Letter in local paper - Page 3

In article <9iIj9iw1xKb+Ewdf@macclancy.demon.co.uk>, Michael MacClancy
<news@macclancy.demon.co.uk> writes
>Dear Fred,
>
>Your argument would be all the better if you chose not to hide behind an anonymous email address
>and if you provided more information about yourself. For all we know you might be Paul Smith in
>disguise.
Thanks for your reply.

When I look at a post it is not the name or email address of the poster that I look at when
assessing it as useful or informative but the content and reasoning in the message. My defence of
Paul Smith's post and link was because I thought the site contained a strong argument to highlight
the danger of failing to 'think bike' when driving and that is what I said in my post. I didn't take
any notice of Paul's stance on other motoring matters or his views presented on his other websites.

I choose to remain anonymous for my own reasons, but should you wish to view every post I have ever
made, you can search for them by entering "fred <not@for.mail>" in the author field at
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en , I hope you will find it entertaining
--
fred

"Paul Smith" <psmith@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote in message
news:s3gp6vgerasnpscmfovn6kqed68o4vkb0c@4ax.com... SNIP
> 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.
> --

Aah, now we're getting to the point. It was the cyclist's fault all along!

manxshaun

In message <pgbr6vkj6mag89b2rsvpm9f7jt3mr21v57@4ax.com>, Paul Smith
<psmith@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> writes
>Obviously if you're killed by a car pulling out your wife will say: "It's all right,

Yours might, I hope mine wouldn't. ;-)
--
Michael MacClancy

John B <jpb.design@removevirgin.net> wrote in message news:<3E6C9CD8.CD4DFE58@removevirgin.net>...
> Paul Smith wrote:

> > Sometimes it's simply because the cyclist is hidden behind a windscreen pillar when the driver
> > makes a glance check.
>
> "Simply"? You have a LOT to learn. Oh dear I didn't see the cyclist - my windscreen pillar was in
> the way.
>
> Your continual excuses for the carnage motorists wreak amplifies your selfish "I can do no wrong"
> arrogance.
>
> If the driver cannot see he/she should not move.

Although I think he's oversimplifying things, and I don't find the term "glance check" very
reassuring, Paul does have a valid point. With blind spots the brain automatically fills in the gaps
in your vision. Not only can the driver not see objects in the blind spot, but he is unaware that he
cannot see them. Although I'm happy for motorists to be educated about blind spots I'm certainly not
going to rely on their awareness for my safety. If the driver's face is obscured by the windscreen
pillar then I can be pretty sure I'm in his blind spot.

However, blind spots do not explain the SMIDSYs who attempt to kill you after making direct eye
contact with you. That's either a different perception problem or it's plain dangerous driving. I'm
alive because I make allowances all the time for drivers who don't see me, and blind spots are only
part of the problem.

--
Dave...

On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:12:26 -0000, "manxshaun" <manxshaun@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> 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.

>Aah, now we're getting to the point. It was the cyclist's fault all along!

Fault? Obviously if you're killed by a car pulling out your wife will say: "It's all right, it was
the driver fault".

On the other hand, perhaps you might think it advisable to take extra care in the vicinity of
known risks.
--
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
newsgbr6vkj6mag89b2rsvpm9f7jt3mr21v57@4ax.com...
>
> On the other hand, perhaps you might think it advisable to take extra care in the vicinity of
> known risks.

I think you will find that most cyclists that make it to adulthood develop a good understanding of
cagers and their ways. The sensible ones watch very carefully, try to catch the cager's eye and to
predict what he may do next.

Of course, given that many cagers seem to have their brains turned permanently off, this can be
difficult.

T

On 11 Mar 2003 01:55:55 -0800, dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk (Dave Kahn) wrote:

>However, blind spots do not explain the SMIDSYs who attempt to kill you after making direct eye
>contact with you. That's either a different perception problem or it's plain dangerous driving. I'm
>alive because I make allowances all the time for drivers who don't see me, and blind spots are only
>part of the problem.

The thing about eye contact is usually a false assumption. He might be looking at you, past you, or
in your direction, but you're assuming that it's personal eye contact when sometimes it isn't.

SMIDSYs happen most commonly when the driver "looked but did not see", and that includes cases where
the victim thought he'd had eye contact.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

John B <jpb.design@removevirgin.net> wrote in message news:<3E6CD172.FBEDB37@removevirgin.net>...

> 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?

Hmmm....

"You could have made up a number plate from a similar make and colour car to yours seen driving
around. This is called number plate cloning and is becoming quite common. It would be hard to
justify your incorrect cloned plate if stopped by Police."

Yes, quite hard I should think.

--
Dave...

"Paul Smith" <psmith@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote in message Snip
>
> On the other hand, perhaps you might think it advisable to take extra care in the vicinity of
> known risks.

Yes, let me know whenever you are anywhere south of Birmingham, I'll stay at home and tell my loved
ones to do the same!

manxshaun

Paul Smith <psmith@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote in message
news:<2ier6vg5m0q0mulria0cj0pkp3mq14lebe@4ax.com>...

> The thing about eye contact is usually a false assumption. He might be looking at you, past you,
> or in your direction, but you're assuming that it's personal eye contact when sometimes it isn't.
>
> SMIDSYs happen most commonly when the driver "looked but did not see", and that includes cases
> where the victim thought he'd had eye contact.

Agreed up to a point. However, being able to see the motorist's eyes establishes beyond doubt that
you are not in his blind spot at that moment. We are a predatory animal and proper eye to eye
contact is fairly hard to mistake. Ever noticed how often someone you are staring at suddenly
becomes aware of you doing it and instantly returns the stare, causing you immediately to look away?

Quite often a motorist makes eye contact and uses it to try to dominate the cyclist, deliberately
moving into his path. Of course, after the crash he will say that he didn't see him. I've found that
by avoiding eye contact once I am sure that the motorist has seen me, by looking over my shoulder
for example, I get cut up far less often.

--
Dave...

"Tony W" <tonyREMOVE@chapmore.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<b4kbtc$20l5ef$1@ID-161007.news.dfncis.de>...

> Of course, given that many cagers seem to have their brains turned permanently off, this can be
> difficult.

As my dad used to say, "You need to be a mind-reader; and with a mind like that it's not easy."

--
Dave...

On 11 Mar 2003 08:36:42 -0800, dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk (Dave Kahn) wrote:

>> The thing about eye contact is usually a false assumption. He might be looking at you, past you,
>> or in your direction, but you're assuming that it's personal eye contact when sometimes it isn't.

>> SMIDSYs happen most commonly when the driver "looked but did not see", and that includes cases
>> where the victim thought he'd had eye contact.

>Agreed up to a point. However, being able to see the motorist's eyes establishes beyond doubt
>that you are not in his blind spot at that moment. We are a predatory animal and proper eye to
>eye contact is fairly hard to mistake. Ever noticed how often someone you are staring at
>suddenly becomes aware of you doing it and instantly returns the stare, causing you immediately
>to look away?

All true, but it's very hard to separate the assumption of eye contact from the reality of eye
contact. For this reason alone the belief has the potential to cause considerable danger and is not
to be trusted.

>Quite often a motorist makes eye contact and uses it to try to dominate the cyclist, deliberately
>moving into his path. Of course, after the crash he will say that he didn't see him. I've found
>that by avoiding eye contact once I am sure that the motorist has seen me, by looking over my
>shoulder for example, I get cut up far less often.

There are so many accidents where road users fail to see one another that it's usually claimed
truthfully. It's also a seriously crap excuse as it usually amounts to an admission of carelessness
(at least).
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives