`Incident' with van driver
Ian Jackson
(outside the back entrance to Whewell's Court and the alleyway to the
craft fair).
I met a red van going the other way up the street. I stopped, and the
van stopped.
We had a discussion, where I said `wrong way' and `go back' and he
said `get out of my way' and `I got lost'. This was repeated on each
side a number of times.
He edged his van forward until it touched my bike. I retreated, and
started calling for bystanders to watch and be witnesses. He kept
driving forward, revving his engine, pushing my bike backwards. At
one point my bike fell sideways and I tried to catch it and nearly
fell under the advancing van myself rescuing it, but I leapt backwards
in time. The driver kept advancing and threatening me with his van
for maybe a minute or two.
I offered no resistance other than to be in the road, retreating in
front of him.
After a little and seeing I wasn't intimidated out of his way, he got
out of his van, came right up to me and said I should get out of his
way, and threatened me verbally (I don't remember the exact words).
When I didn't move, he picked up my bike and threw it to the side of
the street.
I went to pick up my bike and he rushed to it first and picked it up
upside down and threw it into the alleyway (that leads to the craft
fair). He then drove off.
I hadn't offered any resistance to his threats to me, or to his attack
on my bike. I think the man was caucasian, mid-thirties, with
short hair, and maybe a few inches taller than me. I don't remember
much about his dress.
I then wrote down the registration number of the van and collected
names and addresses of witnesses. While I was doing this and
collecting my belongings one of the bystanders noticed that a very
similar van was parked, apparently delivering, in Sidney Street near
Barclays Bank.
Then I came home.
I started typing this up at 8:20pm, so the incident probably started
around 8:05pm. I've phoned the police, and they've promised to come
round later.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Patrick Gosling
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
[ Arggh. ]
Heartfelt commiserations.
-patrick.
Chris
[...]
> I've phoned the police, and they've promised to come
> round later.
Good luck. When a similar thing happened to me (a man in
a car deliberately drove it in to me while I was walking
across a pedestrian crossing) the police didn't even
respond when I contacted them (in writing). I didn't have
the presence of mind to collect witnesses, though.
Cf. http://ex-parrot.com/~chris/wwwitter/20020904-police_stop.html
--
Chris Lightfoot, chris at ex dash parrot dot com; http://ex-parrot.com/~chris/
``... you cannot make a pair of croak-voiced Daleks appear benevolent even if
you dress one of them up in an Armani suit and call the other Marmaduke.''
(Dennis Potter, on ex-BBC big cheeses John Birt and Marmaduke Hussey)
Jonathan Amery
Chris <ch...@x.invalid> wrote:
>Ian Jackson wrote:
> [...]
>> I've phoned the police, and they've promised to come
>> round later.
>
>Good luck. When a similar thing happened to me (a man in
>a car deliberately drove it in to me while I was walking
>across a pedestrian crossing) the police didn't even
>respond when I contacted them (in writing). I didn't have
>the presence of mind to collect witnesses, though.
>
paid attention to your letter - the driver had a friendly
witness... :(
This is a strange sort of consolation though :(
--
Jonathan Amery. <Khendon> They should leave Buffy dead and rename the series
##### "Willow the Witch". It'd be *much* better with more Willow :-)
#######__o <Sarabian> Better still, they should call it Willow the Wisp
#######'/ and bring in Evil Edna as the new baddie. Oh yes. - on afe
Colin Davidson
"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:0WA*UP...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> This evening I was coming down Bridge Street towards the Round Church
> (outside the back entrance to Whewell's Court and the alleyway to the
> craft fair).
Good luck with this, I'm sure we'll all watch closely to see what happens.
Chris
> In article <ap5mh2$d2i$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
> Chris <ch...@x.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Ian Jackson wrote:
[...]
>>> I've phoned the police, and they've promised to come
>>>round later.
>>
>>Good luck. When a similar thing happened to me (a man in
>>a car deliberately drove it in to me while I was walking
>>across a pedestrian crossing) the police didn't even
>>respond when I contacted them (in writing). I didn't have
>>the presence of mind to collect witnesses, though.
>>
>
> If its any consolation they wouldn't've prosecuted even if they had
> paid attention to your letter - the driver had a friendly
> witness... :(
For sure. And in any case, given my failure to collect
the names of witnesses, it would have come down to my
word against his; and since he is clearly an upstanding
citizen who keeps an expensive motor-car, whereas I am
a mere pedestrian, I can't imagine that a prosecution
would have been successful.
(And, let's be honest, I wasn't expecting Plod of the
Yard to go screaming off, lights flashing and sirens
wailing, to arrest my assailaint, thence to hurl him
into the Scrubs to rot in ignominy until he no longer
poses a danger to society. Or, at least, that part of
it which uses Zebra crossings. I was just hoping for
some response from the Police. Sob.)
--
Chris Lightfoot, chris at ex dash parrot dot com; http://ex-parrot.com/~chris/
``Serendipity is looking for a needle in a haystack
and finding the farmer's daughter.'' (Hans Kornberg)
Steve Hunt
> a car deliberately drove it in to me while I was walking
> across a pedestrian crossing) the police didn't even
> respond when I contacted them (in writing). I didn't have
> the presence of mind to collect witnesses, though.
IMO you should keep writing to them, and if necessary
escalating it, until you get a reply. It's your
civic duty really.
Maybe if the police actually took complaints like
yours seriously we would not need so many ghastly
traffic calming schemes.
-- Steve
John Connett
Hopefully CCTV will have recorded some of the incident ...
Chris
>>Good luck. When a similar thing happened to me (a man in
>>a car deliberately drove it in to me while I was walking
>>across a pedestrian crossing) the police didn't even
>>respond when I contacted them (in writing). I didn't have
>>the presence of mind to collect witnesses, though.
>
> IMO you should keep writing to them, and if necessary
> escalating it, until you get a reply. It's your
> civic duty really.
Hmm. That has occurred to me. However, I judge that
I will not get very far, and that the whole exercise
will simply result in my getting frustrated and
depressed whilst getting nowhere.
> Maybe if the police actually took complaints like
> yours seriously we would not need so many ghastly
> traffic calming schemes.
Maybe; maybe not. In this case the motorist had
clearly been riled by the existence of a pedestrian
crossing on it and the presence of a pedestrian who
wished to use it. I don't think that changing the
number of traffic calming schemes is likely to do
anything to protect society from people like this.
--
Chris Lightfoot, chris at ex dash parrot dot com; http://ex-parrot.com/~chris/
Arthur: Why should a rock hum?
Ford: Perhaps it feels good about being a rock.
(from `The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy', by Douglas Adams)
Steve Hunt
> Maybe; maybe not. In this case the motorist had
> clearly been riled by the existence of a pedestrian
> crossing on it and the presence of a pedestrian who
> wished to use it. I don't think that changing the
> number of traffic calming schemes is likely to do
> anything to protect society from people like this.
Was I unclear? I meant that if more bad motorists
were prosecuted for the type of incident you recount,
there would be a greater proportion of bad drivers
either banned or on 12 points and hence being
very very careful, and hence less need for
traffic calming.
-- Steve
Jonathan Amery
Alan <alan....@deadspam.com> wrote:
>Last night on the way home, 7 out of the 8 cyclists at the Castle
>Hill/Victoria Road traffic lights going out of town, carried straight on
>across the red light. They knew no-one would stop them so why wait for
>green?
They need to have the Fear of Jonathan put into them...
--
Jonathan Amery. "There are mathematicians who never open their mail,
##### mathematicians who sleep all day and work during the night,...
#######__o mathematicians who lecture in bare feet, and several who know
#######'/ the railway timetables for the whole of the British Isles" TWK
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
"Colin Davidson" <ca...@biotech.cam.ac.uk> writes:
> "Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:0WA*UP...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> > This evening I was coming down Bridge Street towards the Round Church
> > (outside the back entrance to Whewell's Court and the alleyway to the
> > craft fair).
> (CUT description of extremely frightening incident)
How was it "extremely frightening" ? Ian could have terminated the
incident at any time, had he wished to, by simply saying "OK, hold on a
moment" and getting out of the way, surely?
It's qualitatively completely different from the random assaults one reads
about. IMHO *they* deserve descriptions like "extremely frightening".
- Huge
Martin Read
William Turner <william...@pace.co.uk> wrote:
>was making an unnecessarily agressive stance, and as a result
>was responsible for escalating the situation to start with? It's
>fine for cyclists to harrass other users, but not to be the
>harrassed?
Look again at the description of the incident. A man several inches
taller than Ian (who IIRC is not exactly *short* himself), driving a
van, drove down the road the wrong way and became violent when told he
was doing so - and was happy to continue doing so when there were clearly
witnesses to the incident!
Such people are bullies thugs and should, as much as possible, be stood
up to, and, if possible, prosecuted - and ideally banned and possibly
imprisoned - for dangerous driving, or placed in a secure hospital for
the criminally insane if they prove to be so.
m.
--
\_\/_/| Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
\ / | in heaven his throne is made of gold the ark of his testament is
\/ | stowed a throne from which i'm told all history does unfold
------+ -- Nick Cave, "The Mercy Seat"
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk (Patrick Gosling) writes:
> In article <m3lm4pb...@foo.surfingsuggestion.co.uk>,
> Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <hm...@surfingsuggestionx.co.ukx> wrote:
> >How was it "extremely frightening" ? Ian could have terminated the
> >incident at any time, had he wished to, by simply saying "OK, hold on a
> >moment" and getting out of the way, surely?
