From: Ekul Namsob on
Steve Firth <> wrote:

> Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)> 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.

Sometimes, this leads to finding oneself waiting what seems like an
eternity while a long line of trucks overtakes.

In this circumstance, I find it can be helpful to show my intention to
change line by using my indicator. Usually, a lorry driver will let me
pull out. It helps, too, that I very rarely travel in a hurry.


Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <>
From: Ekul Namsob on
MrBitsy <ray(a)> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
> > MrBitsy <ray(a)> wrote:

> >> 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.

The problem is that the law does see a problem with riding responsibly
on the pavement and there are junctions at which it would be very hard
for a cyclist to get onto the pavement as barriers may well have been


Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <>
From: Ian Smith on
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)> wrote:

> The same is easy to apply at junctions. You're there first? Get in the
> middle of the lane. Then they CAN'T pull alongside and turn left without
> indication.

Various people keep saying that, and it keeps getting pointed out that
lots and lost of junctions have more than one lane and therefor what
you are saying simply doesn't work in lots and lots of cases.

And that is just ignored. I haven't seen anyone explain how being in
primary position in a lane stops HGVs pulling alongside.

Again - how does being in the middle of your lane stop a lorry pulling
up alongside IN AN ADJACENT LANE?

|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
From: raisethe on
Ekul Namsob wrote:

> I recall seeing something on Top Gear (in the days before the entire
> staff who weren't called Clarkson moved to Five) about lorry side-swipes
> being a significant factor in accidents on motorways and dual
> carriageways, sometimes resulting from a car spending too long [1] in
> the lorry driver's blind spot.

A problem that I believe has been exacerbated by the increasing numbers
of LHD lorries from the continent (with inadequate mirrors).
From: raisethe on
JNugent wrote:

>> 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?

PC hasn't said that he won't try, just that sometimes he won't have a
choice. He's said the same thing in different ways <many> times. Why is
this such a hard concept for you guys to understand?