations.
>A person shall not open, or cause or permit to be opened, any door of a 
>vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger anyone.
>
>  So you don't have to hit the cyclist, causing him to stop would count. 
>Still unclear as to whether a door left open would be dangerous.

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.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I don't have a solution but I admire the problem.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 10:46:30 +0100, Nick Finnigan 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Periander wrote:
>>
>>>%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote in
>>>news:1ijmqdc.o45wv71p5469sN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk: 
>>>
>>>
>>>>Perhaps getting a clue would help you. The prohibition in the HC is on
>>>>opening the door and hitting someone or something with the door. If
>>>>the door has been opened and someone rides or drives into it then they
>>>>are in the wrong.
>>>>
>>>>The stupidity of cyclists seems to be without limit. Perhaps they
>>>>should be made to sit a test before being allowed on the roads?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually much as I like to laugh when a cyclist gets taken out as the
>>>result of his own folly (especially if there's blood, broken bones and a
>>>wrecked cycle) there is actually an offence of "Opening a door to the
>>>danger of road users". Don't ask me to quote act and section it's to
>>>late and I can't be arsed but it's there none the less. 
>>
>> Construction and Use regulations.
>>A person shall not open, or cause or permit to be opened, any door of a 
>>vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger anyone.
>>
>> So you don't have to hit the cyclist, causing him to stop would count. 
>>Still unclear as to whether a door left open would be dangerous.
> 
> 
> 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.

On 2008-07-07, Nick Finnigan  wrote:
> Alex Heney wrote:
>> 
>> 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.

Eh? That makes no sense.  Stopping _is_ an action that avoids hitting
the door.

-- 
David Taylor

David Taylor wrote:
> On 2008-07-07, Nick Finnigan  wrote:
> 
>>Alex Heney wrote:
>>
>>>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.
> 
> 
> Eh? That makes no sense.  Stopping _is_ an action that avoids hitting
> the door.

  It may not be. Even if it is, it may not be reasonable to do so.

Nick Finnigan wrote:
> David Taylor wrote:
>> On 2008-07-07, Nick Finnigan  wrote:
>>
>>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Eh? That makes no sense.  Stopping _is_ an action that avoids hitting
>> the door.
> 
>  It may not be. Even if it is, it may not be reasonable to do so.

Eh? It may not be reasonable to stop?

Are you trying to claim that it would more reasonable (or less 
unreasonble) to not attempt to stop and to hit the door?

Nick Finnigan wrote:
> David Taylor wrote:
>> On 2008-07-07, Nick Finnigan  wrote:
>>
>>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Eh? That makes no sense.  Stopping _is_ an action that avoids hitting
>> the door.
> 
>  It may not be. Even if it is, it may not be reasonable to do so.

But it may be sensible - a bit like stopping at traffic lights!

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

David Taylor  wrote:

> On 2008-07-07, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > BTW, did you manage to find even a single case of someone being
> > prosecuted for opening a door?
> 
> I don't know about being prosecuted, but I do know someone who received
> compensation after some twat opened a door immediately in front of his
> bike.  This was a little before the "no win no fee" floodgates opened...

The compensation wasn't really an issue since I've known people to get
compensation for such incidents. However I'm not aware of any criminal
prosecutions for opening a door and causing an injury, let alone for
opening a door and causing someone to stop.

On 2008-07-07, Nick Finnigan  wrote:
> David Taylor wrote:
>> On 2008-07-07, Nick Finnigan  wrote:
>> 
>>>Alex Heney wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>> 
>> 
>> Eh? That makes no sense.  Stopping _is_ an action that avoids hitting
>> the door.
>
>  It may not be.

It _may_ not be possible to stop, but if they can it is certainly more
reasonable to stop than to continue on and hit the door!  Somehow you
are claiming that even if they stop, the rider CAN NOT reasonable and
safely take avoiding action.  As I said, it makes no sense.

>  Even if it is, it may not be reasonable to do so.

What? Assuming no other avoiding action is possible (e.g., passing
traffic to your right), it'd be unreasonable to do anything other than
stop.

-- 
David Taylor

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:08:18 +0100, Nick Finnigan 
wrote:

>Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 10:46:30 +0100, Nick Finnigan 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Periander wrote:
>>>
>>>>%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote in
>>>>news:1ijmqdc.o45wv71p5469sN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk: 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps getting a clue would help you. The prohibition in the HC is on
>>>>>opening the door and hitting someone or something with the door. If
>>>>>the door has been opened and someone rides or drives into it then they
>>>>>are in the wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>The stupidity of cyclists seems to be without limit. Perhaps they
>>>>>should be made to sit a test before being allowed on the roads?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Actually much as I like to laugh when a cyclist gets taken out as the
>>>>result of his own folly (especially if there's blood, broken bones and a
>>>>wrecked cycle) there is actually an offence of "Opening a door to the
>>>>danger of road users". Don't ask me to quote act and section it's to
>>>>late and I can't be arsed but it's there none the less. 
>>>
>>> Construction and Use regulations.
>>>A person shall not open, or cause or permit to be opened, any door of a 
>>>vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger anyone.
>>>
>>> So you don't have to hit the cyclist, causing him to stop would count. 
>>>Still unclear as to whether a door left open would be dangerous.
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Those who can't write, write help files.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:42:48 +0100, Nick Finnigan 
wrote:

>Steve Firth wrote:
>> Nick Finnigan  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. 

That could perfectly well have been *an* "appropriate" reasonable and
safe avoiding action.

But Steve was 100% correct, provided they were able to stop reasonably
easily.

-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
It's easy to be brave from a safe distance.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 02:58:14 -0700 (PDT), "Sniper8052@yahoo.co.uk"
 wrote:

>On 8 Jul, 12:05, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>> Sniper8...@yahoo.co.uk  wrote:
>> > On 7 Jul, 21:23, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>> > > Nick Finnigan  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.
>>
>> > The offence is opening a car door to danger.  The danger exists
>> > whether or not the person approaching avoids the danger.  If a driver,
>> > or passenger for whom the driver is responsible, causes a person to
>> > stop or swerve to avoid a collision that would have occurred had they
>> > not taken avoiding action in the face of immanent danger then the
>> > driver is still liable for the offence.  If in taking avoiding action
>> > a collision occurs with another road user the driver of the first
>> > vehicle will still be liable.
>>
>> And you have a precedent for this, do you?
>
>Nearly 15 years experience as a police officer any good?
>

No.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Why did Kamakazie pilots wear helmets???
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:02:15 -0700 (PDT), "Sniper8052@yahoo.co.uk"
 wrote:

>On 9 Jul, 21:21, Alex Heney  wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 02:58:14 -0700 (PDT), "Sniper8...@yahoo.co.uk"
>>
>>
<snip>

>> >> > The offence is opening a car door to danger.  The danger exists
>> >> > whether or not the person approaching avoids the danger.  If a driver,
>> >> > or passenger for whom the driver is responsible, causes a person to
>> >> > stop or swerve to avoid a collision that would have occurred had they
>> >> > not taken avoiding action in the face of immanent danger then the
>> >> > driver is still liable for the offence.  If in taking avoiding action
>> >> > a collision occurs with another road user the driver of the first
>> >> > vehicle will still be liable.
>>
>> >> And you have a precedent for this, do you?
>>
<snip>

>
>Not exact citations but they show the principles of contributory
>negligence and opening car door to danger.

thank you.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Backups? We doan *NEED* no steenking baX%^~,VbKx NO CARRIER
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:08:18 +0100, Nick Finnigan 
> 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.

Nick Finnigan wrote:

> Alex Heney wrote:
>> Nick Finnigan  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.

Not every stop is an emergency stop. I haven't made an emergency stop 
for ages (and I'm not posting this from the driver's seat of a moving 
vehicle).

Being forced to stop by an obstruction in the crriageway does not equal 
"emergency stop" without further data.

JNugent wrote:
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
> 
>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>
>>> Nick Finnigan  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.
> 
> 
> Not every stop is an emergency stop. I haven't made an emergency stop 
> for ages (and I'm not posting this from the driver's seat of a moving 
> vehicle).

  Further support for it not being moderate.

> 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.

JNugent wrote:
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
> 
>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>> Nick Finnigan  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.
> 
> Not every stop is an emergency stop. I haven't made an emergency stop 
> for ages (and I'm not posting this from the driver's seat of a moving 
> vehicle).
> 
> Being forced to stop by an obstruction in the crriageway does not equal 
> "emergency stop" without further data.

My last one was when the ramp of the trailer being towed by a tractor in 
front of me fell open. Instantly followed by a dozen or so large sheep 
charging out like the fifth cavalry.

That one certainly would have counted as, "Bringing the vehicle to a 
halt as quickly as possible, whilst maintaining full control".

You just don't get incidents like that in London.

Oh, and yes. A sheep can do a forward roll..
--
Sue

Nick Finnigan wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>>> Nick Finnigan  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.

>> Not every stop is an emergency stop. I haven't made an emergency stop 
>> for ages (and I'm not posting this from the driver's seat of a moving 
>> vehicle).

>  Further support for it not being moderate.

Is that part of the shipping forecast?

It's certainly not a comprehensible reposne to what I wrote.

>> 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.

Palindrome wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>>> Nick Finnigan  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.

>> Not every stop is an emergency stop. I haven't made an emergency stop 
>> for ages (and I'm not posting this from the driver's seat of a moving 
>> vehicle).
>> Being forced to stop by an obstruction in the crriageway does not 
>> equal "emergency stop" without further data.

> My last one was when the ramp of the trailer being towed by a tractor in 
> front of me fell open. Instantly followed by a dozen or so large sheep 
> charging out like the fifth cavalry.
> That one certainly would have counted as, "Bringing the vehicle to a 
> halt as quickly as possible, whilst maintaining full control".
> You just don't get incidents like that in London.
> Oh, and yes. A sheep can do a forward roll..

:-)

I can't claim anything similar, but when I took my driving test, 
xxxxxxxty-six years ago, in N London, the examiner did not belt up 
(well, he wasn't obliged to at the time, none of us were) and he sat 
sort of half-sideways, watching me all the time. We were approaching a 
zebra crossing. A small child ran out of the aweetshop straight across 
the zebra crossing without pausing. I jammed the brakes on and the 
examiner, who had not seen the child at first, banged his head against 
the windscreen. I still passed (first time).

JNugent wrote:
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>>>> Nick Finnigan  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.
>
>>> Not every stop is an emergency stop. I haven't made an emergency
>>> stop for ages (and I'm not posting this from the driver's seat of a
>>> moving vehicle).
>
>>  Further support for it not being moderate.
>
> Is that part of the shipping forecast?
>
> It's certainly not a comprehensible reposne to what I wrote.
>
>>> 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?

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:01:39 +0100, Nick Finnigan 
wrote:

>Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:08:18 +0100, Nick Finnigan 
>> 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.

Note the "provided he *reasonably* could do so" above (emphasis added
here).

An emergency stop is not "reasonable".
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Useless Invention: AC adapter for solar calculators.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:50:04 +0100, "Brimstone"
 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.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Useless Invention: AC adapter for solar calculators.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:27:47 +0100, Alex Heney  wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:50:04 +0100, "Brimstone"
> 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.

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.

In now appears that my doubts were unfounded.

You really do make a habit of defending trolls and as such can be
considered nothing more than a troll yourself.

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.

Alex Heney wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:01:39 +0100, Nick Finnigan 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Alex Heney wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:08:18 +0100, Nick Finnigan 
>>>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.

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?

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:03:26 +0100, 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.
>
>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.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:57:22 +0100, Nick Finnigan 
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.

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.

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.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:39:50 GMT, Digiman@nospam.com (Digiman) wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:27:47 +0100, Alex Heney  wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:50:04 +0100, "Brimstone"
>> 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

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:22:48 GMT, Digiman@nospam.com (Digiman) wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:03:26 +0100, 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.
>>
>>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

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:57:22 +0100, Nick Finnigan 
wrote:

>Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:01:39 +0100, Nick Finnigan 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Alex Heney wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:08:18 +0100, Nick Finnigan 
>>>>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

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:24:45 GMT, Digiman@nospam.com (Digiman) wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:57:22 +0100, Nick Finnigan 
>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".

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
than be in the act of opening, unless you are doing about 1-2mph
(impossible to keep up going that slowly for more than a few seconds
on a bike for any except real expert riders).

But he is the only one who is being silly and pedantic enough to refer
to car doors being "opened in front of you" as only referring to the
time during the actual opening of the door.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:25:03 +0100, Alex Heney  wrote:

>>>>>>> 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.

No, you are falling into the troll mindset.

It is extremely easy to start arguments and keep them going by being
unnecessarily pedantic.

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".

>>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.

Then you are absurdly gullible.

>>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.

Sadly not, as your post here clearly shows.

You are supporting someone who is being pedantic just for the sake of
it.

Because Nick said 'reasonable' when he obviously meant 'practical'
JNugent has cause a wodge of completely unnecessary posts that do not
move the discussion forward. (He could have simply pointed out that the
sentence required the word 'practial' or 'possible' to make sense.

That is the action of a troll and it's a great pity that you cannot see
it's something he makes a practice of.

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:27:50 +0100, Alex Heney  wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:22:48 GMT, Digiman@nospam.com (Digiman) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:03:26 +0100, 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.
>>>
>>>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
>
It may explain why you don't consider some action trolling and I (and
others) do.

I consider wholly unnecessary hair splitting to be part of the armoury
of the troll because it is ideal for accomplishing troll aims.

>>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".

Instead of just asking.

Perverse, isn't it?

I have given you concrete examples of where the troll 'judith' has kept
an argument going by deliberately avoiding mentioning what the actual
problem was despite being perfectly well arware of it simply in order to
protract the argument.

It has previous admited to being a troll and yet you continue to defend
it.

Also perverse.

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:30:41 +0100, Alex Heney  wrote:

>
>This is you very much splitting hairs, and stupidly so.

Yet you defend known trolls stupidly spilting hairs.

Odd.

Digiman wrote:


> I consider wholly unnecessary hair splitting to be part of the armoury
> of the troll because it is ideal for accomplishing troll aims.

I think you have to realise the thread is answered by people in
uk.legal, where hairsplitting could be enough to get someone off in a
court of law, or indeed make them guilty. Many cases are judged by such
adherence to the letter of the law, and carefully worded statements.

--

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:20:36 GMT, Digiman@nospam.com (Digiman) wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:30:41 +0100, Alex Heney  wrote:
>
>>
>>This is you very much splitting hairs, and stupidly so.
>
>Yet you defend known trolls stupidly spilting hairs.
>
>Odd.

No I don't.

My "defence" has been of those who are arguing *against* the hair
splitting of Nick.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Faith is good, but scepticism is better. - Giuseppe Verdi
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 02:39:24 -0700 (PDT), "Sniper8052@yahoo.co.uk"
 wrote:

>On 7 Jul, 21:23, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>> Nick Finnigan  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.
>
>I don't know what happened to my post so here goes again.
>
>The offence is opening a car door to danger.  The offence is complete
>whether the approaching traffic avoids the danger or not.  The offence
>may be committed by either the driver or a passenger and the driver is
>liable for the actions of his passengers. 

Are you sure about this - how can that be the case? If someone in the
rear seat of a car opens the car door on to a cyclist - how can the
driver be at fault.  Even if he said watch that cyclist - he would be
in no position to stop the door being opened.
What law are you thinking of?

Alex Heney wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:24:45 GMT, Digiman@nospam.com (Digiman) wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:57:22 +0100, Nick Finnigan 
>>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.

Alex Heney wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:57:22 +0100, Nick Finnigan 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Alex Heney wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:01:39 +0100, Nick Finnigan 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Alex Heney wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:08:18 +0100, Nick Finnigan 
>>>>>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.