More bad news in London
elyob
Once again, lorries involved in both incidents.
RudiL
> Two female cyclists have been killed in London in the last 24 hours.
> Once again, lorries involved in both incidents.
Dreadful.
Neil Williams
> Once again, lorries involved in both incidents.
As a pedestrian, the aggressive, fast driving of lorries in Central
London bothers me a lot. Indeed, it was in some ways better before
the Congestion Charge, as they couldn't move as quickly as the cars
slowed them down.
It creates an extremely oppressive atmosphere. I can see a real case
for a strictly enforced 20mph speed limit in Central London during the
day to combat it.
Neil
spindrift
Half of all cyclists killed in London are killed by lorry drivers.
Every day I see lorry drivers run red lights, side swipe cyclists,
chat on a mobile phone whilst negotiating narrow, crowded streets. And
many tipper lorries, remember, are paid by the load so they have an
incentive to take absurd risks around vulnerable road users. This has
got to stop, people are dying needlessly, if a death occurs on a
building site the HSE would crawl all over the scene, on the roads
it's a different matter.
Lorry drivers can be aggressive, they take absurd risks and bully
other road users off the roads. Until proper criminal sanctions exist
for drivers who are reading the paper or chatting on a mobile then
these deaths will continue.
Lorry drivers in London can be cautious, considerate drivers.
Many lorry drivers in London are borderline sociopaths, I've seen a
scaffolding lorry hurl cigarette butts at cyclists and bully them out
of the way.
I called the company to complain and was met with indifference. I've
seen lorry drivers read newspapers at the wheel, chat away happily on
a mobile and take stupid risks around cyclists. Look at the Emma Foa
case- the driver was found guilty of checking his paperwork as he
drove a twenty ton lorry, killed a cyclist and got a fine of 400 quid.
Madness. And Boris Johnson is encouraging more vehicles onto the
roads, leading, inevitably, to more deaths.
Boris recently described the Low Emission Zone, a scheme which aims to
clean up the exhaust of goods vehicles has described the scheme as
‘the most punitive, draconian fining regime in the whole of Europe’.
Although the LEZ is not primarily aimed at improving the safety of
London cyclists, I am willing to bet that taking the dirtiest lorries
off the road will make some impact in the figures for killed and
seriously injured by lorries.
I don’t suppose that Boris actually likes sharing the road with
lorries, but I haven’t seen a single statement from him indicating
that he is aware of the HGV/LGV/lorry cyclist problem. Ken, despite
being a non-cyclist , has actually done a lot to improve the lot of
cyclists in London.
spindrift
A woman cyclist was killed yesterday after she was crushed by a lorry
as it turned a bend in the road.
Horrified witnesses said the woman became trapped between railings and
the truck as she and the lorry driver turned the corner at the same
time.
The woman, who was aged in her thirties, died at the scene on the busy
Elephant and Castle roundabout, in south London, at about 3pm
yesterday.
Jules
> On 9 Apr, 13:51, elyob <n...@local-serve.com> wrote:
>> Two female cyclists have been killed in London in the last 24 hours.
>> Once again, lorries involved in both incidents.
>
> As a pedestrian, the aggressive, fast driving of lorries in Central
> London bothers me a lot. Indeed, it was in some ways better before
> the Congestion Charge, as they couldn't move as quickly as the cars
> slowed them down.
An interesting observation. I'm not sure though that there is any less
congestion in central London than there used to be. I think too that
the surveys show that, although there is less traffic now, congestion is
about the same as it was before the congestion charge was introduced.
>
> It creates an extremely oppressive atmosphere. I can see a real case
> for a strictly enforced 20mph speed limit in Central London during the
> day to combat it.
I'm not sure that being crushed at 20mph is any less traumatic than
being crushed at any other speed, either higher or lower. Trucks nor
buses make very comfortable bedmates with pedestrians or cyclists in
city centres at any speed.
J.
Judith Smith
wrote:
>Two female cyclists have been killed in London in the last 24 hours.
>Once again, lorries involved in both incidents.
I keep saying that cycling in London is dangerous - people will just
not have it.
--
Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured:
Pedal Cyclists : 533 Pedestrians : 384
All casualties:
Pedal Cyclists : 3739 Pedestrians : 1795
Which do you think is the most dangerous?
Judith Smith
wrote:
>Two female cyclists have been killed in London in the last 24 hours.
>Once again, lorries involved in both incidents.
Some quotes from witnesses to one of the accidents:
"She tried to come inside the lorry as it was turning."
"I don't think it was the driver's fault."
"She came in at the back just as he was turning and he couldn't have
seen her."
--
In the UK in 2007
There were 30,959 pedestrians injured in traffice accidents
There were 16,415 cyclists injured in traffic accidents
I wonder what the relative numbers of pedestrians and cyclists
in the UK is?
It looks like cycling is much more dangerous than being a pedestrian.
PoB
news:aac95b61-a79b-4ffb...@f19g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
From the same article :-
"A restaurant worker who saw the accident said: 'She tried to come inside
the lorry as it was turning. I don't think he saw her at all because she was
right at the back"
She went up the inside of a turning lorry. This implies that she wasn't
overtaken, she was trying to undertake a turning lorry. The driver had no
knowledge of her prescence, or any chance to avoid her.
I'm sorry she died, and I'm deeply sorry for her family, but I'm equally
sorry for the driver who will be haunted by this for a very, very long time.
Lorries are dangerous to cyclists, but you can't hang the driver for the
mistake - an ignorant mistake, no doubt - of the cyclist.
All the best,
pOB
Jules
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 05:51:31 -0700 (PDT), elyob <ni...@local-serve.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Two female cyclists have been killed in London in the last 24 hours.
>> Once again, lorries involved in both incidents.
>
>
> Some quotes from witnesses to one of the accidents:
>
> "She tried to come inside the lorry as it was turning."
>
> "I don't think it was the driver's fault."
>
> "She came in at the back just as he was turning and he couldn't have
> seen her."
There is no lower age limit or minimum skill or aptitude level or
minimum mental ability required before being allowed to cycle on the
roads, so this sort of thing is inevitable while lorry and bus drivers
are encouraged to assume priority and "all other traffic beware" whilst
they maneuver.
--
J.
Phil Armstrong
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168705/Cyclist-crushed-lorry-horrific-road-death.html
>
>
> A woman cyclist was killed yesterday after she was crushed by a lorry
> as it turned a bend in the road.
>
> Horrified witnesses said the woman became trapped between railings and
> the truck as she and the lorry driver turned the corner at the same
> time.
