Paul Smith
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: MrBitsy on 21 Dec 2007 18:13 spindrift wrote: > On 21 Dec, 12:07, Rob Morley <nos...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: >> In article <nnMaj.38972$wD5.23...(a)newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>, MrBitsy >> r...(a)nowhere.com says... >> >> >> >> >> >>> Rob Morley wrote: >>>> In article <f46dnXJAEpmUaffanZ2dnUVZ8uidn...(a)bt.com>, Brimstone >>>> brimstone520-n...(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.- >> Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > ""Can you offer a scenario in which someone gets crushed in which they > are not > even faintly responsible?" > > > There are many- at least two women killed in London by lorries that > overtook then IMMEDIATELY turned left. > > The cyclists did NOTHING wrong. > > The cyclists had nowhere to go, the lorries smashed into them. Complete and utter rubbish. As a driver of a car, if someone passes me with a left turn ahead, I will assume they are going to turn left and take appropriate action to reduce the risk. Why would a vunerable cyclist continue forward, when being passed by a car and with a left turn ahead - lack of observation and anticipation is the reason. THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE WAS AT FAULT - we all know this. The cyclists need to ride defensivly and do something about it! -- MrBitsy
From: MrBitsy on 21 Dec 2007 18:21 raisethe wrote: > x-no-archive:Brimstone wrote: > >>> >> 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? >> >> > > You are being disingenuous. :( > > As you do not seem to have read my previous post, I repeat it here: > > "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' Correct - if they saw the possible conflict, but continued because they were in the right. They may have also continued because they didn't appreciate the danger, again they are partly responsible for their own misfortune. > Soon after that we got: > > 'But the general thrust is quite simple. The lorry is bigger than the > cyclist. Keep clear.' Absolutely correct. The lorry shouldn't be turning left and crushing a cyclist, but if the cyclist can see what may happen then 'keep away from the lorry'. > In other words, keep clear from lorries, if you get crushed its your > own fault. No, it is partly the cyclists fault. It generally takes two people to make a collision. One driver to make the mistake and one not to see it and avoid. > The perfectly reasonable response to that is that you > cannot always keep clear of them." Of course not, and this is the case whatever you decide to use to get from A to B. I was once piloting an aircraft into land at Elstree. Some idiot of a pilot decided to cut a corner and I had to take avoiding action to avoid a collision. The point here is clear - the approach was my priority, but the other pilot made a mistake. I saw the mistake and took avoiding action - I didn't try and force my priority, because that would have increased the risk to all. If we had collided, it would have been his fault for the initial mistake, but I would have been partly to plame for not taking action to reduce the risk. > You, bitsy and a few others keep repeating the same nonsense. Do you > not read the replies to your emails? I'm not familiar with urd. Are > you two their resident trolls? <sighs> -- MrBitsy
From: Clive George on 21 Dec 2007 19:06 "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:DqXaj.11034$h35.1263(a)newsfe2-gui.ntli.net... > Clive George wrote: >> "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? > > There may not be, but I would not cross a red light for the reasons given. The question isn't about whether or not you would cross a red light - that's irrelevant. The question is if it's possible to do it safely. And the answer, which you've so strenuously avoided giving for some bizarre reason known only to yourself, is that it is. clive
From: MrBitsy on 21 Dec 2007 19:37 Clive George wrote: > "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >> There may not be, but I would not cross a red light for the reasons >> given. > > The question isn't about whether or not you would cross a red light - > that's irrelevant. The question is if it's possible to do it safely. > And the answer, which you've so strenuously avoided giving for some > bizarre reason known only to yourself, is that it is. Perhaps your own understanding is lacking? I have said several times now that I would cross a red light with caution, if it was apparent the traffic lights were faulty. -- MrBitsy
From: Clive George on 21 Dec 2007 19:48
"MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:m%Yaj.15085$Hc3.3266(a)newsfe1-gui.ntli.net... > Clive George wrote: >> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message > >>> There may not be, but I would not cross a red light for the reasons >>> given. >> >> The question isn't about whether or not you would cross a red light - >> that's irrelevant. The question is if it's possible to do it safely. >> And the answer, which you've so strenuously avoided giving for some >> bizarre reason known only to yourself, is that it is. > > Perhaps your own understanding is lacking? > > I have said several times now that I would cross a red light with caution, > if it was apparent the traffic lights were faulty. Perhaps I'm not making this clear enough - though I'm struggling to see how I could make it any clearer. The question is not about what YOU would do in a given situation. Could you explain why you persist in only describing what you would do when the question isn't actually about that? clive |