Gentle education works

[Paul Kelly]

In news:[email protected], Just zis Guy, you know?
<[email protected]> typed:
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 01:05:43 +0100, Garry Broad <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> If in doubt, and the 'right of way is yours' - use it, don't set up a hazzard to other road uses,
>> by being generous,
>
> Nothing wrong with stopping, it's giving signals to other road users (ped or vehicular) which is
> the issue IMO. If I am in a position where one might just as erasily stop as go I will often stop
> and let someone cross, but I let them make up their mind if they want to.

Issue right on the nose. Esp where drivers stop and wave children across the road - who then assume
they can cross safely because an adult has told them too.

pk

 

[John B]

Paul Kelly wrote:

> In news:[email protected], Just zis Guy, you know?
> <[email protected]> typed:
> > On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 01:05:43 +0100, Garry Broad <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> If in doubt, and the 'right of way is yours' - use it, don't set up a hazzard to other road
> >> uses, by being generous,
> >
> > Nothing wrong with stopping, it's giving signals to other road users (ped or vehicular) which is
> > the issue IMO. If I am in a position where one might just as erasily stop as go I will often
> > stop and let someone cross, but I let them make up their mind if they want to.
>
> Issue right on the nose. Esp where drivers stop and wave children across the road - who then
> assume they can cross safely because an adult has told them too.

I've quite often found that such 'kind-hearted' drivers ignore all other traffic, including that
coming from the other way. I put it down to the fact that most drivers only seem to be able to
concentrate on one thing at a time.

This happens a lot at zebra crossings where I've taught my children never to cross unless traffic
has stopped from _both_ directions.

John B

 

[Garry Broad]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 10:37:50 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 01:05:43 +0100, Garry Broad <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>If in doubt, and the 'right of way is yours' - use it, don't set up a hazzard to other road uses,
>>by being generous,
>
>Nothing wrong with stopping, it's giving signals to other road users (ped or vehicular) which is
>the issue IMO. If I am in a position where one might just as erasily stop as go I will often stop
>and let someone cross, but I let them make up their mind if they want to.

humm...well, we have to agree to disagree on that one. It's an issue I feel quite strongly about
actually, whether it's because of that driving test failure or something else going on, who knows,
but for me, it's just a simple black and white issue, no grey areas here at all.

Still, there we go..

Garry

 

[Garry Broad]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:28:53 +0100, John B <[email protected]> wrote:

>Paul Kelly wrote:
>
>> In news:[email protected], Just zis Guy, you know?
>> <[email protected]> typed:
>> > On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 01:05:43 +0100, Garry Broad <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> If in doubt, and the 'right of way is yours' - use it, don't set up a hazzard to other road
>> >> uses, by being generous,
>> >
>> > Nothing wrong with stopping, it's giving signals to other road users (ped or vehicular) which
>> > is the issue IMO. If I am in a position where one might just as erasily stop as go I will often
>> > stop and let someone cross, but I let them make up their mind if they want to.
>>
>> Issue right on the nose. Esp where drivers stop and wave children across the road - who then
>> assume they can cross safely because an adult has told them too.
>
>I've quite often found that such 'kind-hearted' drivers ignore all other traffic, including that
>coming from the other way. I put it down to the fact that most drivers only seem to be able to
>concentrate on one thing at a time.
>
>This happens a lot at zebra crossings where I've taught my children never to cross unless traffic
>has stopped from _both_ directions.

Very wise.

This has reminded me of something that happened on Saturday.

Cycling in Watford, I was waiting to cross a road at a rather difficult intersection in town. Very
busy. Point is, I was there, waiting for a suitable break in the traffic since there was no ped
crossing or the like. So I'm in more risky territory.

All of a sudden this kid (teenager) coming flying pass me, sees a gap in the traffic, dodges the
cars by about a foot and scrambles across to the other side.

Instinctively, from shock and surprise, I just yelled at him, as if to say 'wtf are you doing'?? He
hears me, and glares back from the other side of the road, as I wait a while longer to cross.

I eventually cross and he's standing there with his mate, still glaring at me, so I cycle slowly
over to him, and say words to the effect like, 'hey listen, I only yelled because I was fearing for
your safety'.

'So f****** what mate, it's my life init'.

With that, I kind of decided I wasn't his father and carried on home.

Point is, how in god's name nobody hit him was a bloody miracle.

This also really stirs my pot, not because I sometimes feel as though I'm defending motorists here
but because 'the motorist' wouldn't have had a cat in hells chance to even think, never mind stop.

Still...

Garry

 

[Anonymous]

"Garry Broad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Point is, how in god's name nobody hit him was a bloody miracle.

No it wasn't - he saw a gap and took it. Ok, the gap was probably a lot smaller than you or I would
even remotely consider, with corresponding lack of margin for error, but since there wasn't any he
got away with it.

You'd be surprised (ok, you clearly were) what you can get away with. It's like trials riding or
motorbike display teams - clearly impossible, yet they can do it.

If you're trying to educate such people, saying they nearly got killed won't do it. The manoeuvre
probably went entirely to plan. What you need to do is to start instilling that it's other people's
errors they need to cope with, not their own.

(yes, I have at least one incident in mind from my youth, and I got away with it without any
requirement for braking or evasive action from other road users.)

(unlike the time I gave a guide friday bus loads of room to stop when I stepped out on a zebra. He
jolly nearly didn't. I had plenty of time to watch him trying to stop, and just stood out of the way
in case he got it wrong. He was very angry...)

cheers, clive

 

[Garry Broad]

>"Garry Broad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Point is, how in god's name nobody hit him was a bloody miracle.
>
>No it wasn't - he saw a gap and took it. Ok, the gap was probably a lot smaller than you or I would
>even remotely consider, with corresponding lack of margin for error, but since there wasn't any he
>got away with it.
>
>You'd be surprised (ok, you clearly were) what you can get away with. It's like trials riding or
>motorbike display teams - clearly impossible, yet they can do it.
>
>If you're trying to educate such people, saying they nearly got killed won't do it. The manoeuvre
>probably went entirely to plan.

To be honest Clive, I didn't like the tone here at all, not one single bit.

Gladly refraining from replying with something vitriolic, now deleted, I still have to ask you:

>What you need to do is to start instilling that it's other people's errors they need to cope with,
>not their own.

Would this apply to all road users?

Cheers Garry

 

[Anonymous]

"Garry Broad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >"Garry Broad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >
> >> Point is, how in god's name nobody hit him was a bloody miracle.
> >
> >No it wasn't - he saw a gap and took it. Ok, the gap was probably a lot smaller than you or I
> >would even remotely consider, with corresponding
lack
> >of margin for error, but since there wasn't any he got away with it.
> >
> >You'd be surprised (ok, you clearly were) what you can get away with.
It's
> >like trials riding or motorbike display teams - clearly impossible, yet
they
> >can do it.
> >
> >If you're trying to educate such people, saying they nearly got killed
won't
> >do it. The manoeuvre probably went entirely to plan.
>
> To be honest Clive, I didn't like the tone here at all, not one single bit.

And I wasn't even trying to be rude. Forget the tone, what about the substance? Have I defended him?
No, I've just pointed out the flaws in your description.

Let's try another example. How about riding down the lane divider of a busy motorway against the
flow of traffic? Pretty bloody stupid, I think we'll agree. But you'll get away with it a lot of the
time. (You can sort of practice on a bridge above the motorway - see how long it takes to get
virtually squashed!)

> Gladly refraining from replying with something vitriolic, now deleted, I still have to ask you:
>
> >What you need to do is to start instilling that it's other people's errors they need to cope
with,
> >not their own.
>
> Would this apply to all road users?

You mean, should people ride/drive as if everybody else is a complete numpty? Yes, of course. I do
it all the time. We all do. Even PS does. Remember this young man hasn't actually made any errors in
his eyes - his manoeuvre went to plan.

You obviously failed to communicate to the young gentleman in question. You're not going to succeed
if you start by saying he's **** or stupid. This will just get his hackles up, just as I did yours
earlier. You have to start elsewhere. Put yourself in the mind of said young gentleman. First you
have to realise that you don't give a toss what others think of you. So the anger/fear of the
drivers that we would both care about is irrelevant. Then think about the physical problems involved
in such manoeuvres - timing, speed, reactions. He's done it a few times, he's probably got them down
to a fine art. He _knows_ he's going to get away with it. So why not do it? Unfortunately at this
point I'm stumped too. The best thing I can think of is by pointing out what factors are outside his
control and which he should be coping with. Which means leaving a bigger gap.

And it still wasn't a miracle. The odds were certainly in his favour - a 10 or even 5% chance of
crashing is way too high for you or I, but that means he will get away with it an awful lot. A
miracle would be if he did it 50 times with a 10 or 5% chance of failure.

cheers, clive

 

[Garry Broad]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 19:53:17 +0100, "Clive George"

>"Garry Broad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> >"Garry Broad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> >> Point is, how in god's name nobody hit him was a bloody miracle.
>> >
>> >No it wasn't - he saw a gap and took it. Ok, the gap was probably a lot smaller than you or I
>> >would even remotely consider, with corresponding
>lack
>> >of margin for error, but since there wasn't any he got away with it.
>> >
>> >You'd be surprised (ok, you clearly were) what you can get away with.
>It's
>> >like trials riding or motorbike display teams - clearly impossible, yet
>they
>> >can do it.
>> >
>> >If you're trying to educate such people, saying they nearly got killed
>won't
>> >do it. The manoeuvre probably went entirely to plan.
>>
>> To be honest Clive, I didn't like the tone here at all, not one single bit.
>
>And I wasn't even trying to be rude. Forget the tone, what about the substance? Have I defended
>him? No, I've just pointed out the flaws in your description.
>
>Let's try another example. How about riding down the lane divider of a busy motorway against the
>flow of traffic? Pretty bloody stupid, I think we'll agree. But you'll get away with it a lot of
>the time. (You can sort of practice on a bridge above the motorway - see how long it takes to get
>virtually squashed!)
>
>> Gladly refraining from replying with something vitriolic, now deleted, I still have to ask you:
>>
>> >What you need to do is to start instilling that it's other people's errors they need to cope
>with,
>> >not their own.
>>
>> Would this apply to all road users?
>
>You mean, should people ride/drive as if everybody else is a complete numpty? Yes, of course. I do
>it all the time. We all do. Even PS does. Remember this young man hasn't actually made any errors
>in his eyes - his manoeuvre went to plan.
>
>You obviously failed to communicate to the young gentleman in question. You're not going to succeed
>if you start by saying he's **** or stupid.

Err....I didn't. Nor was I aggressive nor confrontational when I spoke to him. Nor did I take up the
exchange of expletives. Hardly worth it.

I spoke once, he swore in reply, and we went our ways.

>This will just get his hackles up, just as I did yours earlier. You have to start elsewhere. Put
>yourself in the mind of said young gentleman. First you have to realise that you don't give a toss
>what others think of you. So the anger/fear of the drivers that we would both care about is
>irrelevant. Then think about the physical problems involved in such manoeuvres - timing, speed,
>reactions. He's done it a few times, he's probably got them down to a fine art. He _knows_ he's
>going to get away with it. So why not do it? Unfortunately at this point I'm stumped too. The best
>thing I can think of is by pointing out what factors are outside his control and which he should be
>coping with. Which means leaving a bigger gap.
>
>And it still wasn't a miracle. The odds were certainly in his favour - a 10 or even 5% chance of
>crashing is way too high for you or I, but that means he will get away with it an awful lot. A
>miracle would be if he did it 50 times with a 10 or 5% chance of failure.

So if we apply this logic to car drivers cutting up cyclists on left turns for example, or pulling
out in front of you turning right, causing you to brake suddenly, would you still try to
rationalize it away like you've done here? Think about what you've said - 'doesn't give a toss what
others think of you', 'done it a few times, got it down to a fine art. He _knows_ he's going to get
away with it.'

If we're all supposed to be road users, all reading from the same book...would you in all honesty
use this type of language in defense of car drivers 'who chance their arm', putting cyclists at risk
? - using analogies like 'motorbike display teams' and trial riding??

In all honesty, would you?

Why should there be a difference? If we excuse cyclists, because they're experienced at chancing
their arm then why not the driver?

When does something stop being a 'lark', or an adrenaline rush, or just good plain fun and begin
being dangerous? And when do we stop condoning and start condemning ? Only after an accident
happens? Or only when we dislike motorists?

Cheers Garry

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 19:53:17 +0100, "Clive George"

>You obviously failed to communicate to the young gentleman in question. You're not going to succeed
>if you start by saying he's **** or stupid.

Sadly true. Which didn't stop me shouting "he's right - you're a c***!" to a cyclist who v-signed a
driver after said cyclist had ridden straight off the pavement and across the road inches in front
of said cager, who did a very commendable job of only hooting after he'd braked and avoided a
catastroscope. If the cyclist had ended under the wheels of the car I'd probably have stood up in
court to defend the cager - luckily he had his wits about him and this was not necessary.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com Advance
notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.

 

[Anonymous]

"Garry Broad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> >And it still wasn't a miracle. The odds were certainly in his favour - a
10
> >or even 5% chance of crashing is way too high for you or I, but that
means
> >he will get away with it an awful lot. A miracle would be if he did it 50 times with a 10 or 5%
> >chance of failure.
>
> So if we apply this logic to car drivers cutting up cyclists on left turns for example, or pulling
> out in front of you turning right, causing you to brake suddenly, would you still try to
> rationalize it away like you've done here? Think about what you've said - 'doesn't give a toss
> what others think of you', 'done it a few times, got it down to a fine art. He _knows_ he's going
> to get away with it.'

Describes car driver's behaviour perfectly in a lot of cases...

Rationalise it away? Where have I said that what he's done was sensible? Google is a good place
to refer to.

> If we're all supposed to be road users, all reading from the same book...would you in all honesty
> use this type of language in defense of car drivers 'who chance their arm', putting cyclists at
> risk ? - using analogies like 'motorbike display teams' and trial riding??

But I wasn't defending, only explaining.

> Why should there be a difference? If we excuse cyclists, because they're experienced at chancing
> their arm then why not the driver?

Have I excused his behaviour?

> When does something stop being a 'lark', or an adrenaline rush, or just good plain fun and begin
> being dangerous? And when do we stop condoning and start condemning ? Only after an accident
> happens? Or only when we dislike motorists?

Have I condoned his behaviour?

You are missing my point, which was to present things from this young gentleman's point of view,
with the intent of understanding why he does it and thence coming up with an appropriate strategy
for stopping it.

(And to point out your failure to understand risk and odds.)

cheers, clive

 

[Garry Broad]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 21:06:28 +0100, "Clive George"

>"Garry Broad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> >And it still wasn't a miracle. The odds were certainly in his favour - a
>10
>> >or even 5% chance of crashing is way too high for you or I, but that
>means
>> >he will get away with it an awful lot. A miracle would be if he did it 50 times with a 10 or 5%
>> >chance of failure.
>>
>> So if we apply this logic to car drivers cutting up cyclists on left turns for example, or
>> pulling out in front of you turning right, causing you to brake suddenly, would you still try to
>> rationalize it away like you've done here? Think about what you've said - 'doesn't give a toss
>> what others think of you', 'done it a few times, got it down to a fine art. He _knows_ he's going
>> to get away with it.'
>
>Describes car driver's behaviour perfectly in a lot of cases...
>
>Rationalise it away? Where have I said that what he's done was sensible? Google is a good place to
>refer to.
>
>> If we're all supposed to be road users, all reading from the same book...would you in all honesty
>> use this type of language in defense of car drivers 'who chance their arm', putting cyclists at
>> risk ? - using analogies like 'motorbike display teams' and trial riding??
>
>But I wasn't defending, only explaining.
>
>> Why should there be a difference? If we excuse cyclists, because they're experienced at chancing
>> their arm then why not the driver?
>
>Have I excused his behaviour?
>
>> When does something stop being a 'lark', or an adrenaline rush, or just good plain fun and begin
>> being dangerous? And when do we stop condoning and start condemning ? Only after an accident
>> happens? Or only when we dislike motorists?
>
>Have I condoned his behaviour?
>
>You are missing my point, which was to present things from this young gentleman's point of view
>with the intent of understanding why he does it and thence coming up with an appropriate strategy
>for stopping it.
>
>(And to point out your failure to understand risk and odds.)

Well ok, thanks anyway, it's much clearer now.

Although underneath it all, I get a different vibe.

Still, doesn't matter. At all.

Over and out.

Garry