I hate hate hate those railing that seem to be everywhere in
London. Their sole reason for existing is to funnel pedestrians to
"approved" crossing places in order that motorised traffic can drive
without hindrance. Whilst they (mostly) achieve this aim, they leave
more vulnerable road users (scooter riders, cyclists etc) with no
escape route in the event that a vehicle encroaches on their road
spacem, leading inevitably to deaths when the riders are crushed
between the railings and the side of the vehicle.
Phil
--
http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/gpg.txt
RudiL
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 05:51:31 -0700 (PDT), elyob <n...@local-serve.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Two female cyclists have been killed in London in the last 24 hours.
> >Once again, lorries involved in both incidents.
>
> I keep saying that cycling in London is dangerous - people will just
> not have it.
>
> --
You are quite right - motor vehicles and especially lorries are a
danger to cyclists in London and everywhere else.
Roger Thorpe
A large part of the danger from cycling in London seems to be avoided by
the wiser, more experienced cyclist. It seems to me that the problem
lies in getting that wisdom and experience.
Roger Thorpe
mileburner
"PoB" <P...@lackof.org> wrote in message
news:grl25f$gef$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
>
> She went up the inside of a turning lorry. This implies that she wasn't
> overtaken, she was trying to undertake a turning lorry. The driver had no
> knowledge of her prescence, or any chance to avoid her.
>
> I'm sorry she died, and I'm deeply sorry for her family, but I'm equally
> sorry for the driver who will be haunted by this for a very, very long
> time.
>
> Lorries are dangerous to cyclists, but you can't hang the driver for the
> mistake - an ignorant mistake, no doubt - of the cyclist.
I agree entirely with your sentiments.
There seems to be a disproportionate number of female cyclists who meet
their end in this way. I suspect that it is because they are more willing to
be bullied out of the main traffic flow and into the gutter. They also seem
to think it is safer to be by the kerb and it is acceptable to pass (or move
alongside the traffic) on the left. Not only that, many cycle lanes promote
this utterly dangerous riding style.
If anything, the government should be painting cycle lanes in the centre of
the traffic flow to denote the safer place to ride and stressing that left
side undertakes are dangerous.
The government seem to have got it all wrong.
mileburner
"Roger Thorpe" <initial...@warwick.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:grl6m9$50s$1...@corncockle-nntp.csv.warwick.ac.uk...
The little cycling I have done in London I have found to be fairly relaxed.
Primarily because the traffic flow is so slow that a lot of the time drivers
don't bother to overtake. Experience may be different at lower cycling
speeds or on roads where traffic speed is higher and drivers more
aggressive.
Tosspot
> Two female cyclists have been killed in London in the last 24 hours.
> Once again, lorries involved in both incidents.
At risk of being controversal, just why do people bugger about with 40
ton trucks? I mean, it's not hard to give them a clear birth, you
know they have to cut corners, why try it?
Roger Thorpe
acceleration and more predictable movements.
Sometimes the truck arrives at the corner at the same time that you do,
sometimes you're just in font of it, but you imagine that the driver can
see you although you're really in a blind spot, sometimes you're just
not thinking. Sometimes you try to use the advanced stop line, but the
lights change as you're moving down to it.
You and I see the dangers and try to avoid them, but some people don't,
or can't. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people don't know that the
trailer will go around a smaller radius than the tractor. They're just
not interested in that sort of stuff and don't notice it.
People have to be reminded not to drink and drive, posters on the backs
of buses can be used for that purpose. It's probably time that some of
cycling's traps were pointed out in this, or some other way.
Roger thorpe
JNugent
> Lorry drivers can be aggressive, they take absurd risks and bully
> other road users off the roads. Until proper criminal sanctions exist
> for drivers who are reading the paper or chatting on a mobile then
> these deaths will continue.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168705/Cyclist-crushed-lorry-horrific-road-death.html
QUOTE:
A restaurant worker who saw the accident said: 'She tried to come inside the
lorry as it was turning. I don't think he saw her at all because she was
right at the back. [...]
Another man who witnessed the accident said it did not appear to be the lorry
driver's fault.
'She came in at the back just as he was turning and he couldn't have seen
her,'he said.
ENDQUOTE
...which sort of puts your little tantrum into perspective, doesn't it?
squa...@gmail.com
> spindrift wrote:
> > Lorry drivers can be aggressive, they take absurd risks and bully
> > other road users off the roads. Until proper criminal sanctions exist
> > for drivers who are reading the paper or chatting on a mobile then
> > these deaths will continue.
>
>
> QUOTE:
> A restaurant worker who saw the accident said: 'She tried to come inside the
> lorry as it was turning. I don't think he saw her at all because she was
> right at the back. [...]
> Another man who witnessed the accident said it did not appear to be the lorry
> driver's fault.
> 'She came in at the back just as he was turning and he couldn't have seen
> her,'he said.
> ENDQUOTE
>
> ...which sort of puts your little tantrum into perspective, doesn't it?
"Arthur Courtney, 62, who was drinking at the Rockingham Arms when the
collision occurred across the road in Newington Causeway, said: "I
don't think it was the driver's fault.
"She came in at the back just as he was turning and he couldn't have
seen her.
"There was something on her head, but I can't be sure if it was a
helmet or a hat."
Pissed and shortsighted. Ideal.
(From a web review of this pub - "If you're good at avoiding eye
contact with inebriated old men then give this place a try. Make eye
contact and you might obtain a slurred, frantic anecdote or a
redundant threat.
As usual with a JDW impressive range at the bar but undermined by
complete absence of charm and atmosphere.
The long-term unemployed are known to come here to re-write their
CVs.")
And an ugly inhuman place to have to cycle:-
http://tinyurl.com/cdeg6s
Despite how they "must be going through hell", some lorry-drivers may
actually be in the wrong, it seems:-
http://tinyurl.com/dxwjpl
And have I ever been crushed by a truck or van which I have overtaken
on the inside at a corner? No. Guess why?
But have I been pushed aside onto kerbs and lefthand corners by trucks
and vans overtaking me on the outside? Yes, quite a few times. Were
they oblivious? Yes, it seemed so. Were there railings? Fortunately,
no.
And if I had died, what would the story have been? Who would have told
my side?
Paul Weaver
> "Roger Thorpe" <initial.surn...@warwick.ac.uk> wrote in message
Average speeds, even of the transport-for-the-rich taxis, is less than
that of a bike any time betwen 7AM and 9PM, however maximum speeds
aren't -- your average bus driver, for exampel will accelerate to
40mph, dangerously squeezing past a cyclist (even going the wrong side
of a split junction -- causing oncoming taxi's to slam their brakes on
and blast their horns, as happened to me yesterday), before slamming
the brakes on for the next set of lights.
Paul Weaver
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 05:51:31 -0700 (PDT), elyob <n...@local-serve.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Two female cyclists have been killed in London in the last 24 hours.
> >Once again, lorries involved in both incidents.
>
> Some quotes from witnesses to one of the accidents:
>
> "She tried to come inside the lorry as it was turning."
>
> "I don't think it was the driver's fault."
>
> "She came in at the back just as he was turning and he couldn't have
> seen her."
Yes. Sadly there is a view put across by uninformed idiots that the
best place for a cyclist is the gutter. I'm sure we both agree that
the gutter is not the place for cyclists. Had she filtered on the
right, or better taken her rightful place in the centre of the lane
behind the lorry, things might have been different.
Unfortunatly there is a prevalance of paint-on-roads by local councils
which encourage cyclists to pass the inside of obviously dangerous
vehicles. A few roads are correctly painted, like the tunnels to
Heathrow airport, and most roads have no paint. I would imagine that
these lines of paint have led to more deaths over the years than
anyone apart from inattentive drivers.
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> spindrift wrote:
>>> Lorry drivers can be aggressive, they take absurd risks and bully
>>> other road users off the roads. Until proper criminal sanctions exist
>>> for drivers who are reading the paper or chatting on a mobile then
>>> these deaths will continue.
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168705/Cyclist-crushed-lorry...
>> QUOTE:
>> A restaurant worker who saw the accident said: 'She tried to come inside the
>> lorry as it was turning. I don't think he saw her at all because she was
>> right at the back. [...]
>> Another man who witnessed the accident said it did not appear to be the lorry
>> driver's fault.
>> 'She came in at the back just as he was turning and he couldn't have seen
>> her,'he said.
>> ENDQUOTE
>> ...which sort of puts your little tantrum into perspective, doesn't it?
> "Arthur Courtney, 62, who was drinking at the Rockingham Arms when the
> collision occurred across the road in Newington Causeway, said: "I
> don't think it was the driver's fault.
Even Arthur Courtney (whom it pleases you to describe as drunk, presumably
for no better reason than that he disagrees with the more extreme of your odd
beliefs) could see what you can't... or won't.
> "She came in at the back just as he was turning and he couldn't have
> seen her.
> "There was something on her head, but I can't be sure if it was a
> helmet or a hat."
> Pissed and shortsighted. Ideal.
As further support for what the other witnesses said, "idel" is probably true.
> (From a web review of this pub - "If you're good at avoiding eye
> contact with inebriated old men then give this place a try. Make eye
> contact and you might obtain a slurred, frantic anecdote or a
> redundant threat.
> As usual with a JDW impressive range at the bar but undermined by
> complete absence of charm and atmosphere.
> The long-term unemployed are known to come here to re-write their
> CVs.")
Shock, horror; read all about it: Inner London has some rough pubs.
And their presence renders the evidence of every human within a mile
automatically suspect, according to "squashme".
> And an ugly inhuman place to have to cycle:-
> http://tinyurl.com/cdeg6s
I had no idea it was compulsory.
But perhaps the infrastructure needs of lorry drivers - and perhaps the
intended recipients of their cargoes - are different from the needs of cyclists.
> Despite how they "must be going through hell", some lorry-drivers may
> actually be in the wrong, it seems:-
> http://tinyurl.com/dxwjpl
> And have I ever been crushed by a truck or van which I have overtaken
> on the inside at a corner? No. Guess why?
> But have I been pushed aside onto kerbs and lefthand corners by trucks
> and vans overtaking me on the outside? Yes, quite a few times. Were
> they oblivious? Yes, it seemed so. Were there railings? Fortunately,
> no.
> And if I had died, what would the story have been? Who would have told
> my side?
Would anyone have known it?
Or would they too just be making it up on the basis of what they preferred to
believe?
squa...@gmail.com
> On 9 Apr, 15:36, Judith Smith <judithsm...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 05:51:31 -0700 (PDT), elyob <n...@local-serve.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Two female cyclists have been killed in London in the last 24 hours.
> > >Once again, lorries involved in both incidents.
>
> > Some quotes from witnesses to one of the accidents:
>
> > "She tried to come inside the lorry as it was turning."
>
> > "I don't think it was the driver's fault."
>
> > "She came in at the back just as he was turning and he couldn't have
> > seen her."
>
> Yes. Sadly there is a view put across by uninformed idiots that the
> best place for a cyclist is the gutter. I'm sure we both agree that
> the gutter is not the place for cyclists. Had she filtered on the
> right, or better taken her rightful place in the centre of the lane
> behind the lorry, things might have been different.
>
Yes, she would have been on the inside of some other lorry. Or a bus.
And they are all turning, because it's one gigantic roundabout.
Apparently she may or may not have been wearing a helmet.
Still, let's be happy that the scientist-wallahs are coming up with a
sensor which may stop motorists dooring us in a few years time.
JNugent
> Judith Smith <judithsm...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>> elyob <n...@local-serve.com> wrote:
>>> Two female cyclists have been killed in London in the last 24 hours.
>>> Once again, lorries involved in both incidents.
>> Some quotes from witnesses to one of the accidents:
>> "She tried to come inside the lorry as it was turning."
>> "I don't think it was the driver's fault."
>> "She came in at the back just as he was turning and he couldn't have
>> seen her."
> Yes. Sadly there is a view put across by uninformed idiots that the
> best place for a cyclist is the gutter. I'm sure we both agree that
> the gutter is not the place for cyclists. Had she filtered on the
> right, or better taken her rightful place in the centre of the lane
> behind the lorry, things might have been different.
Isn't that *exactly* what so many people here have said before - repeatedly?
Martin
> Two female cyclists have been killed in London in the last 24 hours.
Very sad.
> Once again, lorries involved in both incidents.
Both left turning lorries, with the cyclist on the left.
The second incident involved a cement mixer.
It does not seem to lay blame on either party, but it does say that the
driver was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.
Martin.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<newt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Half of all cyclists killed in London are killed by lorry drivers.
>Every day I see lorry drivers run red lights, side swipe cyclists,
>chat on a mobile phone whilst negotiating narrow, crowded streets. And
>many tipper lorries, remember, are paid by the load so they have an
>incentive to take absurd risks around vulnerable road users. This has
>got to stop, people are dying needlessly, if a death occurs on a
>building site the HSE would crawl all over the scene, on the roads
>it's a different matter.
All true to a greater or lesser extent, but all predictable. I do not
think it is very hard to prevent these collisions with education, it
is almost certainly significant that a disproportionate number of the
victims are female. A small amount of assertiveness goes a long way
in London traffic, we should never underestimate the effect of telling
lorry drivers that actually 18" of gutter is /not/ sufficient space..
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>It does not seem to lay blame on either party, but it does say that the
>driver was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.
Normal these days, but I have no idea how many prosecutions succeed.
An interesting juxtaposition with the recent fatuous trolling in
respect of primary position. How many of the deceased were riding in
the primary position? Looks like around zero to me, and the main
places where i take the primay position are left-hand bends on
stretches of road heavily used by lorries. Like The Highway at the
Tower end, for example. Once a week or so I get some twunt making a
fuss about my taking primary there, but most days it results in at
least one overtaking lorry moving to the other lane and passing me
safely. Happy with that.
JNugent
There's nothing wrong, in principle, with cycling in the middle of the lane.
But that is not to say that other road-users should be condemned to following
a cyclist for considerable distances at (say) 16mph.
The HC injunction: "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake" (with the
emphasis on the "never") seems to cover the situation (as may other parts of
the code and the law).
After being overtaken, the cyclist may return to the middle of the lane.
Brimstone
How is a cyclist occupying the position on the road surface as would a
driver in a car obstructing a driver who wishes to overtake? Assuming a two
lane road, if there's no traffic coming the other way then the car driver is
at liberty to pass.
>
> After being overtaken, the cyclist may return to the middle of the
> lane.
Where is there a requirement for the driver of a vehicle travelling at its
normal speed to endanger themsleves?
Señor Chris
> The HC injunction: "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake"
> (with the emphasis on the "never") seems to cover the situation (as may
> other parts of the code and the law).
>
> After being overtaken, the cyclist may return to the middle of the lane.
Does the HC apply to cars as well ? In my experience, cars rarely pull
over to the left when another car is trying to overtake, even when the
car in front is obstructing the car behind.
JNugent
How is he not?
> Assuming a two
> lane road, if there's no traffic coming the other way then the car driver is
> at liberty to pass.
And if there is...?
>> After being overtaken, the cyclist may return to the middle of the
>> lane.
> Where is there a requirement for the driver of a vehicle travelling at its
> normal speed to endanger themsleves?
Strawman alert... strawman alert... strawman alert...
JNugent
> JNugent wrote:
The duty not to obstruct means "keep left" rather than sitting over towards
the crown of the road, and it certainly means not purposely moving over so
far to the right as to deliberately prevent an overtaking move.
You must have heard of that one before, somewhere or other. But you prefer to
imply that you've never encountered it before.
Brimstone
Thank you for confirming that there is no obstruction.
>> Assuming a two
>> lane road, if there's no traffic coming the other way then the car
>> driver is at liberty to pass.
>
> And if there is...?
The overtaker waits until there is a gap in the oncoming traffic, just as he
would if there was a car in front.
>
>>> After being overtaken, the cyclist may return to the middle of the
>>> lane.
>
>> Where is there a requirement for the driver of a vehicle travelling
>> at its normal speed to endanger themsleves?
>
> Strawman alert... strawman alert... strawman alert...
As I thought, there isn't.
Brimstone
> Señor Chris wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>> The HC injunction: "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake"
>>> (with the emphasis on the "never") seems to cover the situation (as
>>> may other parts of the code and the law).
>
>>> After being overtaken, the cyclist may return to the middle of the
>>> lane.
>
>> Does the HC apply to cars as well ? In my experience, cars rarely
>> pull over to the left when another car is trying to overtake, even
>> when the car in front is obstructing the car behind.
>
> The duty not to obstruct means "keep left"
The cyclist is keeping left.
> rather than sitting over
> towards the crown of the road, and it certainly means not purposely
> moving over so far to the right as to deliberately prevent an
> overtaking move.
Where is that said?
Señor Chris
> Señor Chris wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>> The HC injunction: "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake"
>>> (with the emphasis on the "never") seems to cover the situation (as
>>> may other parts of the code and the law).
>
>>> After being overtaken, the cyclist may return to the middle of the lane.
>
>> Does the HC apply to cars as well ? In my experience, cars rarely pull
>> over to the left when another car is trying to overtake, even when the
>> car in front is obstructing the car behind.
>
> The duty not to obstruct means "keep left" rather than sitting over
> towards the crown of the road, and it certainly means not purposely
> moving over so far to the right as to deliberately prevent an overtaking
> move.
>
You can only draw that conclusion if the intended overtaking is legal
and safe. The HC is not specific on deliberately blocking illegal
and/or dangerous overtaking.
Mark McNeill
> >> Where is there a requirement for the driver of a vehicle travelling
> >> at its normal speed to endanger themsleves?
> >
> > Strawman alert... strawman alert... strawman alert...
>
> As I thought, there isn't.
There necessarily *is*, if the Highway Code is interpreted literally
sentence by sentence without reference to the rest of the document;
this approaches the heart of the interpretation of the sentence "Never
obstruct drivers who wish to pass". As JNugent has observed, the
sentence in itself does not allow for exceptions for the sake of
convenience, safety or common sense: never, as he would say and has
said, must mean never.
Therefore, even if a situation should arise where not obstructing a
driver might reasonably be expected to result in severe danger to
oneself, the following driver or a third party, according to JNugent's
interpretation of this single sentence the driver should *never* be
obstructed (that's how I understand his interpretation, at least, and
if I'm wrong doubtless he'll be along to correct me).
For my own part, I think the sentence can't be read or enforced in
isolation, partly because just such situations would conflict with
other parts of the HC. For instance, Rule 144 tells us "You MUST NOT
drive dangerously"; this, unlike the single sentence from Rule 168, has
the force of law, and it seems to me must necessarily trump that
sentence as quoted above, in any situation where the two rules are in
conflict. Therefore, if driving dangerously would be necessary to
allow a following driver to pass, you MUST NOT do it. This is my view,
at least; I don't know if JNugent would agree.
--
Mark, UK.
Peter Grange
But is a driver not entitled to stop someone coming up the inside if
he (the driver) is planning to turn left?
squa...@gmail.com
But does the HC mention using lethal force?
Ian Smith
> Response to Brimstone:
>
> > >> Where is there a requirement for the driver of a vehicle travelling
> > >> at its normal speed to endanger themsleves?
> > >
> > > Strawman alert... strawman alert... strawman alert...
> >
> > As I thought, there isn't.
>
> following driver to pass, you MUST NOT do it. This is my view, at
> least; I don't know if JNugent would agree.
The other key issue is that "not obstruct" does not necessarily mean
"take all possible steps to get out of the way of". Obstructing the
highway is an offence, but that does not mean someone is guilty of it
any time any person wants to overtake them (regardless of who is
driving or riding what).
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Brimstone
The driver is merely turning the stering wheel. In what way is that using
lethal force?
Señor Chris
Also that 'overtaking' has a fairly specific meaning within the context
of the HC which includes giving "motorcyclists, cyclists and horse
riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car".
If such a manoeuvre is physically impossible, a cyclist cannot be in
breach of a regulation which prohibits the blocking of it.
JNugent
> On Fri, 10 Apr, Mark McNeill <markonne...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Response to Brimstone:
>>
>>>>> Where is there a requirement for the driver of a vehicle travelling
>>>>> at its normal speed to endanger themsleves?
>>>> Strawman alert... strawman alert... strawman alert...
>>> As I thought, there isn't.
>> Therefore, if driving dangerously would be necessary to allow a
>> following driver to pass, you MUST NOT do it. This is my view, at
>> least; I don't know if JNugent would agree.
>
> The other key issue is that "not obstruct" does not necessarily mean
> "take all possible steps to get out of the way of".
Absolutely correct.
No-one has suggested otherwise.
But neither does it mean "I'll move over to the right to prevent an
overtaking move until I think fit".
Brimstone
Hopefully this will provide some guidance for you.
"Cyclists: A High Court judge once ruled that a cyclist is entitled to
wobble. Drivers should have more control over their vehicles than cyclists
who are dependent upon physical strength and effort to pilot their machines.
Always leave plenty of room when passing cyclists, look out for clues about
their next move."
From http://www.theorytestadvice.co.uk/thetests/hplesson.htm
Since so many car drivers insist on failing to leave adequate clearence when
passing a cyclist riding close to the gutter a sensible cyclist has to give
themselves some space into which to wobble.
I suspect those who complain the loudest are those most likely to endanger
cyclists.
Daniel Barlow
> The driver is merely turning the stering wheel. In what way is that using
> lethal force?
A gunman is merely squeezing the trigger. In what way is that using
lethal force?
-dan
Brimstone
squa...@gmail.com
> JNugent wrote:
> > Ian Smith wrote:
> >>> Response to Brimstone:
>
> >>>>>> Where is there a requirement for the driver of a vehicle
> >>>>>> travelling at its normal speed to endanger themsleves?
> >>>>> Strawman alert... strawman alert... strawman alert...
> >>>> As I thought, there isn't.
> >>> Therefore, if driving dangerously would be necessary to allow a
> >>> following driver to pass, you MUST NOT do it. This is my view, at
> >>> least; I don't know if JNugent would agree.
>
> >> The other key issue is that "not obstruct" does not necessarily mean
> >> "take all possible steps to get out of the way of".
>
> > Absolutely correct.
>
> > No-one has suggested otherwise.
>
> > But neither does it mean "I'll move over to the right to prevent an
> > overtaking move until I think fit".
>
> Hopefully this will provide some guidance for you.
>
> "Cyclists: A High Court judge once ruled that a cyclist is entitled to
> wobble. Drivers should have more control over their vehicles than cyclists
> who are dependent upon physical strength and effort to pilot their machines.
> Always leave plenty of room when passing cyclists, look out for clues about
> their next move."
>
>
> Since so many car drivers insist on failing to leave adequate clearence when
> passing a cyclist riding close to the gutter a sensible cyclist has to give
> themselves some space into which to wobble.
>
Could call it "Primary oscillation."
BirdWoman
When in the standard Minor I pull over all the time, or at least flash
the left indicator when its safe for vehicles behind to pass. Same when
towing a caravan. I find that most people appreciate it and flash
hazards or whatever as they pull back in in front.
'Course, now the modified Minor is finished I'm the one *doing* the
overtaking
http://img158.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=82519_onlineimo_122_132lo.jpg :)
JNugent
>>>> Response to Brimstone:
> From http://www.theorytestadvice.co.uk/thetests/hplesson.htm
Maybe, but wobbling doesn't need half the width of the whole carriageway -
does it?
> I suspect those who complain the loudest are those most likely to endanger
> cyclists.
Yes, but you suspect a lot of things without being any more right about those.
And while we're at it, I can quite see that the HC advice "leave a cyclist as
much room as you would a car" sounds superficially attractive to those who
think it means "Be on the wrong side of the road".
But how much room *do* we leave another car when overtaking safely?
We certainly don't automatically cross to the wrong side of the carriageway.
AAMOF, the clearance in many circumstances would be measured in feet rather
than yards and in others, in inches rather than feet. So that particular HC
Rulke - unlike certain others - is very vague and far from being a solid
basis for the offence of obstruction.
If only the Militant Cyclists' Wing were willing to heed the advice they give
so freely (they might not try to crawl up the nearside of a lorry at traffic
lights for a start).
Señor Chris
>
> When in the standard Minor I pull over all the time, or at least flash
> the left indicator when its safe for vehicles behind to pass.
My bike doesn't have indicators, so I use road positioning to indicate
when its safe to pass.
JNugent
> BirdWoman wrote:
That's absolutely not necessary.
The driver towing a caravan (or driving a vehicle with no sight-lines through
it from front to back) is telling following drivers something they cannot see
for themselves because of the laws of physics. This does not apply to
bicycles. It doesn't even apply to the average car.
Señor Chris
> Señor Chris wrote:
>
>> BirdWoman wrote:
>
>>> When in the standard Minor I pull over all the time, or at least
>>> flash the left indicator when its safe for vehicles behind to pass.
>
>> My bike doesn't have indicators, so I use road positioning to indicate
>> when its safe to pass.
>
> That's absolutely not necessary.
In some situations, it is totally necessary.
>
> The driver towing a caravan (or driving a vehicle with no sight-lines
> through it from front to back) is telling following drivers something
> they cannot see for themselves because of the laws of physics. This does
> not apply to bicycles. It doesn't even apply to the average car.
>
>
No, but I am telling drivers something they cannot judge for themselves.
JNugent
I seriously doubt they they need your generous assistance.
Señor Chris
Scroll back to the top of this thread for a pertinent example.
Brimstone
No, it needs one lane.
>
>> I suspect those who complain the loudest are those most likely to
>> endanger cyclists.
>
> Yes, but you suspect a lot of things without being any more right
> about those.
> And while we're at it, I can quite see that the HC advice "leave a
> cyclist as much room as you would a car" sounds superficially
> attractive to those who think it means "Be on the wrong side of the
> road".
To overtake a car one has to use the wrong side of the road so what is the
problem with doing so when overtaking a bike?
> But how much room *do* we leave another car when overtaking safely?
>
> We certainly don't automatically cross to the wrong side of the
> carriageway.
Really, how many lanes are capable of accommodating two cars travelling side
by side?
Daniel Barlow
> And while we're at it, I can quite see that the HC advice "leave a
> cyclist as much room as you would a car" sounds superficially
> attractive to those who think it means "Be on the wrong side of the
> road".
If the picture accompanying it is indicative, that's exactly what it was
intended to mean.
-dan
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> writes:
"Indicative" does not mean "definitive".
There are some circumstances where I give an overtaken car no more than a
foot or so. I'm willing to give a cyclist at least the same consideration,
certainly not less. That's what the Code asks me to do, and I'll do at least
that.
Roger Thorpe
cyclist should know.
Roger Thorpe
Nuxx Bar
> On Apr 9, 2:06 pm, RudiL <rudilu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 9 Apr, 13:51, elyob <n...@local-serve.com> wrote:
>
> > > Two female cyclists have been killed in London in the last 24 hours.
> > > Once again, lorries involved in both incidents.
>
> > Dreadful.
>
> Half of all cyclists killed in London are killed by lorry drivers.
So why do you hate motorists so much more?
> I don’t suppose that Boris actually likes sharing the road with
> lorries, but I haven’t seen a single statement from him indicating
> that he is aware of the HGV/LGV/lorry cyclist problem. Ken, despite
> being a non-cyclist , has actually done a lot to improve the lot of
> cyclists in London.
You mean "has actually done a lot to make things harder for motorists
in London". *That* is why you preferred him so much to Boris, who not
only isn't making things harder for those bastard "cagers", he's
actually daring to make things *easier* for them, both by undoing the
years of meddling by Livingstone, and even coming up with new ideas to
make things better for motorists than they were before.
Your various comments about Boris in relation to Livingstone have
shown your true colours like never before. Boris is a cyclist, unlike
Livingstone. He's more in favour of pro-cyclist measures than
Livingstone. But because he also isn't anti-motorist like Livingstone
was, you prefer Livingstone. It's the most concrete evidence yet that
you're not "pro-cyclist", you're just anti-motorist, and
pathologically so. Why are you so scared to admit it?
Judith Smith
wrote:
Is that what the Highway Code recommends?
I hope you are not confusing the advice of Cyclecraft (which as we all
here know has no legal standing or endorsement) where it uses this
hypothetical term "primary position"
Brimstone
Is a car likely to wobble and fall over into your path?
Just zis Guy, you know?
<brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> There are some circumstances where I give an overtaken car no more
>> than a foot or so. I'm willing to give a cyclist at least the same
>> consideration, certainly not less. That's what the Code asks me to
>> do, and I'll do at least that.
>Is a car likely to wobble and fall over into your path?
The code gives a helpful picture to resolve any ambiguity. Unless the
nugentoid's feet are unusually big (and I doubt they are, given the
alacrity with which he stuffs them in his mouth), one foot is not
acceptable.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
Newsgroup may contain nuts.
JNugent
It can move into my path (and sometimes, they do).
Is the clearance accorded to cyclists actually about cyclists falling off
their bikes, then?
Surely the average cyclist would (correctly) feel indignant about such a
suggestion? I can't remember the last time I saw a cyclist fall off.
JNugent
> "Brimstone" <brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> There are some circumstances where I give an overtaken car no more
>>> than a foot or so. I'm willing to give a cyclist at least the same
>>> consideration, certainly not less. That's what the Code asks me to
>>> do, and I'll do at least that.
>> Is a car likely to wobble and fall over into your path?
> The code gives a helpful picture to resolve any ambiguity. Unless the
> nugentoid's feet are unusually big (and I doubt they are, given the
> alacrity with which he stuffs them in his mouth), one foot is not
> acceptable.
For very shame...
Think about pots and kettles before you post such nonsense, eh?
JNugent
Not necessary. Unlike the situation with respect to caravans, lorries, large
vans, etc, there are no pertinent examples of cyclists "telling" a driver
anything useful about the road ahead which the driver could not have seen for
himself. Any argument to the contrary is posturing.
JNugent
Mad Ken, when he was Mayor, was London's most prolific taxi-user (on
expenses, naturally).
Brimstone
To quote the learned former judge (sorry I don't know which one), "Every
cyclist is entitled to his wobble.
How many do or do not wobble or fall off is beside the point. Driving safely
(and I seem to recall you saying that you are a safe driver (I'm sure
you'll correct me if I'm wrong)) is about making allowances for the mistakes
(intentional or otherwise) of others.
mileburner
"Brimstone" <brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:iM2dnckK9p3d6H3U...@bt.com...
> JNugent wrote:
>>
>> Is the clearance accorded to cyclists actually about cyclists falling
>> off their bikes, then?
>>
>> Surely the average cyclist would (correctly) feel indignant about
>> such a suggestion? I can't remember the last time I saw a cyclist
>> fall off.
>
> To quote the learned former judge (sorry I don't know which one), "Every
> cyclist is entitled to his wobble.
>
> How many do or do not wobble or fall off is beside the point. Driving
> safely (and I seem to recall you saying that you are a safe driver (I'm
> sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong)) is about making allowances for the
> mistakes (intentional or otherwise) of others.
It is fairly reasonable to expect a cyclist's course to be affected by road
condition (avoiding gap/holes etc) wind, turbulence from traffic or just by
looking behind. That change of direction can be sudden and very much depends
on the skill and experience of the rider. Good drivers leave a lot of space,
2 or 3 metres. Bad drivers leave less than a metre. Most drivers are
somewhere in between.
JNugent
I'm sure I've never said anything which is as much of a "hostage to fortune"
as that. I make no claim to be anything but average - though I do a definite
non-average milage annually. I've been driving for nearly forty years, I've
never been disqualified, never been "done" by a camera and I've had a clean
licence for decades (after falling foul of the tyre tread laws when
inexperienced).
> is about making allowances for the mistakes (intentional or otherwise) of
> others.
Yes - but in proportion to their likelihood. We don't drive in anticipation
of being hit by meteorites either. No matter what criticism can be
legitimately levelled at some cyclists, they don't often fall off. That isn't
what the clearance argument is (or should be) about.
mileburner
> Yes - but in proportion to their likelihood. We don't drive in
> anticipation of being hit by meteorites either. No matter what
> criticism can be legitimately levelled at some cyclists, they don't
> often fall off. That isn't what the clearance argument is (or should
> be) about.
You really are a numpty. I suppose you also wonder why they paint lines on
station platforms where high speed trains pass don't you?
JNugent
> JNugent wrote:
I expect you think that high-speed trains can wobble.
Well, I say "think" - though its use may be viewed as hyperbole in yor case.
mileburner
>
> Not necessary. Unlike the situation with respect to caravans,
> lorries, large vans, etc, there are no pertinent examples of cyclists
> "telling" a driver anything useful about the road ahead which the
> driver could not have seen for himself. Any argument to the contrary
> is posturing.
Again you are showing you lack of experience of cycling. Particularly on
bends and twisting roads, the cyclist in front can see further ahead and see
whether it is safe to pass. That message can be conveyed by road
positioning, or pulling over and waving by. Unfortunately, even then a
number of drivers will still get it wrong, by trying to pass when it is
unsafe and still blame the cyclist.
