Paul Smith
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Brimstone on 21 Dec 2007 06:55 Peter Clinch wrote: > Brimstone wrote: >> Peter Clinch wrote: >>> Brimstone wrote: >>> >>>> If you're as competent as you try to make out, how come you don't >>>> understand context? >>> I do. You just don't understand that I do... >>> >> Oh dear, is that really the best you can manage? > > Oh, sorry, I thought that pointing out directly what I wanted to get > across was the thing but it turns out I was meant to be indulging in > some sort of petty insult competition. Can't really be bothered with > that TBH. You failed, you weren't and nor can I.
From: JNugent on 21 Dec 2007 06:57 David Hansen wrote: > JNugent <not.telling(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote this:- >>>Your comparison would only be valid if cyclists were to kill >>>motorists "just in case". >>Classic Hansen. >>Completely unable to discern principle. The only principle for him is >>"What's best for me, me, me?". > I note that you appear unwilling or unable to answer the point and > instead try a personal attack on me No. I made a valid and accurate comment on your debating "skills". Happy to help. No need for any thanks.
From: Brimstone on 21 Dec 2007 06:58 Peter Clinch wrote: > MrBitsy wrote: > >> 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. > > Fine. > > But most of Good Practice is about how to stop it going wrong in the > first place. The point I keep trying to get across is that avoiding > unpleasantness in the first place with lorries is down to more than > "keep clear". Nothing more, but nothing less. I'm not trying to > apportion blame, or go on about rights, or the various IQs of anyone > on the road, just saying that "keep clear of lorries" is not actually > very helpful and could do with a lot of work to rectify that. > Hence I prefaced it with "the main thrust is". It was also in the context of someone putting themselves into a potentially hazardous situation. Most other people understood that it was a starting point for action, why didn't you?
From: raisethe on 21 Dec 2007 07:06 x-no-archive:Brimstone wrote: > raisethe wrote: >> 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. > > No, again you misread or misunderstand. I said "faintly responsible". > Primary responsibility lies with the dozo making the initial foul up. The > person about to be crushed can also shoulder some of the responsibility > because they either put themselves in danger or failed to remove themselves > from danger. > > What do you mean? If the lorry that aimed for me on the A4 had have crushed me, are you saying that I would have been faintly responsible? Please explain what you mean by that?
From: Rob Morley on 21 Dec 2007 07:07
In article <nnMaj.38972$wD5.23429(a)newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>, MrBitsy ray(a)nowhere.com says... > 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? Becauae I assumed he'd decelerate and pull in without trying to pass - that would have put me under his front wheels. I reckon we were about evenly matched in terms of acceleration, and he could probably out-brake me. > > > 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? Front - single wheels - just room to get through Back - double wheels - not quite enough room to get through. You don't seem to understand quite how close this was - if I'd deviated literally three inches to the right I'd have hit the truck, three inches to the left I'd have hit the very narrow verge, lost control, hit the hedge and likely bounced back under the truck. I'm really not exaggerating. To give an example of how comfortable I am riding close to large vehicles, I've had occasion to duck into the front wheelarch of a coach that pulled out on me as I was passing it just as a truck was coming in the other direction. > > > 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'. > And the post to which I was responding (still up there ^) asked "Can you offer a scenario in which someone gets crushed in which they are not even faintly responsible?" Now apart from being responsible by riding a bike on the road, obviously a heinous crime as far as some people are concerned, I'd really like to know what else I could have done. |