Letter in local paper

[Tim Woodall]

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:20:40 +0000, Paul Smith <[email protected]> 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. 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.

Actually, the main reason to look both ways several times is because people are extremely bad at
judging the speed of something directly approaching (or receding although that is rarely a problem
when driving).

By looking several times (and looking away) things noticably move.

I can't say that "windscreen pillar" is a normal reason for cagers not seeing me. I would say a few
not looking at all (or looking while so far from the junction that all they could possibly see would
be car lights illuminating the road), some looking directly at me but not seeing me, and the rest
looking at me, seeing me, and completely misjudging my speed.

If I can see their head then they can see mine.

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/

 

[Colin Blackburn]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:03:24 -0000, "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Smith srote:
> >> Not true. Try sampling your workmates or friends. People don't know. Simple as that.
> >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.

Is this the same sample that showed that 95% of motorists understand the informal hand signal for no
overtaking?

Colin

 

[Michael Macclan]

In message <[email protected]>, Paul Smith
<[email protected]> writes
>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?

I think that, as with the whole of your campaign, you're making up things to argue about. You're
just wasting time.
--
Michael MacClancy

 

[John B]

Paul Smith wrote:

> 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.

A good number of road safety officers judged your credibility when they saw:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/countermeasures.html

It has been discussed at length.

Now, what was that you were saying about your aims towards improving safety?

John B

 

[Tony W]

"Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> So let's get this straight. You think drivers should recognise potentially obscure road dangers
> without having them explained.

Drivers are going out with a lethal instrument into a poorly controlled environment -- who the f***
else is meant to recognise the dangers?

What is so obscure about not being able to see through a chunk of steel?

Every driver is taught about blind spots. True there may be an over emphasis on the one behind your
right shoulder -- but surely others are know.

I have no problem with this, or other obvious dangers being pointed out to learners -- in fact it
would surprise me if it isn't.

So let's get this straight -- are you arguing that drivers should only be able to react to dangers
that have been explained to them beforehand? What happens when something out of the ordinary
happens? Do they have an excuse? Oh sorry, no-one explained that a shitehawk could fall from the air
and hit my windscreen so I drove through the bus queue!! If it had been a pigeon or a sparrow --
well that was covered in Advanced Driving for the Intellectually Challenged.

> And you think there's something wrong with my argument?

I've found very little right with any of your arguments to date. Why do you expect this one to be
different.

>
> >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.

Ahh. I got the 'wrong' answer so I must have done it wrong!!

T

 

[J-P.S]

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:03:50 -0000, Tony W scrawled: ) Ahh. I got the 'wrong' answer so I must have
done it wrong!!

Quite. How does it feel to be Paul Smith's Old Europe?

J-P
--
James Ellroy's doppelganger was cornholed with the biggest vibrator I'd ever seen in Russia.

 

[Tony Raven]

Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You're just wasting time.

I thought that was the main purpose of Usenet ;-)

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them
their job."

Samuel Goldwyn

 

[Michael Macclan]

In message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes
>Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> You're just wasting time.
>
>I thought that was the main purpose of Usenet ;-)
>
Umm. Sharp observation but Paul Smith means that it gets taken to extremes.

--
Michael MacClancy

 

[Simon Proven]

Tim Woodall wrote:

> If I can see their head then they can see mine.

It would be more precise to repeace head with eyes.

Simon

 

[Dr]

"Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote
> "Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote
> >

- about windscreen pillars -

> > 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.

> 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.

Sorry but have to agree with Paul here. I drove a Peugeot 206 a few weeks ago and its really
bloody terrible.

Not just that the pillar has a thick x-section but it is also very steeply raked and blocks out a
massive horizontal section. Even with moving my head I was not sure I could see properly. And by
trying to look I was concentrating too much on one spot.

The thing is, moving from another car I recognized I was losing half the view. As a cyclist I am
fairly aware of the sensory deprivation of a car anyway. I suspect its worse after getting used to
it - you get used to not seeing things and eventually you cease trying to look.

David Roberts.

 

[Fred]

In article <[email protected]>, Michael MacClancy
<[email protected]> writes
>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.
Thanks for your reply.

When I look at a post it is not the name or email address of the poster that I look at when
assessing it as useful or informative but the content and reasoning in the message. My defence of
Paul Smith's post and link was because I thought the site contained a strong argument to highlight
the danger of failing to 'think bike' when driving and that is what I said in my post. I didn't take
any notice of Paul's stance on other motoring matters or his views presented on his other websites.