>
>
> The nasty bit of it is the use of a vehicle to physically propel a
> bicycle out of the way. If you've not had it done to you, you may not
> appreciate how unpleasant it is, but someone with your common sense
> should at least understand the significant extent to which it is both
> an inappropriate and a dangerous action.
Absolutely; equally I would say that determinedly staying in the road once
another vehicle appears to be doing this is also an inappropriate and a
dangerous action.
It's funny, when both cycling and driving, I try to anticipate and be
tolerant of other people's mistakes, and non-confrontational at all times.
"Did you know you're going the wrong way down a one-way street"
"Fuck off and get out of the way"
"OK, hang on, but I think you should know that lots of other people will
also be not expecting you - please be careful..."
- Huge
Chris
I probably agree with that. I just don't think that this
guy will get prosecuted for this incident.
--
Chris Lightfoot, chris at ex dash parrot dot com; http://ex-parrot.com/~chris/
``Today's youth should be as morally upright as are the leaders of the free
world, and should never consider violence as a way of settling disputes,
regardless of provocation, any more than NATO does.'' (Dan Rutter)
Alan
@doris.uk.clara.net:
Also, if road users thought that there was a chance of being caught for
infringements, they'd probably drive/cycle to within the law in the
first place anyway.
Last night on the way home, 7 out of the 8 cyclists at the Castle
Hill/Victoria Road traffic lights going out of town, carried straight on
across the red light. They knew no-one would stop them so why wait for
green?
Alan
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE!
Replace 'deadspam.com' with penguinclub.org.uk to reply in email
Colin Davidson
"Hugo 'NOx' Tyson" <hm...@surfingsuggestionx.co.ukx> wrote in message
news:m3lm4pb...@foo.surfingsuggestion.co.uk...
> > (CUT description of extremely frightening incident)
>
> How was it "extremely frightening" ? Ian could have terminated the
> incident at any time, had he wished to, by simply saying "OK, hold on a
> moment" and getting out of the way, surely?
>
> It's qualitatively completely different from the random assaults one reads
> about. IMHO *they* deserve descriptions like "extremely frightening".
Read the description of the incident again. The van drive advanced on a
stationary cyclist, the wrong way down a one way street. In what way is that
not extremely frightening?
William Turner
Surely I'm not going to be the only person who thinks that Ian
was making an unnecessarily agressive stance, and as a result
was responsible for escalating the situation to start with? It's
fine for cyclists to harrass other users, but not to be the
harrassed?
I'm not excusing either side, but it's surely easier to go round
the van than start a full-blown argument in the road, probably
impeding other people's use of it as well?
Why can't people just be more tolerant? Would Ian have refused
to move if he was in a car?
w
--
|\ _,,,---,,_ Principal Software Engineer,
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Pace Micro Technology PLC,
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Cambridge, England.
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Email: william...@pace.co.uk
Patrick Gosling
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <hm...@surfingsuggestionx.co.ukx> wrote:
>How was it "extremely frightening" ? Ian could have terminated the
>incident at any time, had he wished to, by simply saying "OK, hold on a
>moment" and getting out of the way, surely?
Certainly.
The nasty bit of it is the use of a vehicle to physically propel a
bicycle out of the way. If you've not had it done to you, you may not
appreciate how unpleasant it is, but someone with your common sense
should at least understand the significant extent to which it is both
an inappropriate and a dangerous action.
-patrick.
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
Subjectively? You're acting as if your personal first impression is an
absolute truth. I think that description is exaggerated, and I've said why
I think that.
You read the description of the incident again.
The one-wayness of the street is irrelevent - both vehicles were stationary
before the contact incident began.
After stopping for a discussion, the van driver advanced on a stationary
cyclist slowly, nudging the cycle backwards, the description says. The two
were in voice contact. It seems to me that the cyclist could have escaped
the danger at any moment by saying "OK, OK, I'm moving, let me get out of
the way" and moving aside.
If that hypothetical escape route existed, then it seems to me that the
situation surely is less frightening than many other dangerous situations
of which we read here, from which no escape was available. Therefore,
since it is not at an extreme of danger and therefore frighteningness, it
cannot logically be described as "extremely" anything. "Pretty
frightening", I'd go along with. "Extremely"? No.
But I wasn't there. And nor were you.
- Huge
William Turner
>
> In article <3DB6C057...@pace.co.uk>,
> William Turner <william...@pace.co.uk> wrote:
> >Surely I'm not going to be the only person who thinks that Ian
> >was making an unnecessarily agressive stance, and as a result
> >was responsible for escalating the situation to start with? It's
> >fine for cyclists to harrass other users, but not to be the
> >harrassed?
>
> Look again at the description of the incident. A man several inches
> taller than Ian (who IIRC is not exactly *short* himself), driving a
> van, drove down the road the wrong way and became violent when told he
> was doing so - and was happy to continue doing so when there were clearly
> witnesses to the incident!
I suggest that, having followed your advice, you do too. And then read
again what I said. Ian _escalated_ the incident. Didn't say he started
it. The 'becoming violent' happened _after_ a prolonged verbal exchange.
"We had a discussion, where I said `wrong way' and `go back' and he
said `get out of my way' and `I got lost'. This was repeated on each
side a number of times."
> Such people are bullies thugs and should, as much as possible, be stood
> up to, and, if possible, prosecuted - and ideally banned and possibly
> imprisoned - for dangerous driving, or placed in a secure hospital for
> the criminally insane if they prove to be so.
In general, yes. However, putting oneself in the way of them
for no good reason strikes me as somewhat stupid. There are
a _lot_ of dangerous road users around. My attitude is to get
away from their vicinity so as not to get entangled in their
dangerosity. Arguing the toss against some incompetent comes
under that heading.
Dave Holland
>It seems to me that the cyclist could have escaped
>the danger at any moment by saying "OK, OK, I'm moving, let me get out of
>the way" and moving aside.
And (equally hypothetically) the driver could have run down the
cyclist, regardless of whether the cyclist was moving out of the way
or not. The possibility of a known nutter doing something wildly
unexpected like that seems to me to be what qualifies this sort of
incident as "extremely frightening".
>But I wasn't there. And nor were you.
and nor was I.
Dave
Patrick Gosling
>the van than start a full-blown argument in the road, probably
>impeding other people's use of it as well?
My experience (in situations where a vehicle has been travelling the
wrong way down a road or on the wrong side of a two-way road, towards
me), has been that beginning to move out of the way leads to the rear
of your bike becoming very vulnerable to an impact as the person coming
the other way pushes past you.
I used to shift into the side of the pavement in such circumstances,
and found that even if I managed to do this in time, I would be left
less-than-the-width-of-my-bike's space by someone passing me at
considerably faster than a safe speed. Being driven into the kerb by
lackwits who are driving on the wrong side of the road is not a
pleasing, rewarding, or safe experience.
In my case, having my daughter on the back of my bike, I'm no longer
prepared to take the risk, and wait for the driver to find their own
resolution to their mistake.
Many drivers do not respond in a civilised or acceptable manner in
situations where they are completely in the wrong, I've found.
-patrick.
Colin Davidson
"Hugo 'NOx' Tyson" <hm...@surfingsuggestionx.co.ukx> wrote in message
(CUT)
> If that hypothetical escape route existed, then it seems to me that the
> situation surely is less frightening than many other dangerous situations
> of which we read here, from which no escape was available. Therefore,
> since it is not at an extreme of danger and therefore frighteningness, it
> cannot logically be described as "extremely" anything. "Pretty
> frightening", I'd go along with. "Extremely"? No.
>
> But I wasn't there. And nor were you.
Assuming that the barest bones of the story as presented are true then it's
extremely frightening. You seem to be arguing that one cubjective viewpoint
(mine) is neccesarily less accurate than another (yours)? While that's a
highly amusing argumentative stance, the purpose of taking it escapes me.
Colin Rosenstiel
(John Connett) wrote:
I'm afraid I rather doubt that. Despite requests from Trinity College
Union some years back, All Saint's Passage (the alleyway to the craft fair
it was put) is not covered.
Colin Rosenstiel
Jonathan Amery
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <hm...@surfingsuggestionx.co.ukx> wrote:
>
>> The nasty bit of it is the use of a vehicle to physically propel a
>> bicycle out of the way. If you've not had it done to you, you may not
>> appreciate how unpleasant it is, but someone with your common sense
>> should at least understand the significant extent to which it is both
>> an inappropriate and a dangerous action.
>
>Absolutely; equally I would say that determinedly staying in the road once
>another vehicle appears to be doing this is also an inappropriate and a
>dangerous action.
>
Once the other vehicle has started this it is impossible to safely
leave the road.
--
Jonathan Amery. Here I am Lord, Is it I Lord?
##### I have heard you calling in the night.
#######__o I will go Lord, if you lead me.
#######'/ I will hold your people in my heart. - Daniel Schutte
Jonathan Amery
>the van
There usually isn't space to go around another vehicle here - hence
the one-way restriction.
Anyway, staying in the middle of the road is common advice for this
kind of situation, as it doesn't allow the driver to misjudge the
space available. (cf the restricted Bridge Street section by
Magdalaine).
--
Jonathan Amery. O speak to reassure me,
##### To hasten or control;
#######__o O speak, and make me listen,
#######'/ Thou Guardian of my soul. - J.E. Bode
Jonathan Amery
William Turner <william...@pace.co.uk> wrote:
>In general, yes. However, putting oneself in the way of them
>for no good reason strikes me as somewhat stupid. There are
>a _lot_ of dangerous road users around. My attitude is to get
>away from their vicinity so as not to get entangled in their
>dangerosity. Arguing the toss against some incompetent comes
>under that heading.