JNugent
> JNugent wrote:
>> Not necessary. Unlike the situation with respect to caravans,
>> lorries, large vans, etc, there are no pertinent examples of cyclists
>> "telling" a driver anything useful about the road ahead which the
>> driver could not have seen for himself. Any argument to the contrary
>> is posturing.
> Again you are showing you lack of experience of cycling. Particularly on
> bends and twisting roads, the cyclist in front can see further ahead
No, he can't.
Your posts are becoming increasingly riven with the wildest of silly claims.
You would do well to reflect before making such remarks. They don't make you
look any bigger or cleverer.
mileburner
> mileburner wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>> Yes - but in proportion to their likelihood. We don't drive in
>>> anticipation of being hit by meteorites either. No matter what
>>> criticism can be legitimately levelled at some cyclists, they don't
>>> often fall off. That isn't what the clearance argument is (or should
>>> be) about.
>
>> You really are a numpty. I suppose you also wonder why they paint
>> lines on station platforms where high speed trains pass don't you?
>
> I expect you think that high-speed trains can wobble.
And undoubtedly you think that people stood on the platform don't.
Think of the train as the car, and the people on the platform as cyclists.
Would *you* stand 12 inches away?
JNugent
I never take trains on anything which can be described as a high-speed line
(so the answer, for all the good it will do you, is "N/A").
Where's Doug, BTW?
At one time, he too was always going on about not being allowed to cycle on
station platforms.
No wonder he (like you) doesn't approve of railed-off 16' drops.
mileburner
> mileburner wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>> Not necessary. Unlike the situation with respect to caravans,
>>> lorries, large vans, etc, there are no pertinent examples of
>>> cyclists "telling" a driver anything useful about the road ahead
>>> which the driver could not have seen for himself. Any argument to
>>> the contrary is posturing.
>
>> Again you are showing you lack of experience of cycling.
>> Particularly on bends and twisting roads, the cyclist in front can
>> see further ahead
>
> No, he can't.
I did not realise that this was the panto season already...
Oh yes he can!
On a twisting road where visibility is restricted by hedges, trees etc. The
further ahead you are, the further ahead you can see.
Again you are showing, not only your inexperience of cycling but of road use
in general.
mileburner
> mileburner wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> mileburner wrote:
>>>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>> Yes - but in proportion to their likelihood. We don't drive in
>>>>> anticipation of being hit by meteorites either. No matter what
>>>>> criticism can be legitimately levelled at some cyclists, they
>>>>> don't often fall off. That isn't what the clearance argument is
>>>>> (or should be) about.
>
>>>> You really are a numpty. I suppose you also wonder why they paint
>>>> lines on station platforms where high speed trains pass don't you?
>
>>> I expect you think that high-speed trains can wobble.
>
>> And undoubtedly you think that people stood on the platform don't.
>> Think of the train as the car, and the people on the platform as
>> cyclists. Would *you* stand 12 inches away?
>
> I never take trains on anything which can be described as a
> high-speed line (so the answer, for all the good it will do you, is
> "N/A").
Anyone one with a bit of common sense would not stand 12 inches away from a
high speed train. But you think its OK to overtake a cyclist giving that
same distance.
I doubt if very much you would pass a driving test.
JNugent
> JNugent wrote:
>> mileburner wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> Not necessary. Unlike the situation with respect to caravans,
>>>> lorries, large vans, etc, there are no pertinent examples of
>>>> cyclists "telling" a driver anything useful about the road ahead
>>>> which the driver could not have seen for himself. Any argument to
>>>> the contrary is posturing.
>>> Again you are showing you lack of experience of cycling.
>>> Particularly on bends and twisting roads, the cyclist in front can
>>> see further ahead
>> No, he can't.
> I did not realise that this was the panto season already...
Didn't you? It started when you arrived.
I'm not sure whether you are the moustachio-twirling villain or the village
idiot. But it's one of the two for sure.
> Oh yes he can!
> On a twisting road where visibility is restricted by hedges, trees etc. The
> further ahead you are, the further ahead you can see.
So are you now claiming that deliberate obstruction of the road is legitimate
only on narrow, winding, country lanes?
Or are you still claiming that you own the road - every road - and that
others may pass you only when you grciously decide to let them?
Brimstone
On that basis there is no need for seatbelts, side impact protection bars,
crumple zones nor anything else that protects the average car driver from
his own errors. So why do you have some or all of them on your car?
Just zis Guy, you know?
<mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Anyone one with a bit of common sense would not stand 12 inches away from a
>high speed train.
That leaves the Nugentoid out, then.
mileburner
"JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message
news:6aSdncymQdkfGX3U...@pipex.net...
> mileburner wrote:
>
> So are you now claiming that deliberate obstruction of the road is
> legitimate only on narrow, winding, country lanes?
I am claiming that the further ahead you are, the further ahead you can see.
This little gem obviousness is what you failed to understand, comprehend or
believe.
> Or are you still claiming that you own the road - every road - and that
> others may pass you only when you grciously decide to let them?
Are you still claiming that any vehicle ahead should get out of your way
because you have more right to be on the piece of road which they currently
occupy?
Mr Toad Esq. :-)
Brimstone
Since you do above average mileages I'm sure you will have encountered those
drivers who position themsleves so that it is impossible to overtake safely.
mileburner
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:gu11u4p6doqq3sm02...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:50:59 +0100, "mileburner"
> <mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>Anyone one with a bit of common sense would not stand 12 inches away from
>>a
>>high speed train.
>
> That leaves the Nugentoid out, then.
Perhaps if the Nugentoid took to a busy road, rode his bike twelve inches
from the gutter and allowed traffic to pass with twelve inches to spare,
that might be the last we hear from him.
JNugent
Well, not "no need" exactly, but certainly the need arises only in terms of
rare - but completely unpredictable - occurrences, none of which need be my
fault.
Fitting a vehicle with safety devices (or a cyclist wearing a helmet) is
reasonable enough.
It starts being unreasonable over-provision if we all start insisting on
inch-thick steel panels and roofs and two-inch-plate windscreens (to guard
against gunfire and meteorites).
IOW, the remoteness of the possibility is a factor to take into account.
In 40 years, I have never seen a cyclist just fall off his bike in front of
me. I regard it as a pretty remote possibility - and certainly not one which
I should either allow, or be expected to allow, to dominate my thoughts
whilst driving.
JNugent
I have, from time to time, encountered almost everything there is to encopunter.
It doesn't mean they were right.
mileburner
>
> In 40 years, I have never seen a cyclist just fall off his bike in front
> of me. I regard it as a pretty remote possibility - and certainly not one
> which I should either allow, or be expected to allow, to dominate my
> thoughts whilst driving.
