Should I or shouldn't I?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: Danny Colyer on 6 Jul 2008 13:31 On 06/07/2008 15:31, Steve Firth wrote: > Indeed he seem to think that proper observation, not making stupid > assumptions, being aware of the failings of other drivers and not > placing one's life in someone elses hands are the mark of a bad driver > who is "unfit to be in charge of any type of vehicle on the public > highway." That amuses me. In this thread you have displayed: * A lack of familiarity with the rules of the road. * A lack of awareness that the rules vary for different classes of vehicle. * A willingness to blame a vulnerable (and I suspect, to you, "other" class of) road user who, while complying with the rules relevant to his class of vehicle, has been injured by another road user *not* complying with the rules relevant to /his/ class of vehicle. That combination says to me: "This guy is a danger to others on the road". Proper observation, not making stupid assumptions, being aware of the failings of other drivers and not placing one's life in someone else's hands are obviously the minimum that one would hope for from any road user, but for me that's not what has come out of your posts. In fact you remind me of the late Paul Smith, when he used to post "cycle safety" advice on uk.rec.cycling of a standard that made it very clear that he knew nothing about cycling. I can only apologise if I have misinterpreted your posts, or read something that wasn't there. The former is, of course, almost inevitable on usenet. The latter I do not believe has happened. -- Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk> Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often "The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis
From: Periander on 6 Jul 2008 13:41 Danny Colyer <danny_colyer(a)hotmail.com> wrote in news:rpWdnZAFUtwfnOzVnZ2dnUVZ8sDinZ2d(a)posted.plusnet: > > In this thread you have displayed: You have demonstrated that ... You have little or knowledge about road traffic law but that is of little import as You couldn't care less about the law because anyway ... what road law you do know about you deliberately flout and encourage others to do likewise and when cycling ... You have no consideration whatsoever for any other road users either their needs or your own responsibilities and that ... You are a danger to anyone who has the misfortune to be on the same road as you. .... oh and you have no debating skills either, but that's bye the bye. On the bright side, you are entirely that sort of rider who will be crushed by a bus as you decide to run a junction and the world will in a tiny way become a better place, especially for us cyclists who do know how to ride on a road safely and legally. -- Regards or otherwise, Periander
From: Brimstone on 6 Jul 2008 13:57 JNugent wrote: > Brimstone wrote: > >> Tom Crispin wrote: >>> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>> Tom Crispin wrote: >>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> Tom Crispin wrote: >>>>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> A competent driving instructor would not put himself in that >>>>>>>>>> situation. > >>>>>>>>> Really? How, exactly? > >>>>>>>> You're the instructor. Work it out. > >>>>>>> I see... You can't answer the question. > >>>>>> You're confusing "can't" and "won't". >>>>> So you won't answer the question because you can't? > >>>> As I said, you're confusing willingness and ability. What someone >>>> is willing to do and what they're able to do are two different >>>> things. >>> So you would be willing to answer the question if you were able? > >> Why are you still making that assumption? > > Brimstone: > > You're making the PP feel unjustifiedly self-righteous. > > Crispin: > > He *can* provide the answer (of course he can), but takes the > principled position that those who claim the sort of expertise that > you do shouldn't need to have it explained to them. He is therefore > *unwilling* to spoonfeed you. The fact that you seem to ned it tells > its own strory. Nicely put. (applause)
From: Steve Firth on 6 Jul 2008 14:19 Danny Colyer <danny_colyer(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 06/07/2008 15:31, Steve Firth wrote: > > Indeed he seem to think that proper observation, not making stupid > > assumptions, being aware of the failings of other drivers and not > > placing one's life in someone elses hands are the mark of a bad driver > > who is "unfit to be in charge of any type of vehicle on the public > > highway." That amuses me. > > In this thread you have displayed: > * A lack of familiarity with the rules of the road. Well you can say it, but that doesn't make it true. > * A lack of awareness that the rules vary for different classes of vehicle. I know full well that there are diffrent laws applicable to different vehicles. You OTOH seem to think that because the law doesn't provide for a specific penalty for stupid behaviour that the stupid behaviour is sanctioned. > * A willingness to blame a vulnerable (and I suspect, to you, "other" > class of) road user who, while complying with the rules relevant to his > class of vehicle, has been injured by another road user *not* complying > with the rules relevant to /his/ class of vehicle. What utter drivel. Being "vulnerable" does not absolve the "vulnerable" road user from a duty of care. Indeed it should make that road user more aware of the limitations of themselves, of their vehicle and of others. Overtaking a vehicle at a junction is insanity: 165 You MUST NOT overtake * if you would have to cross or straddle double white lines with a solid line nearest to you (but see Rule 129) * if you would have to enter an area designed to divide traffic, if it is surrounded by a solid white line * the nearest vehicle to a pedestrian crossing, especially when it has stopped to let pedestrians cross * if you would have to enter a lane reserved for buses, trams or cycles during its hours of operation * after a 'No Overtaking' sign and until you pass a sign cancelling the restriction [Laws RTA 1988 sect 36, TSRGD regs 10, 22, 23 & 24, ZPPPCRGD reg 24] * 127-132: Lines and lane markings on the road 166 DO NOT overtake if there is any doubt, or where you cannot see far enough ahead to be sure it is safe. For example, when you are approaching * a corner or bend * a hump bridge * the brow of a hill 167 DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example * approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road * where the road narrows * when approaching a school crossing patrol * between the kerb and a bus or tram when it is at a stop * where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works * when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down * at a level crossing * when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled * stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left * when a tram is standing at a kerbside tram stop and there is no clearly marked passing lane for other traffic > That combination says to me: "This guy is a danger to others on the > road". Proper observation, not making stupid assumptions, being aware > of the failings of other drivers and not placing one's life in someone > else's hands are obviously the minimum that one would hope for from any > road user, And Crispin failed to show any of those skills. In particular he ignored 167 and in his initial post, which turns out to have been incorrect, he implies that he ignored 165. > but for me that's not what has come out of your posts. Wishful thinking on your part, bikeboy. > In fact you remind me of the late Paul Smith, when he used to post "cycle > safety" advice on uk.rec.cycling of a standard that made it very clear > that he knew nothing about cycling. Because I'm telling you something you don't want to hear. You remind me that (some) cylists seem to think that they can use the roads without considering other road users. > I can only apologise if I have misinterpreted your posts, or read > something that wasn't there. The former is, of course, almost > inevitable on usenet. The latter I do not believe has happened. You're wrong, that's exactly what you are doing. Because you are knee-jerking in your "the cyclist can never be wrong" mode.
From: Tom Crispin on 6 Jul 2008 14:30
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 18:57:29 +0100, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >JNugent wrote: >> Brimstone wrote: >> >>> Tom Crispin wrote: >>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> Tom Crispin wrote: >>>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> Tom Crispin wrote: >>>>>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> A competent driving instructor would not put himself in that >>>>>>>>>>> situation. >> >>>>>>>>>> Really? How, exactly? >> >>>>>>>>> You're the instructor. Work it out. >> >>>>>>>> I see... You can't answer the question. >> >>>>>>> You're confusing "can't" and "won't". >>>>>> So you won't answer the question because you can't? >> >>>>> As I said, you're confusing willingness and ability. What someone >>>>> is willing to do and what they're able to do are two different >>>>> things. >>>> So you would be willing to answer the question if you were able? >> >>> Why are you still making that assumption? >> >> Brimstone: >> >> You're making the PP feel unjustifiedly self-righteous. >> >> Crispin: >> >> He *can* provide the answer (of course he can), but takes the >> principled position that those who claim the sort of expertise that >> you do shouldn't need to have it explained to them. He is therefore >> *unwilling* to spoonfeed you. The fact that you seem to ned it tells >> its own strory. > >Nicely put. > >(applause) So perhaps now you'd care to explain how a cyclist can prevent a driver, who the cyclist has just overtaken, from pulling out of a stream of slow moving or stationary traffic, overtake, then pull sharply right into the cyclist? I am at a loss. And this is how the witness Mrs N.C., who was standing at the bus stop next to the loading bay, describes the van driver's actions. It is not my description. |