Paul Smith
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: MrBitsy on 20 Dec 2007 06:20 Nick wrote: > MrBitsy wrote: >> 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. > > That is precisely what they are doing here. > > > Experience tell us that the moment motorists decide that other people > have a responsibility to avoid potentially dangerous situations with > their vehicles they start to believe it is no longer their > responsibility to avoid a collision. I don't agree with that at all. As a driver who has passed the IAM, DSA and RoSPA advanced driving tests, I can assure you I know my, and other road users, responsibilities. However, I stay away from large vehicles where I possibly can - because they are bigger than me and I will come off worse in a collision. I don't base my driving plan on the assumption of others always following the rules - humans make mistakes. I have always tried to understand the difficulties faced by drivers of large vehicles. Early this year I spent a very enjoyable 6 weeks training for the PCV license. I drove large coaches, single and double decker busses. If you have never driven a large vehicle, let me tell you the following ... 1.. There are huge blindspots. 2.. Other drivers/cyclists regularly put themselves into the blindspots. 3.. Think of the blindspots created by standing passengers on a bus. I put all my previous driver training to good use when driving the busses. However, out of all other road users, cyclists were often crazy around the bus, seemingly having no understanding at all of the problems driving one. Cyclists would put themselves into the blindspots daily. The most stupid actions were those that would squeeze down the side of the bus at junctions - even when I was signalling to turn left! They would put themselves straight into the blindpot and sit there. I never collided with one as I always spotted them early, but I am never surprised when I hear of a cyclist being run down. > This is what the argument is all really about. Motorists want everyone > other road user to behave in a much more ordered and predictable way > so that the can drive faster and take less care. Try and think about what you have written above and what you want as a cyclists - don't you want motorists to behave in an ordered and predictable way? In an ideal world, everyone will follow the rules and we can always take our rights and priorities. As we don't live in that ideal world, we have to compromise. We have to assume others are not always going to drive perfectly, so we should drive/ride defensivly - we have to anticipate mistakes others make. We anticipate because being alive is better than being dead but right. Cyclists are so vunerable on the roads, and will mostly come off worst in a collision, I would absolutley take Brimstones advice and 'stay away from large vehicles. -- MrBitsy
From: Brimstone on 20 Dec 2007 06:39 MrBitsy wrote: > Brimstone wrote: >> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >> news:bbiaj.17296$1j1.14918(a)newsfe7-gui.ntli.net... > >>> 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. >> >> So why can't or won't you apply the same criteria and methods to a >> red light? > > I think I have given my reasons. > > Green light gives a very strong 'its clear' message. > Drivers will assume other traffic has stopped. > Observations and anticipation are often dropped on this clear signal. > Drivers will not expect me to be in their way. They are not there in the scenario I'm describing. > I think we all agree going faster than the limit where conditions > allow, is not dangerous. My position on the road is where others > expect me to be. I am not going into a zone where other drivers will > drop observations due to a strong 'signal' that another vehicle will > not be a factor. > For me personally, The absolute message given by 'clear' and 'danger' > aspects at traffic lights, are too strong to ignore. I will not cross > a red aspect until I am sure I am justified in doing so - and this > will be because of traffic light failure only. > > Maybe the signaller/train driver in me is too strong :-) I too am a former train driver and signalman. I've also worked on the P-Way and the S&T. None of them influence my attitude to a road junction signal. So, I'm repeating the question. If you are at or approaching a red traffic light and can see quite clearly THAT THERE IS NO OTHER TRAFFIC APPROACHING FROM ANY DIRECTION what is the objection to passing that signal?
From: Steve Firth on 20 Dec 2007 06:37 Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > Indeed. I think it's fair to say that a lot of the heat from the > cycling side has come solely from the suggestion in Brimstone's post > that we should just avoid lorries, period. You may continue to mix it with trucks as you like. And you may continue to run the risk of beign squashed in consequence. If you don't have an instinct for self-preservation feel free to die in whatever manner you choose. (Side note, are all cyclists really this dumb or is Wrecked.Cycles attracting lie from the shallow end of the gene pool?)
From: Nick on 20 Dec 2007 06:51 MrBitsy wrote: > Nick wrote: >> MrBitsy wrote: >>> 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. >> That is precisely what they are doing here. >> >> >> Experience tell us that the moment motorists decide that other people >> have a responsibility to avoid potentially dangerous situations with >> their vehicles they start to believe it is no longer their >> responsibility to avoid a collision. > > I don't agree with that at all. > > As a driver who has passed the IAM, DSA and RoSPA advanced driving tests, I > can assure you I know my, and other road users, responsibilities. However, I > stay away from large vehicles where I possibly can - because they are bigger > than me and I will come off worse in a collision. I don't base my driving > plan on the assumption of others always following the rules - humans make > mistakes. > > I have always tried to understand the difficulties faced by drivers of large > vehicles. Early this year I spent a very enjoyable 6 weeks training for the > PCV license. I drove large coaches, single and double decker busses. If you > have never driven a large vehicle, let me tell you the following ... > > 1.. There are huge blindspots. > 2.. Other drivers/cyclists regularly put themselves into the blindspots. > 3.. Think of the blindspots created by standing passengers on a bus. > > I put all my previous driver training to good use when driving the busses. > However, out of all other road users, cyclists were often crazy around the > bus, seemingly having no understanding at all of the problems driving one. > Cyclists would put themselves into the blindspots daily. > > The most stupid actions were those that would squeeze down the side of the > bus at junctions - even when I was signalling to turn left! They would put > themselves straight into the blindpot and sit there. I never collided with > one as I always spotted them early, but I am never surprised when I hear of > a cyclist being run down. > So you felt it was OK to continue driving in a way that put other road users lives at risk. Presumably this is because you felt it would be their fault if you did kill them? I realise that professional drivers come from the lower end of the intelligence scale but can you not see this was exactly my point. >> This is what the argument is all really about. Motorists want everyone >> other road user to behave in a much more ordered and predictable way >> so that the can drive faster and take less care. > > Try and think about what you have written above and what you want as a > cyclists - don't you want motorists to behave in an ordered and predictable > way? > No, I want motorists to drive safely. In particular I want them to exercise additional care that the dangerous machinery that they operate does not injure more vulnerable road users. > In an ideal world, everyone will follow the rules and we can always take our > rights and priorities. As we don't live in that ideal world, we have to > compromise. We have to assume others are not always going to drive > perfectly, so we should drive/ride defensivly - we have to anticipate > mistakes others make. > Yes drivers should drive/ride anticipating that other people may unexpectedly come into their path. Dwelling on how it was the other persons mistake/ stupidity/ fault makes motorist less willing to take action to avoid such collisions. Do you actually ride a bike? > We anticipate because being alive is better than being dead but right. > Cyclists are so vunerable on the roads, and will mostly come off worst in a > collision, I would absolutley take Brimstones advice and 'stay away from > large vehicles. > I see there was a recent case of kids throwing bricks off a bridge and killing a lorry driver. Presumably you think that as boys will be boys lorry drivers should stay away bridges. I wonder if their punishment will be a fine of 150 pounds.
From: raisethe on 20 Dec 2007 07:02
x-no-archive:Steve Firth wrote: > Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Indeed. I think it's fair to say that a lot of the heat from the >> cycling side has come solely from the suggestion in Brimstone's post >> that we should just avoid lorries, period. > > You may continue to mix it with trucks as you like. And you may continue > to run the risk of beign squashed in consequence. If you don't have an > instinct for self-preservation feel free to die in whatever manner you > choose. > > (Side note, are all cyclists really this dumb or is Wrecked.Cycles > attracting lie from the shallow end of the gene pool?) Hey Dunger! What's dumb about Peter Clinch's post above? Please explain. |