Keeeerrriist that was close!

[MikeC]

Coming home from work (10 miles away) this evening, on a country B
road, wet, dark,
temperature just about freezing, there's a sudden sound of car tyres
sliding behind me.
I pedal as hard as I can and when the slithering and crunching noises
stop look round to
see a car bumper about 2 feet behind. Driver manoevers car fully onto
the road again
and goes off at high speed.

Yes my rear light was on, it's also a reflector, there's another
reflector and I was wearing
a light-coloured jacket. I was pretty lucky I think.


Mike

 

[vernon]

"MikeC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Coming home from work (10 miles away) this evening, on a country B
> road, wet, dark,
> temperature just about freezing, there's a sudden sound of car tyres
> sliding behind me.
> I pedal as hard as I can and when the slithering and crunching noises
> stop look round to
> see a car bumper about 2 feet behind. Driver manoevers car fully onto
> the road again
> and goes off at high speed.
>
> Yes my rear light was on, it's also a reflector, there's another
> reflector and I was wearing
> a light-coloured jacket. I was pretty lucky I think.
>
It doesn't have to be cold wet and dark for that to happen. I bet (s)he was
going to overtake and had second thoughts.

 

[[email protected]]

In message <[email protected]
ps.com>
MikeC <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

> Yes my rear light was on, it's also a reflector, there's another
> reflector and I was wearing
> a light-coloured jacket.

Encourages us to have a rear flasher and a hi-viz jacket, perhaps.

And to drive more sedately, anticipating cyclists.


--
Charles
Brompton P6R-Plus; CarryFreedom -YL, in Motspur Park
LCC; CTC.

 

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-12-13, MikeC <[email protected]> wrote:
> Coming home from work (10 miles away) this evening, on a country B
> road, wet, dark,
> temperature just about freezing, there's a sudden sound of car tyres
> sliding behind me.

Doesn't have to be dark, cold or wet for that. The very day I got my
bike back from being repaired after I was rammed from behind by a car
doing 50mph, I was riding home when a white Transit came around the
blind bend behind me far too fast and had to slow down with tyres
screeching.

Narrow B road, oncoming traffic. Then kangarooing
(rev/screech/rev/screech) as the driver couldn't decide which principle
of traffic should take precidence: that of Cyclists Must Be Overtaken
Immediately, or Must Not Hit Oncoming Vehicles. Fortunately, Must Not
Hit Oncoming Vehicles won out, and the driver waited for the (I'm sure)
terribly inconvenient three seconds until it was safe to overtake.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Dylan Smith wrote:
>On 2007-12-13, MikeC <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Coming home from work (10 miles away) this evening, on a country B
>> road, wet, dark,
>> temperature just about freezing, there's a sudden sound of car tyres
>> sliding behind me.
>
>Doesn't have to be dark, cold or wet for that.

True, but cars who misjudge things are likely to slide further on wet
or icy surfaces, and even if you aren't hurt then being left with a
wrecked bike is a lot less pleasant in wet cold dark (obviously a
decent driver who hit you would at least offer you a lift even if it
wasn't wet cold and dark, but we read of enough hit-and-run incidents
to know not all drivers are decent).

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, MikeC wrote:
>Yes my rear light was on, it's also a reflector, there's another
>reflector and I was wearing
>a light-coloured jacket. I was pretty lucky I think.

I'm glad to hear you are okay, and I'm looking forward to progress
reports on the local Connect2 bridges.

 

[burtthebike]

"MikeC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Coming home from work (10 miles away) this evening, on a country B
> road, wet, dark,
> temperature just about freezing, there's a sudden sound of car tyres
> sliding behind me.
> I pedal as hard as I can and when the slithering and crunching noises
> stop look round to
> see a car bumper about 2 feet behind. Driver manoevers car fully onto
> the road again
> and goes off at high speed.
>
> Yes my rear light was on, it's also a reflector, there's another
> reflector and I was wearing
> a light-coloured jacket. I was pretty lucky I think.

Glad you're ok Mike, and why isn't there a law allowing peds/cyclists to
shoot drivers who show utter contempt for their safety? Not necessarily a
silly proposal: drivers do it because they know that even if they kill us,
the punishment will not be significant. If they thought that someone might
take potshots at them if they were endangered, they might think twice. I
remember a number of stories about 20 years ago of american drivers on the
freeways being shot after they'd cut up someone. For a considerable time
after these stories appeared, everyone drove very carefully indeed.

My own contribution: heading north on the A38 out of Bristol last night, go
through lights when they turn green, car on my right pulls alongside and
then indicates left into the petrol shop I'm passing. I remonstrate in a
rather loud voice along the lines of "excuse me, but have you realised that
there is a cyclist, with two rear lamps, fluorescent reflective jacket, and
various other hi vis devices, on your inside?" OK, not exactly in those
words, but the meaning was there. The driver brakes, stops their manouevre,
and then sounded their horn at me! Give me the gun!

 

[JNugent]

burtthebike wrote:

> "MikeC" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Coming home from work (10 miles away) this evening, on a country B
>> road, wet, dark,
>> temperature just about freezing, there's a sudden sound of car tyres
>> sliding behind me.
>> I pedal as hard as I can and when the slithering and crunching noises
>> stop look round to
>> see a car bumper about 2 feet behind. Driver manoevers car fully onto
>> the road again
>> and goes off at high speed.

>> Yes my rear light was on, it's also a reflector, there's another
>> reflector and I was wearing
>> a light-coloured jacket. I was pretty lucky I think.

> Glad you're ok Mike, and why isn't there a law allowing peds/cyclists to
> shoot drivers who show utter contempt for their safety? Not necessarily
> a silly proposal: drivers do it because they know that even if they kill
> us, the punishment will not be significant.

Oh, don't talk such rubbish. Nobody *wants* to collide with anything.

People sometimes make mistakes; come to terms with the
imperfectability of the human.

 

[burtthebike]

"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> burtthebike wrote:
>
>> "MikeC" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Coming home from work (10 miles away) this evening, on a country B
>>> road, wet, dark,
>>> temperature just about freezing, there's a sudden sound of car tyres
>>> sliding behind me.
>>> I pedal as hard as I can and when the slithering and crunching noises
>>> stop look round to
>>> see a car bumper about 2 feet behind. Driver manoevers car fully onto
>>> the road again
>>> and goes off at high speed.
>
>>> Yes my rear light was on, it's also a reflector, there's another
>>> reflector and I was wearing
>>> a light-coloured jacket. I was pretty lucky I think.
>
>> Glad you're ok Mike, and why isn't there a law allowing peds/cyclists to
>> shoot drivers who show utter contempt for their safety? Not necessarily
>> a silly proposal: drivers do it because they know that even if they kill
>> us, the punishment will not be significant.
>
> Oh, don't talk such rubbish. Nobody *wants* to collide with anything.

OK, maybe comprehension wasn't your strong suit at school, but nowhere did I
say that drivers wanted to collide with anything, so I fail to understand
your misunderstanding. Perhaps they don't deliberately want to collide, but
they certainly don't pay it the attention the situation deserves. You only
need to consider the number of drivers willing to risk others lives by
talking on their mobiles, changing the cd etc. This is at least partly due
to the lack of sanction if they do kill/injure someone. As I pointed out in
a previous post, when the sanction was immediate, violent and deadly,
drivers changed their behaviour.

>
> People sometimes make mistakes; come to terms with the imperfectability of
> the human.

I am quite content with the imperfectability of humans, thank you, whilst
sometimes wishing I better approached the ideal. But I see no reason to
accept that reckless and inconsiderate behaviour should be accepted and is
incapable of change. Are you suggesting that such behaviour is acceptable
and should not be challenged?

 

[Adam Lea]

"burtthebike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> This is at least partly due to the lack of sanction if they do kill/injure
> someone.

It is more to do with the fact that they think they are skilled enough to
pull off the risky manoevre without incident.

 

[JNugent]

burtthebike wrote:

> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> burtthebike wrote:
>>> "MikeC" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>> Coming home from work (10 miles away) this evening, on a country B
>>>> road, wet, dark, temperature just about freezing, there's a sudden
>>>> sound of car tyres sliding behind me.
>>>> I pedal as hard as I can and when the slithering and crunching noises
>>>> stop look round to see a car bumper about 2 feet behind. Driver
>>>> manoevers car fully onto the road again and goes off at high speed.
>>>> Yes my rear light was on, it's also a reflector, there's another
>>>> reflector and I was wearing a light-coloured jacket. I was pretty
>>>> lucky I think.

>>> Glad you're ok Mike, and why isn't there a law allowing peds/cyclists
>>> to shoot drivers who show utter contempt for their safety? Not
>>> necessarily a silly proposal: drivers do it because they know that
>>> even if they kill us, the punishment will not be significant.

>> Oh, don't talk such rubbish. Nobody *wants* to collide with anything.

> OK, maybe comprehension wasn't your strong suit at school,

Oh, but it was. I see straight through non-sequiturs, for a start.

> but nowhere
> did I say that drivers wanted to collide with anything, so I fail to
> understand your misunderstanding.

You said:

"drivers do it because they know that even if they kill us, the
punishment will not be significant".

> Perhaps they don't deliberately want
> to collide, but they certainly don't pay it the attention the situation
> deserves.

*Some* don't.

> You only need to consider the number of drivers willing to
> risk others lives by talking on their mobiles, changing the cd etc.

*Some*. [*]

> This is at least partly due to the lack of sanction if they do
> kill/injure someone. As I pointed out in a previous post, when the
> sanction was immediate, violent and deadly, drivers changed their
> behaviour.

*Some*.

>> People sometimes make mistakes; come to terms with the
>> imperfectability of the human.

> I am quite content with the imperfectability of humans, thank you,
> whilst sometimes wishing I better approached the ideal. But I see no
> reason to accept that reckless and inconsiderate behaviour should be
> accepted and is incapable of change. Are you suggesting that such
> behaviour is acceptable and should not be challenged?

Absolutely not.

And neither do I accept that it is right to claim that "drivers" (by
necessary and inescapable inference, *all* drivers) behave as you suggest.

When I criticise other drivers, or cyclists, I always make it clear
(in context if not explicitly) that I am referring to *some* of them.

But even the worst of them (drivers who don't pay attention, or drive
at reckless speeds, cyclists who ride along the footway or through red
traffic lights) can reasonably be assumed not to want to collide with
anything, and to be expecting not to do so. To say that they have
rationalised the likely outcome of a fatal collision is nonsense.


[* What's wrong with changing CDs, BTW? In the modern legislative
culture where "dangerous" things like speaking on a hand-held mobile
(or even smoking, I hear) are now apparently defined in law
individually, changing the CD or switching over to R4 are notable by
its absence.]

 

[JNugent]

Adam Lea wrote:

> "burtthebike" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>This is at least partly due to the lack of sanction if they do kill/injure
>>someone.

> It is more to do with the fact that they think they are skilled enough to
> pull off the risky manoevre without incident.

Correct.

They don't think they'll get away with it. They think it won't happen.

 

[Tim Woodall]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:34:33 -0000,
Adam Lea <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "burtthebike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> This is at least partly due to the lack of sanction if they do kill/injure
>> someone.
>
> It is more to do with the fact that they think they are skilled enough to
> pull off the risky manoevre without incident.
>

Actually, it's that they think the cyclist is skilled enough. That's
what I find so utterly bizarre about motorists. 80% think they are
better than average but then they drive assuming that everyone else is
at least as good as them.

Only a couple of days ago near me there was someone making an absolute
pigs ear of trying to parallel park on a road where there were parked
cars down both sides so not a lot of room to get through. Rather than
wait for the car that was manoeuvering to get settled down (and yes it
was going to take 90 seconds or so for them to get sorted out), someone
basically drove up alongside the car that now had it's rear almost
hitting a lamppost on the pavement and the front still half way out into
the road so now it was stuck moving in either direction and nothing
could move. They'd left so little space at all that even I couldn't get
through on the Bromton. Eventually, of course, they had to backup again
and let the car have another try (or give up - I got past at this point
and left them to it).

The car that was trying to get past actually overtook me while I was
slowing down for the manoeuvering car because even I couldn't get
through the gap while the front was swinging out while it was reversing
in. It was obvious right from the start that they weren't going to make
it into the space.

Tim.


--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

 

[burtthebike]

"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> burtthebike wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> burtthebike wrote:
>>>> "MikeC" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>> Coming home from work (10 miles away) this evening, on a country B
>>>>> road, wet, dark, temperature just about freezing, there's a sudden
>>>>> sound of car tyres sliding behind me.
>>>>> I pedal as hard as I can and when the slithering and crunching noises
>>>>> stop look round to see a car bumper about 2 feet behind. Driver
>>>>> manoevers car fully onto the road again and goes off at high speed.
>>>>> Yes my rear light was on, it's also a reflector, there's another
>>>>> reflector and I was wearing a light-coloured jacket. I was pretty
>>>>> lucky I think.
>
>>>> Glad you're ok Mike, and why isn't there a law allowing peds/cyclists
>>>> to shoot drivers who show utter contempt for their safety? Not
>>>> necessarily a silly proposal: drivers do it because they know that even
>>>> if they kill us, the punishment will not be significant.
>
>>> Oh, don't talk such rubbish. Nobody *wants* to collide with anything.
>
>> OK, maybe comprehension wasn't your strong suit at school,
>
> Oh, but it was. I see straight through non-sequiturs, for a start.
>
>> but nowhere did I say that drivers wanted to collide with anything, so I
>> fail to understand your misunderstanding.
>
> You said:
>
> "drivers do it because they know that even if they kill us, the punishment
> will not be significant".
>
>> Perhaps they don't deliberately want to collide, but they certainly don't
>> pay it the attention the situation deserves.
>
> *Some* don't.
>
>> You only need to consider the number of drivers willing to risk others
>> lives by talking on their mobiles, changing the cd etc.
>
> *Some*. [*]
>
>> This is at least partly due to the lack of sanction if they do
>> kill/injure someone. As I pointed out in a previous post, when the
>> sanction was immediate, violent and deadly, drivers changed their
>> behaviour.
>
> *Some*.
>
>>> People sometimes make mistakes; come to terms with the imperfectability
>>> of the human.
>
>> I am quite content with the imperfectability of humans, thank you, whilst
>> sometimes wishing I better approached the ideal. But I see no reason to
>> accept that reckless and inconsiderate behaviour should be accepted and
>> is incapable of change. Are you suggesting that such behaviour is
>> acceptable and should not be challenged?
>
> Absolutely not.
>
> And neither do I accept that it is right to claim that "drivers" (by
> necessary and inescapable inference, *all* drivers) behave as you suggest.
>
> When I criticise other drivers, or cyclists, I always make it clear (in
> context if not explicitly) that I am referring to *some* of them.
>
> But even the worst of them (drivers who don't pay attention, or drive at
> reckless speeds, cyclists who ride along the footway or through red
> traffic lights) can reasonably be assumed not to want to collide with
> anything, and to be expecting not to do so. To say that they have
> rationalised the likely outcome of a fatal collision is nonsense.
>
>
> [* What's wrong with changing CDs, BTW? In the modern legislative culture
> where "dangerous" things like speaking on a hand-held mobile (or even
> smoking, I hear) are now apparently defined in law individually, changing
> the CD or switching over to R4 are notable by its absence.]

plonk. Sorry for feeding the troll everyone.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Tim
Woodall
[email protected] says...

> Only a couple of days ago near me there was someone making an absolute
> pigs ear of trying to parallel park on a road where there were parked
> cars down both sides so not a lot of room to get through. Rather than
> wait for the car that was manoeuvering to get settled down (and yes it
> was going to take 90 seconds or so for them to get sorted out), someone
> basically drove up alongside the car that now had it's rear almost
> hitting a lamppost on the pavement and the front still half way out into
> the road so now it was stuck moving in either direction and nothing
> could move. They'd left so little space at all that even I couldn't get
> through on the Bromton. Eventually, of course, they had to backup again
> and let the car have another try (or give up - I got past at this point
> and left them to it).
>
> The car that was trying to get past actually overtook me while I was
> slowing down for the manoeuvering car because even I couldn't get
> through the gap while the front was swinging out while it was reversing
> in. It was obvious right from the start that they weren't going to make
> it into the space.
>
To reverse into my driveway I pull up a couple of lengths past it, a
couple of feet away from the kerb. I signal well in advance and stick
it in reverse as soon as I can so my intentions are clear, but still
idiots pull up behind me then have to wait while traffic on the other
side has gone before they can get past. It probably takes me less than
10 seconds to do the actual reversing. Go figure.

 

[Alistair Gunn]

Tim Woodall twisted the electrons to say:
> It was obvious right from the start that they weren't going to make
> it into the space.

<nods> Had something similar (in terms of seemingly not thinking beyond
the "must overtake cyclist" phase) whilst on a Trice QNT in Strensall.
In the primary position and there's a 4-axle truck that's just blocked
the road in front of me (it's about to reverse onto a building site), so
I start coasting. At which point the car behind me starts to overtake,
and gets alongside me before he seemed to notice what's going on ahead.

I suppose I should think myself fortunate that I didn't get left-hooked
at that point ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

 

[JNugent]

Alistair Gunn wrote:

> Tim Woodall twisted the electrons to say:

>>It was obvious right from the start that they weren't going to make
>>it into the space.

> <nods> Had something similar (in terms of seemingly not thinking beyond
> the "must overtake cyclist" phase) whilst on a Trice QNT in Strensall.
> In the primary position and there's a 4-axle truck that's just blocked
> the road in front of me (it's about to reverse onto a building site), so
> I start coasting. At which point the car behind me starts to overtake,
> and gets alongside me before he seemed to notice what's going on ahead.

> I suppose I should think myself fortunate that I didn't get left-hooked
> at that point ...

That sort of thing happens all the time.

A week or two back, I was coming home (late afternoon, it was dark),
using a main road (bus route) lined with houses. The carriageway is
fairly narrow (certainly no more than about 24' wide and no room for
bus lay-bys, etc). I overtook a cyclist who was doing maybe 12mph -
15mph, and drove on for another three or four hundred yards. Rounding
a curve in the road, I see a car stopped at the kerb some way in front
of me, with his reversing lights on - waiting to back into his
driveway. Since there were several other vehicles following me (and
since we all rely on simple courtesy at some time or other), I stopped
about forty yards from him in order that he could manoeuvre. It would
have been bad form to overtake him, even if there were no traffic
coming the other way.

A few seconds later, I am surprised to be overtaken on the left (in
the gutter) by a cyclist, who hasn't even looked those forty yards
ahead and proceeds at 12mph or so towards the reversing car (which was
of the Landrover variety and very much there to be seen). The rider
(at last) came to an uncontrolled panic stop a few feet from the side
of the car.

Why did he think I'd stopped? For fun?

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
Alistair Gunn <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:

> <nods> Had something similar (in terms of seemingly not thinking
> beyond the "must overtake cyclist" phase) whilst on a Trice QNT in
> Strensall. In the primary position and there's a 4-axle truck that's
> just blocked the road in front of me (it's about to reverse onto a
> building site), so I start coasting. At which point the car behind
> me starts to overtake, and gets alongside me before he seemed to
> notice what's going on ahead.


Near me there's a slip road onto the A406 which, for all but the last few
yards is actually two-way, as it serves a petrol station, some shops and a
small retail park. Recently I was proceeding along here in my motorcar when
the bus in front of me stopped at, surprisingly enough, a bus stop. Moton
behind me pulls out to overtake me and bus, gets big surprise when he finds
vehicles coming towards him.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Where's the gin?

 

[Ekul Namsob]

burtthebike <[email protected]> wrote:

> plonk. Sorry for feeding the troll everyone.

You're excused.

Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>