Yer gotta laff (or running a bike over).
View Full Version : Yer gotta laff (or running a bike over).
Some saddo wrote to the local newspapers letters page
complaining that when they reversed from their drive they
ran over a childs bicycle that had been left on the pavement
and the childs parents expected them to pay for the bike.
Now I'm aware that bicycles laying across pavements and
outside shops are a pain, especially for sight impaired folk
but to admit to driving over one because you didn't see it
beggars belief.
The correspondent misquoted HC rule 54 as: "You MUST NOT
leave your cycle where it would endanger or obstruct road
users or pedestrians, for example, lying on the pavement."
rather than: "You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Do not leave
your cycle where it would endanger or obstruct road users or
pedestrians, for example, lying on the pavement." and
expected the force of law to be applied to the child rather
than take note of rule 177: "Do not reverse from a side road
into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and
drive out if you can."
I only wonder what he would have whinged about if some
toddler was also inconsiderately standing behind his vehicle
out of sight when he reversed, probably something like:
"I've got a ruddy puncture". "How did you get it?" "Ran over
a bottle". "Didn't you see it?" "No, some damn kid had it
under his coat!"
I'll get me coat ;-)
--
Regards, Pete
Peter B wrote:
> Some saddo wrote to the local newspapers letters page
> complaining that when they reversed from their drive they
> ran over a childs bicycle that had been left on the
> pavement and the childs parents expected them to pay for
> the bike. Now I'm aware that bicycles laying across
> pavements and outside shops are a pain, especially for
> sight impaired folk but to admit to driving over one
> because you didn't see it beggars belief.
I once saw a bloke about to do this as he reversed out of
his drive. I ran up and slapped his back window and he
stopped just in time. When he got out of the car I thought
he was going to hit me, but he apologised profusely when I
explained what was going on. It was his own child's bike!
"Zog The Undeniable" wrote
> Peter B wrote:
> > Some saddo wrote to the local newspapers letters page
> > complaining that
when
> > they reversed from their drive they ran over a childs
> > bicycle that had
been
> > left on the pavement and the childs parents expected
> > them to pay for the bike. Now I'm aware that bicycles
> > laying across pavements and outside shops
are a
> > pain, especially for sight impaired folk but to admit to
> > driving over
one
> > because you didn't see it beggars belief.
>
> I once saw a bloke about to do this as he reversed out of
> his drive. I ran up and slapped his back window and he
> stopped just in time. When he got out of the car I thought
> he was going to hit me, but he apologised profusely when I
> explained what was going on. It was his own child's
bike!
I read of a tragic case of a parent running over and killing
their own child in their own drive. It would be absolutely
tasteless to say almost anything about this.. I am regularly
asked to repair childrens' bikes which have been run over in
these circs. I tend to point out that there could have been
a child on or by the bike. Mike Sales
"Mike Sales" <mike.sales@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40804109$0$8567$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet.net...
> I am regularly asked to repair childrens' bikes which have
> been run over
in
> these circs.
Yep - I used to get just the same thing when I was in
the trade.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-
virus system (http://www.grisoft.com (http://www.grisoft.com/)). Version: 6.0.659 /
Virus Database: 423 - Release Date: 15/04/2004
In message <c5p4ff$cpf$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, Peter B
<peter28@btinternet.com> writes
>
>I only wonder what he would have whinged about if some
>toddler was also inconsiderately standing behind his
>vehicle out of sight when he reversed, probably something
>like: "I've got a ruddy puncture". "How did you get it?"
>"Ran over a bottle". "Didn't you see it?" "No, some damn
>kid had it under his coat!"
>
When I first had a job doing door-to-door deliveries, they
said "You come back to your van, if you're going to reverse
away, look behind it before you get in - only takes a moment
- we had a bloke here who reversed over a crate of milk
bottles the milkman had just that minute put down behind his
van - punctured three back tyres out of four and you can
imagine the mess!"
It was good advice, why isn't it in the Highway Code?
--
Sue ];(:)
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:05:17 +0100, Sue <SPAM@blackhole.invalid> wrote
in message <mgAcQaJtaGgAFwcf@mashtub.demon.co.uk>:
>When I first had a job doing door-to-door deliveries, they
>said "You come back to your van, if you're going to
>reverse away, look behind it before you get in - only
>takes a moment
I used to be a removal man to earn money in the uni
holidays. We always did that. Robin, the boss, walked round
the back of Big Blue (36' Vanplan coachbuilt removal truck),
up to the driver's door, got in, reversed, drove off. In the
time it had taken him to get from the back to the can Mr
Pillock parked behind him. Close behind - he was near a
junction. So in reversing, Robin shunted the tosser's car
ten feet back and left him parked across the junction :-)
Mr Pillock berated Robin for his carelessness. Robin
suggested he might benefit from a chat with the nice
policeman about the ability of goods vehicle drivers to see
anything not visible in the mirrors. Mr Pillock lost his
insurance bonus. We bought Robin a pint :-)
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
"Sue" <SPAM@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message
news:mgAcQaJtaGgAFwcf@mashtub.demon.co.uk...
> When I first had a job doing door-to-door deliveries, they
> said "You come back to your van, if you're going to
> reverse away, look behind it before you get in - only
> takes a moment -
Which reminds me, the complainant admitted, in print, that
he hadn't looked behind his car because he'd approached it
from the front! I'm assuming now, that he exited his front
door, walked to his car that was facing him, got in and
reversed over the bike. Lucky for him a gaping hole hadn't
appeared in the pavement overnight.
--
Regards, Pete
"Peter B" <peter28@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:c5p4ff$cpf$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> Some saddo wrote to the local newspapers letters page
> complaining that
when
> they reversed from their drive they ran over a childs
> bicycle that had
been
> left on the pavement and the childs parents expected them
> to pay for the bike. Now I'm aware that bicycles laying
> across pavements and outside shops are
a
> pain, especially for sight impaired folk but to admit to
> driving over one because you didn't see it beggars belief.
>
>Snipped<
My 5-year old (well, was then) cycled into the back wing of
a neighbour's car which he was reversing out of his
driveway. The neighbour asked me to pay for repairs to the
wing, which on the face of it seemed reasonable, so I
claimed on my house insurance. The insurance company bounced
the claim and pointed out that it was the driver's
responsibility to ensure that the pavement was clear before
driving over it, he could have reversed in and thus ensured
he had a clear view on the way out, and he had a passenger
who could have made seen him out. His driveway is also
flanked by high hedges (on his property) thus restricting
his view - the back end of the car would be over the
pavement before the drive had any hope of seeing if there
was anyone coming along the pavement.
Since then I have always reversed into my driveway, to
minimise the risk of a similar accident - but my neighbour -
I suspect you can guess whether he has changed his
routine.................
--
Alan Shilling Add usenet to subject if e-mailing me
otherwise it will bounce.
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 11:27:43 +0100, "Alan Shilling"
<alanpackaging@the-shillings.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
<c5r0r4$s6k$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>:
>The insurance company bounced the claim and pointed out
>that it was the driver's responsibility to ensure that
>the pavement was clear before driving over it, he could
>have reversed in and thus ensured he had a clear view on
>the way out, and he had a passenger who could have made
>seen him out.
I almost always reverse park, not because of what the HC
says but because a few moments' thought and some elementary
physics shows that it makes sense ;-)
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
In article <8622809h6ac1gg8e0g1p8rdhibuis86tnn@4ax.com>,
outlook.bugs@microsoft.com says...
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 11:27:43 +0100, "Alan Shilling" <alanpackaging@the-
> shillings.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> <c5r0r4$s6k$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>:
>
> >The insurance company bounced the claim and pointed out
> >that it was the driver's responsibility to ensure that
> >the pavement was clear before driving over it, he could
> >have reversed in and thus ensured he had a clear view on
> >the way out, and he had a passenger who could have made
> >seen him out.
>
> I almost always reverse park, not because of what the HC
> says but because a few moments' thought and some
> elementary physics shows that it makes sense ;-)
>
>
And a little geometry shows that it's actually easier to get
the car into and out of a tight spot (ooo err matron) when
reverse parked. My collegue calls it 'boy parking', but if I
make a comment about girlly parking, I have to make sure I'm
out of arms reach =8-o
--
.paul
If at first you don't succeed... Skydiving is probably not
the sport for you.
In message
<8622809h6ac1gg8e0g1p8rdhibuis86tnn@4ax.com>, "Just zis
Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> writes
>
>>The insurance company bounced the claim and pointed out
>>that it was the driver's responsibility to ensure that the
>>pavement was clear before driving over it, he could have
>>reversed in and thus ensured he had a clear view on the
>>way out, and he had a passenger who could have made seen
>>him out.
>
>I almost always reverse park, not because of what the HC
>says but because a few moments' thought and some elementary
>physics shows that it makes sense ;-)
>
Yes. If you're parking at right angles to your previous
course it's much easier to go in backwards so you can see
along the side of the car using the mirrors. You just turn
until you're pointing into the opening then go straight
back. Doing it forwards requires judgement.
In supermarket car parks you have to park nose-on if you
want access to your tailgate, but when you get home and turn
up your drive, don't you want the tailgate at the house end?
Blokes hardly ever carry anything, but how does doing things
the hard way make them feel More Important?
--
Sue ]E(:)
"Sue" <SPAM@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message
news:bybzkUJCkkgAFw6v@mashtub.demon.co.uk...
> Yes. If you're parking at right angles to your previous
> course it's much easier to go in backwards so you can see
> along the side of the car using the mirrors. You just turn
> until you're pointing into the opening then go straight
> back. Doing it forwards requires judgement.
I think people drive in forward as a kind of lazyness. They
return from a trip, drive straight into their driveway and
exit the car, reversing is a problem that has been
postponed.
--
Regards, Pete
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 00:51:00 +0000 (UTC), paul
<paul.coombs@btinternetSPAMSOFF.com> wrote in message
<MPG.1aebe492f858519a9896d1@news.btinternet.com>:
>> I almost always reverse park, not because of what the HC
>> says but because a few moments' thought and some
>> elementary physics shows that it makes sense ;-)
>And a little geometry shows that it's actually easier to
>get the car into and out of a tight spot (ooo err matron)
>when reverse parked.
I called it elementary physics, but yes it is geometry
really.
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:23:14 +0100, Sue <SPAM@blackhole.invalid> wrote
in message <bybzkUJCkkgAFw6v@mashtub.demon.co.uk>:
>In supermarket car parks you have to park nose-on if you
>want access to your tailgate, but when you get home and
>turn up your drive, don't you want the tailgate at the
>house end?
I reverse park in supermarkets too. I try to park so I can
get to the back anyway, but if necessary I pull forward to
load. Some have walkways between the bays which is Much More
Sensible (although most people still don't get the hint).
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
On 18/4/04 1:51 am, in article
MPG.1aebe492f858519a9896d1@news.btinternet.com, "paul"
<paul.coombs@btinternetSPAMSOFF.com> wrote:
> And a little geometry shows that it's actually easier to
> get the car into and out of a tight spot (ooo err matron)
> when reverse parked.
Most tight spots. My parents keep their car in the back
garden. Access is up a narrow alley. It is easier to drive
in forwards then reverse out than it is to reverse in and
drive out. Perhaps this is because the tightest exit is from
the alley to the garden, making getting into the alley from
teh garden easier in reverse than forwards.
..d
In article <7or480lsl5dbkmp981h6bo8h7jm5ma8ept@4ax.com>,
outlook.bugs@microsoft.com says...
> I reverse park in supermarkets too. I try to park so I
> can get to the back anyway, but if necessary I pull
> forward to load. Some have walkways between the bays
> which is Much More Sensible (although most people still
> don't get the hint).
>
>
Pah, supermarket car parks. One of my hobby-horse (what,
another one, you all cry) AT LEAST 50% of all traffic in
carparks is pedestreian, but I bet you can count on the
fingers of on hand the number of carparks you know with any
provsion for peds. It's totally DAFT, peds are squishier
then cars, and take up les room, but no one ever thinks to
design car parks with peds in mind. Grrr
--
.paul
If at first you don't succeed... Skydiving is probably not
the sport for you.
In article <BCA8A62C.125E0%d.m.a.martin@dundee.ac.uk>,
d.m.a.martin@dundee.ac.uk says...
> Perhaps this is because the tightest exit is from the
> alley to the garden, making getting into the alley from
> teh garden easier in reverse than forwards.
>
>
>
which sort of proves the point. they park that way to
utilise the manoverability for the tightest spot :)
--
.paul
If at first you don't succeed... Skydiving is probably not
the sport for you.
On 19/4/04 5:37 pm, in article slrnc8801n.3on.see-
sig@pepper.viewport.lan, "David Marsh" <see-sig@127.0.0.1>
wrote: do so, in many instances)) rarely seem to site the
cycle parking near
> the entrance, instead plonking it somewhere well hidden
> out of the way and out of the field of view of security
> cameras. Oh well, just as well you can lock bikes to
> trolley parks just as easily..
If I'm after just a few items I wheel the bike round the
supermarket.
No one has complained yet.
..d
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 11:37:58 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 11:27:43 +0100, "Alan Shilling" <alanpackaging@the-
> shillings.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> <c5r0r4$s6k$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>:
>
>>The insurance company bounced the claim and pointed out
>>that it was the driver's responsibility to ensure that the
>>pavement was clear before driving over it, he could have
>>reversed in and thus ensured he had a clear view on the
>>way out, and he had a passenger who could have made seen
>>him out.
>
> I almost always reverse park, not because of what the HC
> says but because a few moments' thought and some
> elementary physics shows that it makes sense ;-)
Not always - One of my cars is a kit-car (Lotus 7 style) and
due to the seats being so far back, I have much better
vision along the pavement when I reverse it out of the drive
than if I drove it forward.
Also with some narrow driveways and a normal car, driving
in forward can put the driver's door close to the fence or
wall (a struggle, but not too difficult to get out of) but
at the same time leaving the passenger side clear and
therefore making it actually possible to get the child and
carseat out as well!
Steve W
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 22:23:27 +0100, Steve Walker
<steve@dropthis.theend.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
<jrjx5mr8vpjr$.12ccjn3kx8tm4.dlg@40tude.net>:
>> I almost always reverse park, not because of what the HC
>> says but because a few moments' thought and some
>> elementary physics shows that it makes sense ;-)
>Not always - One of my cars is a kit-car (Lotus 7 style)
>and due to the seats being so far back, I have much better
>vision along the pavement when I reverse it out of the
>drive than if I drove it forward.
Point of information: my car is not a seats in the back inna
lotus seven stylee model, and I am not related to Colin of
the same surname, not at all, not in the least, not even
slightly ;-)
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
Automatic Translations (Powered by
):
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