It is often nigh on impossible to get out of their way without
exposing yourself to worse injury from their vehicles.
--
Jonathan Amery.
##### The world is collapsing around our ears
#######__o I turned up the radio, but I can't hear it.
#######'/ - REM, Radio Song
John Sullivan
> Anyway, staying in the middle of the road is common advice for this
>kind of situation,
Do you have a link for that?
John
--
Dead stars still burn
Mark Ayliffe
But this happened on Bridge Street, between the Round Church and Whewells
court, not in All Saints passage. Isn't there a camera on a pole by the
church? Or on the shops on the church side of the road?
Mark
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
"Colin Davidson" <ca...@biotech.cam.ac.uk> writes:
> "Hugo 'NOx' Tyson" <hm...@surfingsuggestionx.co.ukx> wrote in message
> news:m3bs5lb...@foo.surfingsuggestion.co.uk...
> (CUT)
> > If that hypothetical escape route existed, then it seems to me that the
> > situation surely is less frightening than many other dangerous situations
> > of which we read here, from which no escape was available. Therefore,
> > since it is not at an extreme of danger and therefore frighteningness, it
> > cannot logically be described as "extremely" anything. "Pretty
> > frightening", I'd go along with. "Extremely"? No.
> >
> > But I wasn't there. And nor were you.
>
> Assuming that the barest bones of the story as presented are true then
> it's extremely frightening.
ITYM to say that it is extremely frightening *to you*.
I can state as fact that it is not extremely frightening *to me*, because,
given the situation as presented, were it I as the cyclist, I can visualize
an escape route from the danger.
> You seem to be arguing that one subjective viewpoint (mine) is
> neccesarily less accurate than another (yours)? While that's a highly
> amusing argumentative stance, the purpose of taking it escapes me.
Not quite: I was more pointing out that these *are* subjective viewpoints,
as you agree. So it's not necessarily extremely frightening to everyone,
as your initial statement appeared to imply, that's all.
Think of the widespread abuse of the word "unsightly".
As always, I'm trying to get people to discuss things more calmly and
rationally, by trying to avoid extreme emotional descriptions of stuff.
Ah well.
- Huge
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
Jonathan Amery <jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> In article <3DB6C057...@pace.co.uk>,
> William Turner <william...@pace.co.uk> wrote:
> >I'm not excusing either side, but it's surely easier to go round
> >the van
>
> There usually isn't space to go around another vehicle here - hence
> the one-way restriction.
>
> Anyway, staying in the middle of the road is common advice for this
> kind of situation, as it doesn't allow the driver to misjudge the
> space available. (cf the restricted Bridge Street section by
> Magdalaine).
That, I totally agree with. But after that, surely the "common advice" is
to co-operate, avoid confrontation, clear the way for the least
manouverable vehicle, and the like.
Consider an analogy: a large truck doing a 17-point turn, facing the wrong
way in a one-way street [offence #1], blocking the road for 10 minutes
[#2], with a failed brake and reversing light [#3], and dropping mud on the
highway [#4], in order to back into a building site. Do you, as a driver,
deliberately place yourself and your vehicle in harm's way to make the
trucker and his reversing-buddy aware of the error of their ways, thus
provoking a fist fight or damage to your car, or do you just wait
patiently? IMHO any sensible driver would wait patiently, or wait fuming,
whatever, but *not actually obstruct* them in any way.
Why is it OK for cyclists to act any differently?
- Huge
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
Jonathan Amery <jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> In article <m3fzuxb...@foo.surfingsuggestion.co.uk>,
> Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <hm...@surfingsuggestionx.co.ukx> wrote:
> >jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk (Patrick Gosling) writes:
> >> The nasty bit of it is the use of a vehicle to physically propel a
> >> bicycle out of the way. If you've not had it done to you, you may not
> >> appreciate how unpleasant it is, but someone with your common sense
> >> should at least understand the significant extent to which it is both
> >> an inappropriate and a dangerous action.
> >
> >Absolutely; equally I would say that determinedly staying in the road once
> >another vehicle appears to be doing this is also an inappropriate and a
> >dangerous action.
>
> Once the other vehicle has started this it is impossible to safely
> leave the road.
My, that's a sweeping generalization.
FFS, they were able to talk to one-another! Tell the driver you're trying
to get out of the way, if he would only let you. No doubt a very small
percentage are loonies who by then have the red mist, but equally no doubt
most just want to be on their way, if you'd let them.
- Huge
Colin Rosenstiel
mark.ayl...@nospam.pem.cam.andthis.ac.uk (Mark Ayliffe) wrote:
Maybe. The Council manager in charge is Martin Beaumont.
Colin Rosenstiel
Ian Jackson
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <hm...@surfingsuggestionx.co.ukx> wrote:
>Absolutely; equally I would say that determinedly staying in the road once
>another vehicle appears to be doing this is also an inappropriate and a
>dangerous action.
Suppose you're walking along peacefully and a gang of aggressive
people coming the other way block your and start to shout insults at
you, threaten you with violence, etc. Then perhaps not running away
is unwise. You might even say that it was risky.
But, if you don't run away and instead stand your ground peacefully,
and get beaten up for it, it would be most unfair to blame you by
calling your behaviour `dangerous', or `inappropriate'.
That is exactly what you're doing here: you're blaming me for not
giving in to intimidation. I accept that from the point of view of my
personal safety it would probably have been wiser to give in and run
off. I was standing up to a bully - that's rarely without risk.
How dare you blame the victim ?!
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Ian Jackson
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <hm...@surfingsuggestionx.co.ukx> wrote:
>difficulty]
That was not the case here. Your `analogy' is in fact a piece of
misrepresentation. There would have been no practical problem with
the driver reversing back towards the Round Church - a matter of
perhaps 50 metres - and then continuing on their way in a legal
fashion.
I've often given way to large lorries and other vehicles who are
having difficulty manoeuvering in the city's narrow streets; to do so
is only courteous and reasonable.
Diana Galletly
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <hm...@surfingsuggestionx.co.ukx> wrote:
>jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk (Patrick Gosling) writes:
>> In article <m3lm4pb...@foo.surfingsuggestion.co.uk>,
>> Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <hm...@surfingsuggestionx.co.ukx> wrote:
>> >How was it "extremely frightening" ? Ian could have terminated the
>> >incident at any time, had he wished to, by simply saying "OK, hold on a
>> >moment" and getting out of the way, surely?
>>
>> bicycle out of the way. If you've not had it done to you, you may not
>> appreciate how unpleasant it is, but someone with your common sense
>> should at least understand the significant extent to which it is both
>> an inappropriate and a dangerous action.
>
>Absolutely; equally I would say that determinedly staying in the road once
>another vehicle appears to be doing this is also an inappropriate and a
>dangerous action.
Can I suggest that, if you're looking for a career change, you might
consider "judge" amongst your possibilities. You seem to have the
"but she was just asking for it, wearing a provocative outfit like that"
mentality down pat.
--
+ Diana Galletly <dag...@eng.cam.ac.uk> +
+ http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~galletly/ +
Chris
> "Colin Davidson" <ca...@biotech.cam.ac.uk> writes:
>>Assuming that the barest bones of the story as presented are true then
>>it's extremely frightening.
[...]
> I can state as fact that it is not extremely frightening *to me*, because,
> given the situation as presented, were it I as the cyclist, I can visualize
> an escape route from the danger.
I applaud your calmness and sang froid in the face of this
report.
I will comment that when a motorist attempted to use his
vehicle to injure me, I found it extremely frightening,
regardless of the the possibility of getting out of his way
which (evidently) was open to me. I should also remark that
when a motorist is using his vehicle in this way, it can be
very difficult for his victim to reason calmly about their
actions.
We should also, perhaps, consider how lucky it is that it
is only the motorists in these incidents who have access to
the means to easily kill their victims. Were access to
lethal force available both to these motorists and their
intended victims, there would in all probability be a
bloodbath, since -- it seems -- many road users do not
display the calmness and rationality which you demonstrate.
--
Chris Lightfoot, chris at ex dash parrot dot com; http://ex-parrot.com/~chris/
``Making canned cola requires millions of dollars in abstruse gear
and manufacturing gizmos. It's easier to make nerve gas than
manufacture cola.'' (from the OpenCola.com soft drink recipe)
Jonathan Amery
John Sullivan <js...@kanargh.force9.co.uk> wrote:
>Jonathan Amery <jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Anyway, staying in the middle of the road is common advice for this
>>kind of situation,
>
>Do you have a link for that?
>
here, but is indicative of a kind of set of advice I hare often
recieved face-to-face.
http://www.rx7-uk.co.uk/~abdcambs/abd_cycling.htm
--
Jonathan D. Amery, http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~jdamery/ #####
"The hearts of children belong in their breasts, Kal Torak, and I o__#######
would rather hear their voices lifted in laughter and song, than \'#######
screaming in terror." - Darkness is just the absence of light. Joy Green
Jonathan Amery
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <m33cqxa...@foo.surfingsuggestion.co.uk>,
>Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <hm...@surfingsuggestionx.co.ukx> wrote:
>>Consider an analogy: a large truck doing a 17-point turn, [in
>>difficulty]
>
>That was not the case here. Your `analogy' is in fact a piece of
>misrepresentation. There would have been no practical problem with
>the driver reversing back towards the Round Church - a matter of
>perhaps 50 metres - and then continuing on their way in a legal
>fashion.
I suspect that if the driver had given Ian some reason why this was
not feasible then Ian would have gotten out of his way, also.
(although I am not Ian :))
--
Jonathan D. Amery, http://www.pick.ucam.org/~jdamery/ #####
"I think I was born during the fifteenth century", Senji replied. o__#######
"What year is it now?"/"Fifty-three seventy-nine", Garion told him.\'#######
"Already?" Senji said mildly. "Where does the time go?" - SoD, David Eddings
Robert Macmillan
"Mark Ayliffe" <mark.ayl...@nospam.pem.cam.andthis.ac.uk> wrote in
message news:0tj6pa...@192.168.1.252...
I don't know about this camera but IME the general public has various
misconceptions about CCTV:
- it is working
- it is recording
- the film is not overwritten
- the film is traceable
- there is willingness to trace it
Even when Something Terrible Happens (ie a child goes missing) there is
very little to show from all those CCTV cameras.
Robert
Robert Macmillan
"Patrick Gosling" <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ap6hvi$a6e$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> In article <3DB6C057...@pace.co.uk>,
> William Turner <william...@pace.co.uk> wrote:
> >I'm not excusing either side, but it's surely easier to go round
> >the van than start a full-blown argument in the road, probably
> >impeding other people's use of it as well?
>
> My experience (in situations where a vehicle has been travelling the
> wrong way down a road or on the wrong side of a two-way road, towards
> me), has been that beginning to move out of the way leads to the rear
> of your bike becoming very vulnerable to an impact as the person coming
> the other way pushes past you.
I would think that if you are moving to the left, putting up your right
hand as a sign to hold on while you get out of the way would help.
> I used to shift into the side of the pavement in such circumstances,
> and found that even if I managed to do this in time, I would be left
> less-than-the-width-of-my-bike's space by someone passing me at
> considerably faster than a safe speed. Being driven into the kerb by
> lackwits who are driving on the wrong side of the road is not a
> pleasing, rewarding, or safe experience.
Indeed. Although probably better than being mown down (read that, five
year olds) by them.
> In my case, having my daughter on the back of my bike, I'm no longer
> prepared to take the risk, and wait for the driver to find their own
> resolution to their mistake.
Indeed. And sympathy to you for your recent experience. But it could be
argued that you are contributing to the risk to your daughter, even if the
essential wrongness is on the other side. (I'm not arguing that but I can
see an argument.)
> Many drivers do not respond in a civilised or acceptable manner in
> situations where they are completely in the wrong, I've found.
How would people regard the situations of pedestrians deliberately
standing in the way of cyclists who are cycling places they shouldn't
(pavements, one way streets, pedestrian areas) and the cyclist being
abusive?
Robert (who has done it)
Colin Davidson
"Hugo 'NOx' Tyson" <hm...@surfingsuggestionx.co.ukx> wrote in message
(CUT)
> As always, I'm trying to get people to discuss things more calmly and
> rationally, by trying to avoid extreme emotional descriptions of stuff.
A guy threatened someone with multiple tonnes of metal, and you're trying to
see it in a calm unemotional way? I don't know whether to applaud your
calmness or suggest that you really ought to empathise more.
Robert Macmillan
"Colin Davidson" <ca...@biotech.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ap6k02$c0l$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> "Hugo 'NOx' Tyson" <hm...@surfingsuggestionx.co.ukx> wrote in message
> news:m3bs5lb...@foo.surfingsuggestion.co.uk...
> (CUT)
> > If that hypothetical escape route existed, then it seems to me that
the
> > situation surely is less frightening than many other dangerous
situations
> > of which we read here, from which no escape was available. Therefore,
> > since it is not at an extreme of danger and therefore frighteningness,
it
> > cannot logically be described as "extremely" anything. "Pretty
> > frightening", I'd go along with. "Extremely"? No.
> >
> > But I wasn't there. And nor were you.
>
> Assuming that the barest bones of the story as presented are true then
it's
But it's less frightening if a less confrontational approach is taken.
There is a choice on the part of the cyclist between just quickly getting
out of the way and thinking "wanker" and getting into a confrontation with
the apparent risk of being run over. With various points in between.
This isn't to defend the van driver.
Robert
Robert Macmillan
"Diana Galletly" <dag...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ap76hs$qe2$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> In article <m3fzuxb...@foo.surfingsuggestion.co.uk>,
> >
> >Absolutely; equally I would say that determinedly staying in the road
once
> >another vehicle appears to be doing this is also an inappropriate and a
> >dangerous action.
>
> Can I suggest that, if you're looking for a career change, you might
> consider "judge" amongst your possibilities. You seem to have the
> "but she was just asking for it, wearing a provocative outfit like that"
> mentality down pat.
That's a bit unfair. Huge is saying defuse the situation safely, not
merely give in. The difference between the car nutter and the rapist is
that the car nutter just wants to go on his way with no obstruction. The
person defiantly standing in the way is changing the situation to a
potential running over. The rapist situation is different and I'm sure
that Huge would never take the line that wearing sexy clothing merited a
girl being raped.
Robert
William Turner
>
> In article <3DB6C057...@pace.co.uk>,
> William Turner <william...@pace.co.uk> wrote:
> >I'm not excusing either side, but it's surely easier to go round
> >the van than start a full-blown argument in the road, probably
> >impeding other people's use of it as well?
>
> My experience (in situations where a vehicle has been travelling the
> wrong way down a road or on the wrong side of a two-way road, towards
> me), has been that beginning to move out of the way leads to the rear
> of your bike becoming very vulnerable to an impact as the person coming
> the other way pushes past you.
Fair enough. However, given that this altercation started off
with both vehicles becoming stationary, and a verbal exchange,
I'd imagine it's perfectly possible for the cyclist to move (not
necessarily _ride_) their bike to the side of the road (or even
onto the pavement) such that the van can pass. The van doesn't have
this luxury of movement. By all means, cycle on afterwards muttering
about the parentage or otherwise of the van driver...
> I used to shift into the side of the pavement in such circumstances,
> and found that even if I managed to do this in time, I would be left
> less-than-the-width-of-my-bike's space by someone passing me at
> considerably faster than a safe speed. Being driven into the kerb by
> lackwits who are driving on the wrong side of the road is not a
> pleasing, rewarding, or safe experience.
I agree. Neither is being forced into the middle of the road
unexpectedly by cyclists without lights, or forced to brake
sharply because of a cyclist crossing lights at red. But that's
life. I'm not going to stop them and have a go any more than I
would if the vehicles were reversed.
> Many drivers do not respond in a civilised or acceptable manner in
> situations where they are completely in the wrong, I've found.
Whereas many cyclists fail to even admit it. So, we've got
bad cylists and bad drivers. What a surprise.
Patrick Gosling
Robert Macmillan <rob...@mbe-windsor.co.uk> wrote:
>How would people regard the situations of pedestrians deliberately
>standing in the way of cyclists who are cycling places they shouldn't
>(pavements, one way streets, pedestrian areas) and the cyclist being
>abusive?
The last time a cyclist deliberately tried to run me off a footpath (a
teenager presumably trying to take the piss when I was running across
Stourbridge Common at night, by riding their bicycle directly at me),
they found that in a collision between a cyclist and a stationary
pedestrian, it is not impossible for the pedestrian to remain largely
unhurt, and the cyclist to start flying lessons. Yes, I did briefly
report the incident at Parkside.
So guess where my sympathies lie ...
-patrick.
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
"Colin Davidson" <ca...@biotech.cam.ac.uk> writes:
> "Hugo 'NOx' Tyson" <hm...@surfingsuggestionx.co.ukx> wrote in message
> news:m37kg9a...@foo.surfingsuggestion.co.uk...
> (CUT)
> > As always, I'm trying to get people to discuss things more calmly and
> > rationally, by trying to avoid extreme emotional descriptions of stuff.
>
> A guy threatened someone with multiple tonnes of metal, and you're trying to
> see it in a calm unemotional way?
Yes, of course, because IMHO that's the only way to make rational decisions
or form rational opinions. Can you gainsay that and still call yourself a
scientist[1]?
Seeing it in an excited emotional way leads to the sort of "Burn a paedo
and win a Peugeot" type of policy so beloved of the tabloids.
> I don't know whether to applaud your
> calmness or suggest that you really ought to empathise more.
If empathise means "go along with my initial emotive knee-jerk reaction to
everything and then argue at length that my initial emotive knee-jerk
reaction is intrinsically, absolutely, correct " I think I'll stay as I am
ta very much.
- Huge
[1]guessing from your email address.
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> In article <m3fzuxb...@foo.surfingsuggestion.co.uk>,
> Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <hm...@surfingsuggestionx.co.ukx> wrote:
> >Absolutely; equally I would say that determinedly staying in the road once
> >another vehicle appears to be doing this is also an inappropriate and a
> >dangerous action.
>
> Suppose you're walking along peacefully and a gang of aggressive
> people coming the other way block your and start to shout insults at
> you, threaten you with violence, etc. Then perhaps not running away
> is unwise. You might even say that it was risky.
>
> But, if you don't run away and instead stand your ground peacefully,
> and get beaten up for it, it would be most unfair to blame you by
> calling your behaviour `dangerous', or `inappropriate'.
The difference is a clear one: someone bent on assault is bent on
assaulting you; someone who assaults you just because they want you to get
out of the way might be expected to stop if you get out of the way.
I'm not sure about either running away (provokes the thrill of the chase)
or standing ground (provokes a confrontation). How about trying to walk
away calmly asnd peacefully, perhaps on the other side of the road?
> That is exactly what you're doing here: you're blaming me for not
> giving in to intimidation. I accept that from the point of view of my
> personal safety it would probably have been wiser to give in and run
> off. I was standing up to a bully - that's rarely without risk.
>
> How dare you blame the victim ?!
Oooo, heretic I am? How easily that pat phrase is trotted out...
I didn't blame you. I suggested that the situation might have been easily
escapable, even after the initial escalation by you, by saying "hold on, no
need to get heavy, I'll get out of the way if you keep still a moment", and
that therefore it was IMHO less than "extremely frightening".
Do you think that saying something like that would or would not have worked
to let you get out of the road?
- Huge
Paul Bolchover
Jonathan Amery <jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Anyway, staying in the middle of the road is common advice for this
>kind of situation, as it doesn't allow the driver to misjudge the
>space available. (cf the restricted Bridge Street section by
>Magdalaine).
It doesn't always work, though...
Paul Bolchover
Alan
news:1936367.G...@robinton.llondel.org:
> In message <Xns92B0A638C4C9Fal...@193.150.150.3>, Alan
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Last night on the way home, 7 out of the 8 cyclists at the Castle
>> Hill/Victoria Road traffic lights going out of town, carried straight
>> on across the red light. They knew no-one would stop them so why
>> wait for green?
>>
> Presumably there were no cars waiting to turn right across their path?
> I wonder who gets blamed if the car driver turns right on a green
> filter and collides with a cyclist who's just jumped the red light?
>
Oh yes, lots of cars came out of the Victoria Road/Histon Road bit. The
cyclists just assume the cars were going to avoid them.
Alan
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE!
Replace 'deadspam.com' with penguinclub.org.uk to reply in email
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
Thanks Robert, that's very much what I was trying to get at.
- Huge
Patrick Gosling
William Turner <william...@pace.co.uk> wrote:
>Fair enough. However, given that this altercation started off
>with both vehicles becoming stationary, and a verbal exchange,
>I'd imagine it's perfectly possible for the cyclist to move (not
>necessarily _ride_) their bike to the side of the road (or even
>onto the pavement) such that the van can pass. The van doesn't have
>this luxury of movement. By all means, cycle on afterwards muttering
>about the parentage or otherwise of the van driver...
In the situation as described there is a non-trivial risk that your
rear wheel will get run over as you move to the side of the road.
>> Many drivers do not respond in a civilised or acceptable manner in
>> situations where they are completely in the wrong, I've found.
>
>Whereas many cyclists fail to even admit it. So, we've got
>bad cylists and bad drivers. What a surprise.
Many drivers fail to even admit it. You'd be surprised how many have
asserted to me that Church Lane, Trumpington "must be" one way.
And yes, there are a large number of crap cyclists out there as well.
I had a bit of a yell at the dopey bint who decided to go through red
lights at the top of Castle Hill yesterday evening, after I'd braked
sharply to avoid her.
-patrick.
Mark Ayliffe
>
> I don't know about this camera but IME the general public has various
> misconceptions about CCTV:
> - it is working
> - it is recording
> - the film is not overwritten
> - the film is traceable
> - there is willingness to trace it
>
> Even when Something Terrible Happens (ie a child goes missing) there
> is very little to show from all those CCTV cameras.
Indeed so, even if there was a camera within range it is so unlikely to have
anything useful it's probvably not even worth asking. And if there was,
we'll see it on TV's next "violence in our cities" pseudo-documentary
anyway. I was merely contending Colin's point about non-coverage of All
Saints Passage. It would not have been relevant to this incident.
Mark
William Turner
>
> In article <3DB7B2BC...@pace.co.uk>,
> William Turner <william...@pace.co.uk> wrote:
> >Fair enough. However, given that this altercation started off
> >with both vehicles becoming stationary, and a verbal exchange,
> >I'd imagine it's perfectly possible for the cyclist to move (not
> >necessarily _ride_) their bike to the side of the road (or even
> >onto the pavement) such that the van can pass. The van doesn't have
> >this luxury of movement. By all means, cycle on afterwards muttering
> >about the parentage or otherwise of the van driver...
>
> In the situation as described there is a non-trivial risk that your
> rear wheel will get run over as you move to the side of the road.
While I can see that with a kid on the back the bike becomes
considerably less manoevurable, I think that you're making the
probably fallacious assumption that the driver is malicious. Given
a show of reasonable behaviour by the cyclist, I'd imagine that they'd
not try and run your back wheel over out of spite.
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
I certainly wouldn't. The difference is a clear one: someone bent on
assault is bent on assaulting you; someone who assaults you just because
they want you to get out of the way might be expected to stop if you get
out of the way.
- Huge
Paul Rudin
WT> The van doesn't have this luxury of movement.
But presumably we can take it that his reverse gear still worked?
Recall that he was driving the wrong way down a one way street.
--
Jesus is my POSTMASTER GENERAL..
William Turner
>
> >>>>> "WT" == William Turner <william...@pace.co.uk> writes:
>
> WT> The van doesn't have this luxury of movement.
>
> But presumably we can take it that his reverse gear still worked?
> Recall that he was driving the wrong way down a one way street.
Yes. I'm fully aware of that. I also fail to see how him
driving the wrong way down a one way street indicates that
I should assume he has a reverse gear. Unless by "wrong way"
it was intended to be interpreted as "he was reversing against
the legal direction of travel".
Given everyone seems to be having difficulty with this, here's
a simple experiment you can all try. However, be sure to ask
the owner of the van and bicycle for their permission first...
Put a bicycle at a location with space all around it. You may
need to hold onto it to stabilise it. Move it forwards. Move it
backwards. Lift it left, lift it right. You should find that it
is able to do all the above, though forwards/backwards will probably
be less effort.
Now try the same with a van. I daresay you'll find that it will
move forwards and backwards, but you're unable to lift it left
or right at all. Hence, the bicycle has more luxury of movement.
I do hope that's sufficiently clear.
Mark Ayliffe
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:32:15 +0100, in article
> <1936367.G...@robinton.llondel.org> "Dave {Reply Address
> in.sig}" <noone$@llondel.org> wrote:
>
>> Presumably there were no cars waiting to turn right across their
>> path? I wonder who gets blamed if the car driver turns right on a
>> green filter and collides with a cyclist who's just jumped the red
>> light?
>
> track down and identify.
Well if the motorist simply drives away and no-one notes the vehicle number
that may be difficult. The cyclist will probably be identifiable from dental
records.
Mark
Robert Macmillan
"Dave {Reply Address in.sig}" <noone$@llondel.org> wrote in message
news:1625105.z...@robinton.llondel.org...
> In message <m3lm4o9...@foo.surfingsuggestion.co.uk>, Hugo 'NOx'
Tyson
> wrote:
> >
> But it then encourages them to try the same trick again in the future.
While
> getting out of the way is to some extent a useful short-term survival
> trait, longer term it may be detrimental if it encourages repeat
behaviour.
> If he's got witnesses to the event who are willing to stand up and be
> counted then I'd say he (and they) are doing a public service by not
giving
> into thuggery.
Wouldn't a better approach be to get his number and you and a witness to
complain to the police? (This is assuming we believed the police to be
interested, of course, but we do seem to be talking about the hypothetical
now.)
Robert
Jonathan Amery
William Turner <william...@pace.co.uk> wrote:
> I think that you're making the
>probably fallacious assumption that the driver is malicious.
An assumption based on experience, I assure you.
--
Jonathan Amery. .oO _ _____________ _____________ _____________
##### ][_n_/ +-----+ | [] ## ## [] | | [] ## ## [] | | [] ## ## [] |
#######__o / | | GCR | | [] [] | | [] [] | | [] [] |
#######'/ \-OO-OO-+\oo-oo/+\-oo-------oo-/+\-oo-------oo-/+\-oo-------oo-/
William Turner
>
> In article <3DB7E1C7...@pace.co.uk>,
> William Turner <william...@pace.co.uk> wrote:
> >Paul Rudin wrote:
> >> But presumably we can take it that his reverse gear still worked?
> >> Recall that he was driving the wrong way down a one way street.
> >
> >Yes. I'm fully aware of that. I also fail to see how him
> >driving the wrong way down a one way street indicates that
> >I should assume he has a reverse gear.
>
Ta, but _I'm_ neither.
> It is reasonable to assume that any non-articulated road vehicle that
> isn't a motorcycle or certain exotic 1960s cars has a working reverse
> gear. If you believe differently, please explain.
The class is slightly larger than that, but yes, I agree it's
reasonable to assume he's got a working reverse gear. My (slightly
facetious, granted) issue was with Paul's wording, which indicates
that the "recollection" should aid the presumption. It doesn't. The
fact that he was driving the wrong way down a one-way stret has
absolutely no relevance to the presumption that he has a reverse
gear.
w
John Connett
As the site of the incident appears to be within range of two Cambridge
City Centre CCTV Scheme cameras, operated according to a strict code
of practice:
http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/profserv/cctv_code_of_practice.htm
the first four misconceptions shouldn't apply. However, as these two
cameras have pan/tilt mountings they may have been pointing away from
the incident. Other cameras would probably have been passed on the
way to and from the incident, perhaps including the (fixed?) camera
covering the Bridge Street bollards.
Also the approximate time and duration of the incident are known which
should make it easier to trace.
Any corroborating evidence from these cameras would strengthen the case
against the van driver and would be compatible with the key objectives
of the Cambridge CCTV System.
Whatever you think of the cyclist's actions, the van driver's
responses would be difficult to justify. I sincerely hope that the
police will give the van driver the opportunity to explain them!
Robert Macmillan
"John Connett" <j...@skylon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3DB7ED5E...@skylon.demon.co.uk...
> Robert Macmillan wrote:
> >
> >
> > I don't know about this camera but IME the general public has various
> > misconceptions about CCTV:
> > - it is working
> > - it is recording
> > - the film is not overwritten
> > - the film is traceable
> > - there is willingness to trace it
> >
> > Even when Something Terrible Happens (ie a child goes missing) there
is
> > very little to show from all those CCTV cameras.
>
> As the site of the incident appears to be within range of two Cambridge
> City Centre CCTV Scheme cameras, operated according to a strict code
> of practice:
>
> http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/profserv/cctv_code_of_practice.htm
>
> the first four misconceptions shouldn't apply.
Quite so. Well spotted.
> However, as these two
> cameras have pan/tilt mountings they may have been pointing away from
> the incident.
Indeed. That was the one I missed.
Robert
Jonathan Amery
><noone$@llondel.org> wrote:
>
>> Presumably there were no cars waiting to turn right across their path? I
>> wonder who gets blamed if the car driver turns right on a green filter and
>> collides with a cyclist who's just jumped the red light?
>
>The motorist of course, on the basis that cyclists are much harder to
>track down and identify.
>
--
Jonathan Amery. There's an ocean of darkness and I drown in the night
##### Till I come through the darkness to the ocean of light.
#######__o You can lock me in prison but the light will be free,
#######'/ 'And I walk in the glory of the light', said he.
Paul Rudin
WT> My (slightly facetious, granted) issue was with Paul's wording,
WT> which indicates that the "recollection" should aid the
WT> presumption.
It wasn't intended to aid the presumption that he had a reverse
gear. It was indented to indicate that he was extremely likely to be a
in position to be able use it...
--
I was in a HOT TUB! I was NORMAL! I was ITALIAN!! I enjoyed th'
EARTHQUAKE!
Martin Read
William Turner <william...@pace.co.uk> wrote:
>Paul Rudin wrote:
>> But presumably we can take it that his reverse gear still worked?
>> Recall that he was driving the wrong way down a one way street.
>
>Yes. I'm fully aware of that. I also fail to see how him
>driving the wrong way down a one way street indicates that
>I should assume he has a reverse gear.
Dear *GOD*, you're a prat. Or you're a troll.
It is reasonable to assume that any non-articulated road vehicle that
isn't a motorcycle or certain exotic 1960s cars has a working reverse
gear. If you believe differently, please explain.
m.
--
\_\/_/| Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
\ / | in heaven his throne is made of gold the ark of his testament is
\/ | stowed a throne from which i'm told all history does unfold
------+ -- Nick Cave, "The Mercy Seat"
Nick Dyer
Chris <ch...@x.invalid> wrote:
> We should also, perhaps, consider how lucky it is that it
> is only the motorists in these incidents who have access to
> the means to easily kill their victims. Were access to
> lethal force available both to these motorists and their
> intended victims, there would in all probability be a
> bloodbath, since -- it seems -- many road users do not
> display the calmness and rationality which you demonstrate.
Hmmm. By your definition if two motorists meet then they both have
lethal force and a blood bath would ensue - but that rarely happens.
Perhaps that line of reasoning is wrong?
Consider if the van driver in this case had met a car instead. I think
likely consequence would have been that the car would back up - it's
much easier to reverse a car than a van. Why should the cyclist be
different?
Nick
--
Your audience could see this!!
===============================================================================
This space available for in-newsgroup exhibitions of ASCII art and possibly
short novels (must be 316 chars or fewer). Competitive rates. Apply via email.
K. Edgcombe
Nick Dyer <ni...@shmanahar.org> wrote:
>
>Consider if the van driver in this case had met a car instead. I think
>likely consequence would have been that the car would back up - it's
>much easier to reverse a car than a van. Why should the cyclist be
>different?
Suppose there had been no bike or car involved, but the van driver had suddenly
realised (or had it pointed out to him) that he was driving the wrong way down
a one-way street. Would it, in general, be better for his safety and everyone
else's that he should get out of the situation by reversing out or by
carrying on? There might be a case to be made for either, but often the best
thing would be to reverse out. So why should the cyclist get out of the way to
enable the van driver to go on doing something dangerous and illegal?
(I can see all the pragmatic arguments for the cyclist getting out of the way,
and I would myself; but I don't think the normal courtesies of two people
driving legally along a narrow two-way street really apply here).
Katy
Chris
> In article <ap76ku$qlh$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
> Chris <ch...@x.invalid> wrote:
>
>>We should also, perhaps, consider how lucky it is that it
>>is only the motorists in these incidents who have access to
>>the means to easily kill their victims. Were access to
>>lethal force available both to these motorists and their
>>intended victims, there would in all probability be a
>>bloodbath, since -- it seems -- many road users do not
>>display the calmness and rationality which you demonstrate.
>
>
> Hmmm. By your definition if two motorists meet then they both have
> lethal force and a blood bath would ensue - but that rarely happens.
> Perhaps that line of reasoning is wrong?
``In these incidents.''
I don't know how often motorists deliberately use their
vehicles to threaten other motorists. I suspect it's less
frequent than the use of vehicles to threaten pedestrians
and cyclists, but I don't have any data against which to
compare my supposition.
My guess is that when this happens, given that each is
equipped to give as good as he gets, violence may be
meted out by both sides. Certainly one hears about `road
rage' incidents of this type, though I understand that
typically the motorists leave their cars before
hitting/stabbing/shooting one another.
> Consider if the van driver in this case had met a car instead. I think
> likely consequence would have been that the car would back up - it's
> much easier to reverse a car than a van.
Possibly, possibly not. I guess it depends on the driver.
I can certainly imagine a stand-off of the same type
ensuing. Imagine, for instance, that the man who drove
into me on a zebra crossing was going up the street one
way in his big shiny motor car, and the man who tried to
run Ian over was coming the other way in his red van. I
would not be prepared to predict the outcome.
> Why should the cyclist be
> different?
I don't think that anyone is arguing that you ought not
to get out of the way of a vehicle which is being driven
by somebody trying to run you over or run you off the
road. I'm not quite sure what you mean by that question.
--
Chris Lightfoot, chris at ex dash parrot dot com; http://ex-parrot.com/~chris/
``Television is to news as bumper stickers are to philosophy.''
(Richard Nixon)
Robert Macmillan
"Nick Dyer" <ni...@shmanahar.org> wrote in message
news:ap90r7$6o2$1...@strum.localdomain...
> Consider if the van driver in this case had met a car instead. I think
> likely consequence would have been that the car would back up - it's
> much easier to reverse a car than a van. Why should the cyclist be
> different?
I'd be surprised. I think the car driver would be unwilling to give way
and the van driver would back off. The situation with the cyclist is
different because the van driver was able to intimidate the cyclist much
more easily.
Robert
Paul Rudin
ND> Consider if the van driver in this case had met a car instead. I
ND> think likely consequence would have been that the car would back
ND> up - it's much easier to reverse a car than a van.
You'd expect the car driver to reverse the wrong way down the one way
street [1] so that the van could continute to illegally drive forwards
down the one way street? <boggle>
[1] Presuambly this is also illegal?
--
Now I can join WEIGHT WATCHERS!
Colin Rosenstiel
(Robert Macmillan) wrote:
> "Mark Ayliffe" <mark.ayl...@nospam.pem.cam.andthis.ac.uk> wrote in
> message news:0tj6pa...@192.168.1.252...
> > Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
> > > In article <3DB6B73C...@skylon.demon.co.uk>,
> > > j...@skylon.demon.co.uk (John Connett) wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hopefully CCTV will have recorded some of the incident ...
> > >
> > > I'm afraid I rather doubt that. Despite requests from Trinity
> > > College Union some years back, All Saint's Passage (the alleyway to
> > > the craft fair it was put) is not covered.
> >
> > But this happened on Bridge Street, between the Round Church and
> > Whewells court, not in All Saints passage. Isn't there a camera on a
> > pole by the church? Or on the shops on the church side of the road?
>
> I don't know about this camera but IME the general public has various
> misconceptions about CCTV:
> - it is working
> - it is recording
> - the film is not overwritten
> - the film is traceable
> - there is willingness to trace it
>
> Even when Something Terrible Happens (ie a child goes missing) there is
> very little to show from all those CCTV cameras.
As far as Cambridge is concerned you are the one with misconceptions.
Colin Rosenstiel
Matthew Vernon
> In article <Xns92B0A638C4C9Fal...@193.150.150.3>,
> Alan <alan....@deadspam.com> wrote:
> >Last night on the way home, 7 out of the 8 cyclists at the Castle
> >Hill/Victoria Road traffic lights going out of town, carried straight on
> >across the red light. They knew no-one would stop them so why wait for
> >green?
>
> They need to have the Fear of Jonathan put into them...
They might be traffic offenders, but there still is the Geneva
Convention to consider. I mean, that *beard* *shudder*
:)
Matthew
--
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire
http://www.pick.ucam.org
Nick Dyer
Paul Rudin <Paul_...@scientia.com> wrote:
> ND> Consider if the van driver in this case had met a car instead. I
> ND> think likely consequence would have been that the car would back
> ND> up - it's much easier to reverse a car than a van.
>
> You'd expect the car driver to reverse the wrong way down the one way
> street [1] so that the van could continute to illegally drive forwards
> down the one way street? <boggle>
If there wasn't enough space for the van to manoeuvre (which it sounds
like it was in this case - there wasn't enough space for the van to
pass the bike) then it's by far the safest option (Have you ever tried
reversing a van when there may be pedestrians about? In most cases I
would want someone spotting for me). Call it pragmatism.
