Page 4 of 4

Re: 'Advanced' - a solicitor writes

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:03 pm
by Horse
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.

Re: 'Advanced' - a solicitor writes

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:39 pm
by GTR1400MAN
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. :(

Re: 'Advanced' - a solicitor writes

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:10 am
by Horse
Another is on rhanders the rider having their head over the centreline.

Re: 'Advanced' - a solicitor writes

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:28 am
by jont-
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. :bash:

Re: 'Advanced' - a solicitor writes

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:33 am
by Horse
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. :bash:


Why's that, don't you want to give up the view position for [their] safety? :lol: :racing: :steering:

Re: 'Advanced' - a solicitor writes

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:40 pm
by Silk
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 mainbeam 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. :D

Re: 'Advanced' - a solicitor writes

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:36 pm
by sussex2
I prefer not to call it 'Advanced Driving' rather 'More Educated Driving' or 'Smoother Driving'.

Re: 'Advanced' - a solicitor writes

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:39 pm
by sussex2
jont- wrote:I've expected witnesses to think I'm drunk when I'm merely dodging potholes and sunken drains :evil:

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.