Today's daft manoeuvre

wallace.shackleton said:

One of these days I will put my water bottle through the windscreen of one of these nutters,
seconds before he kills me....

How many times have you been killed so far ;-)

Tony

--
raven-family.comraven-family.comOpen ↗

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to
adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George
Bernard Shaw

Dave said:

Of course, you could always leave the cycle helmet on and pass straight through the vehicle,
coming out relatively unscathed, with bike in tow at the rear, whilst totally decimating the
offending vehicle and driver on the way through....... 8-P

Presumably you'd need to drink a can of 'V' before doing that.

--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( juggler.netdannyOpen ↗ ) Recumbent cycle page:
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukrecumbentsOpen ↗ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine

"Danny Colyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dave said:

Of course, you could always leave the cycle helmet on and pass straight through the vehicle,
coming out relatively unscathed, with bike in tow at the rear, whilst totally decimating the
offending vehicle and driver on the way through....... 8-P

Presumably you'd need to drink a can of 'V' before doing that.

--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( juggler.netdannyOpen ↗ ) Recumbent cycle page:
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukrecumbentsOpen ↗ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine

Not necessarily. Just make sure you 'eat your greens' !! ;-) Dave.

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 16:12:08 +0100 someone who may be Paul Smith <[email hidden]>
wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Maybe the odd aggressive driver who thinks about "pushing the cyclist back where he belongs".

Of course in another place someone has recently typed out the following:

Quoted message said:

Pity whoever ran him down didn't do a decent job, all things considered.

and

Quoted message said:

The sooner they get their stupid, untaxed, uninsured, incompetently ridden toys off the roads
the better.

The person concerned was supported by others, so the expressed view is not as rare as you seem
to believe.

Such things are often laughed off as just being a joke, but it's debatable whether those that type
such things are responsible enough to operate any sort of vehicle, motorised or human powered.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe the odd aggressive driver who thinks about "pushing the cyclist back where he belongs".

Quoted message said:

Of course in another place someone has recently typed out the following:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Pity whoever ran him down didn't do a decent job, all things considered.

Quoted message said:

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The sooner they get their stupid, untaxed, uninsured, incompetently ridden toys off the roads
the better.

Quoted message said:

The person concerned was supported by others, so the expressed view is not as rare as you seem
to believe.

Quoted message said:

Such things are often laughed off as just being a joke, but it's debatable whether those that type
such things are responsible enough to operate any sort of vehicle, motorised or human powered.

I don't rate the comments you've quoted as literal or serious.

Therefore they are not evidence of anything except usenet exchanges.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK safespeed.org.uksafespeed.org.ukOpen ↗ please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I don't rate the comments you've quoted as literal or serious.

Therefore they are not evidence of anything except usenet exchanges.

That's pretty much what a few around here think of your comments I expect.

Colin

"David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >

He had seen this comment:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The sooner they get their stupid, untaxed, uninsured, incompetently

ridden

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

toys off the roads the better.

Change "ridden" to "driven" and I'm sure plenty of motorists fit the bill
:-)
"The sooner they get their stupid, untaxed, uninsured, incompetently driven toys off the roads
the better".

Pete

"Paul Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter B said:

Quoted message said:

I often drive on country roads all but on the verge while oncoming cars

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

several feet away from their verge, they'd sooner have minimal seperation from an oncoming
vehicle with a relalively high closing speed than be on their verge, or rather they can't
estimate where that verge is.

Quoted message said:

Can you put a carriageway width on the road(s) you described earlier so we can determine the
probable real separations?

Well, I've established from Whatcar.com that my car is 2100mm wide. Next steps are to take a long
tape measure with me everywhere I go to measure roadwidths, log them and the type of car coming the
other way then when I get home I can check their widths on Whatcar.com and compile figures
accordingly then post them on the 'net.

Or I could go to work, look after my family, ride my bikes, sail my windsurfers, walk my dog visit
my family etc. etc.

Hmm, I think I'd prefer the latter.

Pete

PS. on my way home from work the car in front couldn't be bothered to give way to a self-propelled
wheelchair and made the occupant halt in the middle

with your stupid statistics.

Adrian Boliston said:

This is always a hazard when there are no other cars going the same way as you, and the only way to
prevent it is to move centre-lane to make oncoming vehicles think twice about overtaking till the
danger has passed.

That doesn't work - the f**kwits still think bike = theoretical construct of zero thickness and
infinite rigidity. I ended up bailing out last time that happened to me.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

Paul Smith said:

Quoted message said:

White van behind lorry sees it as an opportunity to overtake lorry and does so.

Quoted message said:

His manoeuver was incredibly dangerous, and all too common. But there's little or nothing in basic
driver training or the Highway Code to warn him of the special risk. Relevant HC rules appear to be
189 and 207, neither of which refer to overtaking in the face of an oncoming cyclist.

A cycle is a vehicle. Rules 138, 139, 140 and 143 cover this situation in full.

I ride very much in accordance with Cyclecraft, which means that the outer edge of my handlebars is
more or less in the middle of the carriageway. This did not stop the driver who caused me to bail
out in precisely similar circumstances. Had I braked and not bailed out, he would have hit me. He
did not stop having run me off the road.

In my view it is not a matter of drivers misjudging the amount of space required by a cyclist, but
of subconsciously discounting the cyclist as a non-threat, thereby causing them to start the
dangerous manoeuvre in the first place. Once committed they freeze into inaction when presented with
a factor they had failed to note. I guess this is why in car v. pedestrian crashes, the pedestrian
is more likely to take evasive action than the car driver - even when the pedestrian is a child.

In this particular case the underlying cause is almost certainly that the van driver was
following too close to the lorry, so didn't have a clear view ahead (rule 140). This is basic
technique, covered by any competent driving instructor. Following too close is a big problem on
the UK's roads at present, leading to the majority of holdups on motorways (as analysed by both
the Police and TRL).

Quoted message said:

It would be a really good idea to campaign to get this specifically into the next edition of the
Highway Code.

Pointless. First up, most drivers don't read the highway code after they've passed the (pathetically
inadequate) test. Second, even those who do read it often ignore it or assume it doesn't apply to
them (see rule 103 for a perfect example). You only need to watch how few drivers obey Rule 139 to
realise that campaigning to add this to the HC is a complete waste of time.

The driver in question was already violating several sections of the HC, and of course the
underlying motivation for overtaking in the first place was almost certainly determination to
break rule 103.

The solution is to make sure that abuse of the privilege of the driving licence results in its being
withdrawn for a period, and not regained until society is satisfied that the offending behaviour has
been addressed. That means short bans for stupid behaviour, and training and retests for all banned
drivers. In the case of Carl Baxter this training could arguably take the form of being sat on a
bike while a fat slob in a Range Rover reverses over you, but in most cases a decent course in
hazard perception and defensive driving should be sufficient.

Quoted message said:

Overtaking takes some considerable time, at least 6 or 7 seconds in typical circumstances,
and cyclists may have time to slow down, pull left or even dismount before the oncoming
vehicle arrives.

The cyclist may well not know of the overtaking manoeuvre until the oncoming vehicle moves out, by
which time the manoeuvre is well underway and much of the acceleration done; closing speed can
easily be in excess of 70mph, which gives precious little time - and in any case if they haven't
stopped for a moving cyclist, why should they stop for a stationary one?

The correct action for the cyclist is to cover the brakes, look for a bail out route and shout as
loudly as you possibly can. Once you've decided on your route DO NOT look at the oncoming vehicle,
look at the place you want to go - be it up the kerb or alongside the vehicle. They will either be
staring at you, in which case they will steer towards you, or they will not have seen. So don't
count on any correct evasive action from the oncoming driver.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

Just zis Guy said:

Pointless. First up, most drivers don't read the highway code after they've passed the
(pathetically inadequate) test. Second, even those who do read it often ignore it or assume it
doesn't apply to them (see rule 103 for a perfect example).

And the bullet point in #104 that explicitly mentions cyclists.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!

you know? said:

That doesn't work - the f**kwits still think bike = theoretical construct of zero thickness and
infinite rigidity. I ended up bailing out last time that happened to me.

WB Guy.

--
Watch the kite, not where you're going!

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The correct action for the cyclist is to cover the brakes, look for a

bail out route and shout as loudly as you possibly can. Once you've decided on your route DO NOT
look at the oncoming vehicle, look at the place you want to go - be it up the kerb or alongside
the vehicle. They will either be staring at you, in which case they will steer towards you, or
they will not have seen. So don't count on any correct evasive action from the oncoming driver.

Fits exactly what happened to me when struck by a vehicle at a roundabout. The position of the
offending vehicle and the angle (straight ahead) of the front wheels when it did stop indicated to
me that no evasive action had been taken. Had the driver taken evasive action, by changing course,
the collision may have been avoided, as it was the impact was minimised by my own evasive action.
When I got up off the ground and saw the [censored] sitting in the cab with a stunned expression and
noted no evasive action appeared to have taken place I was a little cross to say the least.

Pete

Peter B said:

When I got up off the ground and saw the [censored] sitting in the cab with a stunned expression and
noted no evasive action appeared to have taken place I was a little cross to say the least.

The classic SMIDSY by the sound of it :-(

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.