Paul Smith
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Peter Clinch on 20 Dec 2007 15:21 Brimstone wrote: > Indeed I did. I also said it was the "general thrust" of the argument. Do > you understand what that means? Yes I do, and /still/ it remains to be a sweeping generalisation of little actual use. What I've been complaining about is that it was a sweeping generalisation of little actual use. Nothing more, nothing less. 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: Roger Merriman on 20 Dec 2007 15:21 Alan Braggins <armb(a)chiark.greenend.org.uk> 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. why? i ride though heavy traffic most days, i regually have lorries just behind. okay i am infront not in the gutter, i can easly out run the lorry over the junction. if the lorry engadges gear it will not be hard to miss it, lorry's not being the quietest of things. roger -- www.rogermerriman.com
From: Brimstone on 20 Dec 2007 15:28 Peter Clinch wrote: > Brimstone wrote: > >> Indeed I did. I also said it was the "general thrust" of the >> argument. Do you understand what that means? > > Yes I do, and /still/ it remains to be a sweeping generalisation of > little actual use. What I've been complaining about is that it was > a sweeping generalisation of little actual use. Nothing more, > nothing less. > And did you read in the context of the preceeding comments?
From: raisethe on 20 Dec 2007 15:29 Farmer John wrote: > > Peter seems to believe that trucks regularly run over other vehicles. > > > I've never seen or even heard of a truck driving over another car or > cyclist at a roundabout, > I don't think he ever said 'regularly'. Perhaps you could show where he did. One particular lorry driver drove at me and my cycle the other day. Approaching a roundabout on the A4, the throughroute required a right hand exit. As the road is fast and busy, I had to take position toward the right hand side of the wide single lane quite early. This obviously upset the driver of an artic. Whilst on the roundabout, he undertook me, very closely, bawling at me 'to get on the f*cking cycle path.' I then had to swerve out of his way as he cut me up taking the exit that I had been heading toward. For all those who still don't understand Pete's point, please tell me how I could've 'kept clear' of this lorry.
From: Adrian on 20 Dec 2007 15:33
Ekul Namsob (notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob(a)wronghead.com (Ekul Namsob)) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> > A shopper who rides a short distance on the pavement to access a bike >> > rack outside the bakery would be treated differently to a >> > mid-twenties courier who sends pedestrians diving for cover as he >> > blasts his way along a busy shopping pavement. >> Why? Both are illegal. > Are they? Is it illegal for a motorist to ride a short distance on the > pavement to access a garage or parking space? Unless there's a drop kerb, yes, it is. The drop kerb specifically allows access straight across the pavement to private land. |