Paul Smith
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Simon Dean on 19 Dec 2007 14:14 Conor wrote: > In article <5soertF1am66cU4(a)mid.individual.net>, Simon Dean says... > >>> Redesign the additional mirrors. reflective glass may be one >>> solution, though I have no idea how practical that might be. >> Even simpler, move your head to look around the mirrors. How cretinous >> some arguments appear to be. >> > So now I'm supposed to get out of the driving seat as I'm approaching a > junction or roundabout? You have to move your head a long way to look > around something that's 10-12" wide, 2ft tall and less than 2ft from > your head. > > > Incredible. > Oh come on now. You know Im not suggesting that. Ok, I concede defeat on this one. I don't have the full understanding of mirrors on trucks and just how they prevent you from looking down at things you may be about to run over (which is where I gather the reflective glass comes from) Most mirrors I've seen are pretty high up on cabs... So what blind spots are you talking about then? And how might reflective glass help, unless you have some floor mounted mirrors or something? Blind spots aint never going to be eliminated are they? But you can move your head to get a bigger view? Right?
From: Ekul Namsob on 19 Dec 2007 15:12 MrBitsy <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > 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. > > Right, so if the lorry driver does indeed pull up too close, the cyclists > brain needs to kick into gear - self preservation now takes over from blame. Do you condone cycling on pavements? Many cyclists have put their 'self-preservation' skills into effect and decided that they would be better off there. Indeed, I believe that fear of injury is a defence for people charged with pavement cycling. [1] Cheers, Luke [1] As with so many things, I cannot provide a source for that. -- Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
From: JNugent on 19 Dec 2007 17:12 Ekul Namsob wrote: > MrBitsy <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>Alan Braggins wrote: >>>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. >>Right, so if the lorry driver does indeed pull up too close, the cyclists >>brain needs to kick into gear - self preservation now takes over from blame. > Do you condone cycling on pavements? Many cyclists have put their > 'self-preservation' skills into effect and decided that they would be > better off there. Indeed, I believe that fear of injury is a defence for > people charged with pavement cycling. [1] Fear of injury would be just as "good" a defence for the shooting dead of an armed police officer by the criminal he is confronting. Or of the murder of the victim of a mugging "just in case" he or a member of his family comes after the mugger. > Cheers, > Luke > [1] As with so many things, I cannot provide a source for that. Of course you can't.
From: JNugent on 17 Dec 2007 19:32 Tom Crispin wrote: > "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng01(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>Tom Crispin wrote: >>>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. I can't recall that, but never mind. > 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. What has your opinion got to do with it? Everyone else is arguing from principle, not imaginary force majeure. But anyway, how would anyone actually check blind spots? And would that include the underside of the vehicle in case someone had crawled underneath (perhaps to stow away)? Please be very specific about that - are you saying that there should be complete 360 degree x 360 degree spherical vision of all the space around, on top of and underneath the vehicle? > With severe penalties for not following the rule. How can a penalty be non-oppressively applied (in a way that complies with the Human Rights legislation) for not complying with a rule that simply cannot be complied with? > Very quickly truck makers would find ways to eliminate blind spots I think they'd bring a case at Strasbourg for unlawful restriction of trade. And they'd win.
From: JNugent on 17 Dec 2007 19:38
Tom Crispin wrote: > Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: [ ... ] >>Perhaps Ms Foa should have paid attention to HC73, btw? > What makes you think that she didn't, but was trapped in the position > she found herself in? Have you found a link to the inquest verdict yet? That should provide a strong pointer to the answer. |