Is There a Method of Teaching Bad Cyclists?

[John]

"FCS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> As I have pointed out, this particular problem was caused by the cyclist.
I
> think his problem might well be a lack of awareness of other road users
and
> their better perspective on things.

>As I have said there are times when the car driver knows best and cyclists just have to trust this
>judgement.
>

You are somewhat arrogant I feel. Many cyclists are also motorists, and have the benefit of viewing
the road from two different perspectives.

Since you are obviously clueless about vehicular cycling, I would not be tempted to trust your
judgement, particularly when MY life was at stake.

I am beginning to think that you are just a troll.

John

 

[Pattledom]

FCS wrote:
> "Simon Hay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> FCS wrote:

>
> All cyclists are relying less on their own abilities and more on the abilities of car drivers for
> them to get from point A to point B safely.

What arrogant rubbish! A cyclist who relies on the abilities of car drivers is a dead cyclist.
A cyclist's safest course of action is to assume all the motorists around him or her are
complete idiots. Sometimes they turn out to be sensible, in which case the cyclist is safe
anyway. Other times they really do turn out to be idiots, in which cas, the cyclist is more
likely to be ready to cope.

> The car driver has the better perspective as their vehicle is usually fit for purpose and the
> driver does not suffer from the same impairments a cyclist does, in certain conditions in
> particular.

What inpairments? A cyclist usually has a better view of what's going on, being higher up [1] and
not sealed in a tin box with a restricted view. Whether I'm cycling or driving, I always try to look
ahead (ie: further than the boot of the car in front of me). I find it's easier to do this when I'm
cycling that when I'm driving because I can see so much more.

[1] Maybe not on 'bents though - but as I haven't succumbed to the dark side
[2] I can't speak for them.
[3] Yet!
--
Andrew Pattle

 

[Alan Braggins]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 19:37:48 -0000, "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >There's only 24 million cars on the road. With 5 million of them crashing every year no wonder my
> >insurance is so expensive.
>
> Now add the ones which get stolen. Comprehensive insurance for my car would cost over 15% of its
> actual value.

The first quote I got for having an additional driver added to one of my cars was 800% of what I
paid for it. Weirdly, changing to comprehensive made it cheaper. (Still over 15% though).

 

[Pattledom]

Tony W wrote:

<snip lots of stuff about wet conditions>
>
> Wet windscreens introduce aberation so reducing the useful information contained in the light
> passing into the eye.
>

That wasn't quite the point I was trying to make... p'raps I should have waited until I was sober
before posting. What I was trying to say is there are lots of things that effect visibility but rain
doesn't automatically mean poor visibility *as defined by the law*. The law requires you to use
lights [1] when visibility is poor - heavy rain can cause conditions when lights are legally
required but it's equally possibly for it to be raining and for visibility to be good enough for
lights not to be legally required.

[1] if you have them, etc, etc

--
Andrew Pattle

 

[John]

"FCS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > You are somewhat arrogant I feel. Many cyclists are also motorists, and
> have
> > the benefit of viewing the road from two different perspectives.
> >
> > Since you are obviously clueless about vehicular cycling, I would not be tempted to trust your
> > judgement, particularly when MY life was at stake.
> >
> > I am beginning to think that you are just a troll.
>
> Perhaps you would be better off talking to an experienced cyclist, I am
sure
> you'll find at least one here on this newsgroup, and find out how this particular cyclist should
> have conducted himself.

Are these really the comments from the original poster?

>
> Basically, should they have been on the road in the first place.

If you think I wrote otherwise, you need some help with your comprehension, as well as your driving.

>
> I already know the answer, what surprises me is that someone who professes to talk for cyclists
> apparently does not!

Nothing professed. See above.

>
> Or to put it more clearly, you would be well advised to trust my judgement since yours, admittedly
> without all the facts, is in error.

I'd be fascinated to know how you derived this.

>
> Now discuss why this particular cyclist should not have been on the road, I'm sure you'll find the
> right answers eventually. No degrees required.

Why should I want to do that? See above.

>
> Being a danger to yourself is one thing, but when you start believing
others
> should have to live with the consequences of your actions, that's
arrogance.

Seems to summarise your point of view though.

>
> Still, some of the discussion seems to have moved on to a more humorous,
and
> therefore healthy newsgroup discussion, perhaps we should leave it at
that.