Who was at the wheel" case to be heard. 580

Alex Heney

...

Except in the (unspecified) conditions where it can't be done, you mean?

Absolutely. Why did it take you three or four exchanges of posts on that topic (and that very clear wording) to arrive at the very point I made four posts back?

Never mind... that's a rhetorical question.

We agree.

Absolutely.

You've already agreed what it means (see above).

What is a "stupidly tight driveway"? One that shouldn't really be used? One that should never have been built?

I disagree with that fundamentally. See * below.

It's not a problem, or, to the extent that it is, it is a problem that is widely shared and which has simple, practical, solutions meaning that it is not problematic as experienced. * How many UK houses have driveways on which all the doors of a car - especially a two-door - can be fully opened without the risk of collision with something? Maybe it isn't a problem in a millionaire's row, or in houses where the whole front garden has been turned into a hard-standing, but everywhere else, it's likely to be a problem on at least one side of the driveway.

...

...like where you wouldn't be able to open the driver's door without the risk of damage.

What does that matter?

Hmmm...

As it happens, you are wrong.

It doesn't. We value the sightline at the end of the drive. ...

No. But "if you can" means rather more than merely being able to get the vehicle off the road. The practicalities of access are relevant.

...

I never said it wasn't. I said that in the conditions which prevail at my house, I prefer the combination of speed, convenience and safety that I get from driving in and reversing out. Many, many people do the same every day. It simply isn't dangerous and it is hyperbole to describe it so.

Many, many people do the same every day. It isn't dangerous.