I am struggling to work out whether you are stupid, inconsiderate, arrogant
or all three.
JNugent
> "JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> mileburner wrote:
>> So are you now claiming that deliberate obstruction of the road is
>> legitimate only on narrow, winding, country lanes?
> I am claiming that the further ahead you are, the further ahead you can see.
> This little gem obviousness is what you failed to understand, comprehend or
> believe.
>> Or are you still claiming that you own the road - every road - and that
>> others may pass you only when you grciously decide to let them?
> Are you still claiming that any vehicle ahead should get out of your way
> because you have more right to be on the piece of road which they currently
> occupy?
Actually, it is the much-vaunted* Highway Code which creates that rule, not I.
Unlike you, I don't claim the right to make up the rules as I go along.
[*Which is apparently to be trested as Holy Writ when it enshrines the rights
of cyclists and completely disregarded when it describes the rights of
others. Reaction to the pointing out of this little-obeyed - and apparently
little-known - rule has been truly fascinating. Even if predictable.]
Brimstone
Thank you for making my point.
> Fitting a vehicle with safety devices (or a cyclist wearing a helmet)
> is reasonable enough.
>
> It starts being unreasonable over-provision if we all start insisting
> on inch-thick steel panels and roofs and two-inch-plate windscreens
> (to guard against gunfire and meteorites).
>
> IOW, the remoteness of the possibility is a factor to take into
> account.
> In 40 years, I have never seen a cyclist just fall off his bike in
> front of me. I regard it as a pretty remote possibility - and
> certainly not one which I should either allow, or be expected to
> allow, to dominate my thoughts whilst driving.
Just because you haven't seen it happen (or seen reports of it happening)
yet doesn't mean it won't. Hence the need to give each and every other road
user sufficient space according to their needs rather than what we (i.e. all
of us) think they need.
mileburner
>
> Since you do above average mileages I'm sure you will have encountered
> those drivers who position themsleves so that it is impossible to overtake
> safely.
Yep. I find it infuriating that as you approach a car from behind, they sit
firmly in the middle of the lane and refuse to pull over to let you by. If
they pulled over into the gutter I would be able to pass quickly, easily
with no incenvenience to them.
Brimstone
Having observed JNugent's attitude over a substantial period of time and a
considerable number of posts, I would go for the combination.
JNugent
> "JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> In 40 years, I have never seen a cyclist just fall off his bike in front
>> of me. I regard it as a pretty remote possibility - and certainly not one
>> which I should either allow, or be expected to allow, to dominate my
>> thoughts whilst driving.
> I am struggling to work out whether you are stupid, inconsiderate, arrogant
> or all three.
Congratulations.
You are now a fully-fledged ukrc cycling member.
You are fully entitled (as you have obviously come to realise) to counter
argument with attempted insult (as opposed to countervailing argument or
wit), especially when attempted insult is the only weaponry you have available.
Brimstone
So which statement is the lie? The above or the one where you said that
you've never encountered a cyclist wobbling or falling off his bicycle.
> It doesn't mean they were right.
The inconsiderate car driver certainly isn't. The cyclist protecting his own
safety has considerable justification for his behaviour.
mileburner
> mileburner wrote:
>
>> Are you still claiming that any vehicle ahead should get out of your way
>> because you have more right to be on the piece of road which they
>> currently occupy?
>
> Actually, it is the much-vaunted* Highway Code which creates that rule,
> not I.
S'funny that, because what *I* always do when a another vehicle gets close
behind, is as soon as it is safe to pass I pull over and let them go.
Whether I am driving cycling or motorcycling (though that is rare in the
latter but it does happen with very aggressive drivers). But what you are
implying by your "Toad of Toad Hall" manner is that the vehicle ahead should
be in the gutter to start with, and if they don't let you pass, even when it
is unsafe, they are being inconsiderate (sic).
Do you really suggest that we should let others pass when they risk a head
on with the oncoming traffic? You really are not very bright are you? <note
rhetoric>
mileburner
OK thanks. Having read your posts over the last few weeks you seem to have
quite a balanced view on things.
JNugent
> JNugent wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
[ ... ]
>>>> ... in proportion to their likelihood. We don't drive in
True enough.
And my car - or my house, for that matter - may be hit by an asteroid
fragment tomorrow.
> Hence the need to give each and every other road
> user sufficient space according to their needs rather than what we (i.e. all
> of us) think they need.
And that means their "needs" in objective terms (taking account of
likelihoods), not just whatever they think it means.
JNugent
>>>>>> No, he can't.
Have you really never encountered the word "almost" before?
Try:
>> It doesn't mean they were right.
> The inconsiderate car driver certainly isn't. The cyclist protecting his own
> safety has considerable justification for his behaviour.
Ah... I sense a new irregular verb here:
I am protecting my own safety with considerable justification for my behaviour;
You are doing your best, but you're not as skilful or as justified as I am;
He (that car-driver) is being inconsiderate.
Brimstone
That depends on whether or not the person to whom I'm responding agrees with
me. Some get quite tetchy. I retain "balance" by keeping a chip on each
shoulder so don't be suprised if I disagree with you at some stage.
mileburner
There was no argument. I was merely pointing out the width required by
cyclists. You took it upon yourself to spout off about something you clearly
know sod all about. That makes you a little bit stupid.
You also seem to think that cyclists should only expect 12 inches clearance
from faster traffic. That makes you inconsiderate.
And, if anyone dares to disagree with your inconsiderate and downright
dangerous attitude, you become offended and offensive in return. That makes
you arrogant.
JNugent
> "JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> mileburner wrote:
>>> Are you still claiming that any vehicle ahead should get out of your way
>>> because you have more right to be on the piece of road which they
>>> currently occupy?
>> Actually, it is the much-vaunted* Highway Code which creates that rule,
>> not I.
> S'funny that, because what *I* always do when a another vehicle gets close
> behind, is as soon as it is safe to pass I pull over and let them go.
> Whether I am driving cycling or motorcycling (though that is rare in the
> latter but it does happen with very aggressive drivers). But what you are
> implying by your "Toad of Toad Hall" manner is that the vehicle ahead should
> be in the gutter to start with, and if they don't let you pass, even when it
> is unsafe, they are being inconsiderate (sic).
Nonsense.
One *is* expected to keep left.
You just don't like the fact that the *Highway Code* tells you never to
obstruct drivers who with to overtake.
> Do you really suggest that we should let others pass when they risk a head
> on with the oncoming traffic? You really are not very bright are you? <note
> rhetoric>
What does the rule say?
"Never obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake".
What do you say "never" means?
Does it mean "never" or does it mean something different?