General Questions Thread

[Furuno]

Umm... What's genre is a music that mix classic orchestra with rock/metal/alternative?

Thanks...

[escimo]

Originally Posted by Sephi

Situation:

1. hit the breaks and still hit the child (not enough time to stop).
2. Try evade him.

Say you did #2. And you hit a parked car on the other side of the street when trying to evade the child.

No one injured. And only the cars damaged. Who is going to be held responsible for the damage? The parents of the child or you who tried to evade the child and hit a car in the process?

I'd say generally the driver of the car. Insurance-wise holding the child or his/her parents responsible would be virtually impossible. Depends naturally on local insurance policies and legislation.

#1. Still isn't any better. Possible legal consequences may vary from wounding, battery or assault to involuntary manslaughter.

I'm no liar... sorry, lawyer so can't say for sure but here in Finland that's generally about how it goes...

[NightWish]

Originally Posted by Sephi

No one injured. And only the cars damaged. Who is going to be held responsible for the damage? The parents of the child or you who tried to evade the child and hit a car in the process?

On the balance of the evidence presented, I would say the driver would be considered at fault. Based on my understand of UK law at least, part of "driving with due care and attention" assumes that the driving speed is always adjusted according to the prevailing conditions. This is no higher than the legal limit but often much lower if the situation demands it. Some roads might be marked "30 MPH" but you would be driving without due care to do more than 10. In fact, a road where I live is much like this, outside a school. Took them years to officially lower the speed limit. Basically, if the road situation was such that cars parked along a narrow road, in a way that made it possible for a child to jump out unseen until the last moment forcing you to hit one of the parked cars, it does not matter how impossible it is to predict that moment, the driver is required to slow down in preparation. At a much slower speed the driver's reactions, to avoid the child, would be quicker and the damage from the impact with the parked car would be lessened.

This might be different in the US, however, as they have "j-walking" laws. We do not have such restrictions on UK roads, with perhaps the exception of a motorway, but that is slightly different.

[Sephi]

Originally Posted by escimo

I'd say generally the driver of the car. Insurance-wise holding the child or his/her parents responsible would be virtually impossible. Depends naturally on local insurance policies and legislation.

#1. Still isn't any better. Possible legal consequences may vary from wounding, battery or assault to involuntary manslaughter.

I'm no liar... sorry, lawyer so can't say for sure but here in Finland that's generally about how it goes...

But even if #1 happened under the condition of you were just driving at a normal speed. Not over the allowed limit. And seeing the situation of it being just impossible to foresee a child suddenly jumping from behind a parked car. I as a driver still risk being prosecuted oO ?

I had a feeling #2 would be something like that. Though i didn't thought #1 would be like that. The world is to cruel

After reading NightWish post the question i as about to ask is sort of answered i guess. Think most of the rules are sort of similar.

Thanks for answering both of you

[-KarumA-]

Originally Posted by xris

Panoramic, see Panorama, Panoramic photography.

thats the word thank you Ojisan!

[Vinak]

basically... all pedestrians have the "right of way"

by law, a driver must have control over his or her vehicle at all times.

regardless of the situation, you are responsible if you hit a person while driving a vehicle.

I am sure they have some exceptions to this but don't count on it.

[Aoie_Emesai]

Originally Posted by Sephi

Something somewhat random.

Situation:
Your driving in a somewhat crowded city, you are not speeding and driving at the speed that is allowed. Suddenly a playing child jumps from behind a parked car. It was impossible to foresee something like this coming. You have the choice of:

1. hit the breaks and still hit the child (not enough time to stop).
2. Try evade him.

Say you did #2. And you hit a parked car on the other side of the street when trying to evade the child.

No one injured. And only the cars damaged. Who is going to be held responsible for the damage? The parents of the child or you who tried to evade the child and hit a car in the process?

I'm sorry to say but from my experience I would say you, the driver even if it's the childs fault. No one will blame the child even if it's the silliest or most stupidiest thing the child could've done.

