Don't undertake, you know it makes sense.

[Mrcheerful]

http://metro.co.uk/2015/11/23/undertaking-cyclist-hit-by-taxi-on-edgware-road-5520021/

[John Smith]

There, I fixed your troll for you.

Now do us all a favour and piss off to a motoring newsgroup, you thick
cunt.

--
john smith
'_The Guardian_. Wrong about everything. All the time'
(Anon)

[JNugent]

On 23/11/2015 17:27, Mrcheerful wrote:

> http://metro.co.uk/2015/11/23/undertaking-cyclist-hit-by-taxi-on-edgware-road-5520021/

Taxi's left indicator clearly and visibly operating...

[Nick]

It is not enough to indicate and turn immediately a driver has to give
other road users time to react.

I'm not sure but it looks like he doesn't start indicating until the
cyclist is already undertaking. Given that another cyclist had also
undertaken a few seconds before he clearly should have been aware of the
risk. It goes without saying he should have checked his mirrors.

[Mrcheerful]

No one should be undertaking, and to do so at a junction is really
begging to be crashed into.

[JNugent]

Exactly.

[David Lang]

On 23/11/2015 17:30, John Smith wrote:
> There, I fixed your troll for you.
>
> Now do us all a favour and piss off to a motoring newsgroup, you thick
> cunt.
>

The last refuge of the stupid.

[John Smith]

Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 23/11/2015 18:38, JNugent wrote:
>> On 23/11/2015 17:27, Mrcheerful wrote:

>>> http://metro.co.uk/2015/11/23/undertaking-cyclist-hit-by-taxi-on-edgware-road-5520021/
>>
>> Taxi's left indicator clearly and visibly operating...

> It is not enough to indicate and turn immediately a driver has to give
> other road users time to react.

.. is the right answer.

> I'm not sure but it looks like he doesn't start indicating until the
> cyclist is already undertaking. Given that another cyclist had also
> undertaken a few seconds before he clearly should have been aware of the
> risk. It goes without saying he should have checked his mirrors.

The lunatics who drive cars are - not all, but most (around 96%) - raving
psychopaths who genuinely believe that they pay 'road tax', and that the
mere activation of a turn signal, gives priority over all non-motorized
traffic and pedestrians.

[Nick]

On 23/11/2015 19:10, Mrcheerful wrote:

>> I'm not sure but it looks like he doesn't start indicating until the
>> cyclist is already undertaking. Given that another cyclist had also
>> undertaken a few seconds before he clearly should have been aware of the
>> risk. It goes without saying he should have checked his mirrors.
>
> No one should be undertaking, and to do so at a junction is really
> begging to be crashed into.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcuTfk8RGTs>

[David Lang]

True enough, they do pay Road Tax and they do have priority over cyclist
scum.

[Alycidon]

On Monday, 23 November 2015 20:54:04 UTC, John Smith wrote:

>
> The lunatics who drive cars are - not all, but most (around 96%) - raving
> psychopaths who genuinely believe that they pay 'road tax', and that the
> mere activation of a turn signal, gives priority over all non-motorized
> traffic and pedestrians.

Indeed - look at this moron bus driver come alongside me. Did he think that his left indicator was going to make me vanish into thin air?

https://youtu.be/N6g4Qw2y1ds

[Tarcap]

"JNugent" wrote in message news:dbh4op...@mid.individual.net...

On 23/11/2015 17:27, Mrcheerful wrote:

> http://metro.co.uk/2015/11/23/undertaking-cyclist-hit-by-taxi-on-edgware-road-5520021/

Taxi's left indicator clearly and visibly operating...

But unfortunately you have to remember that cyclists are much duller than
anyone else, and need a lot more time for the information available to to
reach their brains.

[Alycidon]

On Monday, 23 November 2015 21:51:55 UTC, Tarcap wrote:

>
> But unfortunately you have to remember that cyclists are much duller than
> anyone else, and need a lot more time for the information available to to
> reach their brains.

http://celebritiesonbikes.com/albert-einstein/images/albert-einstein-riding-a-bike.jpg

[TMS320]

"Nick" <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:n2vnvd$i1t$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 23/11/2015 18:38, JNugent wrote:
>> On 23/11/2015 17:27, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>>> http://metro.co.uk/2015/11/23/undertaking-cyclist-hit-by-taxi-on-edgware-road-5520021/
>>>
>>
>> Taxi's left indicator clearly and visibly operating...
>
> It is not enough to indicate and turn immediately a driver has to give
> other road users time to react.

The necessary signal was the proximity of an obvious junction. Simple -
don't overtake there irrespective of flashy lights.

> I'm not sure but it looks like he doesn't start indicating until the
> cyclist is already undertaking. Given that another cyclist had also
> undertaken a few seconds before he clearly should have been aware of the
> risk. It goes without saying he should have checked his mirrors.

Most people have forward facing eyes and 90% is about acting on what you see
ahead. If you require drivers to spend more time looking behind, they are
going to miss more ahead. Be careful about what you wish for.

[Tony Dragon]

On 23/11/2015 17:30, John Smith wrote:

> There, I fixed your troll for you.
>
> Now do us all a favour and piss off to a motoring newsgroup, you thick
> cunt.
>

Tch tch tch, such language, would you care to comment on the video, or
perhaps tell us why a post about a cyclist should not be posted on a
cycling NG.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Tony Dragon]

On 23/11/2015 20:52, John Smith wrote:

So you are saying that of the lunatics who drive cars 96% believe they
pay road tax.

Have you got the figures for the people who drive cars who are not lunatics?

[Tony Dragon]

I am sure you are a wonderful law abiding cyclist, but I have a couple
of questions.

1 why were you in the right turn lane if you went straight ahead?

2 Why did you break the law when entering the ASL box?

[John Smith]

Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 23/11/2015 17:30, John Smith wrote:

>> There, I fixed your troll for you.
>>
>> Now do us all a favour and piss off to a motoring newsgroup, you thick
>> cunt.

> Tch tch tch, such language, would you care to comment on the video, or
> perhaps tell us why a post about a cyclist should not be posted on a
> cycling NG.

Where did I say that, thicko?

[John Smith]

It's around 4%.

Don't mention it.

[John Smith]

Why do the petrolhead trolls make it so easy to hammer them into a small,
slimey ball of spit?

[Nick]

I don't think a requirement to signal well in advance is a problem. I
don't find a glance in my car mirror's difficult. Particularly when
there are so many cyclists around.

[Tony Dragon]

On 24/11/2015 11:07, John Smith wrote:
> Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On 23/11/2015 17:30, John Smith wrote:
>
>>> There, I fixed your troll for you.
>>>
>>> Now do us all a favour and piss off to a motoring newsgroup, you thick
>>> cunt.
>
>> Tch tch tch, such language, would you care to comment on the video, or
>> perhaps tell us why a post about a cyclist should not be posted on a
>> cycling NG.
>
> Where did I say that, thicko?
>

You make a comment like that, and I'm the thicko?


How sad.

[Tony Dragon]

OK I wont.

[John Smith]

Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:

> I'm the thicko?

Yes.

> How sad.

It's one of those things.

[Tony Dragon]

On 24/11/2015 15:02, John Smith wrote:
> Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm the thicko?
>
> Yes.
>
>> How sad.
>
> It's one of those things.
>

Selective editing of post noted.

[John Smith]

Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Selective editing of post noted.

*sob*

[Tarcap]

"John Smith" wrote in message news:tsudic-...@server.com.il...

Alycidon <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 23 November 2015 21:51:55 UTC, Tarcap wrote:

>> But unfortunately you have to remember that cyclists are much duller
>> than anyone else, and need a lot more time for the information available
>> to to reach their brains.

> http://celebritiesonbikes.com/albert-einstein/images/albert-einstein-riding-a-bike.jpg

Why do the petrolhead trolls make it so easy to hammer them into a small,
slimey ball of spit?

--

john smith. Wrong about everything. All the time'


Because it only happens in your fantasy-filled mind.
Nobody is able to make sense of what's going on in there, especially you.

[David Lang]

On 24/11/2015 14:58, Tony Dragon wrote:
> On 24/11/2015 11:07, John Smith wrote:
>> Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On 23/11/2015 17:30, John Smith wrote:
>>
>>>> There, I fixed your troll for you.
>>>>
>>>> Now do us all a favour and piss off to a motoring newsgroup, you thick
>>>> cunt.
>>
>>> Tch tch tch, such language, would you care to comment on the video, or
>>> perhaps tell us why a post about a cyclist should not be posted on a
>>> cycling NG.
>>
>> Where did I say that, thicko?
>>
>
>
> You make a comment like that, and I'm the thicko?
>
>
> How sad.

Sad and thick.

[David Lang]

On 24/11/2015 11:39, John Smith wrote:
> Alycidon <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, 23 November 2015 21:51:55 UTC, Tarcap wrote:
>
>>> But unfortunately you have to remember that cyclists are much duller
>>> than anyone else, and need a lot more time for the information available
>>> to to reach their brains.
>
>> http://celebritiesonbikes.com/albert-einstein/images/albert-einstein-riding-a-bike.jpg
>
> Why do the petrolhead trolls make it so easy to hammer them into a small,
> slimey ball of spit?
>

Only happens in your deluded mind.

[Tom Crispin]

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 7:22:20 PM UTC, David Lang wrote:

> Sad and thick.

Hmmmm...

Some irony there... From the Plankwit who thinks that there can only be one casualty in any road traffic collision.

[TMS320]

"Nick" <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote

> On 23/11/2015 22:39, TMS320 wrote:
>> "Nick" <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

It's even easier when reaching the rear of a vehicle near a junction to not
overtake it unless it's blocked from moving. It's your neck, don't rely on
other people to look after it.

[Nick]

On 24/11/2015 23:54, TMS320 wrote:
r's difficult. Particularly when there
>> are so many cyclists around.
>
> It's even easier when reaching the rear of a vehicle near a junction to not
> overtake it unless it's blocked from moving. It's your neck, don't rely on
> other people to look after it.
>

Yes it is even easier to stay at home rather than risk an accident
caused by a motorist driving without care and attention.

However I like to ride and hence would rather encourage car drivers to
drive safely.

[Mrcheerful]

What I do not understand is the tearing hurry that cyclists are in, if
the traffic is moving then just move with it, when it stops is when the
usefulness of a bicycle becomes apparent. In the case in question the
traffic was moving steadily, the road is not very wide, there was a
junction and a pedestrian crossing, there was no need for undertaking,
and it was unsafe to do so, as proven by the collision. Another point
is that there was insufficient width available to use, leaving no margin
for error or the unexpected (as is clearly demonstrated)

Cyclists should not rely on everyone else to do the cyclist's thinking
for them. Safety starts with your own actions. Never rely on someone
else doing the right thing to keep you safe.

[Alycidon]

Indeed - I always check my left hand door mirror before a left turn just in case there is anyone on two wheels on the inside.

HC 151.
"In slow-moving traffic. You should be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side."

[TMS320]

"Nick" <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote

> On 24/11/2015 23:54, TMS320 wrote:
>>
>> It's even easier when reaching the rear of a vehicle near a junction to
>> not
>> overtake it unless it's blocked from moving. It's your neck, don't rely
>> on
>> other people to look after it.
>
> Yes it is even easier to stay at home rather than risk an accident caused
> by a motorist driving without care and attention.

But here we saw a first hand situation that was clearly created by the
person on the bicycle.

> However I like to ride and hence would rather encourage car drivers to
> drive safely.

That is also my expectation. So I try not to put myself in a situation where
they have to deal with me suddenly popping up in front of them.

[John Smith]

A cyclist cannot 'suddenly pop up in front' of a car. Not unless they have
found some means of violating the laws of physics, or have invented an
invisibility cloak.

Or both.

--
john smith
'_The Guardian_. Wrong about everything. All the time'
(Anon)

[Nick]

On 25/11/2015 08:41, TMS320 wrote:
> "Nick" <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>> On 24/11/2015 23:54, TMS320 wrote:
>>>
>>> It's even easier when reaching the rear of a vehicle near a junction to
>>> not
>>> overtake it unless it's blocked from moving. It's your neck, don't rely
>>> on
>>> other people to look after it.
>>
>> Yes it is even easier to stay at home rather than risk an accident caused
>> by a motorist driving without care and attention.
>
> But here we saw a first hand situation that was clearly created by the
> person on the bicycle.
>

Yes the person decided to ride his bike on the road and hence it was his
fault. Other than that I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Cyclists do pass on the left in stationary or slow moving traffic. We
could outlaw this but it is common practice and I do not believe we
should outlaw it. Commuting in London through five miles of virtually
stationary traffic would severely limit the benefit of cycling if
cyclists had to queue with cars.

On the other hand we have a Taxi who could have signalled in a timely
fashion (I'm not certain he didn't, but it is what I suspect, so for the
sake of argument lets assume he didn't) and checked his mirrors before
he turned. As a driver I would have followed these precautionary steps.
I mean in slow moving traffic on the motorway, when changing to the left
lane, you wouldn't just flip the indicators on and turn immediately
without checking mirrors.

I believe the law should hold the driver responsible for this accident.
I was actually involved in a similar accident apart from there was a
painted bike lane. The driver was convicted of driving without due care
and attention.

[Mrcheerful]

Undertaking is not safe riding or driving and AFAIK is the offence of
careless driving/cycling. If the cyclist had not been undertaking the
crash would not have occurred.
Cyclists should use the roads as traffic and obey the relevant laws and
customs.

[Alycidon]

On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 09:15:34 UTC, Nick wrote:

>
> I believe the law should hold the driver responsible for this accident.
> I was actually involved in a similar accident apart from there was a
> painted bike lane. The driver was convicted of driving without due care
> and attention.

I was inside of a car which undertook another car knocking me off - the £5000 compo and three weeks full pay on sick was good.

[Nick]

On 25/11/2015 09:30, Mrcheerful wrote:

>
> Undertaking is not safe riding or driving and AFAIK is the offence of
> careless driving/cycling.

Do you have an example of a cyclist being prosecuted for undertaking?

I have given an example where I was undertaking and the motorist was

convicted of driving without due care and attention.

> If the cyclist had not been undertaking the
> crash would not have occurred.

We are going around in circles, I have already dealt with why filtering
is beneficial. Why it should be allowed in law.

Do you have an argument as to why the taxi shouldn't be required to
signal some time before turning and to check mirrors before turning.

> Cyclists should use the roads as traffic and obey the relevant laws and
> customs.

Customs?

[John Smith]

Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 25/11/2015 08:41, TMS320 wrote:
>> "Nick" <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>> On 24/11/2015 23:54, TMS320 wrote:

>>>> It's even easier when reaching the rear of a vehicle near a junction
>>>> to not overtake it unless it's blocked from moving. It's your neck,
>>>> don't rely on other people to look after it.

>>> Yes it is even easier to stay at home rather than risk an accident
>>> caused by a motorist driving without care and attention.

>> But here we saw a first hand situation that was clearly created by the
>> person on the bicycle.

> Yes the person decided to ride his bike on the road and hence it was his
> fault.

But cyclists don't pay no fackin' road tax, innit?

> Other than that I'm not quite sure what you mean.

That's exactly what he means.

> Cyclists do pass on the left in stationary or slow moving traffic. We
> could outlaw this but it is common practice and I do not believe we
> should outlaw it. Commuting in London through five miles of virtually
> stationary traffic would severely limit the benefit of cycling if
> cyclists had to queue with cars.

And psychopaths would be whingeing about that, too. A psychopath once got
out of his car holding a kitchen knife at me, because I wasn't filtering.
I was on a motorcycle, but had only passed my test weeks before, and so was
riding somewhat cautiously.

[Mrcheerful]

Filtering in stationary or very near stationary traffic on a bike may be
relatively safe, but not in more rapidly moving stuff, imagine if a car
or lorry was filtering on a motorway.
In this case, as in most, there were two people making mistakes. Either
of those two could have made better decisions that would have avoided
the crash.
I know that if it were me in either situation I would be kicking myself
for the mistake.
There is no value to anyone in having a crash, but the cyclist has a lot
more to lose.
There is no point at all in being 'Dead right' or even 'injured right'
Far better to enjoy the knowledge of knowing that your own competence
has avoided an incident.

[John Smith]

The thing about 'careless driving' is that it is defined in s. 3 of the
Road Traffic Act 1988, which states ...

'If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other
public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable
consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty
of an offence'

A bicycle is not a 'mechanically propelled vehicle', and so this offence
cannot apply to cyclists. If you want to get cyclists for an offence, then
look _inter alia_ [1] at s. 28 of the same Act:

'A person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is guilty of an
offence...' (s. 28(1))

But ss. 28(2)(a) and (b) state ..

'For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded as
riding dangerously if (and only if)—

the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a
competent and careful cyclist, and

it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding
in that way would be dangerous'

Those subsections are not 'either or', but 'and.

So does the cyclist's behaviour meet the two criteria above? Personally, I
would not have undertaken that taxi - indeed, I never undertake vehicles.
Where I live, of course, one rides and drives on the right, and quite a lot
of my fellow road users are armed, but even in the UK, I consider myself a
safe cyclist, and I keep well away from the lefthand side of everything.

But it would be up to a court to decide.

> If the cyclist had not been undertaking the crash would not have
> occurred.

If the taxi driver had checked his mirrors before executing the manœuvre,

the crash would not have occurred.

> Cyclists should use the roads as traffic and obey the relevant laws and
> customs.

What, you mean the way psychopaths do ?

[1] To Nugent: that's Latin, by the way

[Judith]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 18:38:11 +0000, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On 23/11/2015 17:27, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>> http://metro.co.uk/2015/11/23/undertaking-cyclist-hit-by-taxi-on-edgware-road-5520021/
>
>Taxi's left indicator clearly and visibly operating...

Yes - but he did not have a large sign on the back of the taxi warning of the
dangers to cyclists of squeezing down his left hand side. So I don't think he
was totally innocent.

[Nick]

On 25/11/2015 10:49, Mrcheerful wrote:

>
> Filtering in stationary or very near stationary traffic on a bike may be
> relatively safe, but not in more rapidly moving stuff, imagine if a car
> or lorry was filtering on a motorway.
> In this case, as in most, there were two people making mistakes. Either
> of those two could have made better decisions that would have avoided
> the crash.
> I know that if it were me in either situation I would be kicking myself
> for the mistake.
> There is no value to anyone in having a crash, but the cyclist has a lot
> more to lose.
> There is no point at all in being 'Dead right' or even 'injured right'
> Far better to enjoy the knowledge of knowing that your own competence
> has avoided an incident.
>

There is no point in being dead right but the more the onus is put on
cyclists and pedestrians to protect themselves, the more motorists
abrogate responsibility. The more they abrogate responsibility the more
risks the take.

We have been down that route. We know where it leads. A world where
children have to be driven to school because their parents know they are
not perfect enough to always avoid the dangers from cars. A world where
cyclists are scared to cycle because they know if they wobble or hit a
bump it will be their fault when they are hit by a car which overtakes
with inches to spare.

I think it much better to build a world where car drivers understand
that it is their responsibility to avoid collisions. That they have to
drive carefully check their mirrors and signal, etc.

[Judith]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:25:25 -0800 (PST), Alycidon <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, 23 November 2015 20:54:04 UTC, John Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> The lunatics who drive cars are - not all, but most (around 96%) - raving
>> psychopaths who genuinely believe that they pay 'road tax', and that the
>> mere activation of a turn signal, gives priority over all non-motorized
>> traffic and pedestrians.
>

>Indeed - look at this moron bus driver come alongside me. Did he think that his left indicator was going to make me vanish into thin air?
>
>https://youtu.be/N6g4Qw2y1ds


I suspected he thought that you would be a considerate road user and ease off
so that he could pull in to the left.

Did you not know that it is illegal to cross the first line at an ASL box when
the lights are red?

Any particular reason for being in the RH turn lane when you weren't intending
to?


I love these videos of yours - please do keep them coming.

We really can see how daft you are.

[Mrcheerful]

It is everbody's responsibility, not just car drivers, everyone needs to
take as much care as they can, and that does include cyclists.

[Nick]

On 25/11/2015 13:02, Mrcheerful wrote:

>> I think it much better to build a world where car drivers understand
>> that it is their responsibility to avoid collisions. That they have to
>> drive carefully check their mirrors and signal, etc.
>>
>
> It is everbody's responsibility, not just car drivers, everyone needs to
> take as much care as they can, and that does include cyclists.

Yes that does include cyclists but lets stop worrying so much about
people hurting themselves and worry a little bit more about those who
hurt other people.

[Mrcheerful]

You just do not get it, do you? Everyone needs to take care, and the
people that are the most easily hurt (cyclists mixed in with motor
vehicles) need to take the utmost care, including avoiding risky
behaviours that are well known to lead to problems, particularly
undertaking at junctions. If that single thing stopped completely, the
London cyclist death toll would probably halve at one stroke, surely
that is worth encouraging and doing?

[John Smith]

Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 25/11/2015 13:07, Nick wrote:
>> On 25/11/2015 13:02, Mrcheerful wrote:

>>>> I think it much better to build a world where car drivers understand
>>>> that it is their responsibility to avoid collisions. That they have to
>>>> drive carefully check their mirrors and signal, etc.

>>> It is everbody's responsibility, not just car drivers, everyone needs
>>> to take as much care as they can, and that does include cyclists.

>> Yes that does include cyclists but lets stop worrying so much about
>> people hurting themselves and worry a little bit more about those who
>> hurt other people.

> You just do not get it, do you? Everyone needs to take care, and the
> people that are the most easily hurt (cyclists mixed in with motor
> vehicles) need to take the utmost care

So, let's see ... the victims of the people who cause unmitigated carnage
on the roads, are responsible for that carnage?

*guffaw *

You fucking tool.

[JNugent]

On 25/11/2015 09:59, Nick wrote:

> On 25/11/2015 09:30, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>>
>> Undertaking is not safe riding or driving and AFAIK is the offence of
>> careless driving/cycling.
>
> Do you have an example of a cyclist being prosecuted for undertaking?
>
> I have given an example where I was undertaking and the motorist was
> convicted of driving without due care and attention.
>
>> If the cyclist had not been undertaking the
>> crash would not have occurred.
>
> We are going around in circles, I have already dealt with why filtering
> is beneficial. Why it should be allowed in law.
>
> Do you have an argument as to why the taxi shouldn't be required to
> signal some time before turning and to check mirrors before turning.

If that was a question, here's another.

Why are you sticking to the line that the driver did not signal in
advance, when the visual evidence is that he did?

>> Cyclists should use the roads as traffic and obey the relevant laws and
>> customs.

> Customs?

Courtesy and consideration are two of them.

Not always having to be there two seconds better than yesterday, for a
start.

[JNugent]

On 25/11/2015 12:56, Nick wrote:

> On 25/11/2015 10:49, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>>
>> Filtering in stationary or very near stationary traffic on a bike may be
>> relatively safe, but not in more rapidly moving stuff, imagine if a car
>> or lorry was filtering on a motorway.
>> In this case, as in most, there were two people making mistakes. Either
>> of those two could have made better decisions that would have avoided
>> the crash.
>> I know that if it were me in either situation I would be kicking myself
>> for the mistake.
>> There is no value to anyone in having a crash, but the cyclist has a lot
>> more to lose.
>> There is no point at all in being 'Dead right' or even 'injured right'
>> Far better to enjoy the knowledge of knowing that your own competence
>> has avoided an incident.
>>
>
> There is no point in being dead right but the more the onus is put on
> cyclists and pedestrians to protect themselves, the more motorists
> abrogate responsibility. The more they abrogate responsibility the more
> risks the take.

That's an unsupported (and unsupportable) assertion.

It is not a line of logic.

> We have been down that route. We know where it leads. A world where
> children have to be driven to school because their parents know they are
> not perfect enough to always avoid the dangers from cars. A world where
> cyclists are scared to cycle because they know if they wobble or hit a
> bump it will be their fault when they are hit by a car which overtakes
> with inches to spare.

Prove the connection you claim links any of that to the general
expectation that all road users - including cyclists - will behave properly

> I think it much better to build a world where car drivers understand
> that it is their responsibility to avoid collisions. That they have to
> drive carefully check their mirrors and signal, etc.

Drivers understand all of those things perfectly well.

But do all other road-users - especially cyclists - behave as though
*they* understand them too?

[JNugent]

100%.

[Nick]

On 25/11/2015 14:44, JNugent wrote:

> Why are you sticking to the line that the driver did not signal in
> advance, when the visual evidence is that he did?
>

I see him start to signal at 5 seconds into the video almost
simultaneous with him starting to turn.

Obviously that does not give the cyclist time to react.

The signal should be made at least 5 seconds prior to the manoeuvre.

How long before he started to turn did you see him signal?

[TMS320]

"Nick" <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote

> On 25/11/2015 08:41, TMS320 wrote:
>> "Nick" <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>> On 24/11/2015 23:54, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's even easier when reaching the rear of a vehicle near a junction to
>>>> not
>>>> overtake it unless it's blocked from moving. It's your neck, don't rely
>>>> on
>>>> other people to look after it.
>>>
>>> Yes it is even easier to stay at home rather than risk an accident
>>> caused
>>> by a motorist driving without care and attention.
>>
>> But here we saw a first hand situation that was clearly created by the
>> person on the bicycle.
>
> Yes the person decided to ride his bike on the road and hence it was his
> fault. Other than that I'm not quite sure what you mean.

It is not all or nothing. Conduct on route matters.

> Cyclists do pass on the left in stationary or slow moving traffic.

Overtaking, in principle, is not the issue. The issue is about choosing
a suitable time and place.

The clip shows two riders going past. The first one got through before the
turning while there was only kerb on the left (the view makes it difficult
to tell whether it wasn't marginal). When we watch the second cyclist, we
see that the taxi had already started to make the turn while the cyclist was
still behind. The taxi's front wheels would have started to steer before we
see movement but this should have been obvious to him.

It was a pretty daft attempt for a second reason because after the taxi, he
needed the grey car to stay put. Irrespectiv eof what the taxi was or wasn't
going to do I would have moved away from the kerb on the approach, not
towards it.

On a slightly different matter, both cyclists were wearing the same
invisibility cloaks (and I mean that with all seriousness). It is possible
that the driver noted cyclist(s) behind - I am sure there is hesitation for
the first - but after the first went past, may have thought it was clear.

> We could outlaw this but it is common practice and I do not believe we
> should outlaw it. Commuting in London through five miles of virtually
> stationary traffic would severely limit the benefit of cycling if cyclists
> had to queue with cars.

There's no need to outlaw overtaking but just because it is allowed
doesn't make it mandatory. You are supposed to make a reasoned judgement.

> On the other hand we have a Taxi who could have signalled in a timely
> fashion (I'm not certain he didn't, but it is what I suspect, so for the
> sake of argument lets assume he didn't) and checked his mirrors before he
> turned. As a driver I would have followed these precautionary steps. I
> mean in slow moving traffic on the motorway, when changing to the left
> lane, you wouldn't just flip the indicators on and turn immediately
> without checking mirrors.
>
> I believe the law should hold the driver responsible for this accident.

I don't, for this one.

> I was actually involved in a similar accident apart from there was a
> painted
> bike lane. The driver was convicted of driving without due care and
> attention.

If the lanes were indicated by proper lining that would be correct. Even so,
shouldn't the desire to get home with all body parts intact override
being "in the right"?

[David Lang]

Do they apply to the cycling ban on the A19?

[David Lang]

Unmitigated carnage = 0.3% of deaths.

[TMS320]

"Nick" <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote

> On 25/11/2015 10:49, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>> There is no point at all in being 'Dead right' or even 'injured right'
>> Far better to enjoy the knowledge of knowing that your own competence
>> has avoided an incident.
>
> There is no point in being dead right but the more the onus is put on
> cyclists and pedestrians to protect themselves, the more motorists
> abrogate responsibility. The more they abrogate responsibility the more
> risks the take.

The responsibility rests with road users not putting themselves in a
position that leads to collisions. Going into a situation and asking someone
else to sort it out is demanding responsibility in the wrong direction. Yes,
drivers do need to take more responsibility in many things but in this type,
it is one of yours.

I am rarely in agreement with Mrcheerful but I am completely with him in
this one.

[TMS320]

"David Hume" <David...@example.com> wrote

> "TMS320" <dr6...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> It's even easier when reaching the rear of a vehicle near a junction to
>> not
>> overtake it unless it's blocked from moving. It's your neck, don't rely
>> on
>> other people to look after it.
>

> But to be honest with you, I think split infinitives are totally out of
> order in this newsgroup.

At least, unlike the errors made by road users, they don't hurt any children
or animals. Often, the alternatives sound much more convoluted eg, "to go,
boldly" doesn't work. My sentence also lacks a few commas.

[Judith]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 01:46:10 -0800 (PST), Alycidon <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 09:15:34 UTC, Nick wrote:
>
>>
>> I believe the law should hold the driver responsible for this accident.
>> I was actually involved in a similar accident apart from there was a
>> painted bike lane. The driver was convicted of driving without due care
>> and attention.
>

>I was inside of a car which undertook another car knocking me off - the Ł5000 compo and three weeks full pay on sick was good.



As long as you got the "compo".

Sad bastard.



--

Have you noticed how often Mason has to tell us how affluent he thinks he is
I think he may be insecure.

[John Smith]

TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Nick" <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>> On 25/11/2015 10:49, Mrcheerful wrote:

>>> There is no point at all in being 'Dead right' or even 'injured right'
>>> Far better to enjoy the knowledge of knowing that your own competence
>>> has avoided an incident.

>> There is no point in being dead right but the more the onus is put on
>> cyclists and pedestrians to protect themselves, the more motorists
>> abrogate responsibility. The more they abrogate responsibility the more
>> risks the take.

> The responsibility rests with road users not putting themselves in a
> position that leads to collisions. Going into a situation and asking
> someone else to sort it out is demanding responsibility in the wrong
> direction.

As is putting yourself into a situation, and then blaming someone else.

In other words, what the taxi driver did.

[TMS320]

"John Smith" <john_NOSPAM_...@gmail.com> wrote

So it seems that the next time I want to turn left I shall first have to
move to the right and stop to wait for the 44 tonner behind to go past.

[John Smith]

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man>

[Alycidon]

On Thursday, 26 November 2015 09:04:06 UTC, TMS320 wrote:

> >
> > In other words, what the taxi driver did.
>
> So it seems that the next time I want to turn left I shall first have to
> move to the right and stop to wait for the 44 tonner behind to go past.

You could drive on the motorway in the middle lane with a 44 tonner in the inside lane and just before your turn off do mirror/signal/manoeuvre all at the same time and see what happens.

[John Smith]

You forgot to say 'please'. ;-)

[TMS320]

"Alycidon" <swld...@gmail.com> wrote

There are many differences. Primarily, a motorway has marked lanes; paint
marks where you have to give way to traffic in other lanes.

In the case in point there wasn't even a proper virtual lane. Initially the
rider would have been in line with the left hand wheels of the taxi and
going at the same speed. He just tried an opportunist dodge.

However, I am not the one arguing that I should be able to ride my bicycle
into a closing gap and get away with it. You do so if you want but don't
blame somebody else when it goes wrong.

[Rob Morley]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 13:33:16 -0000
"TMS320" <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Alycidon" <swld...@gmail.com> wrote

> In the case in point there wasn't even a proper virtual lane.
> Initially the rider would have been in line with the left hand wheels
> of the taxi and going at the same speed. He just tried an
> opportunist dodge.
>
> However, I am not the one arguing that I should be able to ride my
> bicycle into a closing gap and get away with it. You do so if you
> want but don't blame somebody else when it goes wrong.
>

ISTM that the cyclist did what motorists often do - assume it's OK
to follow the one in front and act surprised when that brings them into
conflict with other road users. The taxi driver did seem to indicate
too late and not make adequate observation, but the situation was quite
predictable. Assign blame 50/50?

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Agreed.

[Judith]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 13:33:16 -0000, "TMS320" <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>However, I am not the one arguing that I should be able to ride my bicycle
>into a closing gap and get away with it. You do so if you want but don't
>blame somebody else when it goes wrong.
>

Darwin had the right idea.