Letter in local paper

Title "Drivers do not see cyclists". size - 38 kb 56k download time - 10 secs
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zpaper1.htm

--
Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

 

"Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Title "Drivers do not see cyclists". size - 38 kb 56k download time - 10 secs
> http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zpaper1.htm
>
> --
> Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W http://www.simonmason.karoo.net
>

It's not just cyclists. I ride a 50cc scooter to and from work, 5 days a week. I always have my
lights on, no matter what the weather, and I also wear a bright green reflective vest. You'd think
that would make me visible.

Oh no! Klingon cloaking device must be activated with the lights.

Peter.

 

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:06:45 -0000, "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Title "Drivers do not see cyclists". size - 38 kb 56k download time - 10 secs
>http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zpaper1.htm

Sometimes it's simply because the cyclist is hidden behind a windscreen pillar when the driver makes
a glance check. I've been working to publicise this special risk, but at least 95% of drivers have
not heard of it or even considered the possibility. The government needs to publicise this special
risk which driver are usually unaware of.

http://www.smidsy.org.uk
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

"Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Sometimes it's simply because the cyclist is hidden behind a windscreen pillar when the driver
> makes a glance check. I've been working to publicise this special risk, but at least 95% of
> drivers have not heard of it or even considered the possibility. The government needs to publicise
> this special risk which driver are usually unaware of.

Judge: You killed a cyclist. That's 20 quid and 3 points.

Driver: But he was behind the windscreen pillar.

Judge: Ahhh!! Contributory negligence by the cyclist. Bloody cyclists, always hiding where you can't
see them. I'll let you off Scot free and award you costs.

If you are driving a tonne of lethal metal you have no excuse for not checking.

 

Paul Smith wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:06:45 -0000, "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Title "Drivers do not see cyclists". size - 38 kb 56k download time - 10 secs
> >http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zpaper1.htm
>
> Sometimes it's simply because the cyclist is hidden behind a windscreen pillar when the driver
> makes a glance check.

"Simply"? You have a LOT to learn. Oh dear I didn't see the cyclist - my windscreen pillar was
in the way.

Your continual excuses for the carnage motorists wreak amplifies your selfish "I can do no wrong"
arrogance.

If the driver cannot see he/she should not move.

You seem to have difficulty grasping that 'simple' concept.

John B

 

In message <[email protected]>, Paul Smith
<[email protected]> writes
>On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:06:45 -0000, "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Title "Drivers do not see cyclists". size - 38 kb 56k download time - 10 secs
>>http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zpaper1.htm
>
>Sometimes it's simply because the cyclist is hidden behind a windscreen pillar when the driver
>makes a glance check. I've been working to publicise this special risk, but at least 95% of drivers
>have not heard of it or even considered the possibility. The government needs to publicise this
>special risk which driver are usually unaware of.
>
>http://www.smidsy.org.uk

Isn't this one of the reasons to look several times in each direction?
--
Michael MacClancy

 

In article <[email protected]>, John B <[email protected]> writes
>"Simply"? You have a LOT to learn. Oh dear I didn't see the cyclist - my windscreen pillar was
>in the way.
>
>Your continual excuses for the carnage motorists wreak amplifies your selfish "I can do no wrong"
>arrogance.
>
>If the driver cannot see he/she should not move.
>
>You seem to have difficulty grasping that 'simple' concept.
So you didn't follow the link then? The whole page is dedicated to making drivers _more_ aware of
the extra care required in looking out for two wheeled road users and the unacceptability of the
SMIDSY excuse. Or did I miss something.
--
fred

 

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:57:22 -0000, "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Sometimes it's simply because the cyclist is hidden behind a windscreen pillar when the driver
>> makes a glance check. I've been working to publicise this special risk, but at least 95% of
>> drivers have not heard of it or even considered the possibility. The government needs to
>> publicise this special risk which driver are usually unaware of.

>Judge: You killed a cyclist. That's 20 quid and 3 points.

>Driver: But he was behind the windscreen pillar.

>Judge: Ahhh!! Contributory negligence by the cyclist. Bloody cyclists, always hiding where you
>can't see them. I'll let you off Scot free and award you costs.

>If you are driving a tonne of lethal metal you have no excuse for not checking.

Drivers get hundreds of valuable safety messages, and they are supposed to learn them all.
That's good.

Not giving them this particular safety message is a serious policy omission, especially since the
risk is not well known or understood.

It's one we can and should improve with education. It should be in the Highway Code.

And how exactly can a driver take responsibility for mitigating a risk he's never heard of (let
alone been taught) and never considered?
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

fred wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, John B <[email protected]> writes
> >"Simply"? You have a LOT to learn. Oh dear I didn't see the cyclist - my windscreen pillar was in
> >the way.
> >
> >Your continual excuses for the carnage motorists wreak amplifies your selfish "I can do no wrong"
> >arrogance.
> >
> >If the driver cannot see he/she should not move.
> >
> >You seem to have difficulty grasping that 'simple' concept.
> So you didn't follow the link then?

I had looked at it some time ago, but your point is accepted.

perhaps all vehicles should be designed without pillars obstructing vision? A bit like a bicycle ;-)

John B

 

In message <[email protected]>, fred <[email protected]> writes
>In article <[email protected]>, John B <[email protected]> writes
>>"Simply"? You have a LOT to learn. Oh dear I didn't see the cyclist - my windscreen pillar was in
>>the way.
>>
>>Your continual excuses for the carnage motorists wreak amplifies your selfish "I can do no wrong"
>>arrogance.
>>
>>If the driver cannot see he/she should not move.
>>
>>You seem to have difficulty grasping that 'simple' concept.
>So you didn't follow the link then? The whole page is dedicated to making drivers _more_ aware of
>the extra care required in looking out for two wheeled road users and the unacceptability of the
>SMIDSY excuse. Or did I miss something.

Dear Fred,

Your argument would be all the better if you chose not to hide behind an anonymous email
address and if you provided more information about yourself. For all we know you might be Paul
Smith in disguise.

--
Michael MacClancy

 

In message <[email protected]>, Paul Smith
<[email protected]> writes
>On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:33:41 +0000, Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zpaper1.htm
>
>>>Sometimes it's simply because the cyclist is hidden behind a windscreen pillar when the driver
>>>makes a glance check. I've been working to publicise this special risk, but at least 95% of
>>>drivers have not heard of it or even considered the possibility. The government needs to
>>>publicise this special risk which driver are usually unaware of.
>
>>>http://www.smidsy.org.uk
>
>>Isn't this one of the reasons to look several times in each direction?
>
>Absolutely. But you won't find that as clear advice in the Highway Code either. Time for a
>change. I did email them about it last year. I don't actually recall getting a reply. I'll give
>them a prod.

Yeah, but it's taught in lessons and tested in the driving tests. Stop trying to make excuses for
bad driving.
--
Michael MacClancy

 

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:33:41 +0000, Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zpaper1.htm

>>Sometimes it's simply because the cyclist is hidden behind a windscreen pillar when the driver
>>makes a glance check. I've been working to publicise this special risk, but at least 95% of
>>drivers have not heard of it or even considered the possibility. The government needs to publicise
>>this special risk which driver are usually unaware of.

>>http://www.smidsy.org.uk

>Isn't this one of the reasons to look several times in each direction?

Absolutely. But you won't find that as clear advice in the Highway Code either. Time for a change. I
did email them about it last year. I don't actually recall getting a reply. I'll give them a prod.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

"Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Drivers get hundreds of valuable safety messages, and they are supposed to learn them all.
> That's good.
>
> Not giving them this particular safety message is a serious policy omission, especially since the
> risk is not well known or understood.
>
> It's one we can and should improve with education. It should be in the Highway Code.
>
> And how exactly can a driver take responsibility for mitigating a risk he's never heard of (let
> alone been taught) and never considered?

That is the argument of the Health & Safety Nazi. Reduce everything to a check-list. Rule 427
taught, tick, tested, tick, understood, tick - not. Rule 428 ...

Maybe it should be in the HC. Maybe most people learn it when their instructor applies the dual
controls brake and calls them a prat.

Its not very difficult. If you are driving a tonne + of lethal metal you have to take particular
care. Driving through pedestrians, cyclists or other soft targets is not acceptable.

Full stop. End of argument.

The driver is responsible for checking he is not about to kill someone whether the hazard has been
explicitly pointed out or not. He is in charge of a piece of lethal equipment. He is licensed to use
it. He has the responsibility to use it safely.

T

 

Paul Smith wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:33:41 +0000, Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zpaper1.htm
>
> >>Sometimes it's simply because the cyclist is hidden behind a windscreen pillar when the driver
> >>makes a glance check. I've been working to publicise this special risk, but at least 95% of
> >>drivers have not heard of it or even considered the possibility. The government needs to
> >>publicise this special risk which driver are usually unaware of.
>
> >>http://www.smidsy.org.uk
>
> >Isn't this one of the reasons to look several times in each direction?
>
> Absolutely. But you won't find that as clear advice in the Highway Code either.

More excuses. Now its not in the highway Code.

> Time for a change. I did email them about it last year. I don't actually recall getting a reply.
> I'll give them a prod.

Dear Smithy boy, do you really think they would take you seriously given your track record?

John B

 

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:11:18 -0000, "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Drivers get hundreds of valuable safety messages, and they are supposed to learn them all.
>> That's good.

>> Not giving them this particular safety message is a serious policy omission, especially since the
>> risk is not well known or understood.

>> It's one we can and should improve with education. It should be in the Highway Code.

>> And how exactly can a driver take responsibility for mitigating a risk he's never heard of (let
>> alone been taught) and never considered?

>That is the argument of the Health & Safety Nazi. Reduce everything to a check-list. Rule 427
>taught, tick, tested, tick, understood, tick - not. Rule 428 ...

No, you're mistaken. This isn't an obvious risk that any thinking person should be aware of. The
brain appears to filter out the constant image of the pillar and people just don't appreciate that
something might be obscured. It's a real safety concern that can be improved by sensible messages.

>Maybe it should be in the HC. Maybe most people learn it when their instructor applies the dual
>controls brake and calls them a prat.

Not true. Try sampling your workmates or friends. People don't know. Simple as that.

>Its not very difficult. If you are driving a tonne + of lethal metal you have to take particular
>care. Driving through pedestrians, cyclists or other soft targets is not acceptable.

>Full stop. End of argument.

>The driver is responsible for checking he is not about to kill someone whether the hazard has been
>explicitly pointed out or not. He is in charge of a piece of lethal equipment. He is licensed to
>use it. He has the responsibility to use it safely.

And the government has quite rightly taken on the responsibility of giving safe driving advice. But
they've missed this one.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

In message <[email protected]>, John B <[email protected]> writes
>More excuses. Now its not in the highway Code.
>
>> Time for a change. I did email them about it last year. I don't actually recall getting a reply.
>> I'll give them a prod.
>
>Dear Smithy boy, do you really think they would take you seriously given your track record?
>
>John B

LOL
--
Michael MacClancy

 

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:28:47 +0000, Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>>http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zpaper1.htm

>>>>Sometimes it's simply because the cyclist is hidden behind a windscreen pillar when the driver
>>>>makes a glance check. I've been working to publicise this special risk, but at least 95% of
>>>>drivers have not heard of it or even considered the possibility. The government needs to
>>>>publicise this special risk which driver are usually unaware of.

>>>>http://www.smidsy.org.uk

>>>Isn't this one of the reasons to look several times in each direction?

>>Absolutely. But you won't find that as clear advice in the Highway Code either. Time for a
>>change. I did email them about it last year. I don't actually recall getting a reply. I'll give
>>them a prod.

>Yeah, but it's taught in lessons and tested in the driving tests. Stop trying to make excuses for
>bad driving.

It isn't taught with any consistency. Most will never have received the message.

I'm certainly not trying to make excuses. I'm trying to make the roads safer. I don't even have to
concern myself with blame in this instance.

Of course it might help some cyclists to be aware of the risk and know that when a driver's head
appear to them in a certain position that the pillar might have prevented a driver from seeing them.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

"Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Not true. Try sampling your workmates or friends. People don't know. Simple as that.

Trying to hold a discussion with you is like arguing with a speak-your-weight machine. The answers
never quite the same but equally banal.

It seems my colleagues are more intelligent than yours -- but perhaps yours are all woolly with a
fear of mint sauce

T

 

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:03:24 -0000, "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Not true. Try sampling your workmates or friends. People don't know. Simple as that.

>Trying to hold a discussion with you is like arguing with a speak-your-weight machine. The answers
>never quite the same but equally banal.

So let's get this straight. You think drivers should recognise potentially obscure road dangers
without having them explained. And you think there's something wrong with my argument?

>It seems my colleagues are more intelligent than yours -- but perhaps yours are all woolly with a
>fear of mint sauce

I bet you haven't got that result from a clean sample. Having done various straw polls myself, I
know that folk in general don't know that windscreen pillars are a significant contributor to many
smidsy accidents.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:57:57 +0000, Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:

>>More excuses. Now its not in the highway Code.

>>> Time for a change. I did email them about it last year. I don't actually recall getting a reply.
>>> I'll give them a prod.

>>Dear Smithy boy, do you really think they would take you seriously given your track record?

>>John B

>LOL

Feel free to laugh. But Buckled couldn't be more wrong.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives