G
D
David Trudgett
Guest
"Gemma_k" <[email protected]> writes:
> Bad news...
> http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17388082%5E1702,00.html
>
>
It is interesting that the article does not mention the hit-and-run
nature of the incident, even though that's obviously what it was ("The
rider was struck on the Murray Valley Highway... It was unclear how
the incident occurred..."). Makes it seem almost like just another
road-kill.
Does it seem to anyone else that hit-and-runs are becoming more
frequent? Perhaps it's just a statistical aberration, but I have my
suspicions. Has anyone compared the rates of hit-and-run between
car/bicycle and car/car collisions? I would imagine, though, that a
lot of (non-fatal) collisions involving bicycles don't even get
reported.
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
In a world of many colors including grays, there are few matters of
definitive black and white morality. One of those few is torture, and
if you endorse it or consider the subject "up for discussion" then
you're a tyrant at heart.
-- H&HH, http://www.unknownnews.org/051119-25d.html#1125Wuastc
> Bad news...
> http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17388082%5E1702,00.html
>
>
It is interesting that the article does not mention the hit-and-run
nature of the incident, even though that's obviously what it was ("The
rider was struck on the Murray Valley Highway... It was unclear how
the incident occurred..."). Makes it seem almost like just another
road-kill.
Does it seem to anyone else that hit-and-runs are becoming more
frequent? Perhaps it's just a statistical aberration, but I have my
suspicions. Has anyone compared the rates of hit-and-run between
car/bicycle and car/car collisions? I would imagine, though, that a
lot of (non-fatal) collisions involving bicycles don't even get
reported.
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
In a world of many colors including grays, there are few matters of
definitive black and white morality. One of those few is torture, and
if you endorse it or consider the subject "up for discussion" then
you're a tyrant at heart.
-- H&HH, http://www.unknownnews.org/051119-25d.html#1125Wuastc
G
Gemma_k
Guest
"David Trudgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> It is interesting that the article does not mention the hit-and-run
> nature of the incident, even though that's obviously what it was ("The
> rider was struck on the Murray Valley Highway... It was unclear how
> the incident occurred..."). Makes it seem almost like just another
> road-kill.
I didn't read that into the article.... When they say it's unclear they
probably don't know (or won't say) who swerved out into the path of a
vehicle, or who hit who, or whether it was at an intersection or not etc
etc. It's only really just happened.
:-(
news:[email protected]...
>
> It is interesting that the article does not mention the hit-and-run
> nature of the incident, even though that's obviously what it was ("The
> rider was struck on the Murray Valley Highway... It was unclear how
> the incident occurred..."). Makes it seem almost like just another
> road-kill.
I didn't read that into the article.... When they say it's unclear they
probably don't know (or won't say) who swerved out into the path of a
vehicle, or who hit who, or whether it was at an intersection or not etc
etc. It's only really just happened.
:-(
BV should never have taken the GVBR down this road, it's single lane both ways with no shoulder, and it's in the middle of dairy country (hence, milk tankers, tractors/farmers). Many people already die in cars on this road every year, mostly in car v. tanker incidents. The road has no shoulder at all, and there's no alternatives for cars to travel if they want to get anywhere else, not to mention it's a lawless area (there's 85km between the two police stations, hence people do what they want up there).Gemma_k said:
If you look on the map, it's almost a dead straight line between Echuca and Cohuna, a flat, boring, straight road. ie. It's a functional route, not a sightseeing oppurtunity.
Of course, I'm not excusing the hit/run driver, and someone must have seen it, but it's clear that noone from BV drove over the road and thought about the impact of the event. The coroner will no doubt find them partly to blame, and look for next years ride price to go up, if they do get insurance for it.
D
David Trudgett
Guest
"Gemma_k" <[email protected]> writes:
> "David Trudgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> It is interesting that the article does not mention the hit-and-run
>> nature of the incident, even though that's obviously what it was ("The
>> rider was struck on the Murray Valley Highway... It was unclear how
>> the incident occurred..."). Makes it seem almost like just another
>> road-kill.
> I didn't read that into the article.... When they say it's unclear they
> probably don't know (or won't say) who swerved out into the path of a
> vehicle, or who hit who, or whether it was at an intersection or not etc
> etc. It's only really just happened.
