On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 12:12:42 +0100, Nick <
Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>On 27/09/2016 12:01, Peter Parry wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 10:28:55 +0100, Nick <
Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/09/2016 19:57, frederick wrote:
>>>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7lBvN80JaQ
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts please.
>>>
>>> Yes. The more you spread the message that cyclists should avoid
>>> collisions the more you spread the message that it is their fault if
>>> they do not.
>>
>> It is every road users responsibility to drive defensively and avoid
>> collisions no matter who may be to blame for the potential for one to
>> occur. "I had the right of way" is a singularly pathetic inscription
>> for your gravestone. Trying to assert your "rights" when on a fragile
>> unstable vehicle is particularly stupid.
>
>The "duty" is to avoid damaging others. I don't see how any reasonable
>person could compare the duty of a lorry driver not to damage a cyclist
>with the duty of a cyclist not to damage a lorry driver.
The duty is to avoid accidents. That requires both parties to
drive/ride defensively and both to be mindful of other road users and
take whatever action is required to avoid conflict. A push bike rider
choosing to pass large vehicles on the left is carrying out a
ridiculously unsafe manoeuvre for no good purpose. It is asinine to
suggest the HGV driver has the _sole_ responsibility to avoid any
push bike rider who chooses to act in such a foolish way.
In the example I mentioned (and observed) the driver of the vehicle
involved could not possibly have known the lady was underneath his
vehicle unless he had been looking in the correct mirror at the exact
second she fell. She was entirely the author of her own misfortune.
>People who do not assert their rights in the face of intimidation from
>thugs often find those rights disappear. A reasonable legal system will
>recognise this and seek to support such people and deter intimidation.
This combat approach to cycling is one reason it is in the doldrums.
No sensible utility cyclist approaches the road with such silly
preconceptions - but they are now a virtually extinct breed. Pushbike
riding is currently the domain of arrogant men in Lycra with their
permanent snarls, silly clothes and aggressive attitudes.
>> Telling push bike riders to avoid ending up to the left of large
>> vehicles is nothing more than very sensible advice.
>You may have invented a narrative that blames the victims. Hopefully
>society in general is moving away from this type of attitude. Just as it
>did with rape and girls in short skirts.
Shocking though it may be for you drivers of HGV's don't actually wake
each morning wondering how many cyclists they can kill today.
>Messages emphasising that cyclists should avoid putting themselves into
>situations where another road user's lack of care may harm them has the
>unfortunate side effect that it lessens the feeling of responsibility
>that other road users have to avoid damaging cyclists.
Anyone with a grain of common sense will avoid putting themselves into
situations where others lack of care may harm them. "I'm a push bike
rider and can ride as and where I like - it is everyone else's job to
avoid me" is unfortunately the mantra of many snarling MAMILs.
Cycling on the road requires no pre-training or knowledge of the
Highway Code. It doesn't require any education about avoidable risks.
To remind its adherents that riding to the left of HGV's is stupid
and potentially deadly is nothing more than sensible advice.