Anti-social behaviour

[JohnB]

Adrian wrote:
>
> JohnB ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying :

> > I never trust any other road user.

> All the more reason for them to look.

No, its all the more reason for *me* to look ;-)

A cyclist should check behind before making *any* manoeuvre that
involves a change of direction.

> Still, the responsibility is all on the driver, because he's capable of
> doing them more harm, right?

If a driver is behind anyone driving/riding erratically then they should
take that into account and drive with consideration to those conditions.

However, if there were a collision in the example quoted, I would expect
the cyclists to be found at least partly negligible _if_ it could be
proved they pulled out into the path of a vehicle _without_ looking.

John B

 

[Alistair J Murray]

JohnB wrote:
> Alistair J Murray wrote:

[...missing pushbikes...]

>> The presence of the parked cars was the big clue.
>
> That too.

I'm funny, I look... =8/

>> As a cyclist I don't think I'd have moved left into gaps as small
>> as some of those that they tucked back into
>
> If they did that, then I withdraw the comment on good road
> positioning. They should have kept within the traffic stream.

My view too. As a driver I'd far rather deal with cyclists who make
their intention clear and assert their priority; everyone knows what's
happening.

> Moving
> into the gaps both reduces their own lines of sight and masks them
> more from following vehicles.

I've often not overtaken a cyclist "hiding" like that because I don't
trust the driver behind me to see them (I also wonder what they think
has been holding me up sometimes).

> They were increasing risks to
> themselves. Poor positioning.
>
>> - I blame stupid painted on cycle-lanes.
>
> They were moving back into the gaps to ride on cycle lanes??

Bit of both - we have loads of dried blood coloured painted on cycle
lanes in Edinburgh and I suspect there may be a conditioning effect.

>> Thanks solely to me rather than the cyclist in several cases.
>
> Sounds like good driving then.

Decently civil at least...

> Full marks to you; many driver would have forced their way through.

Thank you.

The "everyone thinks they are above average" can get to you a little...

Nice to get a testimonial!

>> I have no problem with me not running into nor crowding cyclists
>> but I was much less trusting of other road users when I biked.
>
> I never trust any other road user.

Me neither. I'm shocked at how trusting many peds, cyclists and drivers
are.



--
Trade Oil in €

 

[Alistair J Murray]

David Martin wrote:

[...cyclists passing parked cars...]

> because he is coming from behind? Overtaking vehicle keeps clear?
> right?

HC say: don't move right if doing so would force someone to slow or
swerve...

A vehicle established in an overtake has high priority.

A car driver would have a *strong* defence in law if they ran one over.


A

--
Trade Oil in €

 

[Adrian]

Alistair J Murray ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

>> because he is coming from behind? Overtaking vehicle keeps clear?
>> right?

> HC say: don't move right if doing so would force someone to slow or
> swerve...

In a lane change, yes.
In a manouvre like this, no.

If you were driving along, and had to move right to pass a parked vehicle,
would you cede priority to a filtering bike?

You'd certainly look carefully and - if they showed no sign of letting you
make your manouvre, you'd let 'em past, but I'd certainly expect that the
priority was mine.

> A vehicle established in an overtake has high priority.

If you're "established in an overtake" of a cyclist when it's blindingly
bloody obvious that they're going to have to pull out past a parked car,
then you're not bloody looking properly.

> A car driver would have a *strong* defence in law if they ran one over.

I doubt it. I hope not.

 

[Buck]

On 06/09/2005 22:34:02 Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:


> Inappropriate speed does *not* need to be in excess of a limit.

> If you're cycling along a 30mph road, and somebody drives past you SOOOO
> close that their mirror damn near skins your knuckles - does it MATTER if
> they're doing 25mph or 35mph? No.

> If you're cycling along a 30mph road, and somebody closes at 35mph, drops
> back to your speed at a safe distance, then passes you with plenty of
> space when it's clear to do so and accelerates to 35mph or so because
> there are no other hazards around them, is that intimidating? No.

> It's bad driving that intimidates people. "Speeding" might be one symptom
> of that. It might not be.

> Lack of observation might be. Not leaving sufficient space as they pass
> you might be. Passing you then immediately parking or turning left might
> be.

I think this is a fair and considered comment, I doubt that many people will
agree, or at least most will pretend you have not said it, but it does make
a valid point.

Credit where credit is due.

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

At 10 Jun 2005 15:25:23 GMT, message
<[email protected]> was posted by
Adrian <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

>If *all* other hazards mean it is clearly safe to proceed at 32mph, 33mph,
>34mph, why is it wrong?

I refer the hon. gentleman to the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1984,
sections 81,86,89 & sch 6 (handily summarised as Highway Code rule
103).

>Let's take as an example a road that has recently had the limit lowered.
>Last week, it was NSL and 60mph was safe.
>This week, it's a 40 limit. Why is 41mph now "wrong" - legal repercussions
>excluded.

Excellent bit of question-begging and evasion. First, who says it was
safe? Safe for whom? And second, would you make the same case if the
blood alcohol limit were reduced from 80 to 50? Legal repercussions
excluded?

Going faster is less safe than going slower. If society, through the
mechanism of government, chooses to reduce the acceptable level of
risk on a road, then that is how it is. If you don't like the new
limit, go to the highways authority and challenge it.

I know a lot of people living in villages who are absolutely delighted
that they now have 30 limits. People used to think it was "perfectly
safe" to drive through them at 60, just as Smith thinks it is
"perfectly safe" to drive at 125mph on a public road, based on the
fact that the police train their pursuit drivers to do so in order
that they can catch dangerous nutters.

>A question of Ethics, particularly for Guy :-
>Guy, if cycle helmets become legally required, will you wear one *at all
>times* while cycling?

Yes. I would also lobby for the law to be changed. It is just
conceivable that I would decide not to wear one and drag the case to
the high courts, but unlikely as I don't have the time or resources,
What I would not do is this: break the law and bleat about enforcement
of it. If the law is wrong,challenge the law. Enforcement of laws is
part of ensuring a well-regulated environment.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

At Fri, 10 Jun 2005 16:15:54 +0100, message
<[email protected]> was posted by Alistair J Murray
<[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the following:

>>> I always take great care to avoid hitting stuff, car or no car.
>> Jolly good. That's not the point. The point is, as drivers, we
>> should be taking more care not to hit people than if we are doing
>> something less dangerous.

>I do have a 100% record of not hitting people with a motor vehicle which
>slips a bit when self powered.

Which rather illustrates the point, doesn't it? whatever people might
say on Usenet, the reality is that in practice we accept the need to
take more care when doing something more dangerous.

>I suppose I am slightly sloppier as a ped.

Well, quite

>> Oh yes, do let's blame the victims, so much more comfortable than
>> challenging our own behaviour.

>Riding bikes amongst cars is exactly as risky as driving cars amongst
>bikes it just hurts more if it doesn't pan out

Riding bikes is perfectly safe as long as everybody else takes care.
The majority of cases where a cyclist is injured, the cyclist is
blameless (same for motorcyclists).

>When I biked I always made sure I knew what was around me.

We all do, otherwise we'd not be here

>I drove pushbikes much the same as I drove 7.5t box vans - clearly
>indicated intentions, firm assertion of priority and thorough
>observation - same collision avoidance policy.

Exactly. And for the most part it works.

>> And still we try to turn it round to blame the victim, because that
>> is *so* much more comfortable than challenging our own behaviour.

>Today I caught up with several cyclists who were obviously going to have
>to move right to pass a parked vehicle, I of course hung back until it
>was clear pass them; of 5 or 6 occasions precisely *once* did the rider
>look back before pulling out.

Do you know if they had mirrors (I have on half my bikes). And
actually you can sometimes tell from sound alone, or from peripheral
vision. But that's not to defend pulling out without looking.

>I don't crowd cyclists and even got a smile and a cheery nod from a
>horse rider today, presumably because I slowed as soon as I saw him
>approaching, yet I have contempt for arbitrary speed limits.

Your prerogative - but don't complain about enforcement, lobby for a
change in the law. The anti camera grumbles are based on the idea of
a mythical golden age when the law was enforced with discretion and
there was less danger, but I can find no evidence that such a golden
age ever existed. Even when limits were enforced by real plod, the
ones caught were always filled with righteous indignation that it was
they, not one of those other drivers (you know, the /dangerous/ ones)
who had been caught. I can trace this back to the early 1900s!

>Many other drivers seem to pay attention solely to the number on the stick.

I see very little evidence of that!

>What sort do you prefer?

False dichotomy. Nice try, though ;-)


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Peter Amey]

Alistair J Murray wrote:
[snip]
>
> Yup, it was obvious what they'd need to do to keep going, and only
> polite for me to cede priority by slowing before they found themselves
> in a position where they could not move right without forcing me to
> slow, which would be wrong.
>

In what sense is choosing to to overtake a vehicle in front of you
because it would be dangerous to do so "ceding priority"?

[snip]

Peter

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

At 10 Jun 2005 15:35:50 GMT, message
<[email protected]> was posted by
Adrian <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

>Yep, likewise. Although I do admit to giving horse riders and cyclists who
>are unable to ride single-friggin'-file in traffic less space than those
>who do - Respect is earned, not owed.

I refer the hon. gentleman to Rule 51 of the Highway Code, which
suggests that cyclists should not ride more than two abreast - note
"should", it is a recommendation only.

Your duty of care is not affected by how ****** off you are with
someone. Do you behave less carefully around the myriad thoughtless
drivers you meet on the roads every day? And does this result in a
measurably increased risk of death, in the way that passing too close
to a cyclist does?


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Buck]

On 06/10/2005 12:44:52 "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

> At 10 Jun 2005 09:35:16 GMT, message
> <[email protected]> was posted by
> Adrian <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
> following:

>>>>> Who is making a judgement about what is appropriate/inappropriate?
>>>>> The driver?

>>>> Of course. Who else?

>>> How about the person being intimidated? Or is that too much to ask?

>> You want every driver to stop and ask every pedestrian/cyclist/other road
>> user "Excuse me, are you being intimidated?"

> You're missing the point: leaving the judgment to the driver is like
> asking a group of lager louts whether they are causing a nuisance.

> There is research on the issue, and it is cited in work by Hillman, Adams,
> Davis and others. It's on the DfT website, too. And in numerous TRL
> reports and other places.

Where are you going with this Guy? 20mph limits? Seperate cycling facilities?
If I pass another cyclist and I am travelling at 35mph on the trike, is the
cyclist likely to be intimidated?

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

At Sat, 11 Jun 2005 00:06:12 +0100, message
<[email protected]> was posted by Alistair J Murray
<[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the following:

>HC say: don't move right if doing so would force someone to slow or
>swerve...

Yes

>A vehicle established in an overtake has high priority.

Contentious. This seems to be founded on a very selective
interpretation of the rules on overtaking
(http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.htm#138)

>A car driver would have a *strong* defence in law if they ran one over.

Almost certainly not. You are supposed to check that the manoeuvre
can be completed in safety - it is no different in law from overtaking
Mrs Miggins as she approaches the parked car in her Micra.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

At 10 Jun 2005 15:03:16 GMT, message
<[email protected]> was posted by
Adrian <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

>> You're missing the point: leaving the judgment to the driver is like
>> asking a group of lager louts whether they are causing a nuisance.

>Umm, no, it's like asking a bunch of people in a pub if they're causing a
>nuisance, because some people get ****** and cause a nuisance.

Wrong in one fundamental respect: roads are a public space, passing in
many cases past peoples front doors.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

At Fri, 10 Jun 2005 16:09:50 +0100, message
<[email protected]> was posted by Alistair J Murray
<[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the following:

>> How about the person being intimidated? Or is that too much to ask?
>Are you suggesting that the existence of the occasional wuss should
>drive public policy?

It is not "the occasional wuss". Fear of traffic is one of the most
consistent reasons cited by parents for not allowing their children to
walk or cycle to school.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Al C-F]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 09:59:02 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> just
>conceivable that I would decide not to wear one and drag the case to
>the high courts, but unlikely as I don't have the time or resources,


> If the law is wrong,challenge the law.

But if you're poor, you just have to knuckle under?

 

[JLB]

Al C-F wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 09:59:02 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>just
>>conceivable that I would decide not to wear one and drag the case to
>>the high courts, but unlikely as I don't have the time or resources,
>
>
>
>> If the law is wrong,challenge the law.
>
>
> But if you're poor, you just have to knuckle under?

Was it really that difficult to understand what Guy wrote? His post
addresses that point in full.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

 

[Alistair J Murray]

Peter Amey wrote:
> Alistair J Murray wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>
>> Yup, it was obvious what they'd need to do to keep going, and only
>> polite for me to cede priority by slowing before they found themselves
>> in a position where they could not move right without forcing me to
>> slow, which would be wrong.
>>
> In what sense is choosing to to overtake a vehicle in front of you
> because it would be dangerous to do so "ceding priority"?

In the instance where the cyclist wishes to move right out of a (cycle)
lane they should only do so if they will not cause traffic already in
that lane to slow or swerve.

By matching speed some distance back I effectively cede priority as the
cyclist can now move right without cutting me up.

I personally make a point of not boxing any road user behind parked
vehicles, even when in a position to safely assert priority.




A

--
Trade Oil in €

 

[Alistair J Murray]

Adrian wrote:
> Alistair J Murray ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying :
>
>>> because he is coming from behind? Overtaking vehicle keeps clear?
>>> right?
>
>> HC say: don't move right if doing so would force someone to slow or
>> swerve...
>
> In a lane change, yes. In a manouvre like this, no.

....keep forgetting you were not *all* in the car with me.

Lane changes involved in this example: cycle lane -> main carriageway

Yet another black mark for painted on "facilities" IMO

> If you were driving along, and had to move right to pass a parked
> vehicle, would you cede priority to a filtering bike?

Yes, except I would not tuck in between parked cars for sightline
reasons /unless/ I was giving a bike (or car) more space to filter...

> You'd certainly look carefully and - if they showed no sign of
> letting you make your manouvre, you'd let 'em past, but I'd certainly
> expect that the priority was mine.

I personally would not tuck left within a lane except to allow someone
to filter through; there is an implicit invitation to pass if you create
a space to allow it by tucking close to the kerb.

>> A vehicle established in an overtake has high priority.
>
> If you're "established in an overtake" of a cyclist when it's
> blindingly bloody obvious that they're going to have to pull out past
> a parked car, then you're not bloody looking properly.

Absolutely.

If I was cycling I'd look to see if the driver was looking since the
driver would not be me, who I trust.

>> A car driver would have a *strong* defence in law if they ran one
>> over.
>
> I doubt it. I hope not.

"Your honour, he pulled in to let me pass and then suddenly rode into
the side of my car without looking"


A

--
Trade Oil in €

 

[Alistair J Murray]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> At Sat, 11 Jun 2005 00:06:12 +0100, message
> <[email protected]> was posted by Alistair J Murray
> <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the following:
>
>
>
>> HC say: don't move right if doing so would force someone to slow or
>> swerve...
>
> Yes

Nothing about an exception if you are about to box yourself behind
parked cars AFAIK...

>> A vehicle established in an overtake has high priority.
>
> Contentious. This seems to be founded on a very selective
> interpretation of the rules on overtaking
> (http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.htm#138)

Not saying that the commencement of the overtake is entirely defensible,
just that it's very stupid to pull in front of something overhauling you
even if you look first.

>> A car driver would have a *strong* defence in law if they ran one
>> over.
>
> Almost certainly not. You are supposed to check that the manoeuvre
> can be completed in safety - it is no different in law from
> overtaking Mrs Miggins as she approaches the parked car in her Micra.

Not defending the overtake in either circumstance but the final cause of
the crash is that the cyclist/Mrs Miggins moves right, into the path of
a passing vehicle which would otherwise have safely completed a
marginally advisable overtake, without looking.



A

--
Trade Oil in €

 

[Alistair J Murray]

JohnB wrote:
> Adrian wrote:

[...]

>> All the more reason for them to look.
>
>
> No, its all the more reason for *me* to look ;-)
>
> A cyclist should check behind before making *any* manoeuvre that
> involves a change of direction.

Not just cyclists, all road users.

>> Still, the responsibility is all on the driver, because he's
>> capable of doing them more harm, right?
>
> If a driver is behind anyone driving/riding erratically then they
> should take that into account and drive with consideration to those
> conditions.

Absolutely.

> However, if there were a collision in the example quoted, I would
> expect the cyclists to be found at least partly negligible _if_ it
> could be proved they pulled out into the path of a vehicle _without_
> looking.

Don't see how looking, then doing something stupid, absolves the cyclist
at all. Indeed doing something they've seen to be dangerous increases
their culpability IMO.



A

--
Trade Oil in €

 

[JohnB]

Adrian wrote:
>
> JohnB ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying :
>
> >> > I never trust any other road user.
>
> >> All the more reason for them to look.
>
> > No, its all the more reason for *me* to look ;-)
>
> If you're the PoB, then yes -

*I* always look because I need to know where and what other road users
are doing before making a manoeuvre. All cyclists should do so.
It seems thoses referred to did not always do so. They were wrong not
to, as I've already commented upon.

> Somehow, I had you pegged as a slightly
> better cyclist than that.

Oh? What do you mean? What errors am *I* making?

Explain please.

John B