Jens Tingleff
Hash: SHA1
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson wrote:
>
> "Robert Macmillan" <rob...@mbe-windsor.co.uk> writes:
>> "Colin Davidson" <ca...@biotech.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:ap6k02$c0l$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>> >
>> > "Hugo 'NOx' Tyson" <hm...@surfingsuggestionx.co.ukx> wrote in message
>> > news:m3bs5lb...@foo.surfingsuggestion.co.uk...
[...........]
>> > Assuming that the barest bones of the story as presented are true then
>> > it's extremely frightening. ...
>>
>> But it's less frightening if a less confrontational approach is taken.
>> There is a choice on the part of the cyclist between just quickly getting
>> out of the way and thinking "wanker" and getting into a confrontation
>> with the apparent risk of being run over. With various points in between.
>>
>> This isn't to defend the van driver.
>
> Thanks Robert, that's very much what I was trying to get at.
>
Well, I agree that the world would be a nicer place if more people, in the
place of the OP, would back off. However, I don't think that there is a
legal (nor a "moral") requirement to stand down when one is clearly in the
right[1].
I do, however, feel[2] that the important thing is that the contribution of
the van driver to making the world a less harmonious and safe place *far*
outweighs the contribution made by the inability of the cyclist to behave
like a saint, and I fail to see why people feel the need to go on - at
lenght - about the lack of saintlyness in the victim.
Regards
Jens
[0] This is all assuming that the posting accurately reflects the events as
they took place.
[1] The last time a victim of "care" in the community wanted me to get out
of his way (on the pavement) I didn't, he punched me and he ended up in
prison with (yet another?) criminal conviction - I could have run away, but
I had something to do at that precise location.
[2] This is more a visceral thing; I completely gave up on cycling in
Cambridge before anything like this happened to me, because I was afraid.
- --
Key ID 0x09723C12, j.tin...@ieee.org/jens_t...@yahoo.com
Analogue filtering / 5GHz RLAN / Mdk Linux / odds and ends
http://www.imaginet.fr/~jensting/ +44 1223 211 585
".. those items that you sent me/ the monkey and the plywood violin" L
Cohen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9uO2BimJs3AlyPBIRAqRCAJwNi7Bz/058f5YOxlooymUOOgX0fQCfVggo
OJqfdcmwCiLmCe+pnfrgxUQ=
=1Ivs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jonathan Amery
Nick Dyer <ni...@shmanahar.org> wrote:
> (Have you ever tried
>reversing a van when there may be pedestrians about? In most cases I
>would want someone spotting for me). Call it pragmatism.
Have you ever tried reversing a car around a blind corner that people
usually take at high speed, because the road on the other side is one
way? In most cases I would want rather more than someone spotting for
me.
--
Jonathan Amery. <Khendon> They should leave Buffy dead and rename the series
##### "Willow the Witch". It'd be *much* better with more Willow :-)
#######__o <Sarabian> Better still, they should call it Willow the Wisp
#######'/ and bring in Evil Edna as the new baddie. Oh yes. - on afe
Paul Rudin
Nick> In article <uznt3l...@scientia.com>,
Nick> Paul Rudin <Paul_...@scientia.com> wrote:
ND> Consider if the van driver in this case had met a car instead. I
ND> think likely consequence would have been that the car would back
ND> up - it's much easier to reverse a car than a van.
>> You'd expect the car driver to reverse the wrong way down the one
>> way street [1] so that the van could continute to illegally drive
>> forwards down the one way street? <boggle>
Nick> If there wasn't enough space for the van to manoeuvre (which it
Nick> sounds like it was in this case - there wasn't enough space for
Nick> the van to pass the bike) then it's by far the safest option
Nick> (Have you ever tried reversing a van when there may be
Nick> pedestrians about? In most cases I would want someone spotting
Nick> for me). Call it pragmatism.
Ah yes, it's obviously safer for everyone else to have two vehicles
travelling the wrong way down a wrong way street (on of them in
reverse); that it is for one vehicle to back up until they're able to
turn around so as to go the correct way down the street. Silly me, how
could I have possibly over-looked that.
Presaumbly in the mean-time all the other cars entering the street
from the correct end would also be expected to back up and we'd end up
with a whole stream of reversing cars trying to back out of the other
end of the street... sounds really pragmatic.
Robert Macmillan
"Colin Rosenstiel" <rosen...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2002102...@colin.rosenstiel.cix.co.uk...
Perhaps. Let's see what the result is this time, hmmm?
Robert
Robert Macmillan
"Jens Tingleff" <jens_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:apaq18$aaa$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
I'm not criticising the cyclist at all for what he did. I've done similar
things myself. I'm remarking above that afterwards to complain about it
being frightening we need to remember that the level of fear is also
dependent on the actions of the cyclist. The blame may be due to the chief
culprit here - the van driver - but the stand-off and its implications
(fear etc) are due to the actions of both.
Robert
Jonathan Amery
Nick Dyer <ni...@shmanahar.org> wrote:
>the most simple way, surely?
safest.
--
Jonathan Amery. There's a light that is shining in the heart of a man,
##### There's a light that was shining when the world began.
#######__o There's a light that is shining in the Turk and the Jew
#######'/ And a light that is shining, friend in me and in you.
Nick Dyer
Paul Rudin <paul....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Ah yes, it's obviously safer for everyone else to have two vehicles
> travelling the wrong way down a wrong way street (on of them in
> reverse); that it is for one vehicle to back up until they're able to
> turn around so as to go the correct way down the street. Silly me, how
> could I have possibly over-looked that.
Perhaps because you're too hung up on which is the 'right' and the
'wrong' way down the street? They only need to back up until they can
pass. Your solution now involves trying to do a three point turn as
well.
My point is that once something weird has happened (such as someone
trying to go the wrong way down a street) it's utterly pointless to
start having arguments about who is in the right and the wrong and who
has the right of way - the important thing is to sort out the mess in
the most simple way, surely?
Nick
Colin Davidson
"Hugo 'NOx' Tyson" <hm...@surfingsuggestionx.co.ukx> wrote in message
> > A guy threatened someone with multiple tonnes of metal, and you're
trying to
> > see it in a calm unemotional way?
>
> Yes, of course, because IMHO that's the only way to make rational
decisions
> or form rational opinions. Can you gainsay that and still call yourself a
> scientist[1]?
Rationality? In respect to someone acting in an irrational way and being
willing to threaten someone with a van you want to calmly and unemotionally
refuse to see that as not being terrifying? Hitting someone with a van tends
to put a cramp on their entire day, you know.
> Seeing it in an excited emotional way leads to the sort of "Burn a paedo
> and win a Peugeot" type of policy so beloved of the tabloids.
Rubbish. In no way am I advocating taking any action against anyone at all,
nor have I condemned or condoned the actions of the cyclist. What I've said
is that the actions of anyone willing to threaten someone else with a van
are really very scary, and you seem to have a problem with that. The only
over-emotional person here is you, who seems morally opposed to any kind of
condemnation of a frightening event.
> > I don't know whether to applaud your
> > calmness or suggest that you really ought to empathise more.
>
> If empathise means "go along with my initial emotive knee-jerk reaction to
> everything and then argue at length that my initial emotive knee-jerk
> reaction is intrinsically, absolutely, correct " I think I'll stay as I am
> ta very much.
No it doesn't. In this case it means 'not intentionally try to rationalise
actions that are potentially life threatening in a way as to pretend that
they are not'.
Colin Davidson
"Robert Macmillan" <rob...@mbe-windsor.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ap8bqo$60b$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
> > Assuming that the barest bones of the story as presented are true then
> it's
> > extremely frightening. ...
>
> But it's less frightening if a less confrontational approach is taken.
> There is a choice on the part of the cyclist between just quickly getting
> out of the way and thinking "wanker" and getting into a confrontation with
> the apparent risk of being run over. With various points in between.
>
> This isn't to defend the van driver.
True enough. The actions of the cyclist in this situation may not have been
the most appeasing, but the response of the motorist was still extremely
scary. To view threatening someone with a motor vehicle as anything else
seems somewhat to be missing the potential damage that can be cause by being
run over.
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> This evening I was coming down Bridge Street towards the Round Church
> (outside the back entrance to Whewell's Court and the alleyway to the
> craft fair).
>
> I met a red van going the other way up the street. I stopped, and the
> van stopped.
>
> We had a discussion, where I said `wrong way' and `go back' and he
> said `get out of my way' and `I got lost'. This was repeated on each
> side a number of times.
As it happened, I was there last night (Thursday). At the moment, that
part of Bridge Street is temporarily two-way, according to the signboards
at the junction with Jesus Lane, because of roadworks blocking Sidney
Street just South of Green Street. People were also using Green Street
"wrong way" because of those roadworks, but I don't remember whether it was
temporary-signed two-way also.
If it was like that on Tuesday, as seems likely, perhaps the van driver
wasn't so wrong in being there initially, as first supposed? Not to
condone the pushing incident at all.
- Huge
Patrick Gosling
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <hm...@surfingsuggestionx.co.ukx> wrote:
>As it happened, I was there last night (Thursday). At the moment, that
>part of Bridge Street is temporarily two-way, according to the signboards
>at the junction with Jesus Lane, because of roadworks blocking Sidney
>Street just South of Green Street. People were also using Green Street
>"wrong way" because of those roadworks, but I don't remember whether it was
>temporary-signed two-way also.
Are you sure about this? I'm assuming that Ian was talking about the
section between the end of Jesus Lane and the Round Church; there's no
earthly reason for that to be made "two way" merely because of the
roadworks in Sidney St, as access into Sidney St is still trivial from
Jesus Lane.
