Paul Smith
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: MrBitsy on 21 Dec 2007 05:15 Rob Morley wrote: > In article <f46dnXJAEpmUaffanZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d(a)bt.com>, Brimstone > brimstone520-ng01(a)yahoo.co.uk says... > >> Can you offer a scenario in which someone gets crushed in which they >> are not even faintly responsible? >> > Me riding on a fairly narrow country road with a high stone hedge to > the left and a woodland to the right, approaching a right hand bend. > Truck starts to overtake me as we turn into the bend, sees something > coming the other way and pulls over on me, presumably in the belief > that once I'm behind the cab I must be gone. Actually I was nearly > under his back wheels, with nowhere to go. Why did you not stop the moment he started to overtake in a dangerous place - you noticed the danger - didn't you? > There was just room for > me to pull back level with the cab and thump the door rather hard, he > did an emergency stop and I squeezed between the cab and the hedge. So rather than just stop and be out the way entirely, you sped up to be level with the cab? > If I had been a less confident cyclist, or not fast enough to keep up > with the truck, they'd have been scraping me off the road. If I had > been squashed, would it have been my fault? He we go again with this fault business. The whole thrust of this thread has been this ... 'When at the point a collision is likely, forget fault and save yourself'. -- MrBitsy
From: MrBitsy on 21 Dec 2007 05:16 Clive George wrote: > "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). This thread started with the death of Paul Smith. I am trying to instill a sense of logic - when all looks bad, get out of the way and forget blame for as long as it takes you to stay alive. -- MrBitsy
From: Nick Finnigan on 21 Dec 2007 05:23 JNugent wrote: > Tom Crispin wrote: > >> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:03:20 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) >> wrote: >> >> >>> Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:59:54 +0000, JNugent >>>> <not.telling(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Tom Crispin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Cycling on the footway is perfectly acceptable so long as cyclists do >>>>>> so out of fear of using the road and show consideration to other road >>>>>> users. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Amended for accuracy: >>>>> >>>>> Cycling on the footway is never acceptable, even if cyclists are too >>>>> frightened (by their knowledge of their own inadequacies and lack of >>>>> skill) to use the xxroadxx carriageway and show consideration to other >>>>> road users (particularly pedestrians, the most vulnerable road-users >>>>> of all, and a category into which we all fit). >>>> >>>> >>>> That's not the advice from either the Home Office or association of >>>> Chief Police Officers. >>> >>> >>> No, and by condoning dangerous and illegal behaviour they and you do >>> more harm than good. >> >> >> >> OK - so you know better than both the Home Office and Chief >> Constables. > > >> Well, I can accept that you might be able to do a better job than the >> Home Office, but that you wisdom is greater than the collective wisdom >> of all the Chief Police Officers is hard to believe. > > > What ARE you going on about? > > Cycling along the footway is an offence. It doesn't stop being an > offence just because a Chief Constable can't be bothered to enforce that > bit of the law (or reminds himself that his own children possibly break The CCs haven't said that they can't be bothered to enforce the law. They have said that the use of a Fixed Penalty is not always sensible (and I don't think you will disagree with that). The fact the use of a fixed penalty is not possible for children under 16 should be completely understandable after a little thought.
From: JNugent on 21 Dec 2007 05:33 Nick Finnigan wrote: > JNugent wrote: >> Tom Crispin wrote: >>> (Steve Firth) wrote: >>>> Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: >>>>> JNugent <not.telling(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>>>>> Tom Crispin wrote: [TC:] >>>>>>> Cycling on the footway is perfectly acceptable so long as >>>>>>> cyclists do >>>>>>> so out of fear of using the road and show consideration to other >>>>>>> road users. [JN:] >>>>>> Amended for accuracy: >>>>>> Cycling on the footway is never acceptable, even if cyclists are too >>>>>> frightened (by their knowledge of their own inadequacies and lack of >>>>>> skill) to use the xxroadxx carriageway and show consideration to >>>>>> other road users (particularly pedestrians, the most vulnerable >>>>>> road-users of all, and a category into which we all fit). [TC:] >>>> That's not the advice from either the Home Office or association of >>>>> Chief Police Officers. [SF:] >>>> No, and by condoning dangerous and illegal behaviour they and you do >>>> more harm than good. [TC:] >>> OK - so you know better than both the Home Office and Chief >>> Constables. >>> Well, I can accept that you might be able to do a better job than the >>> Home Office, but that you wisdom is greater than the collective wisdom >>> of all the Chief Police Officers is hard to believe. [JN:] >> What ARE you going on about? >> Cycling along the footway is an offence. It doesn't stop being an >> offence just because a Chief Constable can't be bothered to enforce >> that bit of the law (or reminds himself that his own children possibly >> break > The CCs haven't said that they can't be bothered to enforce the law. > They have said that the use of a Fixed Penalty is not always sensible > (and I don't think you will disagree with that). The fact the use of a > fixed penalty is not possible for children under 16 should be completely > understandable after a little thought. You fail to distinguish ACPO's "Sometimes it's not a good idea to issue a FPN when the law has been broken" as being the same as Crispin's interpretation of that: "It's acceptable to break the law and we're going to treat the offence as not being an offence". Can you really not see the very obvious difference between those two positions?
From: raisethe on 21 Dec 2007 05:35
MrBitsy wrote: > Rob Morley wrote: , Brimstone >> says... >> >>> Can you offer a scenario in which someone gets crushed in which they >>> are not even faintly responsible? >>> <megasnip> If I had >> been squashed, would it have been my fault? > > > He we go again with this fault business. The whole thrust of this thread has > been this ... > > 'When at the point a collision is likely, forget fault and save yourself'. > Not when the question being responded to asks who is responsible. A word of advice: read in full the post you are replying to. |