Anti-social behaviour

[JohnB]

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

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

Unfortunately they rarely do.

Today I saw a family group.
A car quite deliberately forced its way past them despite of one also
coming from the other way.
The customary tailgater, then cut in on the family forcing one of teh
children off the road.

This standard of driving happens over and over again.

How do you think it could be addressed.

John B

 

[JohnB]

Alistair J Murray wrote:
>
> JohnB wrote:

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

> Nice to get a testimonial!

Its good to have some agreement

All too often postings with a ukt element end in personal slanging :-(

John B

 

[Alistair J Murray]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> 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 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.

You should see me peel a grape.

[...]

>> 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.

Not "everyone else", "everyone".

> The majority of cases where a cyclist is injured, the cyclist is
> blameless (same for motorcyclists).

Indeed.

>> When I biked I always made sure I knew what was around me.
>
> We all do, otherwise we'd not be here

Heh!

>> 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.

I often think that every driving licence should require experience of
several classes of vehicle, even if only demo drives/rides, to give a
better understanding of what's the same and what's different.

[...]

>> 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).

Fairly sure none did, any there were might have seen my car I'm certain
none saw me.

> And actually you can sometimes tell from sound alone, or from
> peripheral vision. But that's not to defend pulling out without
> looking.

I think that all but two had some awareness of my presence, one of those
was wearing headphones(!).

>> 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.

I'm lobbying.

I'll do nothing to ease the enforcement of what I regard as a bad law
meantime though.

> 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've at least once been actively encouraged to ignore the limit by a
traffic patrol and on the sole occasion I was stopped for "speed" the
conversation started "Nice car, quick?" and it rapidly transpired that
the whitetop was considering buying a Scirocco, just like mine, and was
canvassing user experience.

I confess I would be happy if the traffic police was an enforcement arm
of the OLOC.

> I can trace this back to the early 1900s!

As late as that!

>> Many other drivers seem to pay attention solely to the number on
>> the stick.
>
> I see very little evidence of that!

Well, perhaps a little more attention, but a lot of drivers seem to be
oblivious of much that's going on around them.

>> What sort do you prefer?
>
> False dichotomy. Nice try, though ;-)

Hehehe, it *is* USENET...

--
Trade Oil in €

 

[Geoff Lane]

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

> 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.

That's a completely erroneous generalisation. For any situation, there is a
speed range that is both appropriate and safe. If you travel faster *or
slower* than that envelope, you are less safe. For example, 20 mph in the
centre-lane of an otherwise free-flowing motorway is less safe than 60 mph.

So, "slower is safer" just isn't an axiom.

--
Geoff Lane
Cornwall, UK

 

[JohnB]

Alistair J Murray wrote:
>
> 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.

Of course.

> >> 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.

But I'm not saying looking would fully absolve them.
They need to look (not just a cursory glance) take in any information
and then make any manoeuvre *only* if safe to do so.
Any competent following road users would also be reading the road ahead
and be working out possible scenarios to react to.

Again, this applies to *all* road users.

John B

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I submit that on or about Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:28:37 +0100, the person
known to the court as Al C-F
<[email protected]> made a statement
(<[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle)
to the following effect:

>> 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?

Yup. Someone described this rather neatly once: "Democracy is the
worst form of government except for all those others that have been
tried."


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?]

I submit that on or about Sat, 11 Jun 2005 09:12:16 GMT, the person
known to the court as Buck <ian@*remove*trikesandstuff.co.uk> made a
statement (<[email protected]> in Your Honour's
bundle) to the following effect:

>> 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?

I know that cyclists intimidate pedestrians on shared-use facilities;
for some reason the petrolheads around here seem to think that this
does not apply when the vehicle has ten or twenty times the mass and
can move much faster. I don't know of any evidence that cyclists
intimidate other cyclists though (at least not off the race track).
Maybe you have some evidence?


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?]

I submit that on or about Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:08:03 +0100, the person
known to the court as Peter Amey <[email protected]> made a
statement (<[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

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

Quite. I am struggling to come up with any definition of priority
which works in this instance, other than "we own the roads, f**k you",
which I hope we've moved beyond by now.


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

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

 

[Alistair J Murray]

JohnB wrote:
> Alistair J Murray wrote:
>> JohnB wrote:
>
>>> Full marks to you; many driver would have forced their way
>>> through.
>>
>> Thank you.
>
>> Nice to get a testimonial!
>
> Its good to have some agreement
>
> All too often postings with a ukt element end in personal slanging
> :-(

It's a pity that that happens since I think we all want to enjoy our use
of the roads, safely and without harm to others.

If everyone gave as much thought to their road use as us lot the roads
would be a better place.



A

--
Trade Oil in €

 

[Steve Walker]

In message <[email protected]>,
Adrian <[email protected]> writes
>MrBitsy ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>were saying :
>
>> The burden of care rests firmly with the manufacturers of the petrol,
>> because that could do the most harm.
>
>No, no, no - the manufacturers of the fluorescent tubes are at fault - if
>they didn't make them look like light sabres, kids wouldn't be tempted.

I'm waiting for them to sue George Lucas.

--
Steve Walker

 

[MrBitsy]

Peter Amey <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> MrBitsy wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> Well, there are the political bits and the common sense bits - I met
>> the common sense bit on the advanced test.
>>
>
> So you don't agree with the public policy statements of the
> organization that you serve as an instructor for. Have I got that
> right?
>
> Peter
>

Of course I do!

--
MrBitsy

 

[MrBitsy]

Adrian <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Peter Amey ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying :
>
>>> On the advanced test, part of my commentary would have been along the
>>> lines of, "not approapriate for a speed check here due to to
>>> pedestrians", followed by, "ok, happy for a speedo check now, 32mph
>>> so adjusting back to 30mph".
>
>> If I were listening to that commentary I would prefer to hear:
>> "pedestrians about, backing off to reduce hazard", followed by, "ok
>> for speed check now, 20mph, pedestrians no longer about, adjusting
>> back to 30".
>
> Likewise.
>

If my example required backing off for pedestrians then I would have said
so - and that wouldn't have needed a speedo check either!



--
MrBitsy

 

[Vincent Wilcox]

Adrian wrote:
> MrBitsy ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying :
>
>
>>Our children have NEVER been drivien to school. They have always
>>walked or cycled - their choice. Parent who drive their kids to school
>>are under the thumb.
>
>
> I was driven to school every day.

It was for your own safety or more likely the safety of others.

>
> It was three miles each way,

What an odyssey.

mainly down country lanes, and the specially
> laid-on school bus from our village was *timetabled* to get to the school
> at 9.05am. It was usually late, often badly.
>
> There was no bike parking at the school.

You were in the wrong crowd.

 

[Vincent Wilcox]

Alistair J Murray wrote:
> JohnB wrote:
>
>>Alistair J Murray wrote:
>>
>>>JohnB wrote:
>>
>>>>Full marks to you; many driver would have forced their way
>>>>through.
>>>
>>>Thank you.
>>
>>>Nice to get a testimonial!
>>
>>Its good to have some agreement
>>
>>All too often postings with a ukt element end in personal slanging
>>:-(
>
>
> It's a pity that that happens since I think we all want to enjoy our use
> of the roads, safely and without harm to others.
>
> If everyone gave as much thought to their road use as us lot the roads
> would be a better place.
>
>
>
> A
>

Preach to the great unwashed then.

 

[Al C-F]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 19:12:39 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>But if you're poor, you just have to knuckle under?
>
>Yup. Someone described this rather neatly once: "Democracy is the
>worst form of government except for all those others that have been
>tried."


Sad but true.

 

[Peter Amey]

MrBitsy wrote:
> Adrian <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>
>>Peter Amey ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
>>they were saying :
>>
>>
>>>>On the advanced test, part of my commentary would have been along the
>>>>lines of, "not approapriate for a speed check here due to to
>>>>pedestrians", followed by, "ok, happy for a speedo check now, 32mph
>>>>so adjusting back to 30mph".
>>
>>>If I were listening to that commentary I would prefer to hear:
>>>"pedestrians about, backing off to reduce hazard", followed by, "ok
>>>for speed check now, 20mph, pedestrians no longer about, adjusting
>>>back to 30".
>>
>>Likewise.
>>
>
>
> If my example required backing off for pedestrians then I would have said
> so - and that wouldn't have needed a speedo check either!
>
>

I am struggling to imagine a situation where the hazard posed by the
pedestrians is so high that it requires so much of your attention as to
make an instrument scan impossible but where a speed above the statutory
limit is nevertheless appropriate.

Either 32 in a 30 zone is "appropriate" --- which implies a very, very
low level of hazard and gives you plenty of spare processing capacity to
monitor speed --- or it not --- in which case you should have slowed
down automatically.

Peter



--

www.amey.org.uk

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

At 11 Jun 2005 17:42:12 GMT, message
<[email protected]> was posted by Geoff Lane
<[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

>> 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.

>That's a completely erroneous generalisation.

You think? It's precisely the claim made by TRL in a study comparing
the collision risk and severity on different types of roads. They
concluded that for any given road type, both probability and severity
of collisions rose with mean speed.

>For any situation, there is a
>speed range that is both appropriate and safe. If you travel faster *or
>slower* than that envelope, you are less safe. For example, 20 mph in the
>centre-lane of an otherwise free-flowing motorway is less safe than 60 mph.

Up to a point - the danger here comes from the speed of other
vehicles, not from your own speed. Speed limits have the effect of
bunching speeds, actually reducing speed differentials.

Much of the increase in collisions at speeds significantly below the
mean is also due to slow speeds during manoeuvring.


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 Sat, 11 Jun 2005 18:35:49 +0100, message
<[email protected]> was posted by Alistair J Murray
<[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the following:

>> 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.

>You should see me peel a grape.

LOL!

>>> 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.

>Not "everyone else", "everyone".

OK, I should have put "as well" at the end. Most cyclists take a
great deal of care. There is a commonly-held view that (for example)
running a red light is indicative of a lack of care, but I would
suggest that actually doing this without being killed requires
enormous care - or completely stationary traffic! Note: I am not
condoning red-light jumping (which I do not do, however tempting it
might be in gridlocked traffic), but I think you get the idea - I have
the impression that you accept this, in general (proto-chavs on BMXs
notwithstanding).

Car drivers rack up about five million insurance claims per year at
the moment; failure to take care results in small dings in the
bodywork. Our bodywork is just that little bit softer, and the small
dings *hurt*

>I often think that every driving licence should require experience of
>several classes of vehicle, even if only demo drives/rides, to give a
>better understanding of what's the same and what's different.

Oh hell yes. Especially heavy, slow vehicles. The number of people
who cut up truck drivers...

>I'm lobbying.
>I'll do nothing to ease the enforcement of what I regard as a bad law
>meantime though.

Enforcement is pretty straightforward at present - flash, bang, wallop
what a picture...

>> 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've at least once been actively encouraged to ignore the limit by a
>traffic patrol and on the sole occasion I was stopped for "speed" the
>conversation started "Nice car, quick?" and it rapidly transpired that
>the whitetop was considering buying a Scirocco, just like mine, and was
>canvassing user experience.

Hmmmm. Like I say, I went back and looked for evidence of Smith's
mythical golden age, and couldn't find any.

>> I can trace this back to the early 1900s!
>As late as that!

****-****!

>>> Many other drivers seem to pay attention solely to the number on
>>> the stick.
>> I see very little evidence of that!
>Well, perhaps a little more attention, but a lot of drivers seem to be
>oblivious of much that's going on around them.

Ain't that the truth.


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 Sun, 12 Jun 2005 00:45:26 +0000, message
<[email protected]> was posted by Vincent Wilcox
<[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the following:

>> I was driven to school every day.
>It was for your own safety or more likely the safety of others.

LOL! Excellent use of irony


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

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

 

[Geoff Lane]

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

>>> Going faster is less safe than going slower. [...]
>
>>That's a completely erroneous generalisation.
>
> You think? It's precisely the claim made by TRL in a study comparing
> the collision risk and severity on different types of roads. They
> concluded that for any given road type, both probability and severity
> of collisions rose with mean speed.

And that claim is one of many that Paul Smith (of SafeSpeed) has shown to
be false. Take a look at http://www.safespeed.org.uk/trlfudge.html

>>For any situation, there is a speed range that is both appropriate and
>>safe. If you travel faster *or slower* than that envelope, you are
>>less safe. For example, 20 mph in the centre-lane of an otherwise
>>free-flowing motorway is less safe than 60 mph.
>
> Up to a point - the danger here comes from the speed of other
> vehicles, not from your own speed. Speed limits have the effect of
> bunching speeds, actually reducing speed differentials.

Whether the speed of others is at fault is almost irrelevant. If you are
not making adequate progress, you are a danger to others. For this
reason, failing to make adequate progress is a major failure point on the
driving test and grounds for prosecution for driving without due care and
attention.

--
Geoff Lane
Cornwall, UK