From: Tom Crispin on 17 Dec 2007 15:15
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:40:10 -0000, "Brimstone"
>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:46:05 +0000, JNugent
>> <not.telling(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>> JNugent <not.telling(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>>> [ ... ]
>>>>>> So what do you consider harsher? �300 fine for a cement mixer
>>>>>> driver killing a cyclist, or 300 hours community service for a
>>>>>> cyclist killing a pedestrian?
>>>>> We punish people convicted of offences. Offences committed
>>>>> deliberately are rightly punished more stringently than errors of
>>>>> omission and lapses of judgement. Or at least, they ought to be.
>>>> I very much hope that the cyclist did not deliberately set out to
>>>> kill a pedestrian. If he did I think that life is the minimum
>>>> sentence he should have recieved (for the pedants: the maximum
>>>> sentence also).
>>> He cycled along the footway deliberately. It wasn't a mistake.
>> The cement mixer turned left deliberately. It wasn't a mistake.
>The lorry driver was acting within the law when turning left. The cyclist on
>the footpath was acting outside the law.
Now we get to the crux of my point.
Recall that I was interviewed for a health and safety film.
Recall I was asked what one rule I would add to the Highway code.
Recall that my answer was:
You MUST check your mirrors and any blind spots before moving off or
stopping, changing speed or manouvering.
With severe penalties for not following the rule.
Very quickly truck makers would find ways to eliminate blind spots,
and drivers not looking would face serious criminal charges, not
simply a �300 fine for killing innocent cyclists such as Emma Foa.
From: Simon Dean on 17 Dec 2007 18:11
> Clive George wrote:
> How do you think
>> drivers of speed-limited vehicles cope?
> If they are like me they drive in autopilot, many times I have plugged
> into the motorway at Lyon and the next thing five hours later suddenly
> I'm in Paris, mind far away with the faries the entire time, no recall
> whatsoever of the 5 hours, I've discussed this with others and I'm far
> from unique.
Hrm. And you question me....
You can't even remember what happened! LOL!
From: NM on 19 Dec 2007 10:53
Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article <5sr39mF1ah14lU6(a)mid.individual.net>, Conor wrote:
>> Just a note..cabs a feckin high now with the bottom of windscreens over
>> 6ft off the floor so try and be a few feet in front of the lorry if
>> you're directly in front of it.
> If you're stopped at a red light and a lorry pulls up right behind you,
> that means going a few feet through the red light. Sometimes that's safe
> and advisable, but sometimes it would mean pulling into the middle of a
> pedestrian crossing which is being used.
If you are approaching a cyclist stopped in the middle of your lane
waiting a red light (I know this is extremly rare) then when stopping
behid him you should stop where you keep him in sight, it's not up to
him to move.
I take your point on high trucks, I can pull up to a small car like a
Fiat cinquecento when I'm in the Daf 105 and it will completly disappear
below my sightline and there will still be room for pedestrians to
easily pass between me and it. The later Daf's have a mirror down across
the windscreen to help.
From: NM on 19 Dec 2007 11:03
Roger Thorpe wrote:
> NM wrote:
>> Nonsense, everyone has a speed at which they feel comfortable, this
>> will vary from situation to situation and with the amount of other
>> traffic, at this speed they are aware and concentrating on what they
>> are doing, make them go slower and their mind wanders, out of boredom
>> and their attention drops.
> This is the least convincing argument that I've heard. I sometimes
> travel for eight hours or so at an average of 16 MPH with no trouble at
> Roger thorpe
Assuming you mean on the road and 16mph being the maximum you could
attain? I expect you are probably a cyclist thus you are concentrating
on gaining the best speed and your attention is so held, a fact
indicated by your preponsity to measure such a low speed.
Try doing another eight hours, never excceding 8mph, and see if you
don't get bored.
From: Roger Thorpe on 19 Dec 2007 12:29
> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>> NM wrote:
>>> Nonsense, everyone has a speed at which they feel comfortable, this
>>> will vary from situation to situation and with the amount of other
>>> traffic, at this speed they are aware and concentrating on what they
>>> are doing, make them go slower and their mind wanders, out of boredom
>>> and their attention drops.
>> This is the least convincing argument that I've heard. I sometimes
>> travel for eight hours or so at an average of 16 MPH with no trouble
>> at all....
>> Roger thorpe
> Assuming you mean on the road and 16mph being the maximum you could
> attain? I expect you are probably a cyclist thus you are concentrating
> on gaining the best speed and your attention is so held, a fact
> indicated by your preponsity to measure such a low speed.
> Try doing another eight hours, never excceding 8mph, and see if you
> don't get bored.
16MPH is cruising, half power more or less (this is not a boast, a
reasonably fit clubman should be able to do 20 MPH 'evens')
To get back to reality though..
Doesn't the concentration loss (and even nodding off) problem really
only arise on dual carriageways? As long as you're moving with the
traffic it's hard to see how the speed has any impact on your
concentration up to the point where sheer terror keeps you alert. I'd
concede that the elapsed time has some effect though, but this can be
offset by a reasonable break.
Does anyone know if motorway designers consider ways of reducing the
soporific effect and stimulating the driver? Avoiding long straight
sections and varying the lighting spring to mind.