From: raisethe on
Ekul Namsob wrote:
it appeared clear to
> me that this was advice and not an instruction.

Not to me, because we were also treated to this a wee bittie earlier in
the thread:

'If someone is crushed by a lorry after pulling away from traffic lights
then they are the architect of their own misfortune'

Soon after that we got:

'But the general thrust is quite simple. The lorry is bigger than the
cyclist. Keep clear.'

In other words, keep clear from lorries, if you get crushed its your own
fault. The perfectly reasonable response to that is that you cannot
always keep clear of them.

From: Clive George on
"MrBitsy" <ray(a)> wrote in message
> Clive George wrote:
>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)> wrote in message
>> news:3Iraj.11977$745.1793(a)
>>> Clive George wrote:
>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:bbiaj.17296$1j1.14918(a)
>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>> MrBitsy wrote:
>>>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>>>> MrBitsy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Clive George wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:OWZ9j.10620$h35.4554(a)
>>>>>>>>>>> Clive George wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:deZ9j.12144$ov2.11527(a)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DavidR wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DavidR wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many cyclists, like pedestrians, seem oblivious in very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple ways to keep themselves safe - not obeying red
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lights for instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this dangerous? Are there any figures to bear it out?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you seriously suggestion it is safe to pass red
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traffic lights under normal conditions?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question makes no such suggestion. I am asking you -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is it dangerous? And please give reasons. Then I will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offer my opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't know why it would be dangerous to not obey red
>>>>>>>>>>>>> traffic lights?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can think of cases where it would be safe to not obey red
>>>>>>>>>>>> traffic lights. If you can't, then you're pretty dim.
>>>>>>>>>>> Are we talking everyday normal use of traffic controlled
>>>>>>>>>>> junctions?
>>>>>>>>>> Define that a bit better :-) The strict answer is "it
>>>>>>>>>> depends". (coz I'm not Brimstone, I'll not stop there.)
>>>>>>>>>> Red traffic lights don't just happen at traffic controlled
>>>>>>>>>> junctions - road works and road crossings are the two other
>>>>>>>>>> ones I can think of. So that's one reason why your question
>>>>>>>>>> isn't helpful. But here's the main one:
>>>>>>>>>> Safety when not obeying them isn't an absolute - just as you
>>>>>>>>>> say safe speed isn't the absolute prescribed figure. It
>>>>>>>>>> depends on the circumstances - what other vehicles/people are
>>>>>>>>>> present, how much can you see, how fast are they going.
>>>>>>>>>> You're very keen on observing the hazards and making an
>>>>>>>>>> appropriate decision when it comes to speed limits - why not
>>>>>>>>>> apply this to other laws too? After all, it's easy to provide
>>>>>>>>>> cases where it is perfectly safe to ignore a red traffic
>>>>>>>>>> light - and indeed, it's even easy to provide them where it's
>>>>>>>>>> not only safe, but doesn't even slightly affect other road
>>>>>>>>>> users. And that applies no matter what your mode of
>>>>>>>>>> transport. Of course, the fact that it's rather easier when
>>>>>>>>>> you're small,
>>>>>>>>>> manoeverable and have better opportunities for observation
>>>>>>>>>> could be a reason for considering some modes rather more than
>>>>>>>>>> others (and indeed the law recognises this to an extent).
>>>>>>>>> When choosing a speed to travel at, all hazzards, road &
>>>>>>>>> weather conditions are taken into account. I am always going
>>>>>>>>> to be travelling on the correct side of the road, in a
>>>>>>>>> direction other road users and pedestrians expect me to be
>>>>>>>>> going. A 10% difference in speed is not going to catch someone
>>>>>>>>> out, if the driver has chosen that speed on an accurate
>>>>>>>>> assesment of those conditions. A red traffic light is an
>>>>>>>>> absolute message to stop. I know this
>>>>>>>>> and all other road users are expecting me to comply with it.
>>>>>>>>> Other road users will be approaching green traffic lights
>>>>>>>>> expecting the road to be clear. Many motorists will not be
>>>>>>>>> observing either side of the junction for road users not
>>>>>>>>> obeying the red. Therefore, not obeying a red traffic signal,
>>>>>>>>> has far more risks associated with it than going a little
>>>>>>>>> faster than a posted speed limit - one that has no idea of the
>>>>>>>>> conditions when I pass it.
>>>>>>>> What if there are no other road users?
>>>>>>> What about it?
>>>>>> Quote, "I know this and all other road users are expecting me to
>>>>>> comply with it. Other road users will be approaching green traffic
>>>>>> lights expecting the road to be clear."
>>>>>> That's quite true. but what if there are no other road users, why
>>>>>> shouldn't one drive/ride through a red light?
>>>>> Both of you are trying to get a 'because it is the law' answer,
>>>> Is Brimstone schizophrenic then? I ask because I'm not after a
>>>> "because it is the law" answer - I'm after you to acknowledge that
>>>> there are circumstances when it is safe to pass a red light.
>>>> Is it your fear of giving an answer which you think might be used
>>>> against you which is preventing you giving the correct one?
>>> See the reply to Brimstone.
>> The one which basically gives no reasons why with adequate
>> observation it can in fact be safe?
>> You do hint that it's possibly just you being dogmatic - is that the
>> real answer?
> No, see the next reply to Brimstone.

The one which describes what you would do? What's that got to do with it?
I'm pointing out to you there are circumstances in which passing a red light
is perfectly safe - that's got nothing to do with how you drive.

I'm not entirely sure what your problem is with admitting the obvious.
Refusing to do so merely makes you look stupid.


From: MrBitsy on
Nick wrote:
> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>> Nick <nospam(a)> 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.

Iam advanced test pass.
RoSPA (gold) test pass
DSA driving instructor test pass
PCV license holder

Just how much more experience do you think I should go for?

> Or he could decide that he had to exercise additional care to avoid
> such circumstances in future. Steps such as fitting additional
> mirrors,

So I should I have purchased some mirrors, fitted them to the bus then look
shifty when an Arriva manager asked about it?

> avoiding certain roads

I would love to have recorded my passengers response, announcing the 300
wasn't going through St.Albans high street - because there might be a
cyclist at the lights!

> or driving especially carefully.

What in my description suggested otherwise?

> These are all steps I take every day to avoid incidents caused by
> other peoples foolishness.

Try your advice driving a bus - you may not have a job for long!

>>> 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?

1.. Bus driver checks left mirror for pedestrians and cyclists.
2.. Bus driver checks offside mirror for the left turn, pedestrians and
cyclists (because the back of the bus is going to swing out into the road)

<cyclist squeazes down side of bus>

3.. Bus driver looks into road he is turning into (because the front of the
bus is now completely on the wrong side of the road due to its length.
4.. Bus driver checks nearside mirror, looking for peds and cyclists -
doesn't see any.

<cyclist continues forward motion, unaware of being in blind spot.

5... Bus driver checks offside mirror to make sure nothing is going to try
and pass down the offside.

<bus driver feels bump>

Anyone who has driven a large vehicle will understand what has been posted
above. Thankfully, due to the skill and care taken by most drivers,
accidents are rare. Cyclists - if you haven't driven a large vehicle, you
will be amazed just how much observation needs to be done on both sides of
the vehicle.

>>> 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.

No, it is not always true. Many drivers of all types of vehicles can be good
or bad. It is up to the good ones to spot the mistakes of the bad ones. With
so many vehicles and types of drivers, it is inevitable that two bad ones
will meet on a regular basis.

> 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.

This is the case for all road users. One reason I have taken so many driving
courses is to be the safest I can be on the roads. This not just mean
vehicle handling skills, but is also about the way the driver thinks about
the roads, and how he understands the needs of others.

> It is also true that the less intellectually gifted are more
> likely to misinterpret such a safety campaign's message.

Your replies to me have demonstrated an extreme level of misunderstanding.
Do some advanced courses. Try and get some idea of the problems faced by
drivers of large vehicles. Maybe write to your local bus company and ask if
you can sit in the driving cab of a large bus or coach.

From: MrBitsy on
Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:20:20 GMT, MrBitsy <ray(a)> wrote:
>> As a driver who has passed the IAM, DSA and RoSPA advanced driving
>> tests, I can assure you I know my, and other road users,
>> responsibilities. However, I stay away from large vehicles where I
>> possibly can - because they are bigger than me and I will come off
>> worse in a collision.
> If you are in a small car (a mini for example) do you stay away from
> Transit sized vans? It is the same principle you espouse above.
> As a cyclist that principle would mean me staying away from roads
> where I possibly can because all cars (as well as lorries) are bigger
> than me. This just isn't practicable.

Try understanding the point being made.

If you are on a road with many large vehicles, do what you can to avoid
being close to one - stop behind one instead of going down its side. If a
lorry is overtaking you, drop back and allow it in etc.


From: MrBitsy on
Peter Clinch wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> "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.
> It means "keep clear". Keeping clear means staying away from. Not
> "doing one's best to stay away from".
> And in any case, there are numerous cases where i'll go close and
> be happy in the knowledge that I'll be safe.

By jove I think he got it!

If you have looked at all the outcomes, but your sure of safety, don't stay
away from the lorry!.

> There are so many
> possible scenarios for beign interaction that a simple "keep clear"
> is quite obviously ridiculous, at least to anyone that's bothered
> to think about it and has experience odf actually using the roads.

Damm, I thought you had got it.