Letter in local paper - Page 2

In message <3E6CBF8D.52F93B45@removevirgin.net>, John B <jpb.design@removevirgin.net> writes
>More excuses. Now its not in the highway Code.
>
>> Time for a change. I did email them about it last year. I don't actually recall getting a reply.
>> I'll give them a prod.
>
>Dear Smithy boy, do you really think they would take you seriously given your track record?
>
>John B

LOL
--
Michael MacClancy

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:28:47 +0000, Michael MacClancy <news@macclancy.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>>>>http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zpaper1.htm

>>>>Sometimes it's simply because the cyclist is hidden behind a windscreen pillar when the driver
>>>>makes a glance check. I've been working to publicise this special risk, but at least 95% of
>>>>drivers have not heard of it or even considered the possibility. The government needs to
>>>>publicise this special risk which driver are usually unaware of.

>>>>http://www.smidsy.org.uk

>>>Isn't this one of the reasons to look several times in each direction?

>>Absolutely. But you won't find that as clear advice in the Highway Code either. Time for a
>>change. I did email them about it last year. I don't actually recall getting a reply. I'll give
>>them a prod.

>Yeah, but it's taught in lessons and tested in the driving tests. Stop trying to make excuses for
>bad driving.

It isn't taught with any consistency. Most will never have received the message.

I'm certainly not trying to make excuses. I'm trying to make the roads safer. I don't even have to
concern myself with blame in this instance.

Of course it might help some cyclists to be aware of the risk and know that when a driver's head
appear to them in a certain position that the pillar might have prevented a driver from seeing them.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

"Paul Smith" <psmith@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote in message
news:ksfp6vgr2nu7pfgu0uiqkjej5aoq82um7l@4ax.com...
>
> Not true. Try sampling your workmates or friends. People don't know. Simple as that.

Trying to hold a discussion with you is like arguing with a speak-your-weight machine. The answers
never quite the same but equally banal.

It seems my colleagues are more intelligent than yours -- but perhaps yours are all woolly with a
fear of mint sauce

T

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:03:24 -0000, "Tony W" <tonyREMOVE@chapmore.co.uk> wrote:

>> Not true. Try sampling your workmates or friends. People don't know. Simple as that.

>Trying to hold a discussion with you is like arguing with a speak-your-weight machine. The answers
>never quite the same but equally banal.

So let's get this straight. You think drivers should recognise potentially obscure road dangers
without having them explained. And you think there's something wrong with my argument?

>It seems my colleagues are more intelligent than yours -- but perhaps yours are all woolly with a
>fear of mint sauce

I bet you haven't got that result from a clean sample. Having done various straw polls myself, I
know that folk in general don't know that windscreen pillars are a significant contributor to many
smidsy accidents.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:57:57 +0000, Michael MacClancy <news@macclancy.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>More excuses. Now its not in the highway Code.

>>> Time for a change. I did email them about it last year. I don't actually recall getting a reply.
>>> I'll give them a prod.

>>Dear Smithy boy, do you really think they would take you seriously given your track record?

>>John B

>LOL

Feel free to laugh. But Buckled couldn't be more wrong.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:20:40 +0000, Paul Smith <psmith@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:33:41 +0000, Michael MacClancy <news@macclancy.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zpaper1.htm
>
>>>Sometimes it's simply because the cyclist is hidden behind a windscreen pillar when the driver
>>>makes a glance check. I've been working to publicise this special risk, but at least 95% of
>>>drivers have not heard of it or even considered the possibility. The government needs to
>>>publicise this special risk which driver are usually unaware of.
>
>>>http://www.smidsy.org.uk
>
>>Isn't this one of the reasons to look several times in each direction?
>
> Absolutely. But you won't find that as clear advice in the Highway Code either. Time for a
> change. I did email them about it last year. I don't actually recall getting a reply. I'll give
> them a prod.

Actually, the main reason to look both ways several times is because people are extremely bad at
judging the speed of something directly approaching (or receding although that is rarely a problem
when driving).

By looking several times (and looking away) things noticably move.

I can't say that "windscreen pillar" is a normal reason for cagers not seeing me. I would say a few
not looking at all (or looking while so far from the junction that all they could possibly see would
be car lights illuminating the road), some looking directly at me but not seeing me, and the rest
looking at me, seeing me, and completely misjudging my speed.

If I can see their head then they can see mine.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

In article <crhp6v48r0qfhpqd2kqlcmlle4862j01g0@4ax.com>,
psmith@XYZsafespeed.org.uk says...
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:03:24 -0000, "Tony W" <tonyREMOVE@chapmore.co.uk> wrote:
> > Smith srote:
> >> Not true. Try sampling your workmates or friends. People don't know. Simple as that.
> >It seems my colleagues are more intelligent than yours -- but perhaps yours are all woolly with a
> >fear of mint sauce
>
> I bet you haven't got that result from a clean sample. Having done various straw polls myself, I
> know that folk in general don't know that windscreen pillars are a significant contributor to many
> smidsy accidents.

