Bail-out, blood, bruises (bike OK)

So, when a car pulls out to overtake a lorry and sees that there's a bike coming the other way,
there are two options, right? Brake and pull back in, or take a chance on killing the cyclist?
And as we know in the cager mindset that translates to only one option: take a chance on killing
the cyclist.

I would have shouted at the selfish piece of excrement, but he didn't even have the decency to stop
and see if I was hurt.

Still, to be fair, the lorry was slowing for a 30 limit, and no safe driver could countenance having
their safety degraded by obeying the speed limit.

I can feel a bitingly sarcastic letter to the Henley Standard coming on.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104

 

Good grief! Just in case you haven't already - get thee to an A&E (covering the arse in case of any
nasty health issues developing - and of course I hope there *aren't* any serious health issues
developing) and also report it to the police, CTC...

gentle *hugs* helen s

~~~~~~~~~~
Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending a reply!

Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
~~~~~~~~~~

 

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So, when a car pulls out to overtake a lorry and sees that there's a bike coming the other way,
> there are two options, right? Brake and pull back
in,
> or take a chance on killing the cyclist? And as we know in the cager mindset that translates to
> only one option: take a chance on killing the cyclist.
>
> I would have shouted at the selfish piece of excrement, but he didn't even have the decency to
> stop and see if I was hurt.
>
> Still, to be fair, the lorry was slowing for a 30 limit, and no safe
driver
> could countenance having their safety degraded by obeying the speed limit.
>
> I can feel a bitingly sarcastic letter to the Henley Standard coming on.
>
> --
> Guy
> ===
> I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
> about it perhaps you could think when we talk
of
> bicycles, that you see them printing their proud wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.
>
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
>
>
Guy, glad to hear you're relatively ok...well, ok enough to get home and let us know what
happened...Don't 'spose you got the reg ? The time has come!!...It's time to invent a weapon that
cyclist can use to atomize cagers when potential death due to cager incompetence is imminent. It
needs to be small enough to fit on handlebars and not suffer from battery power loss the moment you
need to use it, so preferably with an infinite power supply, maybe plugged into the cyclist ala
Stephen Kings 'Tommy Knockers'. Perhaps the degree of outrage felt by the cyclist, increasing the
power output of the device.....<enough of the rant...> Hope you don't suffer too much residual pain
'n' damage. Take care out there mate, it's a death trap. Dave.
p.s. - or just cut their goolies off!! ;-)

 

Oh dear, oh dear - hope you recover quickly.

All the best - and perhaps we should keep a jar of caltrops mounted on our bikes, just for revenge
purposes in cases like this.

E

 

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So, when a car pulls out to overtake a lorry and sees that there's a bike coming the other way,
> there are two options, right? Brake and pull back
in,
> or take a chance on killing the cyclist? And as we know in the cager mindset that translates to
> only one option: take a chance on killing the cyclist.
>
> I would have shouted at the selfish piece of excrement, but he didn't even have the decency to
> stop and see if I was hurt.
>
> Still, to be fair, the lorry was slowing for a 30 limit, and no safe
driver
> could countenance having their safety degraded by obeying the speed limit.
>
> I can feel a bitingly sarcastic letter to the Henley Standard coming on.

There is your first mistake. You assumed he saw you. But you were on a bike -- more effective than
any Romulan cloaking device -- you were invisible. Clearly you error.

And, of course, if he was an Advanced Driver proceeding at a Safe Speed the speed limits and Highway
Code don't apply.

Still, by the sound of things nothing important was damaged. He left with not a scratch on him or
his penis extension.

Glad to hear the bike is OK. The soggy stuff will self repair soon.

T

Oh --

 

I'm beginning to wonder whether all these tales of folk comming a cropper are just a conspiracy to
put me off selling my trike

Seriously, hope all the damaged bits stop hurting soon Guy.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[email protected] wrote:

> I'm beginning to wonder whether all these tales of folk comming a cropper are just a conspiracy to
> put me off selling my trike

Don't worry. I stepped over the front boom at the w/e while doing a bit of maintenance and fell flat
on my face Now nursing grazed palms, a bruised knee and dented pride.

John B

 

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So, when a car pulls out to overtake a lorry and sees that there's a bike coming the other way,
> there are two options, right? Brake and pull back
in,
> or take a chance on killing the cyclist? And as we know in the cager mindset that translates to
> only one option: take a chance on killing the cyclist.
>
> I would have shouted at the selfish piece of excrement, but he didn't even have the decency to
> stop and see if I was hurt.
>
> Still, to be fair, the lorry was slowing for a 30 limit, and no safe
driver
> could countenance having their safety degraded by obeying the speed limit.
>
> I can feel a bitingly sarcastic letter to the Henley Standard coming on.
>
> --
> Guy
> ===
> I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
> about it perhaps you could think when we talk
of
> bicycles, that you see them printing their proud wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.
>
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
>
>
Glad to see you're ok Guy. Maybe the AS90 wasn't such a bad idea after all!


Pete White

 

[email protected] wrote:
> I'm beginning to wonder whether all these tales of folk comming a cropper are just a conspiracy to
> put me off selling my trike

Heh! Quite likely. Most of the damage was done by the chainsaw at the front, of course.

Still, having had an intellectual discourse on the difference between a cager and a driver, now I
have the perfect answer: the git who wiped me out today is a cager, the bloke who waited behind me
until a safe point and overtook with loads of room is a driver

No serious damage to self or bike, most of the aches have worn off. I wish the pain from the abscess
on my wisdom tooth would :-(

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104

 

"CLogicRogerC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <<now I have the perfect answer: the git who wiped me out today is a cager, the bloke who waited
> behind me until a safe point and overtook with loads of room is a driver >>
>
> ........is the right answer!

It's a bit like persons on a bike who go through traffic lights, ride on pavements etc are people
with bikes, whereas cyclists are the ones who always obey the rules

E

 

"Eddie Dubourg" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> It's a bit like persons on a bike who go through traffic lights, ride on pavements etc are people
> with bikes, whereas cyclists are the ones who always obey the rules

Can we have 'mostly' obey the rules -- otherwise there will not be many cyclists in the world.

 

"Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Can we have 'mostly' obey the rules -- otherwise there will not be many cyclists in the world.

Would stopping at lights, but slightly in front of the official stop line (for safety/visibility
purposes only) get you struck out?

 

"Adrian Boliston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Can we have 'mostly' obey the rules -- otherwise there will not be many cyclists in the world.
>
> Would stopping at lights, but slightly in front of the official stop line
(for
> safety/visibility purposes only) get you struck out?

Okay, where do you draw the line?

Just a little bit here, a little bit there, salami tactics all the way, the same as the pro-speeding
lobby saying it's okay to go a little over the speed limit when "we think it's safe" - IMO, we
should give ourselves the leeway we allow drivers - none. Anything else would be hypocrisy.

E

 

"Eddie Dubourg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> > Would stopping at lights, but slightly in front of the official stop
line
> (for
> > safety/visibility purposes only) get you struck out?
>
> Okay, where do you draw the line?
>
> Just a little bit here, a little bit there, salami tactics all the way,
the
> same as the pro-speeding lobby saying it's okay to go a little over the speed limit when "we think
> it's safe"

A motorist does not actually put themselves at risk when they drive below the speed limit, so cannot
claim they break the limit to avoid risk.

On the other hand a cyclist is at far more risk stopped at lights next to a car, than if it is
stopped slightly ahead of the car where it is easily seen as the car pulls away. What about a car
that suddenly decides to turn left without indicating when the lights go green? I'd rather be alive
& "illegal" than dead yet "legal".

 

"Adrian Boliston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> On the other hand a cyclist is at far more risk stopped at lights next to
a
> car, than if it is stopped slightly ahead of the car where it is easily
seen
> as the car pulls away

How come the bike is next to the car - if I'm at the front of a lane, I stop in the middle, and if
a car gets there first I stay behind it, in the middle, thus avoiding the angst of worrying if
I'll be seen.

> What about a car that suddenly decides to turn left without indicating when the lights go green?
> I'd rather be alive & "illegal" than dead yet "legal".

See my point above. How about alive and sensible and legal?

E

 

"Kit Wolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...

> Cyclists on dual carriageways are advised to cut across the hatchings and cross sliproads
> transversely (Cyclecraft) to avoid being hit by cars entering / exiting the sliproads.

I can clearly see the logic of cutting across an "on-ramp" sliproad, where cyclists are at risk from
being hit by drivers who are looking over their right shoulder to check for cars in lane 1 before
joining, (and sometimes I use this tip myself in such situations), but I cannot see the risk from
crossing the "off-ramp" as drivers will be looking straight ahead (rather than over their shoulder)
so would not have the same risk of taking their eyes off the road ahead and failing to see a slower
cyclist in lane 1.

 

"Eddie Dubourg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> IMO, and I speak only for myself, we cannot say that rules concerning one area of traffic law can
> be arbitrarily overruled because we have convinced ourselves that we are safe and because of that
> we are in the right, any
more
> than a driver can arbitrarily decide that speed limits are optional, and
if
> we claim that we know better than the engineers and planners in where to position ourselves for
> safety then we are as guilty of hubris as the
drivers
> who speed.
>

Oh I have no problem in thinking I know better than the planners. I avoid cycle lanes put in by
planners every day. I am also more interested in my own safety than in the specific location of a
particular white line painted across my half of the carriageway. For that matter, I'm also not too
bothered by drivers who exceed the speed limit by a modest margin on motorways. That doesn't mean I
can't feel angry at cagers driving at clearly dangerous, inappropriate and excessive speed in urban
areas. The whole point is that everything does depend on the circumstances - laws might be black or
white but reality comes in all shades.

> For the record, I never over or undertake a line of stationary traffic, unless there is a clearly
> defined alternative lane - I consider the time "saved" versus the increase in my danger a very
> bad risk.
>

But there is no law against cyclists or motorcyclists filtering to the head of a queue of traffic,
so here you are simply informing your actions by your judgement about what you feel to be safe.
Others have said they feel safer being at the head of the queue. Again, it all comes down to a
matter of judgement. Personally, my judgement is that filtering can be done with relatively little
risk provided you are aware of the likely sources of danger while doing so. Heck, being on the road
at all involves the acceptance of a certain degree of risk, no matter how impeccable the behaviour.
If I had to queue with the cars, there'd be no fun in riding a bike across London.

Rich

 

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> If I never did that I would spend an extra ten minutes a day sucking in traffic fumes and it would
> take me longer than it used to take to drive.

Is that all that matters? That it is faster than when you drove? Is that the only criterion? Ya-ha -
I'm faster than you-hoo!

Speed is not the issue for me. I travel by bike because it's cost effective, it keeps me fit, and it
is gets me where I want in the time I want.

E

 

Eddie Dubourg wrote:

> How come the bike is next to the car - if I'm at the front of a lane, I stop in the middle, and if
> a car gets there first I stay behind it, in the middle, thus avoiding the angst of worrying if
> I'll be seen.

Because the traffic has stopped, so one trundles up the middle of the road nice and safe like
(several hundred yards in my most common instance), gets to the front of the queue and the cars are
all nose to tail. Slipping in a phantom ASL 8ft in front of the white line is not putting anyone at
risk. Merging into a queue as they start to move is normally easy and stress-free, but starting off
from stationary alongside them I don't like a lot.

And I would rather there were a proper ASL at every set of lights, or a bit of law allowing us to
pass "go" but not enter the junction proper. Remember that the line is mostly there to ensure that
other (notably long) vehicles can get round the corners.

Is it like speeding? Quite possibly. 10% margin for error, after all, and I've never heard of a
Gatso set below 36mph. And like speeding, there will never be a sensible argument as long as some
people just blast through red lights as if they weren't there.

I never enter the junction with the lights at red.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104

 

On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:35:17 GMT, "Eddie Dubourg" <[email protected]> wrote:

>So you therefore believe that the law is arbitary and that individual perception of what is safe
>should be the guideline that people observe.

No, I believe that the traffic engineers designed the junction without adequately considering bikes.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (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.