helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Derek C on 14 Apr 2010 17:44 On 14 Apr, 22:36, k...(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: > In article <hq58bc$te...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Nick Finnigan <n...(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: > > >k...(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: > >> In article <hq4rmt$gf...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > >> Nick Finnigan <n...(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: > > >>> Road users will tend follow dozy looking road users more closely than > >>> they will competent looking ones, > > >> Really? That's the exact reverse of what I do - and I should have thought many > >> other responsible drivers would do. Our business is to get to where we're > > > Do you observe other drivers (and riders) doing that, in general? > > Yes, quite often, but of course not invariably. > > > > >> going without an accident, not to hassle people for being dozy. > > >> As a driver, I stay well back from a wobbly cyclist, for instance. > > > Do you follow closer to a non-wobbly cyclist? If so, why? > > I suppose the two go together. But I would say I have a notion of a "normal" > distance to stay behind a cyclist at a given speed, assuming overtaking to be > impractical for the moment, and if the cyclist is > wobbly I consciously stay further behind. I know I regularly do so at a > junction where I know from experience that wobbly cyclists don't always > signal before pulling out to turn right. The same applies to a > driver in front about whom I have doubts, whether unusually dozy > or unusually aggressive. I have had occasion to be thankful that > I had done so, more than once. > > Katy That is called defensive driving, always being ready for somebody doing something unexpected or stupid. Unfortunately, many cyclists are far too pig-headed to ride defensively, which they regard as being submissive, so they stand on their supposed rights until they get killed. Derek C
From: colin-reed on 15 Apr 2010 04:03 On 14 Apr, 22:44, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > On 14 Apr, 22:36, k...(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: > > > > > > > In article <hq58bc$te...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > Nick Finnigan <n...(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: > > > >k...(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: > > >> In article <hq4rmt$gf...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > >> Nick Finnigan <n...(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: > > > >>> Road users will tend follow dozy looking road users more closely than > > >>> they will competent looking ones, > > > >> Really? That's the exact reverse of what I do - and I should have thought many > > >> other responsible drivers would do. Our business is to get to where we're > > > > Do you observe other drivers (and riders) doing that, in general? > > > Yes, quite often, but of course not invariably. > > > >> going without an accident, not to hassle people for being dozy. > > > >> As a driver, I stay well back from a wobbly cyclist, for instance. > > > > Do you follow closer to a non-wobbly cyclist? If so, why? > > > I suppose the two go together. But I would say I have a notion of a "normal" > > distance to stay behind a cyclist at a given speed, assuming overtaking to be > > impractical for the moment, and if the cyclist is > > wobbly I consciously stay further behind. I know I regularly do so at a > > junction where I know from experience that wobbly cyclists don't always > > signal before pulling out to turn right. The same applies to a > > driver in front about whom I have doubts, whether unusually dozy > > or unusually aggressive. I have had occasion to be thankful that > > I had done so, more than once. > > > Katy > > That is called defensive driving, always being ready for somebody > doing something unexpected or stupid. Unfortunately, many cyclists are > far too pig-headed to ride defensively, which they regard as being > submissive, so they stand on their supposed rights until they get > killed. > > Derek C- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Except being submissive is not good defensive riding (or driving). Keys to defensive driving, apart from being ready for everyone else to do something stupid, are to position yourself prominently on the road so that you are always seen and to try to leave yourself an escape route for when someone does something really stupid. I can see parallels here with what is written in Cyclecraft about road positioning. Colin
From: Derek C on 15 Apr 2010 04:18 On 15 Apr, 09:03, "colin-r...(a)lineone.net" <colin-r...(a)lineone.net> wrote: > On 14 Apr, 22:44, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > On 14 Apr, 22:36, k...(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: > > > > In article <hq58bc$te...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > > Nick Finnigan <n...(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: > > > > >k...(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: > > > >> In article <hq4rmt$gf...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > > >> Nick Finnigan <n...(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: > > > > >>> Road users will tend follow dozy looking road users more closely than > > > >>> they will competent looking ones, > > > > >> Really? That's the exact reverse of what I do - and I should have thought many > > > >> other responsible drivers would do. Our business is to get to where we're > > > > > Do you observe other drivers (and riders) doing that, in general? > > > > Yes, quite often, but of course not invariably. > > > > >> going without an accident, not to hassle people for being dozy. > > > > >> As a driver, I stay well back from a wobbly cyclist, for instance. > > > > > Do you follow closer to a non-wobbly cyclist? If so, why? > > > > I suppose the two go together. But I would say I have a notion of a "normal" > > > distance to stay behind a cyclist at a given speed, assuming overtaking to be > > > impractical for the moment, and if the cyclist is > > > wobbly I consciously stay further behind. I know I regularly do so at a > > > junction where I know from experience that wobbly cyclists don't always > > > signal before pulling out to turn right. The same applies to a > > > driver in front about whom I have doubts, whether unusually dozy > > > or unusually aggressive. I have had occasion to be thankful that > > > I had done so, more than once. > > > > Katy > > > That is called defensive driving, always being ready for somebody > > doing something unexpected or stupid. Unfortunately, many cyclists are > > far too pig-headed to ride defensively, which they regard as being > > submissive, so they stand on their supposed rights until they get > > killed. > > > Derek C- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Except being submissive is not good defensive riding (or driving). > Keys to defensive driving, apart from being ready for everyone else to > do something stupid, are to position yourself prominently on the road > so that you are always seen and to try to leave yourself an escape > route for when someone does something really stupid. I can see > parallels here with what is written in Cyclecraft about road > positioning. > I agree that defensive cycling includes good road positioning, etc. It also includes not riding down the nearsides of large HGVs that might be about to turn left, not cycling at high speed into diminishing gaps (as per the thread 'I thought this cyclist was going to be dead'), and above all making yourself visible at night by carrying decent lights! Derek C
From: colin-reed on 15 Apr 2010 06:25 On 15 Apr, 09:18, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > On 15 Apr, 09:03, "colin-r...(a)lineone.net" <colin-r...(a)lineone.net> > wrote: > > > > > > > On 14 Apr, 22:44, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > > > > On 14 Apr, 22:36, k...(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: > > > > > In article <hq58bc$te...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > > > Nick Finnigan <n...(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > >k...(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: > > > > >> In article <hq4rmt$gf...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > > > >> Nick Finnigan <n...(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > >>> Road users will tend follow dozy looking road users more closely than > > > > >>> they will competent looking ones, > > > > > >> Really? That's the exact reverse of what I do - and I should have thought many > > > > >> other responsible drivers would do. Our business is to get to where we're > > > > > > Do you observe other drivers (and riders) doing that, in general? > > > > > Yes, quite often, but of course not invariably. > > > > > >> going without an accident, not to hassle people for being dozy. > > > > > >> As a driver, I stay well back from a wobbly cyclist, for instance. > > > > > > Do you follow closer to a non-wobbly cyclist? If so, why? > > > > > I suppose the two go together. But I would say I have a notion of a "normal" > > > > distance to stay behind a cyclist at a given speed, assuming overtaking to be > > > > impractical for the moment, and if the cyclist is > > > > wobbly I consciously stay further behind. I know I regularly do so at a > > > > junction where I know from experience that wobbly cyclists don't always > > > > signal before pulling out to turn right. The same applies to a > > > > driver in front about whom I have doubts, whether unusually dozy > > > > or unusually aggressive. I have had occasion to be thankful that > > > > I had done so, more than once. > > > > > Katy > > > > That is called defensive driving, always being ready for somebody > > > doing something unexpected or stupid. Unfortunately, many cyclists are > > > far too pig-headed to ride defensively, which they regard as being > > > submissive, so they stand on their supposed rights until they get > > > killed. > > > > Derek C- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Except being submissive is not good defensive riding (or driving). > > Keys to defensive driving, apart from being ready for everyone else to > > do something stupid, are to position yourself prominently on the road > > so that you are always seen and to try to leave yourself an escape > > route for when someone does something really stupid. I can see > > parallels here with what is written in Cyclecraft about road > > positioning. > > I agree that defensive cycling includes good road positioning, etc. It > also includes not riding down the nearsides of large HGVs that might > be about to turn left, not cycling at high speed into diminishing gaps > (as per the thread 'I thought this cyclist was going to be dead'), and > above all making yourself visible at night by carrying decent lights! > > Derek C- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well, we're agreed on all of those points - and I suspect many cyclists using this NG would also agree with them, all of them being strongly recommended in Cyclecraft, which is a well read and oft- quoted book in these parts. Yes, there are examples of cyclists also doing the things that you recommend not doing, and they are usually agreed as being silly by cyclists writing in forums like this one. I don't know why cyclists head for diminishing gaps, or up the nearside of HGVs. You're suggesting that they "stand on their supposed rights". Since not many cyclists here seem to advocate this behaviour, I wonder where you get your source of these "many cyclists" motives? Colin
From: Roland Perry on 15 Apr 2010 14:22
In message <gb1cs5poidavjdv0m2nrjv97bgakgvi7i4(a)4ax.com>, at 19:12:47 on Wed, 14 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >>You seem to have a very narrow view of the world, >>don't you find it a bit of a trial? > >If you mean arguing with fuckwits - then yes - I certainly do That's one thing about which we seem to share the same view, then. -- Roland Perry |