Paul Smith
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Brimstone 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. > "Keep clear" to a person of average intelligence means doing what is within your power to give yourself and the lorry enough space to do what you both want to do. Please accept my sincerest apologies for including you in the average.
From: Brimstone on 20 Dec 2007 12:17 JNugent wrote: > 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? He's certainly does that.
From: JNugent on 20 Dec 2007 12:18 Brimstone wrote: > Peter Clinch wrote: >>Brimstone wrote: [ ... ] >>"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. > "Keep clear" to a person of average intelligence means doing what is within > your power to give yourself and the lorry enough space to do what you both > want to do. > Please accept my sincerest apologies for including you in the average. I think the rest of us understood you perfectly. Along with the argument: "The lorry might not keep clear of me so there's no point in my steering clear and taking responsibility for my own safety", I fancy I can hear the unmistakable sounds of back-pedalling and yet another barrel being scraped.
From: Ekul Namsob on 20 Dec 2007 12:21 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? It will slow down in my experience. > > > 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. You asked "But what if a lorry positions itself to the side of you? You don't always get the choice." You did not ask about me positioning my car to the side of a lorry. I believe, however, that my reference to Top Gear implied that I avoid doing just that. I see no need for your suggestion that I may have a rather feeble imagination when I answered your civil question in a civil fashion. I see nowhere where anyone has suggested a "perfectly comfortable situation" relative to any vehicle. Indeed, I don't think perfect comfort should be sought when in control of a vehicle. At this present moment in time, I do not see any circumstances where I would need to dally in the blind spot of a 40-tonne vehicle in free-flowing traffic. Believe it or not, I drive on the motorway almost every day. I regularly find that one lorry is attempting to overtake another on a hill when I am on the sliproad. Before joining the road, I look at where other vehicles are and consider where they can reasonably be expected to be as I join. I will not pull into a lane if it is not safe. On the rare occasion that I find myself boxed in, I will usually slow down so as to allow the overtaking vehicle to complete its manoeuvre. Cheers, Luke -- Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
From: Señor Chris on 20 Dec 2007 12:24
JNugent wrote: > > 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. Correct - that's for the courts to decide. And they are well within their rights to acquit people who are 'manifestly guilty'. |