[NoSanninWa]

Ledgem, thanks for qualifying the difference between ojisan's answer and my own.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by furuno

Umm... What's genre is a music that mix classic orchestra with rock/metal/alternative?

I presume you are thinking of music produced by artistes such as Vanessa-Mae and the Bond quartet. The genre doesn't seem to have a name, but it's been grouped under classical crossover in Wikipedia.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Sephi

Something somewhat random.

Situation:
Your driving in a somewhat crowded city, you are not speeding and driving at the speed that is allowed. Suddenly a playing child jumps from behind a parked car. It was impossible to foresee something like this coming. You have the choice of:

1. hit the breaks and still hit the child (not enough time to stop).
2. Try evade him.

Say you did #2. And you hit a parked car on the other side of the street when trying to evade the child.

No one injured. And only the cars damaged. Who is going to be held responsible for the damage? The parents of the child or you who tried to evade the child and hit a car in the process?

You and your insurance would probably end up paying for damages, as others have said.

However, if there is reason to believe that the accident was unavoidable by the driver and caused by the child's actions, in most places the parents of the child could be sued to collect for money lost.

[Ledgem]

As far as I know, New York State regards the fault to be of the person causing the collision. If you and I are both in cars and I rear-end you, the fault is mine. If someone then rear-ends me, the fault for hitting me is theirs. A "real life" example of this that I was involved with: some guy stopped on the side of a two-lane road that didn't have an emergency stopping zone more than a foot long (the road was divided by a double-yellow; in other words, you're not allowed to pass them). He was in his car, chatting with a friend who was outside of the car. Some lady had stopped behind them and was waiting. My friend and I came out of a turn a little way up, saw this, and slammed on the brakes. As there was a down-hill incline we couldn't stop fast enough; to avoid hitting the lady's car, we hit a fire hydrant. Low-speed collision but my friend's car sustained some nasty damage.

I would have thought for sure that the mucker who had stopped in the road would be held accountable in some way for that, but we were advised not to try anything with insurance. While he might have been guilty of violations such as obstructing the flow of traffic and stopping without emergency cause, my friend as the driver would have been held responsible for his own damage (and any damage to the fire hydrant - which looked fine and hadn't even moved). The reason being that unless the collision was due to something like ice, you should always be going at a speed that allows you to stop safely and avoid hazards. Even if the roads are wet, you're instructed to reduce your speed so that you can still maintain that level of control.

It may vary by locality, but that's the general reasoning and in most cases it does make a lot of sense. In Sephi's scenario, it would likely still be the fault of the driver. If the child jumps out at the car, it may be seen as the fault of the child... however, I've heard of some people in NYC basically running at cars, getting hit, and then successfully suing for bodily harm. If you were able to see the obstacle but couldn't stop in time, you were probably going too fast (or so the line of reasoning would go).

[Sephi]

Sounds very unfair for the driver. Seems like the driver is the victim no matter what he does in this situation. Guess i'll keep that in mind when i drive

Thanks for everyones opinion

[Aoie_Emesai]

Originally Posted by Sephi

Sounds very unfair for the driver. Seems like the driver is the victim no matter what he does in this situation. Guess i'll keep that in mind when i drive

Thanks for everyones opinion

You are responsible for only your car when you are driving there, Sephi. But this only differ a bit when you're on the highway and there's idiots who you know are driving dangerous, just let them pass and it's time to worry about your safety and move away from the possible accident.

---

Ok, in Rock Band there's a song by the name of "Still Alive" by Glados which after a bit of research and added information from my rock band buddies it's from Portal's ending credit. But is it a real singer? or it like Vocaloid and is a generated voice?

[qtipbrit]

Quick grammar question:

Does the verb "destroy" require an object?

My partner and I working on an essay are in disagreement, as though it is being used figuratively, I think it requires an object for clarification.
He's quite knowledgable in English grammar and whatnot, but as am I, so I'm quite sure who is correct.

Here's the verb used in context:
"Unlike existentialists, skeptics, and other similar philosophers, though, nihilists do not simply argue the lack of these aspects of reality; rather, they actively try to destroy - as Nietzsche writes..."

[tripperazn]

Yes, I think it does. The example sentence sounds extremely awkward, and you're left asking, "destroy...destroy what?".

Also, the "though" is unnecessary, cut it. Too many damn commas and punctuation marks in general. It may impress your teacher that you can construct complex sentences, but it's a pain to read. Possible misuse of the colon, you don't tack on a sentence afterwards, only one clause. I think. Definite misuse of the hyphen.

As my AP English teacher used to say, "the fewer commas your sentence contains, the better". It went without saying that you shouldn't use those advanced punctuation marks unless you absolutely cannot make do without them, or you're trying for some sort of stylistic impression in your writing.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by tripperazn

Yes, I think it does. The example sentence sounds extremely awkward, and you're left asking, "destroy...destroy what?".

I don't think it needs to be qualified. You could say "destroy what" but it sounds like these people try to destroy, period. I guess if we had it in context with the entire essay it'd be clearer to tell whether this explains itself or whether there's something missing.

[tripperazn]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I don't think it needs to be qualified. You could say "destroy what" but it sounds like these people try to destroy, period. I guess if we had it in context with the entire essay it'd be clearer to tell whether this explains itself or whether there's something missing.

It sounds more natural to target the verb with a noun, in this specific case at least. Yes, Nihilists could very well want to destroy in general, but I think they want to say destroy "these aspects of reality". I'm not sure what's the harm in adding a simple "them" after "destroy", unless there is some sort of strict word limit. Even then, I wouldn't cut out the noun.

Generally, I've been told to clarify as much as possible. If the reader has to go back and reread for clarity (which I did), you've failed to convey the message adequately.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by qtipbrit92

Quick grammar question:

Does the verb "destroy" require an object?

My partner and I working on an essay are in disagreement, as though it is being used figuratively, I think it requires an object for clarification.
He's quite knowledgable in English grammar and whatnot, but as am I, so I'm quite sure who is correct.

Here's the verb used in context:
"Unlike existentialists, skeptics, and other similar philosophers, though, nihilists do not simply argue the lack of these aspects of reality; rather, they actively try to destroy - as Nietzsche writes..."

"Destroy" is normally a transitive verb (meaning it requires an object). However, in certain contexts, an object can be understood.

Personally, I think the object should be clarified there.

[qtipbrit]

Originally Posted by tripperazn

Yes, I think it does. The example sentence sounds extremely awkward, and you're left asking, "destroy...destroy what?".

Also, the "though" is unnecessary, cut it. Too many damn commas and punctuation marks in general. It may impress your teacher that you can construct complex sentences, but it's a pain to read. Possible misuse of the colon, you don't tack on a sentence afterwards, only one clause. I think. Definite misuse of the hyphen.

As my AP English teacher used to say, "the fewer commas your sentence contains, the better". It went without saying that you shouldn't use those advanced punctuation marks unless you absolutely cannot make do without them, or you're trying for some sort of stylistic impression in your writing.

Our teacher stresses the same things as well, so I omitted the extra words and such from his draft.
He tends to be a bit wordy in his writing.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I don't think it needs to be qualified. You could say "destroy what" but it sounds like these people try to destroy, period. I guess if we had it in context with the entire essay it'd be clearer to tell whether this explains itself or whether there's something missing.

He sent me the rest of his draft once he had finished, and since I hadn't seen which quote he was using before, I think it's fine to just use "destroy" without an object in this case.
"As Nietzsche writes, 'Nihilism is. . . not only the belief that everything deserves to perish; but one actually puts one's shoulder to the plough; one destroys.'"

[NoSanninWa]

As Kyuusai says, this can be accepted in certain contexts, but there's a difference between "allowable" and "good." I'd also advise you not to copy Nietzsche's use of 2 semi-colons and an elipses in a single sentence.

Quite frankly, while Nietzsche was brilliant in certain ways, he is not exactly known for his clarity of writing. I wouldn't advise copying his style unless you have a good reason for it.