Paul Smith
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Peter Clinch on 20 Dec 2007 11:47 Ekul Namsob wrote: > If, on a motorway, a lorry positions itself to the side of me, I slow > down enough to give it space to pull in. That's nice. What if there's another lorry closing up from behind? > I might well also pull in at > the next services to try to find out why my car was unable to travel > more swiftly than the lorry. Perhaps you didn't want to, perhaps you were joining relatively slowly from a slip road, perhaps you were boxed in while a stream of vehicles passed in the faster lane you couldn't get into perhaps etc. etc. etc. If you can't envisage a single possible scenario for getting into a less than perfectly comfortable situation relative to an HGV then you're just not trying or have a rather feeble imagination. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
From: Steve Firth on 20 Dec 2007 11:46 Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > Steve Firth wrote: > > > You may continue to mix it with trucks as you like. And you may continue > > to run the risk of beign squashed in consequence. > > Much as I (and you) do in cars, and still much the case that getting out > on the roads /at all/ will involve mixing it with trucks, whatever my likes. Not if you're sensible. I can't understand cyclists who whine on about trucks, I've been riding bikes for decades her and in Italy. I tend to find that truck drivers tend to be more aware of cyclists than the average driver. > > If you don't have an instinct for self-preservation feel free to die in > > whatever manner you choose. > > Still too dumb to realise a lot of accidents involve little in the way > of choice for the deceased, I see. I see you're still too dumb to realise that *you* are responsible for your safety to a large degree. That includes choice of route, position on road and general awareness of traffic law and good riding practices. So far you're showing yourself to be woefully deficient in common sense.
From: Steve Firth on 20 Dec 2007 12:04 Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > Ekul Namsob wrote: > > > If, on a motorway, a lorry positions itself to the side of me, I slow > > down enough to give it space to pull in. > > That's nice. What if there's another lorry closing up from behind? Are you really as bad a driver as the above comment makes you sound? Slow down let the nice man in the big truck in, if big truck behind wants to maintain speed he indicates pulls out and overtakes you, or he slows down. It's his call what he wants to do. > > I might well also pull in at the next services to try to find out why my > > car was unable to travel more swiftly than the lorry. > > Perhaps you didn't want to, perhaps you were joining relatively slowly > from a slip road, Match your speed to that of traffic in lane 1. It's easy to do. Merge safely with the traffic in lane 1. > perhaps you were boxed in while a stream of vehicles > passed in the faster lane you couldn't get into You mean that you weren't observing traffic and let yourself get boxed into a position that makes you feel uncomfortable? > perhaps etc. etc. etc. Perhaps you should sign up for some driver training? > If you can't envisage a single possible scenario for getting into a less > than perfectly comfortable situation relative to an HGV then you're just > not trying or have a rather feeble imagination. I can imagine many scenarios. They all start with the driver being of a low standard, as do your examples above.
From: JNugent on 20 Dec 2007 12:05 The Luggage wrote: > On 19 Dec, 22:12, JNugent <not.tell...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> > wrote: > >>Ekul Namsob wrote: > > [...] > >>>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. > > > Well I can. It was a comment in 1999 from then Home Office minister > Paul Boateng. 'In a letter to cycling MP Ben Bradshaw Home Office > Minister Paul Boateng wrote "The introduction of the fixed penalty is > not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use > the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to > other pavement users." > > Ref: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/407443.stm > > So not strictly a defence, but it is clear that the intention of the > FPN system for pavement cycling was NOT to penalise 'responsible > cyclists' but those who cause a danger to pedestrians. This, of > course, has been completely forgotten or ignored by councils and > Police. I don't know if anyone has challenged a FPN and used this in > their argument... Absolutely none of that "comment in 1999" would be admissible in court as a defence against a charge of cycling along the footway. I don't know why you think it would (though it might be used in mitigation). If a minister said that the law against theft was only to be used in extreme cases, that wouldn't be a defence against a shoplifting bust. The reason for this is simple - it's got nothing to do with ministers who gets prosecuted and who doesn't. And still less who gets acquitted of an offence of which they are manifestly guilty. So... criminals cannot rely on the fact that they've been advised by a minister that they'll get away with it. IOW, it isn't a defence and you have not provided a source for such a thing any more than the PP did. That's because there isn't one.
From: JNugent on 20 Dec 2007 12:12
Peter Clinch wrote: > Brimstone wrote: > >>Peter Clinch wrote: >> >>>Adrian wrote: >>> >>> >>>>VERY VERY few collisions have >>>>just one participant at fault. >>> >>>That is a fair comment, but of course what I'm actually getting at >>>primarily is the simple /existence/ of lorries in my space. They're >>>often there and I really can't help that, and Brimstone's "just don't >>>be near lorries" misses that completely. >>> >> >>Which isn't what I said. > > > What you actually said was: > > "But the general thrust is quite simple. The lorry is bigger than the > cyclist. Keep clear." > > Perhaps you would explain how that's different from what I read it as? > > >>How is that at variance with what I actually posted? > > > You said "keep clear". I can't guarantee to keep clear because I can't > guarantee that an HGV won't come close. But you can try, can't you? |