"Paul Smith" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
snip
> >It was also a direct risk to the driver's own survival -- as such it is understandable that he
> >ignored the minor inconvenience (aka lesser danger) -- me.
>
> You might think it understandable, but that's not how it works.
How else does it work then? The human brain prioritises. The most greater risk to an individual's
own survival (or injury) takes priority over a risk to another individual. More recent risks take
priority over older risks (unless the older is significantly more serious).
There are exceptions -- parent (particularly Mother)-child being the most obvious though war heroes
have frequently ignored their own safety to rescue colleagues.
However, this is not vital to the argument. I accept that, under the circumstances the driver was
going to be squeezing my space.
> >> But you could have avoided your accident by braking hard as soon as you realised that the
> >> overtaking car was relying on the non-appearence of oncoming traffic. Then when the overtaker
> >> had to swing left you would have been behind.
>
> >Given the circumstances -- at which I was present and you were not -- I expect that there was
> >more I could have done to reduce the risk to
myself.
> >Probably, I too, reacted to the primary risk at each point of the
incident.
> >I do not believe braking hard would have made that much diffeernce -- but
I
> >cnanot swear to that. However, I do dismiss it as another Smith broad generalisation based on
> >inadequate knowledge.
>
> You gave a reasonable description. I quote:
>
> "Driver starts to overtake a cyclist on a blind, right hand bend. Initially pulling out
> sufficiently to avoid the cyclist - but, in doing so reducing his view round the bend and placing
> himself in increased risk of traffic coming in the opposite direction.
>
> The driver has perceived the immediate 'risk' - the cyclist - but has ignored the potential risk -
> the van coming in the opposite direction."
>
> At this point you are as well equipped as the driver to recognise the potential danger. You would
> not have had to think hard to realise that oncoming traffic appearing would force the overtaker
> left into your space. You could have pre-empted the risk by stopping to allow space for the daft
> overtaker to pull left.
I have reflected on this some more. There are good reasons why this was NOT a viable course of
action -- as, I suspect, any cyclist will confirm. Firstly, braking hard while going round a bend
significantly compromises the accuracy of steering and accurate steering was necessary to provide
the maximum space for my motorised friends.
Secondly, slamming on the anchors with a tonne plus of metal relatively close to one's jacksee does
not seem a good option -- especially given that my perception of his position would be derived from
sound only (and his first indication that I am slowing is when I am disappearing under the wheels --
bikes are not fitted with brake lights). Turning to look where he was would again compromise
steering, could initiate a wobble and result in a car up the jacksee.
Finally, you will remember I had already given the famous Paul Smith universal stay behind me signal
-- which was ignored -- which had already compromised my steering slightly. A bicycle is, by its
very nature, an inherently unstable device that requires continuous closed loop control (much of it
subconscious) to keep it stable. Any perturbation will induce a wobble.
On balance I think my choices were about right (allowing, obviously, that there may have been better
options if I had perceived the danger earlier but the opportunities for this were, I believe,
limited. Remember this was a road I knew well and this was the worst but not the only incidence of
this sort of stupid driving). I did succeed in steering close enough to the road edge to provide
both drivers sufficient space -- and this was important since any collision (even a glancing
contact) between the car and van would probably have thrown the car in my direction with unpleasant
consequences.
I was not hit by the car though its proximity and draft may have been the final straw. Basically I
ended up in the hedge because I ran out of manoeuvring room and clipped the bank -- ultimately my
failure to steer precisely enough.
>
> >The 'solution' I adopted after this incident was to be MUCH more
aggressive
> >in cycling round this bend -- pulling 1/2 to 2/3rds of the way out into
MY
> >lane (i.e. the only lane going in that direction) so giving drivers a
MUCH
> >starker choice if they wanted to overtake. This resulted in frequent hooting and significant
> >abuse -- but tough ****.
>
> After the event. That's OK, but getting a good solution first time would have been better.
I lived to tell the tale with only minor scratches and bruises - sound a good enough outcome to me!!
We can all dream up idealised 'solutions' later in the comfort of our bath!!
> >The problems with this approach were 1) I reduced my view round the bend
and
> >2) I needed to tapper my move across the lane to maintain my visibility
to
> >following traffic and so avoid becoming road kill as some stupid sod
roarded
> >round the bend at stupid speeds. From this you may estimate that, while driving is hard, cycling
> >can require even more thought and skill -- and, sadly, there is no (as far as I am aware) Instute
> >of Advanced Cyclists
with
> >nice people to train you in survival strategies. See -- motorists have
it
> >easy!!
>
> No one has it easy. We must all take proper responsibility for our own safety.
What about taking responsibility for the safety of others?? That would seem to be the critical issue
here. One ****-head could not predict danger, would not be delayed (despite being advised of a
danger) and so threatened at least 3 lives.
> If you think there should be a groups of advanced cyclists, then start one. I think it's an
> excellent idea.
Frankly, getting some cyclists trained to a very basic level would be more cost effective.
Getting idiot drivers off the road until they are competent to control a tonne of metal would be
even better.
> >> >As I said, no cyclist is so stable -- all of the time.
>
> >> Yeah. That's what I said too.
>
> >Please point to the place where you said this because I have re-read your post and do not see it.
> >I accept your 'perfect' cyclist is an abstraction -- but you never actually say so -- rather
> >describing him as
if
> >he exists.
>
> Yawn...
Keeping you up, are we. Pay attention.
> Quoting myself:
>
> "As far as cyclists and close passing are concerned, most drivers recognise the dangers and pass
> wide enough. Those that don't simply didn't anticipate the risks properly. And anticipation is
> absolutely required, one could pass a non-wobbling, non-deviating, unaffected by slipstream
> cyclist safely with a foot or so to spare. Recognising that cyclists have none of these quality is
> a function of driver anticipation."
>
> That last sentence does the job. Shame I wrote "quality" rather than "qualities"
I corrected your English. I even made the wild assumption that you were, in the first part,
describing an idealised cyclist. I will take your word that 'the last sentence does the job' though
I have to be generous so to do.
> >> >You presume that removing the right to drive limits a persons freedom
of
> >> >movement. There are many other available forms of transport and something over 25% of all
> >> >households (thouse wiothout cars) make use of them.
>
> >> I don't. You agreed with me.
>
> >At the risk of entering a Did/Didn't arguement -- No I din't.
>
> Yawn. Quoting self again:
>
> "Driving well isn't easy, yet we allow all sorts of folk to drive. Most people consider that the
> risks of allowing the dumbest to drive are outweighed by permitting the population the freedom of
> movement that driving allows. Personally I'd rather see the worst 10% permanently excluded from
> the roads, but I don't rate that as likely."
>
> That last sentence. (and that I said "most people consider...")
>
We are both clearly fluent -- sadly, in different languages.
snip
> >It is gross arrogance to claim that your 'study' is inherently better
than
> >anyone else's 'observation'.
>
> No it isn't. I've been specifically studying and researching for many years. It's just fact.
Then you don't seem able to put over any earthshattering ideas in such a way as to convince some of
the very experienced road users here.
> >Maybe you have, indeed, 'studied' driving -- but you still manage to put forward some
> >stupid ideas.
>
> That's because you don't understand... And this message shows very clearly that your comprehension
> is seriously ****.
Well thank you kind Sir. As you no doubt appreciate, I believe you are a self opinionated idiot
promoting a delusional set of dangerous ideas.
Have a nice 10 days away -- I( am sure many here will appreciate the peace and quiet.
T
> --
> Paul Smith Scotland, UK
http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's
> make speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving
