Paul Smith
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Rob on 20 Dec 2007 13:11 Huge wrote: ||| The question makes no such suggestion. I am asking you - is it ||| dangerous? And please give reasons. Then I will offer my opinion. || || Your opinion is of no consequence. You do not get to choose which || laws to obey. Everyone gets to choose which laws to obey - it's a part of having a free will, which is why I often go through red lights if they are serving no useful purpose. -- Rob
From: Nick on 20 Dec 2007 13:15 Ekul Namsob wrote: > Nick <nospam(a)spam.com> wrote: > >> MrBitsy wrote: > >>> The most stupid actions [by cyclists] 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. > > How would you suggest that Mr Bitsy should have continued driving? He > observed the cyclists and never collided with one. Filtering up the left > of a left-indicating vehicle is foolish. > The implication of his statement is that he regarded the events as risky to the cyclist. Having understood this there are two possible ways he could react. One he could decide that he had taken all reasonable steps to drive in a responsible way and hence he could continue to drive in the same way even tough he understood it posed a risk to foolish cyclists. Or he could decide that he had to exercise additional care to avoid such circumstances in future. Steps such as fitting additional mirrors, avoiding certain roads or driving especially carefully. These are all steps I take every day to avoid incidents caused by other peoples foolishness. >> Presumably this is because you felt it would be >> their fault if you did kill them? > > Lack of surprise does not imply blame. > ??? I don't understand your response do you think it would be his fault or not? >> I realise that professional drivers come from the lower end of the >> intelligence scale but can you not see this was exactly my point. > > There was no need for that. > It is true. The problem with campaigns that concentrate on pedestrian or cycling safety training is that they also convince motorists and lorry drivers that it is the pedestrian or cyclist's fault if an accident does occur. It is also true that the less intellectually gifted are more likely to misinterpret such a safety campaign's message. > Luke > >
From: Ekul Namsob on 20 Dec 2007 13:26 Nick <nospam(a)spam.com> wrote: > Ekul Namsob wrote: > > Nick <nospam(a)spam.com> wrote: > > > >> MrBitsy wrote: > > > >>> The most stupid actions [by cyclists] 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. > > How would you suggest that Mr Bitsy should have continued driving? He > > observed the cyclists and never collided with one. Filtering up the left > > of a left-indicating vehicle is foolish. > The implication of his statement is that he regarded the events as risky > to the cyclist. Having understood this there are two possible ways he > could react. > > One he could decide that he had taken all reasonable steps to drive in a > responsible way and hence he could continue to drive in the same way > even tough he understood it posed a risk to foolish cyclists. > > Or he could decide that he had to exercise additional care to avoid such > circumstances in future. Steps such as fitting additional mirrors, > avoiding certain roads or driving especially carefully. These are all > steps I take every day to avoid incidents caused by other peoples > foolishness. It seems as though Mr Bitsy was driving especially carefully. Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise? > > >> Presumably this is because you felt it would be > >> their fault if you did kill them? > > > > Lack of surprise does not imply blame. > > > > ??? I don't understand your response do you think it would be his fault > or not? I cannot apportion blame on such a hypothetical situation. There are too many variables. I would not seek to blame somebody else, however, for my own foolishness. > >> I realise that professional drivers come from the lower end of the > >> intelligence scale but can you not see this was exactly my point. > > > > There was no need for that. > It is true. Is it? How are you defining intelligence? > The problem with campaigns that concentrate on pedestrian or cycling > safety training is that they also convince motorists and lorry drivers > that it is the pedestrian or cyclist's fault if an accident does occur. > It is also true that the less intellectually gifted are more likely to > misinterpret such a safety campaign's message. Absolutely. There is a need to educate drivers about many careless aspects of driving. That does not mean that cyclists and pedestrians should be denied potentially lifesaving education. Cheers, Luke -- Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
From: Brimstone on 20 Dec 2007 13:35 JNugent wrote: > 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. That was the impression I got. > 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. On a bike I rode some years ago, if one back pedalled the rear brake applied.
From: DavidR on 20 Dec 2007 13:02
"MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote > DavidR wrote: >> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote >>> DavidR wrote: >>>> >>>> I offered some alternatives to be used according to circumstance. >>>> You recommended an action to be used irrespective of circumstance. >>>> BTW when did you last get on a bike? >>> >>> When did you last drive a lorry, bus or coach? >> >> I haven't attempted to instruct the operators of such conveyances how >> to drive or even given any opinion about their behaviour, unlike >> yourself,. so your question is completely irrelevant. Tell me, how >> long since you last got on a bike? > > Until 18 months ago, I cycled to work and back for eight years. OK. If you are going to offer advice/opinion it seems a bit strange to evade questions about your qualifications. It would be easier to answer straight away. > So, when did you last drive a bus, coach or lorry? See above. Nothing has changed. |