On 2008-08-04 22:42:11 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48977223@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-04 21:58:54 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



You didn't answer the earlier question. You're driving along a road
at less than the speed limit and a dog steps out 2m in front of you.
Inevitably you will hit it. When you got to the dog it was already in
your path.

Would you consider that to be your fault?



This is irrelevant, it is not what was described.

The point is that you know full well that if the dog ran out 2m in
front of you and you ran it down, you would not consider it to be your
fault, but you ducked the question.


As it is you are making assumptions that don't work.
You assume I will be driving too fast to stop, just because you do
doesn't mean everyone does.

So how fast would you have been driving? At what distance would you
say that it's reasonable to be able to stop?


You are required to drive no faster than you can "see".

What does that mean? Sounds very vague.


If you are driving down a wall and you hit someone that steps out of an
opening in that wall it is your fault for driving too fast.
You can play around with your stupid question all you want.
If you want an answer you will have to provide *far* more information.
Post a picture or two, maybe a video.
As it is your question is stupid and is getting the answer it deserves.

Ducking the issue because you can't really answer it without admitting
that with the exception of being over or under the speed limit,
"driving too fast" is a value judgment for a given situation.

You can't give an absolute rating to it by saying simplistically that
if a driver hits something he had to be driving too fast. As has been
illustrated, in extremis you would have to be traveling at zero speed
to achieve zero risk.