|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists 'urged to get insurance'
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 10:31:44 -0800 (PST), Justin
wrote: We can then post originals and your translations to *a Dutch newsgroup to see just how fluent you are. Up for that? I do professional translations: Dutch English and at a push German English. You pay, I translate. So you don't do English to Dutch then. That's surprising if you are fluent. |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists 'urged to get insurance'
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 10:19:49 -0800 (PST), Justin
wrote: On 29 nov, 18:47, Judith wrote: On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 08:37:05 -0800 (PST), Justin wrote: On 29 nov, 15:19, Judith wrote: On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 04:39:44 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason wrote: On Nov 29, 6:11 am, Justin wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Bq1vxCUvo-Hidequoted text - - Show quoted text - Thanks for posting that link - it was very interesting. Apart from the advert that is. ... and the fact that what it said was ********. In terms of lying or that you do not agree with it? Both - I see that you did not answer my questions/points - let's try again The video says: "Who is at fault in bike vs car smashes - in the Netherlands it is always the car " Are you saying that what the speaker claimed *- above - is correct? So you are saying that if you are going through a junction in a car and some knob-head on a push-bike goes through their red-light and you hit them then it is your fault? "When, erm, an accident happens IN GENERAL the car driver is liable" (my capitals) are the first words of Hans Voerknecht's narration. That is correct. I never said, nor am I saying, that if you are in your car and hit a cyclist who has gone through a red light it is your fault. This law is not about fault: it is about financial liability. fault and liability are separate concepts: do try to understand that. So when the video said: "Who is at fault in bike vs car smashes - in the Netherlands it is always the car " - it wasn't actually correct - thanks. I'm surprised that, being fluent in Dutch, you haven't yet given your translation of the piece from earlier on. Would you like to give it a go: Als bij een verkeerslicht vaak fietsers door rood rijden, moet een auto zijn rijgedrag hieraan aanpassen. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists 'urged to get insurance'
On 29/11/2011 18:19, Justin wrote:
wrote: wrote: wrote: Simon wrote: wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Bq1vxCUvo Thanks for posting that link - it was very interesting. Apart from the advert that is. ... and the fact that what it said was ********. In terms of lying or that you do not agree with it? Both - I see that you did not answer my questions/points - let's try again The video says: "Who is at fault in bike vs car smashes - in the Netherlands it is always the car " Are you saying that what the speaker claimed - above - is correct? So you are saying that if you are going through a junction in a car and some knob-head on a push-bike goes through their red-light and you hit them then it is your fault? "When, erm, an accident happens IN GENERAL the car driver is liable" (my capitals) are the first words of Hans Voerknecht's narration. That is correct. I never said, nor am I saying, that if you are in your car and hit a cyclist who has gone through a red light it is your fault. This law is not about fault: it is about financial liability. fault and liability are separate concepts: Not in English law, they aren't. do try to understand that. I couldn't improve on that bit. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists 'urged to get insurance'
On 29/11/2011 19:04, Judith wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 10:26:17 -0800 (PST), wrote: On 29 nov, 18:42, wrote: On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 08:33:33 -0800 (PST), wrote: On 29 nov, 16:16, wrote: On 29/11/2011 13:45, Justin wrote: On 29 nov, 13:30, Simon wrote: On Nov 29, 5:59 am, wrote: On 28 nov, 23:29, wrote: On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:59:00 -0800 (PST), wrote: The sentence in question comes at the end of this passage and adds that in places where cyclists often ride through red lights a motorist would be expected to have taken that into account, otherwise he will be liable. I doubt if you are fluent in Dutch This is as incorrect as your assumption about what the words mean. Ik spreek Nederlands zeer goed omdat Ik ga na Nederland elke jaar voor onze vacancies. Lekker hoor :-) Hi Simon: not a bad attempt; Think about word order That's so often the problem when using Babel Fish or Google Translate. The Google product is better though. Ik spreek Nederlands omdat ik elk jaar op vakantie naar Nederland ga. Yeah, rechts. Hoeveel mensen - vooral Britten - erin slagen om een vreemde taal te leren tijdens de vakantie? Gekomen dat, hoeveel Britse folk gemotiveerd zijn om Nederlands te leren als de Nederlandse - bijna een man in de jongere generaties - spreken Engels beter dan ze doen in Hull? You translation programme has a number of serious defects. The second sentence is completely incorrect and is as good as impossible to follow. Rechts means the direction right. If you meant "correct" you would need a different word. But what would I know? Judith knows I am incapable of speaking fluent Dutch. I must be making it up. I love the way you said if your mean "correct" - you would need a different word - odd that you didn't know which of the dictionary options was the word to use. Opening a dictionary is no evidence of commanding a language. I notice you studiuosly avoid the knowledge of Dutch grammar which I displayed earlier in this thread. So if I post a 10 line paragraph in each of the two languages - you will be able to post the translations. After all you are perfectly fluent in Dutch aren't you? Yes. We can then post originals and your translations to a Dutch newsgroup to see just how fluent you are. http://groups.google.com/group/nl.fi... ab6cee8dda5b I Indeed - you are so fluent in Dutch that you have made as many as nine posts to the Dutch cycling newsgroup (nl.fiets) in the last nine years. Were they all at the time when you were learning Dutch - and your Dutch teacher gave you a hand? What's the matter - are the discussions about Dutch cycling not up to much - or is it your Dutch which is not up to much. Most odd. Having looked at all of your posts - they could have been written by JNugent :-) Despite my several trips to the Netherlands most years (and always at least one), I am the first to admit that my command of Dutch is as near to non-existent as it is possible to be without actually being non-existent. In writing - especially signage - the language is fairly easy to get the gist of, so similar as it is to German and to English. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists 'urged to get insurance'
On 29/11/2011 19:16, Judith wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 10:19:49 -0800 (PST), wrote: On 29 nov, 18:47, wrote: On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 08:37:05 -0800 (PST), wrote: On 29 nov, 15:19, wrote: On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 04:39:44 -0800 (PST), Simon wrote: On Nov 29, 6:11 am, wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Bq1vxCUvo-Hidequoted text - - Show quoted text - Thanks for posting that link - it was very interesting. Apart from the advert that is. ... and the fact that what it said was ********. In terms of lying or that you do not agree with it? Both - I see that you did not answer my questions/points - let's try again The video says: "Who is at fault in bike vs car smashes - in the Netherlands it is always the car " Are you saying that what the speaker claimed - above - is correct? So you are saying that if you are going through a junction in a car and some knob-head on a push-bike goes through their red-light and you hit them then it is your fault? "When, erm, an accident happens IN GENERAL the car driver is liable" (my capitals) are the first words of Hans Voerknecht's narration. That is correct. I never said, nor am I saying, that if you are in your car and hit a cyclist who has gone through a red light it is your fault. This law is not about fault: it is about financial liability. fault and liability are separate concepts: do try to understand that. So when the video said: "Who is at fault in bike vs car smashes - in the Netherlands it is always the car " - it wasn't actually correct - thanks. I'm surprised that, being fluent in Dutch, you haven't yet given your translation of the piece from earlier on. Would you like to give it a go: Als bij een verkeerslicht vaak fietsers door rood rijden, moet een auto zijn rijgedrag hieraan aanpassen. It are raining not here also. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists 'urged to get insurance'
On 29 nov, 20:16, Judith wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 10:19:49 -0800 (PST), Justin wrote: On 29 nov, 18:47, Judith wrote: On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 08:37:05 -0800 (PST), Justin wrote: On 29 nov, 15:19, Judith wrote: On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 04:39:44 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason wrote: On Nov 29, 6:11 am, Justin wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Bq1...Hidequotedtext - - Show quoted text - Thanks for posting that link - it was very interesting. Apart from the advert that is. ... and the fact that what it said was ********. In terms of lying or that you do not agree with it? Both - I see that you did not answer my questions/points - let's try again The video says: "Who is at fault in bike vs car smashes - in the Netherlands it is always the car " Are you saying that what the speaker claimed - above - is correct? So you are saying that if you are going through a junction in a car and some knob-head on a push-bike goes through their red-light and you hit them then it is your fault? "When, *erm, an accident happens IN GENERAL *the car driver is liable" (my capitals) are the first words of Hans Voerknecht's narration. That is correct. I never said, nor am I saying, that if you are in your car and hit a cyclist who has gone through a red light it is your fault. This law is not about fault: it is about financial liability. fault and liability are separate concepts: do try to understand that. So when the video said: *"Who is at fault in bike vs car smashes - in the Netherlands it *is always the car " - it wasn't actually correct - thanks. I'm surprised that, being fluent in Dutch, you haven't yet given your translation of the piece from earlier on. *Would you like to give it a go: Als bij een verkeerslicht vaak fietsers door rood rijden, moet een auto zijn rijgedrag hieraan aanpassen. This sentence is not written in good Dutch, by the way. It means: "If at a set of traffic lights cyclists often jump the red light, a car (sic) must adjust its driving behaviour accordingly/ aappropriately". |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists 'urged to get insurance'
So you don't do English to Dutch then. *That's surprising if you are fluent. Of course I do. But the best advice is that one should translate into one's mother language |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists 'urged to get insurance'
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:52:16 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: I see no compelling evidence that there is a significant imbalance of danger and vulnerability, Probably because you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and shout "Nooooo" loudly. A few weeks ago a lady in a town near here was killed by a cyclist. It didn't appear in the papers and won't appear in any statistics. She was old and knocked over in a pedestrian area by a cyclist who, as is not uncommon, rode off. She was helped by staff in the shopping precinct and went home. Next day she couldn't get out of bed and was taken to hospital where a broken hip was diagnosed. She was operated on and died shortly afterwards. No significant imbalance of danger and vulnerability? Well of course not if all you are interested in doing is making sure that no law ever applies to any cyclist. The minor god of momentum and cycling stupidity Franklin seems to think most cyclist travel faster than the maximum allowed for electric bikes. In Holland electric bikes have to have compulsory insurance because they are subject to a presumption of liability. In the UK cycling speeds are much higher than in Holland. The energy in a push bike going at 20 MPH is significantly higher than that of an electric bike going at 15MPH. Logically if Franklin and the Dutch are right cyclists in the UK should be subject to a presumption of liability in accidents involving pedestrians. "I don't look so I don't see any problem" isn't a terribly convincing argument against that. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists 'urged to get insurance'
On Nov 29, 6:31*pm, Justin wrote:
We can then post originals and your translations to *a Dutch newsgroup to see just how fluent you are. Up for that? I do professional translations: Dutch English and at a push German English. You pay, I translate. Can you translate this song for me? :-) Ik zou best nog wel een keertje net als vroeger, in Moerwijk willen wonen Na het eten een partijtje voetbal in de tuin, de ouders langs de lijn En in December met de hele buurt op jacht om kertbomen te rausen Op oudjaarsavond fikkie stoken, vooral die autobanden rookten fijn Ik zou best nog wel een keertje met de ouwe naar ADO willen kijken In het Zuiderpark, de lange zij, een warme worst, supporters om je heen Lekker kankeren op Theo van der Burgh en die lange van Vianen Want bij elke lange bal dan dook die eikel er steevast overheen Refrein Oh, oh, Den Haag, mooie stad achter de duinen, de schilderswijk, de lange poten en het plein Oh, oh, Den Haag, ik zou met niemand willen ruilen, Meteen gaan huilen als ik geen Hagenees zou zijn Ik zou best nog wel een keertje net als vroeger een nachie willen stappen Op mijn puch een wijfie halen en daarna dansen in de Marathon En na afloop op het Rijswijkse plein een harinkie gaan happen De dag daarna een kater dus naar Scheveningen, lekker bakken in de zon Refrein Oh, oh, Den Haag, mooie stad achter de duinen, de schilderswijk, de lange poten en het plein Oh, oh, Den Haag, ik zou met niemand willen ruilen, Meteen gaan huilen als ik geen Hagenees zou zijn Ik zou best nog wel een keertje net als vroeger, . . . . ach wat leg ik toch te dromen Want Den Haag is door de jaren zo veranderd, voor mij toch veel te vlug joh Dat Nieuw Babylon, moest dat er trouwens eigenlijk nou wel zo nodig komen Zo komt die ooievaar op de Vijverbergdus never nooit meer terug Oh, oh, Den Haag, mooie stad achter de duinen, de schilderswijk, de lange poten en het plein Oh, oh, Den Haag, ik zou met niemand willen ruilen, Meteen gaan huilen als ik geen Hagenees zou zijn Meteen gaan huilen, als ik geen Hagenees zou zijn -- Simon Mason |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists 'urged to get insurance'
On 30 nov, 04:32, Simon Mason wrote:
On Nov 29, 6:31*pm, Justin wrote: We can then post originals and your translations to *a Dutch newsgroup to see just how fluent you are. Up for that? I do professional translations: Dutch English and at a push German English. You pay, I translate. Can you translate this song for me? :-) Ik zou best nog wel een keertje net als vroeger, in Moerwijk willen wonen Na het eten een partijtje voetbal in de tuin, de ouders langs de lijn En in December met de hele buurt op jacht om kertbomen te rausen Op oudjaarsavond fikkie stoken, vooral die autobanden rookten fijn Ik zou best nog wel een keertje met de ouwe naar ADO willen kijken In het Zuiderpark, de lange zij, een warme worst, supporters om je heen Lekker kankeren op Theo van der Burgh en die lange van Vianen Want bij elke lange bal dan dook die eikel er steevast overheen Refrein Oh, oh, Den Haag, mooie stad achter de duinen, de schilderswijk, de lange poten en het plein Oh, oh, Den Haag, ik zou met niemand willen ruilen, Meteen gaan huilen als ik geen Hagenees zou zijn Ik zou best nog wel een keertje net als vroeger een nachie willen stappen Op mijn puch een wijfie halen en daarna dansen in de Marathon En na afloop op het Rijswijkse plein een harinkie gaan happen De dag daarna een kater dus naar Scheveningen, lekker bakken in de zon Refrein Oh, oh, Den Haag, mooie stad achter de duinen, de schilderswijk, de lange poten en het plein Oh, oh, Den Haag, ik zou met niemand willen ruilen, Meteen gaan huilen als ik geen Hagenees zou zijn Ik zou best nog wel een keertje net als vroeger, . . . . ach wat leg ik toch te dromen Want Den Haag is door de jaren zo veranderd, voor mij toch veel te vlug joh Dat Nieuw Babylon, moest dat er trouwens eigenlijk nou wel zo nodig komen Zo komt die ooievaar op de Vijverbergdus never nooit meer terug Oh, oh, Den Haag, mooie stad achter de duinen, de schilderswijk, de lange poten en het plein Oh, oh, Den Haag, ik zou met niemand willen ruilen, Meteen gaan huilen als ik geen Hagenees zou zijn Meteen gaan huilen, als ik geen Hagenees zou zijn -- Simon Mason I don't think I will be able to get it to scan! Harry Jekkers, I believe |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pavement cycling to be made legal in Edinburgh. | Simon Mason[_4_] | UK | 11 | May 16th 11 11:36 AM |
Cycling wrong way up one way streets to be made legal | POHB | UK | 66 | June 15th 08 12:23 AM |
Is it legal? Wearing a MP3 player whilst cycling? | [email protected] | UK | 20 | May 12th 07 08:00 PM |
Legal standpoint of cycling and road use | MO | UK | 40 | April 28th 07 08:50 PM |
Drugs and prozac legal in cycling? | sockypup | Social Issues | 0 | December 9th 05 07:48 PM |