I choose to remain anonymous for my own reasons, but should you wish to view every post I have ever
made, you can search for them by entering "fred <[email protected]>" in the author field at
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en , I hope you will find it entertaining
--
fred

 

[Manxshaun]

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

Aah, now we're getting to the point. It was the cyclist's fault all along!

manxshaun

 

[Michael Macclan]

In message <[email protected]>, Paul Smith
<[email protected]> writes
>Obviously if you're killed by a car pulling out your wife will say: "It's all right,

Yours might, I hope mine wouldn't. ;-)
--
Michael MacClancy

 

[Dave Kahn]

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

> > 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.

Although I think he's oversimplifying things, and I don't find the term "glance check" very
reassuring, Paul does have a valid point. With blind spots the brain automatically fills in the gaps
in your vision. Not only can the driver not see objects in the blind spot, but he is unaware that he
cannot see them. Although I'm happy for motorists to be educated about blind spots I'm certainly not
going to rely on their awareness for my safety. If the driver's face is obscured by the windscreen
pillar then I can be pretty sure I'm in his blind spot.

However, blind spots do not explain the SMIDSYs who attempt to kill you after making direct eye
contact with you. That's either a different perception problem or it's plain dangerous driving. I'm
alive because I make allowances all the time for drivers who don't see me, and blind spots are only
part of the problem.

--
Dave...

 

[Paul Smith]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:12:26 -0000, "manxshaun" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> 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.

>Aah, now we're getting to the point. It was the cyclist's fault all along!

Fault? Obviously if you're killed by a car pulling out your wife will say: "It's all right, it was
the driver fault".

On the other hand, perhaps you might think it advisable to take extra care in the vicinity of
known risks.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

[Tony W]

"Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
> On the other hand, perhaps you might think it advisable to take extra care in the vicinity of
> known risks.

I think you will find that most cyclists that make it to adulthood develop a good understanding of
cagers and their ways. The sensible ones watch very carefully, try to catch the cager's eye and to
predict what he may do next.

Of course, given that many cagers seem to have their brains turned permanently off, this can be
difficult.

T

 

[Paul Smith]

On 11 Mar 2003 01:55:55 -0800, [email protected] (Dave Kahn) wrote:

>However, blind spots do not explain the SMIDSYs who attempt to kill you after making direct eye
>contact with you. That's either a different perception problem or it's plain dangerous driving. I'm
>alive because I make allowances all the time for drivers who don't see me, and blind spots are only
>part of the problem.

The thing about eye contact is usually a false assumption. He might be looking at you, past you, or
in your direction, but you're assuming that it's personal eye contact when sometimes it isn't.

SMIDSYs happen most commonly when the driver "looked but did not see", and that includes cases where
the victim thought he'd had eye contact.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

[Dave Kahn]

John B <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> A good number of road safety officers judged your credibility when they saw:
> http://www.safespeed.org.uk/countermeasures.html
>
> It has been discussed at length.
>
> Now, what was that you were saying about your aims towards improving safety?

Hmmm....

"You could have made up a number plate from a similar make and colour car to yours seen driving
around. This is called number plate cloning and is becoming quite common. It would be hard to
justify your incorrect cloned plate if stopped by Police."

Yes, quite hard I should think.

--
Dave...

 

[Manxshaun]

"Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message Snip
>
> On the other hand, perhaps you might think it advisable to take extra care in the vicinity of
> known risks.

Yes, let me know whenever you are anywhere south of Birmingham, I'll stay at home and tell my loved
ones to do the same!

manxshaun

 

[Dave Kahn]

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

> The thing about eye contact is usually a false assumption. He might be looking at you, past you,
> or in your direction, but you're assuming that it's personal eye contact when sometimes it isn't.
>
> SMIDSYs happen most commonly when the driver "looked but did not see", and that includes cases
> where the victim thought he'd had eye contact.

Agreed up to a point. However, being able to see the motorist's eyes establishes beyond doubt that
you are not in his blind spot at that moment. We are a predatory animal and proper eye to eye
contact is fairly hard to mistake. Ever noticed how often someone you are staring at suddenly
becomes aware of you doing it and instantly returns the stare, causing you immediately to look away?

Quite often a motorist makes eye contact and uses it to try to dominate the cyclist, deliberately
moving into his path. Of course, after the crash he will say that he didn't see him. I've found that
by avoiding eye contact once I am sure that the motorist has seen me, by looking over my shoulder
for example, I get cut up far less often.

--
Dave...