Paul Smith
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Clive George on 20 Dec 2007 20:03 "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:rjCaj.12131$745.258(a)newsfe1-win.ntli.net... > Peter Clinch wrote: >> Adrian wrote: >>> Clive George ("Clive George" <clive(a)xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>) gurgled >>> happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> >>>> Mostly you'll find they're arguing with Brimstone and his daft >>>> assertions. >>> >>> The daft assertions that are shared with u.r.c? >> >> No, the daft assertion that: >> >> "The lorry is bigger than the cyclist. Keep clear" >> >> is actually all there is to avoiding unpleasant entanglements with >> lorries. > > When the cyclist has done everthing correctly, but the lorry drivers is > being a twit, STAY AWAY from the lorry is sensible advice. Of course you > could just sit there full of the thought you are in the right. To bring this discussion back to the original topic, it is amusing that the subject of this thread tried to teach the denizens of URC how to ride a bike, in the same manner as you appear to be doing. (though it was funnier when he tried to do the same in ukrm). clive
From: Clive George on 20 Dec 2007 20:08 "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:EqCaj.27178$jy3.22397(a)newsfe7-win.ntli.net... > Clive George wrote: >> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >> news:JGBaj.12106$745.88(a)newsfe1-win.ntli.net... >>> Clive George wrote: >>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >>>> news:3Iraj.11977$745.1793(a)newsfe1-win.ntli.net... >>>>> Clive George wrote: >>>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:bbiaj.17296$1j1.14918(a)newsfe7-gui.ntli.net... >>>>>>> Brimstone wrote: >>>>>>>> MrBitsy wrote: >>>>>>>>> Brimstone wrote: >>>>>>>>>> MrBitsy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Clive George wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:OWZ9j.10620$h35.4554(a)newsfe2-gui.ntli.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>> Clive George wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:deZ9j.12144$ov2.11527(a)newsfe5-win.ntli.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DavidR wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DavidR wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> 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. That's still not actually answering the point, for exactly the same reason as I just mentioned. How about trying again? If it helps, how about considering the fact that there may actually not be any drivers going the other way? clive
From: Clive George on 20 Dec 2007 20:09 "DavidR" <curedham(a)4bidden.org.uk> wrote in message news:5t0cluF1b2nl1U3(a)mid.individual.net... > "Clive George" <clive(a)xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote >> "DavidR" <curedham(a)4bidden.org.uk> wrote >>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote >>>> DavidR wrote: >>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote > >>>>> 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. >> >> IIRC he cycled along the bike paths, tending to avoid the roads. > > I did wonder whether to challenge him further but his defensiveness more > or > less gave this away. But he has responded to your assertion without > denial. > > I get the impression that, although he is quite articulate, he just > repackages what he reads or hears rather than trying to do much of his own > analysis. Ho yus. He's always argued by rote, rather than actually thinking the issues through. cheers, clive
From: Simon Dean on 20 Dec 2007 20:30 Ekul Namsob wrote: > Conor <conor_turton(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> In article <1i9a4ji.1k2k7rz6kh6wlN% >> notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob(a)wronghead.com>, Ekul Namsob says... >> >>>>>> If he's turning right, he should be on the right hand side of the >>>>>> lane. Now who's stupid? >>>>>> >>>>> You, because apparently you haven't noticed how wide and high trucks >>>>> are. >>>> Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle all you like. You're wrong, he's wrong. >>> Go and look at a lorry. Notice its size. >>> >> Go take a cycling proficiency test. Note where they tell you to place >> yourself when turning right. > > I took CPT in 1983 (or was it 1982, it was a long while ago). Remind me > where I'm going wrong by generally positioning myself on the right. >> As a lorry driver, I'd rather have you on the right than hidden down >> the left. > > Who said anything about being hidden down the left? I'm sorry if I've > missed something here but it seems as though we may be writing at cross > purposes. For instance, in your comment "You're wrong, he's wrong", who > is he? > > Cheers, > Luke > That was Huge, not Conor. Depisable though he is, he never made that comment. >
From: Rob Morley on 20 Dec 2007 21:52
In article <MaudnRvCldLnP_fanZ2dnUVZ8s-qnZ2d(a)bt.com>, Brimstone brimstone520-ng01(a)yahoo.co.uk says... > "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. > "Keep clear" could mean anything from "don't approach" to "don't clutter" to "run away from". In the context of a cyclist stopped at a junction who is then approached uncomfortably close by a large vehicle, it could easily mean "get off your bike and on the pavement". This is clearly an unreasonable expectation, and makes the exhortation to "keep clear" pretty meaningless. |