Of course, there's also no earthly reason why the nice people
responsible for the temporary signage in the center of town needed to
put a no entry sign at the Senate House end of Kings Parade in a manner
that prevents cyclists taking the otherwise perfectly sensible,
reasonable and legitimate route through to Senate House Passage (a
marked bicycle route).
-patrick.
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk (Patrick Gosling) writes:
> In article <m3lm4m7...@foo.surfingsuggestion.co.uk>,
> Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <hm...@surfingsuggestionx.co.ukx> wrote:
> >As it happened, I was there last night (Thursday). At the moment, that
> >part of Bridge Street is temporarily two-way, according to the signboards
> >at the junction with Jesus Lane, because of roadworks blocking Sidney
> >Street just South of Green Street. People were also using Green Street
> >"wrong way" because of those roadworks, but I don't remember whether it was
> >temporary-signed two-way also.
>
> Are you sure about this? I'm assuming that Ian was talking about the
> section between the end of Jesus Lane and the Round Church; there's no
> earthly reason for that to be made "two way" merely because of the
> roadworks in Sidney St, as access into Sidney St is still trivial from
> Jesus Lane.
True... Hmmm; I'm sure of what I wrote, but I am now less sure that it
applies to the location of *the incident*. I didn't go that far North, so
I don't know if there was any temporary signage. Apologies.
Thus proving that the situation there in detail at the moment is confusing
for everyone ;-)
- Huge
Jonathan Larmour
Robert Macmillan <rob...@mbe-windsor.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I'm not criticising the cyclist at all for what he did. I've done similar
>things myself. I'm remarking above that afterwards to complain about it
>being frightening we need to remember that the level of fear is also
>dependent on the actions of the cyclist. The blame may be due to the chief
>culprit here - the van driver - but the stand-off and its implications
>(fear etc) are due to the actions of both.
It's definitely the van driver who became agressive using their
vehicle as a weapon. Supposition on my part, but Ian's thought processes
were likely that surely any sensible law-abiding citizen is going to
back off and do the right thing since what they're doing is so blatently
wrong. It was the van driver that then escalated it to physical force,
not Ian. How was Ian to know it was a nutter?
Jifl
--
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[ can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln ]-- Opinions==mine
Jonathan Larmour
>Paul Rudin <paul....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> Ah yes, it's obviously safer for everyone else to have two vehicles
>> travelling the wrong way down a wrong way street (on of them in
>> reverse); that it is for one vehicle to back up until they're able to
>> turn around so as to go the correct way down the street. Silly me, how
>> could I have possibly over-looked that.
>
>Perhaps because you're too hung up on which is the 'right' and the
>'wrong' way down the street? They only need to back up until they can
>pass. Your solution now involves trying to do a three point turn as
>well.
Hardly. Vans have wing mirrors, and believe it or not, can be reversed
at speeds _below_ 5 miles an hour (wonderful thing, technology). Most
commercial vans, especially long wheel base ones, have audible
reversing signals too, although obviously we don't know for sure in
this case. Indeed if it wasn't very manouevrable, it's more likely
this was the case.
>My point is that once something weird has happened (such as someone
>trying to go the wrong way down a street) it's utterly pointless to
>start having arguments about who is in the right and the wrong and who
>has the right of way - the important thing is to sort out the mess in
>the most simple way, surely?
That van was later seen up Sidney Street. That means that as well as
driving the wrong way up Bridge Street, they continued to break the
law. Sidney Street is narrower than Bridge Street - what if that van
driver had met a less confident cyclist who moved over to the side of
the road, not realising this driver is a nutter who's going to squeeze
past whether or not there is in fact enough room. It's easy to imagine
an accident happening with a van driving the wrong way down a one way
street. Would you be happy leaving the van driver go on his way to
potentially kill a cyclist coming the other way? If that had happened,
wouldn't you feel guilty because you had not done the right thing and
try and stop them when you had the chance because they were stopped
in front of you?
I would say it was virtually Ian's civic responsibility to ensure that
didn't happen. Just because he was frightened didn't mean he didn't or
shouldn't show courage. Something others in this thread seem to lack.
Jonathan Amery
Patrick Gosling <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Of course, there's also no earthly reason why the nice people
>responsible for the temporary signage in the center of town needed to
>put a no entry sign at the Senate House end of Kings Parade in a manner
>that prevents cyclists taking the otherwise perfectly sensible,
>reasonable and legitimate route through to Senate House Passage (a
>marked bicycle route).
Or, indeed, to tape over the `Between 10am and 4pm' section of the
no-cycles sign at the enterance to market street, presumably making
that enterance no cycles.
--
Jonathan Amery. Of names of this kind, I can give you a quorum,
##### Like lothlorien, pothole, or kobyashi-maru,
#######__o Such as pearly-gates.vatican, or else diplomatic-
#######'/ Names that never belong to more than one host.- rfc2100
Jonathan Amery
Jonathan Larmour <jifl...@jifvik.org.removethis.invalid> wrote:
>That van was later seen up Sidney Street. That means that as well as
>driving the wrong way up Bridge Street, they continued to break the
>law.
Sidney Street was, at the time, signed as both ways, due to the road works.
--
Jonathan Amery. When you notice a client in rapt meditation,
##### The reason, I tell you, is always the same:
#######__o The code is engaged in a deep consultation - rfc2100
#######'/ On the address, the address, the address of its name:
Robert Macmillan
"Jonathan Larmour" <jifl...@jifvik.org.removethis.invalid> wrote in
message news:usqbpa...@worf.jifvik.org...
> In article <apaubc$shi$1...@venus.btinternet.com>,
> Robert Macmillan <rob...@mbe-windsor.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >I'm not criticising the cyclist at all for what he did. I've done
similar
> >things myself. I'm remarking above that afterwards to complain about it
> >being frightening we need to remember that the level of fear is also
> >dependent on the actions of the cyclist. The blame may be due to the
chief
> >culprit here - the van driver - but the stand-off and its implications
> >(fear etc) are due to the actions of both.
>
> It's definitely the van driver who became agressive using their
> vehicle as a weapon. Supposition on my part, but Ian's thought processes
> were likely that surely any sensible law-abiding citizen is going to
> back off and do the right thing since what they're doing is so blatently
> wrong. It was the van driver that then escalated it to physical force,
> not Ian. How was Ian to know it was a nutter?
Well, if you haven't answered the question yourself in the middle of that
paragraph, how about somewhere in:
[The driver kept advancing and threatening me with his van
for maybe a minute or two.
I offered no resistance other than to be in the road, retreating in
front of him.
After a little and seeing I wasn't intimidated out of his way, he got
out of his van, came right up to me and said I should get out of his
way, and threatened me verbally ...
]
And still he didn't back off.
The van driver is in the wrong. Ian is in the right. But he contributed to
the scariness of the situation. He had plenty of opportunity to back off
that he didn't take.
Robert
Paul Bolchover
Jonathan Amery <jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Or, indeed, to tape over the `Between 10am and 4pm' section of the
>no-cycles sign at the enterance to market street, presumably making
>that enterance no cycles.
That entrance _is_ no cycles - it's temporarily "one-way" in the
opposite sense from usual.
Paul bolchover
Mark Ayliffe
>
> No it isn't - it's both ways, with a traffic light on it.
Since Saturday.
> If it was one way then there'd be no way to get into the market
> square at all!
Funny how everyone managed for the last 6-8 weeks then?
Mark
Matthew Garrett
> Jonathan Amery wrote:
>>
>> No it isn't - it's both ways, with a traffic light on it.
>
> Since Saturday.
The Saturday before last, perhaps. The traffic light was there last week,
and the only restriction on entering was for bikes.
>> If it was one way then there'd be no way to get into the market
>> square at all!
>
> Funny how everyone managed for the last 6-8 weeks then?
You could get in via St Andrew's Street before. It's blocked off now, so
Trinity Street is the only way in.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-cam...@srcf.ucam.org
Patrick Gosling
Is this because the other end of Market Hill (by Woolworths) is now
blocked by repaving work, whereas it wasn't for the last 6-8 weeks,
so people were able to come in from St Andrews St (between the M+S
shops)?
I don't know as I haven't been up there, but was just wondering ...
-patrick.
Mark Ayliffe
>
> The Saturday before last, perhaps. The traffic light was there last
> week, and the only restriction on entering was for bikes.
Ah, last Sat was the first time I'd been at that end for a while (having
been a legal little cyclist and used Malcolm St/Hobson St for a long time).
>
> You could get in via St Andrew's Street before. It's blocked off now,
> so Trinity Street is the only way in.
I hadn't realised that they'd actually blocked it off.
Mark
Jonathan Amery
No it isn't - it's both ways, with a traffic light on it.
If it was one way then there'd be no way to get into the market
square at all!
--
Jonathan Amery. But this I know, he heals the broken-hearted,
##### And stays our sin, and calms our lurking fear;
#######__o And lifts the burden from the heavy-laden, - Fullerton.
#######'/ For yet the Saviour, Saviour of the world is here.
Simon Lane
[...]
> I then wrote down the registration number of the van and collected
> names and addresses of witnesses.
[...]
> I've phoned the police, and they've promised to come round later.
I'd be interested to know how you got on if and when they did :-).
BTW, are you aware that "You can obtain the name and address of the
registered keeper of a vehicle if you can show reasonable cause for
needing the information" (http://www.dvla.gov.uk/vehicles/relinfo.htm)?
Presumably there was damage to your bicycle that you would like
compensation for :-).
Cheers,
Simon.
Patrick Gosling
>I'd be interested to know how you got on if and when they did :-).
Given that they don't intend pursuing the incident I had, I doubt
they'll have done anything constructive with Ian's.
-patrick.