Is this the same sample that showed that 95% of motorists understand the informal hand signal for no
overtaking?

Colin

In message <crhp6v48r0qfhpqd2kqlcmlle4862j01g0@4ax.com>, Paul Smith
<psmith@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> writes
>So let's get this straight. You think drivers should recognise potentially obscure road dangers
>without having them explained. And you think there's something wrong with my argument?

I think that, as with the whole of your campaign, you're making up things to argue about. You're
just wasting time.
--
Michael MacClancy

Paul Smith wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:57:57 +0000, Michael MacClancy <news@macclancy.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>More excuses. Now its not in the highway Code.
>
> >>> Time for a change. I did email them about it last year. I don't actually recall getting a
> >>> reply. I'll give them a prod.
>
> >>Dear Smithy boy, do you really think they would take you seriously given your track record?
>
> >>John B
>
> >LOL
>
> Feel free to laugh. But Buckled couldn't be more wrong.

A good number of road safety officers judged your credibility when they saw:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/countermeasures.html

It has been discussed at length.

Now, what was that you were saying about your aims towards improving safety?

John B

"Paul Smith" <psmith@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote in message
news:crhp6v48r0qfhpqd2kqlcmlle4862j01g0@4ax.com...
>
> So let's get this straight. You think drivers should recognise potentially obscure road dangers
> without having them explained.

Drivers are going out with a lethal instrument into a poorly controlled environment -- who the f***
else is meant to recognise the dangers?

What is so obscure about not being able to see through a chunk of steel?

Every driver is taught about blind spots. True there may be an over emphasis on the one behind your
right shoulder -- but surely others are know.

I have no problem with this, or other obvious dangers being pointed out to learners -- in fact it
would surprise me if it isn't.

So let's get this straight -- are you arguing that drivers should only be able to react to dangers
that have been explained to them beforehand? What happens when something out of the ordinary
happens? Do they have an excuse? Oh sorry, no-one explained that a ****ehawk could fall from the air
and hit my windscreen so I drove through the bus queue!! If it had been a pigeon or a sparrow --
well that was covered in Advanced Driving for the Intellectually Challenged.

> And you think there's something wrong with my argument?

I've found very little right with any of your arguments to date. Why do you expect this one to be
different.

>
> >It seems my colleagues are more intelligent than yours -- but perhaps
yours
> >are all woolly with a fear of mint sauce
>
> I bet you haven't got that result from a clean sample. Having done various straw polls myself, I
> know that folk in general don't know that windscreen pillars are a significant contributor to many
> smidsy accidents.

Ahh. I got the 'wrong' answer so I must have done it wrong!!

T

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:03:50 -0000, Tony W scrawled: ) Ahh. I got the 'wrong' answer so I must have
done it wrong!!

Quite. How does it feel to be Paul Smith's Old Europe?

J-P
--
James Ellroy's doppelganger was cornholed with the biggest vibrator I'd ever seen in Russia.

Michael MacClancy <news@macclancy.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> You're just wasting time.

I thought that was the main purpose of Usenet ;-)

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them
their job."

Samuel Goldwyn

In message <b4il0o$202hh6$1@ID-178940.news.dfncis.de>, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> writes
>Michael MacClancy <news@macclancy.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> You're just wasting time.
>
>I thought that was the main purpose of Usenet ;-)
>
Umm. Sharp observation but Paul Smith means that it gets taken to extremes. :-)

--
Michael MacClancy

Tim Woodall wrote:

> If I can see their head then they can see mine.

It would be more precise to repeace head with eyes.

Simon

"Tony W" <tonyREMOVE@chapmore.co.uk> wrote
> "Paul Smith" <psmith@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote
> >

- about windscreen pillars -

> > Drivers get hundreds of valuable safety messages, and they are supposed to learn them all.
> > That's good.
> >
> > Not giving them this particular safety message is a serious policy omission, especially since
> > the risk is not well known or understood.

> Its not very difficult. If you are driving a tonne + of lethal metal you have to take particular
> care. Driving through pedestrians, cyclists or other soft targets is not acceptable.
>
> Full stop. End of argument.
>
> The driver is responsible for checking he is not about to kill someone whether the hazard has been
> explicitly pointed out or not. He is in
charge
> of a piece of lethal equipment. He is licensed to use it. He has the responsibility to use
> it safely.

Sorry but have to agree with Paul here. I drove a Peugeot 206 a few weeks ago and its really
bloody terrible.

Not just that the pillar has a thick x-section but it is also very steeply raked and blocks out a
massive horizontal section. Even with moving my head I was not sure I could see properly. And by
trying to look I was concentrating too much on one spot.

The thing is, moving from another car I recognized I was losing half the view. As a cyclist I am
fairly aware of the sensory deprivation of a car anyway. I suspect its worse after getting used to
it - you get used to not seeing things and eventually you cease trying to look.

David Roberts.