Paul Smith
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: JNugent on 19 Dec 2007 18:12 Brimstone wrote: > Rob Morley wrote: > >>In article <lfqdnXa6PIQClfTanZ2dnUVZ8q6onZ2d(a)bt.com>, Brimstone >>brimstone520-ng01(a)yahoo.co.uk says... >> >>>Peter Clinch wrote: >>> >>>>Adrian wrote: >>>>[bike bell] >>>> >>>>>It's still a legal requirement. >>>> >>>>To be fitted at sale, not to be fitted in use. >>>> >>> >>>Oh dear. >>> >> >>Why? > > > What is the purpose of a bell or horn on a vehicle? To summon all the neighbours of your mate to their front windows when you pull up outside his house at 19:00 and blast your horn to tell him that you've arrived (presumably in the firm belief that it works something like a dog whistle)?
From: MrBitsy on 19 Dec 2007 18:40 Simon Dean wrote: > NM wrote: >> MrBitsy wrote: >> >>> >>> Simon, please post here you experience of driving lorries, coaches >>> or busses. At the moment, you are showing no understanding >>> whatsoever of the problems associated with driving a long vehicle. >>> >> >> Sadly he's typical. > > Well it's true that I may have missed the point of the argument.... > Certainly some were saying that simply adding new mirrors might create > new blind spots - I presume that's the blind spot created behind a > mirror. Or have I misunderstood that argument about using "reflective > glass" (ie reflective glass, not simply a mirror)? > > If not, I would imagine that a good way to see beyond a mirror or > other static object, is to reposition yourself slightly. ie, put a > book in front of your face. Can't see much. Move your head. Thanks for cofirming you haven't driven a large vehicle. How far do you think a coach, bus or lorry driver would have to move his head to completely see past a large mirror six feet away? > You aint ever going to get rid of all blind spots, and I think Ray's > missed the PP comment about reflective glass (which I don't believe is > strictly related to driving a truck necessarily, but more about simple > logic) How about now? -- MrBitsy
From: MrBitsy on 19 Dec 2007 18:54 Brimstone wrote: > MrBitsy wrote: >> Brimstone wrote: >>> MrBitsy wrote: >>>> Clive George wrote: >>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:OWZ9j.10620$h35.4554(a)newsfe2-gui.ntli.net... >>>>>> Clive George wrote: >>>>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:deZ9j.12144$ov2.11527(a)newsfe5-win.ntli.net... >>>>>>>> DavidR wrote: >>>>>>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>> DavidR wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Many cyclists, like pedestrians, seem oblivious in very >>>>>>>>>>>> simple ways to keep themselves safe - not obeying red >>>>>>>>>>>> lights for instance. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Is this dangerous? Are there any figures to bear it out? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Are you seriously suggestion it is safe to pass red traffic >>>>>>>>>> lights under normal conditions? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The question makes no such suggestion. I am asking you - is it >>>>>>>>> dangerous? And please give reasons. Then I will offer my >>>>>>>>> opinion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You don't know why it would be dangerous to not obey red >>>>>>>> traffic lights? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can think of cases where it would be safe to not obey red >>>>>>> traffic lights. If you can't, then you're pretty dim. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are we talking everyday normal use of traffic controlled >>>>>> junctions? >>>>> >>>>> Define that a bit better :-) The strict answer is "it depends". >>>>> >>>>> (coz I'm not Brimstone, I'll not stop there.) >>>>> >>>>> Red traffic lights don't just happen at traffic controlled >>>>> junctions - road works and road crossings are the two other ones I >>>>> can think of. So that's one reason why your question isn't >>>>> helpful. But here's the main one: >>>>> Safety when not obeying them isn't an absolute - just as you say >>>>> safe speed isn't the absolute prescribed figure. It depends on the >>>>> circumstances - what other vehicles/people are present, how much >>>>> can you see, how fast are they going. You're very keen on >>>>> observing the hazards and making an appropriate decision when it >>>>> comes to speed limits - why not apply this to other laws too? >>>>> After all, it's easy to provide cases where it is perfectly safe >>>>> to ignore a red traffic light - and indeed, it's even easy to >>>>> provide them where it's not only safe, but doesn't even slightly >>>>> affect other road users. And that applies no matter what your >>>>> mode of transport. Of course, >>>>> the fact that it's rather easier when you're small, manoeverable >>>>> and have better opportunities for observation could be a reason >>>>> for considering some modes rather more than others (and indeed >>>>> the law recognises this to an extent). >>>> >>>> When choosing a speed to travel at, all hazzards, road & weather >>>> conditions are taken into account. I am always going to be >>>> travelling on the correct side of the road, in a direction other >>>> road users and pedestrians expect me to be going. A 10% difference >>>> in speed is not going to catch someone out, if the driver has >>>> chosen that speed on an accurate assesment of those conditions. >>>> >>>> A red traffic light is an absolute message to stop. I know this and >>>> all other road users are expecting me to comply with it. Other road >>>> users will be approaching green traffic lights expecting the road >>>> to be clear. Many motorists will not be observing either side of >>>> the junction for road users not obeying the red. Therefore, not >>>> obeying a red traffic signal, has far more risks associated with >>>> it than going a little faster than a posted speed limit - one that >>>> has no idea of the conditions when I pass it. >>> >>> What if there are no other road users? >> >> What about it? > > Quote, "I know this and all other road users are expecting me to > comply with it. Other road users will be approaching green traffic > lights expecting the road to be clear." > > That's quite true. but what if there are no other road users, why > shouldn't one drive/ride through a red light? Both of you are trying to get a 'because it is the law' answer, but I would treat a red signal with great caution for the reasons I have given. If the signal was broken, I would pass the red with great caution, because of the strength of message given by the green. Going faster than a speed limit is based on what I can see and what I can reasonably expect to develop. As has been said so often, a speed limit is a best guess at likely hazzards, but this limit has to be too high or too low almost all the time. I will drive at a speed withing the law 90% of the time AND within a safe speed for the conditions 100% of the time. However, when the road and conditions allow a faster speed, I will drive faster than the limit. -- MrBitsy
From: MrBitsy on 19 Dec 2007 18:56 Ekul Namsob wrote: > 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] I see no problem with riding responsibly on the pavement. However, if there was a safe cycle path available, I would not expect to see a cyclist on the pavement. -- MrBitsy
From: MrBitsy on 19 Dec 2007 18:53
Alan Braggins wrote: > In article <D7baj.14781$Hc3.13169(a)newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>, NM 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. >> >> 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. > > Exactly. Just telling cyclists to keep clear of lorries isn't the > whole answer, the drivers have to pay attention too. (Which almost > all of them do, almost all of the time.) Which we have all said throuought this thread - but even a human with the best intentions will make mistakes from time to time. For this reasons, cyclists should think self preservation before rights, blame or revenge. -- MrBitsy |