Best way to travel 5 miles to a train station?



Jon Senior wrote:
>> Perhaps you should have assumed he'd do that and eased off slightly,
>> giving him plenty of time to turn if he was going to.

>
> Wrong... he should have looked and assessed my speed before moving. If
> he can't manage that... he shouldn't be driving.


I'm afraid this marks you out as the perenial victim.

Other people are stupid. Accept it. Deal with it. Learn to cope
with it. If you are such an **** that you can't accept that other
people may make mistakes, and thus 'arm' yourself against them,
then you deserve every near miss you claim to have.


> When I'm not being forced to do emergency stops, I never lock either
> wheel. If I lock a wheel it's because I'm braking _far_ harder than I
> should have to.


I lock a wheel once a day for fun, mostly the front. In fact, there's
a park I cycle through every working day that has a down hill bit
that's muddy and gravelly. I can usually (3 days out of 5) get the back
wheel two foot off the ground and then lock up the front for a couple
of feet before I have to put it back down and act sensibly for the A4.

I suppose one of these days is going to end up with me crushed against
the railings, claiming that the dog ran out of no where and that there
was nothing I could do... but anyway... It'll be my fault...


> Come and join me in Edinburgh. 15 miles a day for a week during
> commuting hours and I'd be interested to see whether you kept your cool.
> ;-)


Heh. I don't actually have a cool to keep.
 
Simian Simian@in_valid.semi-evolved.org opined the following...
> I'm afraid this marks you out as the perenial victim.


No it marks be out as someone who feels that being in charge of a tonne
of metal requires a certain level of responsibility. If he was capable
of misjudging my speed and then not double checking before actually
crossing, I could just as easily have pulled out from a side road and
accellerated, or been on a motorbike, both of which could have put me
even closer. He looked as he approached the junction, then after
arriving, turned without looking again. Even a lax driving examiner will
fail you for that.

> Other people are stupid. Accept it. Deal with it. Learn to cope
> with it. If you are such an **** that you can't accept that other
> people may make mistakes, and thus 'arm' yourself against them,
> then you deserve every near miss you claim to have.


For the benefit of those who keep ignoring my posts, there is a limit to
what you can "arm" yourself against. The only way to avoid most of the
incidents that I see is to stop cycling. While this does fit your
description of accident avoidance, it strikes me as a particularly daft
solution.

> I lock a wheel once a day for fun, mostly the front. In fact, there's
> a park I cycle through every working day that has a down hill bit
> that's muddy and gravelly. I can usually (3 days out of 5) get the back
> wheel two foot off the ground and then lock up the front for a couple
> of feet before I have to put it back down and act sensibly for the A4.


Good for you. I ride a road bike on the roads and am good enough at it
to keep it under control. I do not relish lifting the rear wheel
(Although I can!) and certainly try to avoid locking the front.

> I suppose one of these days is going to end up with me crushed against
> the railings, claiming that the dog ran out of no where and that there
> was nothing I could do... but anyway... It'll be my fault...


You're probably right. But this has little to do with road cycling. Do
you take the same chances with cars?

Jon
 
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:16:53 +0100, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

>On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:34:40 GMT someone who may be Gawnsoft
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>Or the drivers who deliberately drive into pedestrians bcause they've
>>dared to jaywalk?

>
>There is no such thing in the UK.


One such instance was cited to me by the City of London's Road Safety
Office, on a course they were running.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
 
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:39:46 +0100, Ginge <[email protected]> wrote
(more or less):

>In article <[email protected]>, Gawnsoft
>says...
>
>> Ah, so the actual collision speed might well have been 20mph?

>
>Not based on how high and far I flew, no.


A collision at 20mph can result in the lighter body subsequently
travelling at more than 20mph.
--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
 
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:16:53 +0100, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

>On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:34:40 GMT someone who may be Gawnsoft
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>Or the drivers who deliberately drive into pedestrians bcause they've
>>dared to jaywalk?

>
>There is no such thing in the UK.


I've just realised you mant 'no such thing as jaywalking'.

While it's true there is no such offense as jaywalking, there are
circumstances in which pedestrians have right of way, and others in
which they do not.




--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
 
On Sun, 29 Aug, Gawnsoft wrote:

> While it's true there is no such offense as jaywalking, there are
> circumstances in which pedestrians have right of way, and others in
> which they do not.


There are certainly circumstances where pedestrians do not have the
right to obstruct traffic, but I can't think of circumstances where
motorists have teh right to force past pedestrians. Perhaps you can
cite an example?

Perhaps you are thinking of motorways? I don't think that's quite the
same thing.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
"Gawnsoft" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:16:53 +0100, David Hansen
> <[email protected]> wrote (more or less):
>
> >On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:34:40 GMT someone who may be Gawnsoft
> ><[email protected]> wrote this:-
> >
> >>Or the drivers who deliberately drive into pedestrians bcause they've
> >>dared to jaywalk?

> >
> >There is no such thing in the UK.

>
> I've just realised you mant 'no such thing as jaywalking'.
>
> While it's true there is no such offense as jaywalking, there are
> circumstances in which pedestrians have right of way, and others in
> which they do not.


What do you mean by 'right of way', and what circumstances
do you have in mind?
 
Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

> Catman <[email protected]>typed
>
>> Well, if it's shown that many many millions of people travle very fast
>> every year, and very few of them die, I think we can ignore the ones that
>> die travelling slowly.

>
>> [1] Simplified, but fair I feel.

>
> I think yours is a fair post.


Why, thank you ma'am

> I disagree, however, that 3,500 is 'very
> few'.
>

That is because you are only thinking in terms of people travelling very
fast on the roads.......
--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l (Really) Sprint 1.7 75 2.0 TS (two off)
Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk
 
Catman <[email protected]>typed

> > I disagree, however, that 3,500 is 'very
> > few'.
> >

> That is because you are only thinking in terms of people travelling very
> fast on the roads.......


No, it's because I'm thinking of a leading cause of death and disability...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.
 
Gawnsoft wrote:

> A collision at 20mph can result in the lighter body subsequently
> travelling at more than 20mph.


Only if one or both bodies is elastic - which neither people nor cars
are to any significant extent.

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!
 
Colin McKenzie wrote:
>
> Gawnsoft wrote:
>
> > A collision at 20mph can result in the lighter body subsequently
> > travelling at more than 20mph.

>
> Only if one or both bodies is elastic - which neither people nor cars
> are to any significant extent.


http://www.ponopresse.ca/MISC/ElasticMan/cont-a.html

--
Mark '01 SV650S '81 CM400T '99 EX250-F13
 
Simian wrote:
> chris harrison wrote:
>
>>Does avoiding an accident cease to make the original action dangerous?

>
>
> Avoiding it by being no-where near it makes it cease to be dangerous to
> me, which is all that counts.


Indeed so, which was mostly my point - it's still dangerous, even if at
that point no-one was at risk. The next time the driver might not be so
fortunate.

All road users - cars, lorries, cyclists, pedestrians - are stupid,
brainless, unpredictable fools and should be treated accordingly.
Interact with the world on this level and you'll probably be safer for it.
 

Similar threads

L
Replies
6
Views
781
J