'Advanced' - a solicitor writes
Re: 'Advanced' - a solicitor writes
And . . . Using an example as given, if you're in an offside position within the lane for view - but ignore the oncoming vehicle when Rc suggests you should give up view for safety, then you're not even following the principles of your 'qualification' - so digging a hole for the opposition to exploit.
Your 'standard' is how you drive alone, not how you drive during a test.
- GTR1400MAN
- Posts: 2211
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 12:23 pm
Re: 'Advanced' - a solicitor writes
Horse wrote:. . . if you're in an offside position within the lane for view - but ignore the oncoming vehicle when Rc suggests you should give up view for safety . . .
A very common fault in the bike world.
Mike Roberts - Now riding a Triumph Explorer XRT. My username comes from my 50K miles on a Kawasaki 1400GTR, after many years on Hondas of various shapes and styles. - https://tinyurl.com/mikerobertsonyoutube
Re: 'Advanced' - a solicitor writes
Another is on rhanders the rider having their head over the centreline.
Your 'standard' is how you drive alone, not how you drive during a test.
Re: 'Advanced' - a solicitor writes
Horse wrote:Another is on rhanders the rider having their head over the centreline.
Yes, I get very pissed off when I meet those muppets.
Re: 'Advanced' - a solicitor writes
jont- wrote:Horse wrote:Another is on rhanders the rider having their head over the centreline.
Yes, I get very pissed off when I meet those muppets.
Why's that, don't you want to give up the view position for [their] safety?
Your 'standard' is how you drive alone, not how you drive during a test.
Re: 'Advanced' - a solicitor writes
Strangely Brown wrote:Silk wrote:Strangely Brown wrote:What doesn't make any sense?
I'm usually very suspicious of people who use Latin. I was simply pointing out that even its direct translation is meaningless nonsense.
Well, the direct translation is inaccurate so that probably doesn't help. Try reading up on "argument from authority" or "appeal to authority".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
The point is that using an advanced driving qualification (e.g. IAM test pass) to support an argument when it is arguably not a qualification and certainly not authoritative is a bit silly. If the argument cannot stand without the fallacy then it is weak and will fall.
As userLeft1 said: "'Better to convince than impress."
That now makes sense. I often wonder if the job of a lawyer is simply to translate obvious stuff into Latin and then charge £250 per hour to translate it back again.
Re: 'Advanced' - a solicitor writes
I prefer not to call it 'Advanced Driving' rather 'More Educated Driving' or 'Smoother Driving'.
Re: 'Advanced' - a solicitor writes
jont- wrote:I've expected witnesses to think I'm drunk when I'm merely dodging potholes and sunken drains
As for court, I thought we were supposed to get a jury of our peers, so really it shouldn't be a jury of anyone unless they're also advanced trained.
It's an interesting precedent for autonomous cars that "better" isn't good enough (if we're being sold on the idea that they are "better" than human drivers but can still be fallible).
A jury will have the same prejudices as any other group of people. It is one reason why I believe, and have done for many years, that the right to appeal should be exactly that, and in all cases.
Return to “Advanced Driving - Bikes”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests