From: MrBitsy on
Ekul Namsob wrote:
> NM <never.opened(a)> wrote:
>> Alan Braggins wrote:
>>> In article <5sr39mF1ah14lU6(a)>, 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.
> "Tyres and tarmac": stop such that you can see the tyres of the
> vehicle in front as well as some tarmac.
> I think this is RoSPA advice. It seems quite sane. Clearly, there may
> be times when it should be ignored but that's why the good Lord gave
> some of us brains.

It is also advice I gave to all my learners.

From: MrBitsy on
Roger Thorpe wrote:

> 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.

It doesn't need to be sheer terror!!!

Keeping the driver interested will lead to a safer drive. Driving at a slow
speed and/or driving for too long will help the driver to become bored.
Bored drivers read, make phone calls and nod off.


From: MrBitsy on
Simon Dean wrote:
> Conor wrote:
>> In article <5soertF1am66cU4(a)>, 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...

How tall are you?

I am 6ft 5inches, so my eyes are level with the rearview mirror in my car -
I have to be very carefull when turning left.

> So what blind spots are you talking about then? And how might
> reflective glass help, unless you have some floor mounted mirrors or
> something?

As a bus driver, I sat high up - the large mirrors both nearside and offside
could hide vehicles from view. If the mirror is high up, it either has to be
angled down to cover the blindspot, or angled level for a good view down the
side - or of course they could make them large :-)

> Blind spots aint never going to be eliminated are they? But you can
> move your head to get a bigger view? Right?

No, not in a bus, coach or lorry. Look at the size of the mirrors on modern
coaches - they are huge as a response to cover as much of the blindpots as
possible. Look where the driver is - now imaging trying to see around those
mirrors, especially the nearside one. Mirror size and placement is a
compromise. The driver can be as vigilant as you want, but if a cyclist pays
no attention it is going to be easy for them to disappear.

While training for the PCV license, a lot of the time was spent on
observation and safety of passengers. When leaving a bus stop, the driver
has to check for cyclists on the right AND passengers on the left.
Passengers may have left the bus then remember they left something on it,
then run up the side of the bus. Passengers who may arrive as the bus is
leaving may also run up the side of the bus.

There is a lot to driving a large vehicle safely. It can be done with a good
driver, but they need to be helped by good cyclists too. I was shocked when
my PCV trainer positioned himself down the side of the bus while standing
up - he is 6ft. He managed to be invisible from just behind the cab to about
6ft back.


From: DavidR on

"MrBitsy" <ray(a)> wrote in message
> DavidR wrote:
>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)> wrote
>>> 1. Cyclist arrives at lights.
>>> 2. Cement mixer pulls up alongside.
>>> Cyclist now has to think. I can't see the driver of the lorry, so
>>> maybe he can't see me? The lorry driver may not be concentrating as
>>> he should. The cyclist can either
>>> 1. Move forward when the lights turn green, risking a collision.
>>> 2. Not move until the cement mixer is clear.
>> 3. Out accelerate the thing.
>> 4. Continue through the red light. [*]
>>> You may think '1' is justified because the cyclist is in the right,
>>> but '2' is actually better for safety.
>> I think the cyclist's judgement according to circumstance would be
>> better than pontificating from behind a keyboard.
> I suppose you are now slapping yourself for having the cheek to post [2] &
> [3] on the internet.

No, why do you think I should?

> After all, you wouldn't want to be seen to be pontificating behind a
> keyboard?

I offered some alternatives to be used according to circumstance. You
recommended an action to be used irrespective of circumstance. BTW when did
last get on a bike?

From: Clive George on
"MrBitsy" <ray(a)> wrote in message
> Brimstone wrote:
>> MrBitsy wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> MrBitsy wrote:
>>>>> Clive George wrote:
>>>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:OWZ9j.10620$h35.4554(a)
>>>>>>> Clive George wrote:
>>>>>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:deZ9j.12144$ov2.11527(a)
>>>>>>>>> DavidR wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> DavidR wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)> 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,

Is Brimstone schizophrenic then? I ask because I'm not after a "because it
is the law" answer - I'm after you to acknowledge that there are
circumstances when it is safe to pass a red light.

Is it your fear of giving an answer which you think might be used against
you which is preventing you giving the correct one?