> :-(
Yeah, you are probably right. Maybe they are showing unusual restraint
in not making up the facts and then revising them, as seems to be par
for the course.
It's bad news either way.
I still have the same impression about hit and runs becoming more
frequent, though. Could be that I'm just hearing more about them.
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly
what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly
disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and
inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has
already happened.
-- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
> "David Trudgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> It is interesting that the article does not mention the hit-and-run
>> nature of the incident, even though that's obviously what it was ("The
>> rider was struck on the Murray Valley Highway... It was unclear how
>> the incident occurred..."). Makes it seem almost like just another
>> road-kill.
> I didn't read that into the article.... When they say it's unclear they
> probably don't know (or won't say) who swerved out into the path of a
> vehicle, or who hit who, or whether it was at an intersection or not etc
> etc. It's only really just happened.
> :-(
Yeah, you are probably right. Maybe they are showing unusual restraint
in not making up the facts and then revising them, as seems to be par
for the course.
It's bad news either way.
I still have the same impression about hit and runs becoming more
frequent, though. Could be that I'm just hearing more about them.
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly
what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly
disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and
inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has
already happened.
-- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
S
S
Guest
"Gemma_k" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "David Trudgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> It is interesting that the article does not mention the hit-and-run
>> nature of the incident, even though that's obviously what it was ("The
>> rider was struck on the Murray Valley Highway... It was unclear how
>> the incident occurred..."). Makes it seem almost like just another
>> road-kill.
> I didn't read that into the article.... When they say it's unclear they
> probably don't know (or won't say) who swerved out into the path of a
> vehicle, or who hit who, or whether it was at an intersection or not etc
> etc. It's only really just happened.
> :-(
>
>
And now it appears the cyclist was blown onto the wrong side of the road,
and the driver DID stop. Good example of not jumping to conclusions before
all the facts are in......
news:[email protected]...
>
> "David Trudgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> It is interesting that the article does not mention the hit-and-run
>> nature of the incident, even though that's obviously what it was ("The
>> rider was struck on the Murray Valley Highway... It was unclear how
>> the incident occurred..."). Makes it seem almost like just another
>> road-kill.
> I didn't read that into the article.... When they say it's unclear they
> probably don't know (or won't say) who swerved out into the path of a
> vehicle, or who hit who, or whether it was at an intersection or not etc
> etc. It's only really just happened.
> :-(
>
>
And now it appears the cyclist was blown onto the wrong side of the road,
and the driver DID stop. Good example of not jumping to conclusions before
all the facts are in......
T
TimC
Guest
On 2005-11-28, S (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> And now it appears the cyclist was blown onto the wrong side of the road,
> and the driver DID stop. Good example of not jumping to conclusions before
> all the facts are in......
Feh. I like jumping to conclusions. Hands up here, those who, upon
seeing a mass of cyclists, even going in the opposite direction, would
slow down, instead of going the speed limit? Who would drive to the
left of the lane, making sure there was plenty of room between the
vehicle and the centreline? Especially if they see the trees swaying
violently back and forth in the gusts of winds?
Lets imagine now; if the cyclist is a newby enough to get blown across
the line (unless it was a *really* strong gust of wind), and her being
50, would imply that she wouldn't have been going fast. Lets assume
she was doing 20km/h. Things would have happened slow enough that the
car would have been able to stop in time if they had been doing 40.
But since they were doing 100, death resulted. Now of course, my
reasoning is made stronger, because they were in a 4WD, and the
prevailing attitude there is "I'm alright mate!".
Unfortunately, we will not find out the full circumstances via the
media. Unless there is a court case (unlikely -- the driver didn't
break the letter of the law, other than something vague and difficult
to prove like driving to suit the conditions), the media will forget
about this, about.... today.
--
TimC
When I'M trying to get somebody fired, I always walk a mile in their
shoes first. That way, when I get them fired and they get all angry
with me, I'm a mile away, and I'VE GOT THEIR SHOES! HAW HAW!
--Beable van Polasm, alt.religion.kibology
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> And now it appears the cyclist was blown onto the wrong side of the road,
> and the driver DID stop. Good example of not jumping to conclusions before
> all the facts are in......
Feh. I like jumping to conclusions. Hands up here, those who, upon
seeing a mass of cyclists, even going in the opposite direction, would
slow down, instead of going the speed limit? Who would drive to the
left of the lane, making sure there was plenty of room between the
vehicle and the centreline? Especially if they see the trees swaying
violently back and forth in the gusts of winds?
Lets imagine now; if the cyclist is a newby enough to get blown across
the line (unless it was a *really* strong gust of wind), and her being
50, would imply that she wouldn't have been going fast. Lets assume
she was doing 20km/h. Things would have happened slow enough that the
car would have been able to stop in time if they had been doing 40.
But since they were doing 100, death resulted. Now of course, my
reasoning is made stronger, because they were in a 4WD, and the
prevailing attitude there is "I'm alright mate!".
Unfortunately, we will not find out the full circumstances via the
media. Unless there is a court case (unlikely -- the driver didn't
break the letter of the law, other than something vague and difficult
to prove like driving to suit the conditions), the media will forget
about this, about.... today.
--
TimC
When I'M trying to get somebody fired, I always walk a mile in their
shoes first. That way, when I get them fired and they get all angry
with me, I'm a mile away, and I'VE GOT THEIR SHOES! HAW HAW!
--Beable van Polasm, alt.religion.kibology
A really tragic story, it made me feel a bit sick when I heard it. When I got my new bike a few weeks ago, I went for a ride on a really windy day. It is much lighter than my commuting bike and I was concerned about getting clipped by cars coming past me because the wind was almost picking the bike up across the road.
D
dave
Guest
TimC wrote:
> On 2005-11-28, S (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>>And now it appears the cyclist was blown onto the wrong side of the road,
>>and the driver DID stop. Good example of not jumping to conclusions before
>>all the facts are in......
>
>
> Feh. I like jumping to conclusions. Hands up here, those who, upon
> seeing a mass of cyclists, even going in the opposite direction, would
> slow down, instead of going the speed limit? Who would drive to the
> left of the lane, making sure there was plenty of room between the
> vehicle and the centreline? Especially if they see the trees swaying
> violently back and forth in the gusts of winds?
>
> Lets imagine now; if the cyclist is a newby enough to get blown across
> the line (unless it was a *really* strong gust of wind)
She wasnt a newby.
, and her being
> 50, would imply that she wouldn't have been going fast.
Scuze me !!
She might have been. Might also have been on a TCR.
Lets assume
> she was doing 20km/h. Things would have happened slow enough that the
> car would have been able to stop in time if they had been doing 40.
> But since they were doing 100, death resulted. Now of course, my
> reasoning is made stronger, because they were in a 4WD, and the
> prevailing attitude there is "I'm alright mate!".
And something tells me they didnt swerve into the dirt to miss her
Thats one hell of a gust of wind. I am not sure its credible that she
was blown as far as the other verge on a two lane road.
>
> Unfortunately, we will not find out the full circumstances via the
> media. Unless there is a court case (unlikely -- the driver didn't
> break the letter of the law, other than something vague and difficult
> to prove like driving to suit the conditions), the media will forget
> about this, about.... today.
YEah. Well with any luck the driver will remember a bit longer. I dont
really doubt on limited info that it was her fault /the winds fault.
But that it wasnt dodgeable by the driver.. that I really doubt.
Dave
> On 2005-11-28, S (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>>And now it appears the cyclist was blown onto the wrong side of the road,
>>and the driver DID stop. Good example of not jumping to conclusions before
>>all the facts are in......
>
>
> Feh. I like jumping to conclusions. Hands up here, those who, upon
> seeing a mass of cyclists, even going in the opposite direction, would
> slow down, instead of going the speed limit? Who would drive to the
> left of the lane, making sure there was plenty of room between the
> vehicle and the centreline? Especially if they see the trees swaying
> violently back and forth in the gusts of winds?
>
> Lets imagine now; if the cyclist is a newby enough to get blown across
> the line (unless it was a *really* strong gust of wind)
She wasnt a newby.
, and her being
> 50, would imply that she wouldn't have been going fast.
Scuze me !!
She might have been. Might also have been on a TCR.
Lets assume
> she was doing 20km/h. Things would have happened slow enough that the
> car would have been able to stop in time if they had been doing 40.
> But since they were doing 100, death resulted. Now of course, my
> reasoning is made stronger, because they were in a 4WD, and the
> prevailing attitude there is "I'm alright mate!".
And something tells me they didnt swerve into the dirt to miss her
Thats one hell of a gust of wind. I am not sure its credible that she
was blown as far as the other verge on a two lane road.
>
> Unfortunately, we will not find out the full circumstances via the
> media. Unless there is a court case (unlikely -- the driver didn't
> break the letter of the law, other than something vague and difficult
> to prove like driving to suit the conditions), the media will forget
> about this, about.... today.
YEah. Well with any luck the driver will remember a bit longer. I dont
really doubt on limited info that it was her fault /the winds fault.
But that it wasnt dodgeable by the driver.. that I really doubt.
Dave
T
TimC
Guest
On 2005-11-29, dave (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> TimC wrote:
>> Lets imagine now; if the cyclist is a newby enough to get blown across
>> the line (unless it was a *really* strong gust of wind),
> She wasnt a newby.
>> and her being
>> 50, would imply that she wouldn't have been going fast.
>
>
> Scuze me !!
> She might have been. Might also have been on a TCR.
Very true. That's why I said "lets imagine now"
> Lets assume
>> she was doing 20km/h. Things would have happened slow enough that the
>> car would have been able to stop in time if they had been doing 40.
>> But since they were doing 100, death resulted. Now of course, my
>> reasoning is made stronger, because they were in a 4WD, and the
>> prevailing attitude there is "I'm alright mate!".
>
> And something tells me they didnt swerve into the dirt to miss her
>
> Thats one hell of a gust of wind. I am not sure its credible that she
> was blown as far as the other verge on a two lane road.
Looking at the photo in the Age article that cfsmtb posted, it seems
she barely crossed the line at all.
> YEah. Well with any luck the driver will remember a bit longer. I dont
> really doubt on limited info that it was her fault /the winds fault.
> But that it wasnt dodgeable by the driver.. that I really doubt.
We will likely never know.
--
TimC
Using top down development, you never have any working code. Using bottom
up development, you never solve the problem. -- John Kelly in debian-user
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> TimC wrote:
>> Lets imagine now; if the cyclist is a newby enough to get blown across
>> the line (unless it was a *really* strong gust of wind),
> She wasnt a newby.
>> and her being
>> 50, would imply that she wouldn't have been going fast.
>
>
> Scuze me !!
> She might have been. Might also have been on a TCR.
Very true. That's why I said "lets imagine now"
> Lets assume
>> she was doing 20km/h. Things would have happened slow enough that the
>> car would have been able to stop in time if they had been doing 40.
>> But since they were doing 100, death resulted. Now of course, my
>> reasoning is made stronger, because they were in a 4WD, and the
>> prevailing attitude there is "I'm alright mate!".
>
> And something tells me they didnt swerve into the dirt to miss her
>
> Thats one hell of a gust of wind. I am not sure its credible that she
> was blown as far as the other verge on a two lane road.
Looking at the photo in the Age article that cfsmtb posted, it seems
she barely crossed the line at all.
> YEah. Well with any luck the driver will remember a bit longer. I dont
> really doubt on limited info that it was her fault /the winds fault.
> But that it wasnt dodgeable by the driver.. that I really doubt.
We will likely never know.
--
TimC
Using top down development, you never have any working code. Using bottom
up development, you never solve the problem. -- John Kelly in debian-user
D
dave
Guest
TimC wrote:
> On 2005-11-29, dave (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>>TimC wrote:
>>
>>>Lets imagine now; if the cyclist is a newby enough to get blown across
>>>the line (unless it was a *really* strong gust of wind),
>>
>>She wasnt a newby.
>>
>>>and her being
>>>50, would imply that she wouldn't have been going fast.
>>
>>
>>Scuze me !!
>>She might have been. Might also have been on a TCR.
>
>
> Very true. That's why I said "lets imagine now"
>
>
>
>> Lets assume
>>
>>>she was doing 20km/h. Things would have happened slow enough that the
>>>car would have been able to stop in time if they had been doing 40.
>>>But since they were doing 100, death resulted. Now of course, my
>>>reasoning is made stronger, because they were in a 4WD, and the
>>>prevailing attitude there is "I'm alright mate!".
>>
>>And something tells me they didnt swerve into the dirt to miss her
>>
>>Thats one hell of a gust of wind. I am not sure its credible that she
>>was blown as far as the other verge on a two lane road.
>
>
> Looking at the photo in the Age article that cfsmtb posted, it seems
> she barely crossed the line at all.
That actually seems likely to me. But got to remember the photo shows
where she stopped.. not where she got hit. But yeah I think its
possibly fair to say a better driver or a slower one would have missed her.
>
>
>>YEah. Well with any luck the driver will remember a bit longer. I dont
>>really doubt on limited info that it was her fault /the winds fault.
>>But that it wasnt dodgeable by the driver.. that I really doubt.
>
>
> We will likely never know.
Yeah
Wonder if I ever met her.
Dave
>
> On 2005-11-29, dave (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>>TimC wrote:
>>
>>>Lets imagine now; if the cyclist is a newby enough to get blown across
>>>the line (unless it was a *really* strong gust of wind),
>>
>>She wasnt a newby.
>>
>>>and her being
>>>50, would imply that she wouldn't have been going fast.
>>
>>
>>Scuze me !!
>>She might have been. Might also have been on a TCR.
>
>
> Very true. That's why I said "lets imagine now"
>
>
>
>> Lets assume
>>
>>>she was doing 20km/h. Things would have happened slow enough that the
>>>car would have been able to stop in time if they had been doing 40.
>>>But since they were doing 100, death resulted. Now of course, my
>>>reasoning is made stronger, because they were in a 4WD, and the
>>>prevailing attitude there is "I'm alright mate!".
>>
>>And something tells me they didnt swerve into the dirt to miss her
>>
>>Thats one hell of a gust of wind. I am not sure its credible that she
>>was blown as far as the other verge on a two lane road.
>
>
> Looking at the photo in the Age article that cfsmtb posted, it seems
> she barely crossed the line at all.
That actually seems likely to me. But got to remember the photo shows
where she stopped.. not where she got hit. But yeah I think its
possibly fair to say a better driver or a slower one would have missed her.
>
>
>>YEah. Well with any luck the driver will remember a bit longer. I dont
>>really doubt on limited info that it was her fault /the winds fault.
>>But that it wasnt dodgeable by the driver.. that I really doubt.
>
>
> We will likely never know.
Yeah
Wonder if I ever met her.
Dave
>
R
Rhubarb
Guest
"dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> That actually seems likely to me. But got to remember the photo shows
> where she stopped.. not where she got hit. But yeah I think its
> possibly fair to say a better driver or a slower one would have missed
her.
How can you say that when we sitting here in front of our computers have no
idea of exactly how events took place? We can make assumption all day but I
don't see how it is going to help anyone who is involved in this tragedy.
There will be a coroner's inquest, I would suspect BV will hold their own
investigation and until these are made public or we hear from a reliable
witness who saw the accident we will not know who was at fault (as it isn't
blatantly obvious), if anyone. Maybe it was an extreme freak of unfortunate
circumstances.
I find it some what elitist to see the first posts in here blaming the
driver, and then continued assumptions that it was probably the drivers
fault, especially because it was a 4WD! In a rural area, where if anywhere
they bloody belong! Has anyone thought how those poor people driving the 4WD
would be feeling?
Regarding the cyclist: Cyclists regardless of the situation they are riding
in should always stay far left.
Regarding the driver: On approaching a mass group of cyclists should slow
down and give as much room as possible.
Maybe both of these conditions were true, but WE DON'T KNOW! Maybe the
cyclist was too far towards the middle of the road, maybe the driver didn't
drop his speed and this helped lead to the disaster. But we don't know!
My deepest sympathies to Mrs Deborah Gray's family and all those involved.
It is an awful reminder of how careful we do have to be.
P.S Sorry if this post seems a little heated but it frustrates the hell out
of me when something as terrible as this happens and we're all ready to make
unfounded assumption's.
news:[email protected]...
> That actually seems likely to me. But got to remember the photo shows
> where she stopped.. not where she got hit. But yeah I think its
> possibly fair to say a better driver or a slower one would have missed
her.
How can you say that when we sitting here in front of our computers have no
idea of exactly how events took place? We can make assumption all day but I
don't see how it is going to help anyone who is involved in this tragedy.
There will be a coroner's inquest, I would suspect BV will hold their own
investigation and until these are made public or we hear from a reliable
witness who saw the accident we will not know who was at fault (as it isn't
blatantly obvious), if anyone. Maybe it was an extreme freak of unfortunate
circumstances.
I find it some what elitist to see the first posts in here blaming the
driver, and then continued assumptions that it was probably the drivers
fault, especially because it was a 4WD! In a rural area, where if anywhere
they bloody belong! Has anyone thought how those poor people driving the 4WD
would be feeling?
Regarding the cyclist: Cyclists regardless of the situation they are riding
in should always stay far left.
Regarding the driver: On approaching a mass group of cyclists should slow
down and give as much room as possible.
Maybe both of these conditions were true, but WE DON'T KNOW! Maybe the
cyclist was too far towards the middle of the road, maybe the driver didn't
drop his speed and this helped lead to the disaster. But we don't know!
My deepest sympathies to Mrs Deborah Gray's family and all those involved.
It is an awful reminder of how careful we do have to be.
P.S Sorry if this post seems a little heated but it frustrates the hell out
of me when something as terrible as this happens and we're all ready to make
unfounded assumption's.
P
Plodder
Guest
--
Frank
[email protected]
Drop DACKS to reply
"Rhubarb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
<SNIP FOR BREVITY>
> Regarding the cyclist: Cyclists regardless of the situation they are
riding
> in should always stay far left.
Rant mode on:
BOLLOX! Why should I ride in the gutter? If it's practical and safe to stay
far left, I think we should, simply out of courtesy to motorised traffic,
but there's no way I'd go as far as "Cyclists regardless of the situation
they are riding in should always stay far left."
I see it as one of those tensions: I have a legal right to use the whole
lane if I need to. That right is balanced by a social responsibility to not
always exercise my right.
If I stay in the gutter I'm treated like I belong there. I don't. I'll ride
there when it's safe and practical but my safety is a much higher priority
than a driver's convenience. If motorised traffic has to wait a few seconds
before it can overtake me safely, then so be it.
>
> Regarding the driver: On approaching a mass group of cyclists should slow
> down and give as much room as possible.
True - the driver should take the time to assess the risk. But ALL road
users should be aware that they are sharing the road, they don't own it. Any
interaction between vehicles is a dialogue, not a monologue.
<MORE SNIPPAGE>
Rant mode off...
me
Frank
[email protected]
Drop DACKS to reply
"Rhubarb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
<SNIP FOR BREVITY>
> Regarding the cyclist: Cyclists regardless of the situation they are
riding
> in should always stay far left.
Rant mode on:
BOLLOX! Why should I ride in the gutter? If it's practical and safe to stay
far left, I think we should, simply out of courtesy to motorised traffic,
but there's no way I'd go as far as "Cyclists regardless of the situation
they are riding in should always stay far left."
I see it as one of those tensions: I have a legal right to use the whole
lane if I need to. That right is balanced by a social responsibility to not
always exercise my right.
If I stay in the gutter I'm treated like I belong there. I don't. I'll ride
there when it's safe and practical but my safety is a much higher priority
than a driver's convenience. If motorised traffic has to wait a few seconds
before it can overtake me safely, then so be it.
>
> Regarding the driver: On approaching a mass group of cyclists should slow
> down and give as much room as possible.
True - the driver should take the time to assess the risk. But ALL road
users should be aware that they are sharing the road, they don't own it. Any
interaction between vehicles is a dialogue, not a monologue.
<MORE SNIPPAGE>
Rant mode off...
me
R
Rhubarb
Guest
"Plodder" <[email protected] (remove DAKS to reply)> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>
>
> --
> Frank
> [email protected]
> Drop DACKS to reply
> "Rhubarb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> <SNIP FOR BREVITY>
> > Regarding the cyclist: Cyclists regardless of the situation they are
> riding
> > in should always stay far left.
>
> Rant mode on:
>
> BOLLOX! Why should I ride in the gutter? If it's practical and safe to
stay
> far left, I think we should, simply out of courtesy to motorised traffic,
> but there's no way I'd go as far as "Cyclists regardless of the situation
> they are riding in should always stay far left."
>
> I see it as one of those tensions: I have a legal right to use the whole
> lane if I need to. That right is balanced by a social responsibility to
not
> always exercise my right.
>
> If I stay in the gutter I'm treated like I belong there. I don't. I'll
ride
> there when it's safe and practical but my safety is a much higher priority
> than a driver's convenience. If motorised traffic has to wait a few
seconds
> before it can overtake me safely, then so be it.
>
I never said too ride in the gutter. I probably should of worded that better
to read 'to stay as far left as is safe to do so, while still giving one
room to move if they need to take evasive action'. I fully agree that a
cyclist should take the lane when they need to do so to remain safe. I do it
daily. When I said 'regardless of the situation' I referring to whether they
are riding individually, in a small bunch, a road race or massive organised
ride like the GVBR.
Should of explained that better, was simply trying to keep a long post to
the point.
message news:[email protected]...
>
>
> --
> Frank
> [email protected]
> Drop DACKS to reply
> "Rhubarb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> <SNIP FOR BREVITY>
> > Regarding the cyclist: Cyclists regardless of the situation they are
> riding
> > in should always stay far left.
>
> Rant mode on:
>
> BOLLOX! Why should I ride in the gutter? If it's practical and safe to
stay
> far left, I think we should, simply out of courtesy to motorised traffic,
> but there's no way I'd go as far as "Cyclists regardless of the situation
> they are riding in should always stay far left."
>
> I see it as one of those tensions: I have a legal right to use the whole
> lane if I need to. That right is balanced by a social responsibility to
not
> always exercise my right.
>
> If I stay in the gutter I'm treated like I belong there. I don't. I'll
ride
> there when it's safe and practical but my safety is a much higher priority
> than a driver's convenience. If motorised traffic has to wait a few
seconds
> before it can overtake me safely, then so be it.
>
I never said too ride in the gutter. I probably should of worded that better
to read 'to stay as far left as is safe to do so, while still giving one
room to move if they need to take evasive action'. I fully agree that a
cyclist should take the lane when they need to do so to remain safe. I do it
daily. When I said 'regardless of the situation' I referring to whether they
are riding individually, in a small bunch, a road race or massive organised
ride like the GVBR.
Should of explained that better, was simply trying to keep a long post to
the point.
P
Plodder
Guest
--
Frank
[email protected]
Drop DACKS to reply
"Rhubarb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Plodder" <[email protected] (remove DAKS to reply)> wrote in
> message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > --
> > Frank
> > [email protected]
> > Drop DACKS to reply
> > "Rhubarb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > <SNIP FOR BREVITY>
> >
>
> I never said too ride in the gutter. I probably should of worded that
better
> to read 'to stay as far left as is safe to do so, while still giving one
> room to move if they need to take evasive action'. I fully agree that a
> cyclist should take the lane when they need to do so to remain safe. I do
it
> daily. When I said 'regardless of the situation' I referring to whether
they
> are riding individually, in a small bunch, a road race or massive
organised
> ride like the GVBR.
>
> Should of explained that better, was simply trying to keep a long post to
> the point.
>
Bugger - I thought it was a good rant, too! I see your point more clearly
now
Cheers,
Frank
Frank
[email protected]
Drop DACKS to reply
"Rhubarb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Plodder" <[email protected] (remove DAKS to reply)> wrote in
> message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > --
> > Frank
> > [email protected]
> > Drop DACKS to reply
> > "Rhubarb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > <SNIP FOR BREVITY>
> >
>
> I never said too ride in the gutter. I probably should of worded that
better
> to read 'to stay as far left as is safe to do so, while still giving one
> room to move if they need to take evasive action'. I fully agree that a
> cyclist should take the lane when they need to do so to remain safe. I do
it
> daily. When I said 'regardless of the situation' I referring to whether
they
> are riding individually, in a small bunch, a road race or massive
organised
> ride like the GVBR.
>
> Should of explained that better, was simply trying to keep a long post to
> the point.
>
Bugger - I thought it was a good rant, too! I see your point more clearly
now
Cheers,
Frank
Similar threads
- Alex Potter
- UK and Europe
- Crescentius Vespasianus
- Cycling Equipment
