From: MrBitsy on
Brimstone wrote:
> Adrian wrote:
>> Peter Clinch (Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)>) gurgled
>> happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>>> To try to pretend otherwise suggests that there's absolutely no
>>>> point whatsoever to defensive road use.
>>> But I'm not pretending any such thing, just pointing out I can't
>>> simply stay a wide berth clear of lorries because they are prone to
>>> driving past me and behind me where there's little I can do but hope
>>> the driver is on the ball.
>> Very true. But what you CAN do is to minimise the chance that a
>> driver who is sort of wavering around near the ball doesn't just
>> blither past you. MAKE him see you. MAKE him think about you. GET in
>> his face a bit.
>> That's what's we're trying to emphasise. Just sitting there like a
>> lemon whinging about it being inevitable that cars squeeze past your
>> bike when there isn't really space just shows that your road
>> positioning is wrong. But that doesn't mean that where there IS space
>> you can't help them past you easily and safely. Just vary your road
>> positioning. Traffic island coming up? Move out from the kerb a bit
>> so they CAN'T squeeze past. Past the island? Move back in, and wave a
>> thank you.
>> 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.
>> They've seen you, they've thought about you - because you took
>> ownership of the space around you.
> DING!!!!


From: MrBitsy on
Peter Clinch wrote:
> Adrian wrote:
>> Clive George ("Clive George" <clive(a)>) gurgled
>> happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>> Mostly you'll find they're arguing with Brimstone and his daft
>>> assertions.
>> The daft assertions that are shared with u.r.c?
> No, the daft assertion that:
> "The lorry is bigger than the cyclist. Keep clear"
> is actually all there is to avoiding unpleasant entanglements with
> lorries.

When the cyclist has done everthing correctly, but the lorry drivers is
being a twit, STAY AWAY from the lorry is sensible advice. Of course you
could just sit there full of the thought you are in the right.

From: MrBitsy on
Clive George wrote:
> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)> wrote in message
> news:JGBaj.12106$745.88(a)
>> 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.

I disagree with you. I pwesonally would not cross a red light unless it was
faulty - at least then the drivers going the other way will probably be more
on the alert.

Oh, I don't think your stupid having the view you do. I respect why you have
the view, but I don't share it.


From: Brimstone on
raisethe wrote:
> 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.

Can you offer a scenario in which someone gets crushed in which they are not
even faintly responsible?

From: JNugent on
Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Conor <conor_turton(a)> wrote:
>>In article <c2acm3lgjot3kvh7a2e2fl175brqbcrhi6(a)>, Tom Crispin
>>>>I suspect there'd be no case made if it were a child cyclist but one
>>>>made if it were an adult.
>>>If it were an adult cyclist I expect it would depend on the
>>>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? If this is the case, would
> you please inform Fulwood Police on 01772 203203 that someone has been
> illegally using police cars for this very reason?
> Ta.
> Luke


The relevant concepts are "across" (legal) and "along" (not legal).

"On" is relevant only to those minority of stretches of footway where
parking is specifically allowed. That permission does not imply a
right to drive along the footway for any purpose other than parking on it.

Don't start that nitpick. You know it makes sense.