Phew.

Richard said:

how much (lack of) observation does it take to miss a 6'
lardy [censored] in a fluorescent yellow top?!

Huge amounts of it.

Richard said:

A very loud yell from me woke him up, and I skimmed across his rapidly
braking bow with a good few feet to spare, to the sound of his tires
squealing. No harm done.

You did the right thing. Don't trust other road users to see you,
or to do 'the right thing'. Applies cycling or driving.

One valuable lesson my Dad taught me when driving was,
if you are at a Give Way line on a sidestreet, if a car on the main
road is indicating left wait till it actually turns left.
Indicators may be left on by some dozy twit.

John Hearns said:

One valuable lesson my Dad taught me when driving was,
if you are at a Give Way line on a sidestreet, if a car on the
main road is indicating left wait till it actually turns left.
Indicators may be left on by some dozy twit.

Or he may be indicating he's about to pull up at the kerb just after
the junction. The idea they might be giving an ambiguous signal doesn't
seem to occur to some people.

--
Dave...

John Hearns said:

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:39:04 +0100, Richard wrote:

Quoted message said:

One valuable lesson my Dad taught me when driving was,
if you are at a Give Way line on a sidestreet, if a car on the main
road is indicating left wait till it actually turns left.
Indicators may be left on by some dozy twit.

I've had car drivers wait for me when I'm indicating left - as if I'm
going to leave my arm sticking out by accident!

--
Simon M.

dkahn400 said:

John Hearns said:

One valuable lesson my Dad taught me when driving was,
if you are at a Give Way line on a sidestreet, if a car on the
main road is indicating left wait till it actually turns left.
Indicators may be left on by some dozy twit.

Or he may be indicating he's about to pull up at the kerb just after
the junction. The idea they might be giving an ambiguous signal doesn't
seem to occur to some people.

That's not really the fault of the driver, though, is it?

If s/he doesn't indicate when about to pull up just past the junction, following
motorists are going to get irate when s/he brakes and pulls over with no, or
very sudden, indication.

It's actually a problem with the signalling system we use.

Richard said:

But, FFS, how much (lack of) observation does it take to miss a 6' lardy
[censored] in a fluorescent yellow top?!

It's been discussed before here many times; everyone's brain processes
the signal produced by the eyeballs to make the image the brain works
with. The latter is much simpler than the inclusive, photographic-style
image the optical equipment generates. Particularly if the brain has set
priorities such as seeking information on other motor vehicles, other
information such as cyclists in the field of vision can be filtered out.
Our brains save effort by removing information from conscious
consideration that is apparently irrelevant to our current task. This is
how we all work. It is obviously normally appropriate. But it is bad
news for cyclists moving among big fast motor vehicles.

Congratulations on having dealt with it satisfactorily.

You might it interesting to watch this Java video (7MB) of a basketball
game and try to count the total number of times that the people wearing
*white* pass the basketball. Do *not* count the passes made by the
people wearing black.

http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/grafs/demos/15.html

Having done that *first* go to this site
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0011a/perception.html
where the third paragraph discusses it, as does
http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/media/dailytelegraph.html
etc.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Paul D said:

dkahn400 said:

John Hearns said:

One valuable lesson my Dad taught me when driving was,
if you are at a Give Way line on a sidestreet, if a car on the
main road is indicating left wait till it actually turns left.
Indicators may be left on by some dozy twit.

Or he may be indicating he's about to pull up at the kerb just after
the junction. The idea they might be giving an ambiguous signal doesn't
seem to occur to some people.

That's not really the fault of the driver, though, is it?

If s/he doesn't indicate when about to pull up just past the junction, following
motorists are going to get irate when s/he brakes and pulls over with no, or
very sudden, indication.

S/he should slow down gradually. My parents have this problem, living
just after a junction. The correct method is to slow down but not signal
until after the junction.

If following motorists get irate, that's their problem.

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

Richard said:

Lane 1 contains a ****ing huge tanker,
approaching at speed, the driver gazing *behind* me and showing
absolutely no sign of slowing. Our courses are such that I'm going to
end up somewhere under the middle of his rig if one of us doesn't do
something.

Damn I hate that. I ride past several large distribution depots
daily, so often as I approach an entrance to a roundabout there is a
truck thundering up, and I wonder if the bugger is going to stop.
Brakes covered and stand by to bail out, is my usual approach.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Richard said:

But, FFS, how much (lack of) observation does it take to miss a 6' lardy
[censored] in a fluorescent yellow top?!

Well you were wearing standard issue urban camouflage ;-)

--
Tony

"A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought" Lord
Peter Wimsey (Dorothy L. Sayers)

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:47:04 +0100, Mark Tranchant <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

S/he should slow down gradually. My parents have this problem, living
just after a junction. The correct method is to slow down but not signal
until after the junction.

I agree. That's what I'd do, but it's not official guidence.

Quoted message said:

If following motorists get irate, that's their problem.

If the turnee did what you describe, true. If they just breezed past the
junction, braked and parked (perhaps whipping the indicator on as they did so),
then the following motorist would be justified to become vexed.

JLB said:

watch this Java video (7MB) of a basketball

Harumph. It kills my mozilla on Linux stone dead. Have to try it from
a Windows box.

R.

Paul D said:

On 28 Apr 2005 02:21:56 -0700, "dkahn400" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or he may be indicating he's about to pull up at the kerb just
after the junction. The idea they might be giving an ambiguous
signal doesn't seem to occur to some people.

That's not really the fault of the driver, though, is it?

Of course it is.

Quoted message said:

If s/he doesn't indicate when about to pull up just past the
junction, following motorists are going to get irate when s/he
brakes and pulls over with no, or very sudden, indication.

The driver has several sensible choices including: slow down gradually
and signal once past the junction; pull up a little bit further from
the junction; use the slowing down or stopping hand signal.

--
Dave...

Just zis Guy said:

Damn I hate that. I ride past several large distribution depots
daily, so often as I approach an entrance to a roundabout there
is a truck thundering up, and I wonder if the bugger is going to
stop. Brakes covered and stand by to bail out, is my usual approach.

On your bike you should be able to pass safely underneath. :-)

--
Dave...

dkahn400 said:

Paul D said:

On 28 Apr 2005 02:21:56 -0700, "dkahn400" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or he may be indicating he's about to pull up at the kerb just
after the junction. The idea they might be giving an ambiguous
signal doesn't seem to occur to some people.

That's not really the fault of the driver, though, is it?

Of course it is.

All right, to a certain extent, it is, but it's almost certainly what they were
trained to do.

It's primarily the fault of using a signaling system whereby if you do what you
are trained to do, you can confuse other road users.

Quoted message said:

The driver has several sensible choices including: slow down gradually
and signal once past the junction; pull up a little bit further from
the junction; use the slowing down or stopping hand signal.

If they notice the problem.

As I said, that is not in the standard training, and neither is it in the
advanced motorist training (or, at least it wasn't 20 years ago).

Paul D said:

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:47:04 +0100, Mark Tranchant <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

S/he should slow down gradually. My parents have this problem, living
just after a junction. The correct method is to slow down but not signal
until after the junction.

I agree. That's what I'd do, but it's not official guidence.

I rather think it is. See Rule 85: http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/07.htm#85

Peter

--

www.amey.org.uk

Peter Amey said:

Paul D said:

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:47:04 +0100, Mark Tranchant <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

S/he should slow down gradually. My parents have this problem, living
just after a junction. The correct method is to slow down but not signal
until after the junction.

I agree. That's what I'd do, but it's not official guidence.

I rather think it is. See Rule 85: http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/07.htm#85

I stand corrected.

I really should read the whole highway code again.

It's weird the way someone can pass a test, and still be driving possibly 50
years later without ever re-reading the highway code.

I would say without ever _having_ to read the highway code again, but I expect
someone would post detailing somewhere in the RTA where it says drivers must do
what is necessary to keep up with current regulations. (And if it doesn't, it
should).

Paul D said:

I really should read the whole highway code again.

It's weird the way someone can pass a test, and still be
driving possibly 50 years later without ever re-reading the
highway code.

I would say without ever _having_ to read the highway code
again, but I expect someone would post detailing somewhere in
the RTA where it says drivers must do what is necessary to
keep up with current regulations. (And if it doesn't, it
should).

I think it's worse that it's possible to pass the test and then not get
behind the wheel again for 50 years.
--
Mark

1x1 wheel, 3x2 wheels & 1x3 wheels.

the.Mark said:

Paul D said:

I really should read the whole highway code again.

It's weird the way someone can pass a test, and still be
driving possibly 50 years later without ever re-reading the
highway code.

I would say without ever _having_ to read the highway code
again, but I expect someone would post detailing somewhere in
the RTA where it says drivers must do what is necessary to
keep up with current regulations. (And if it doesn't, it
should).

I think it's worse that it's possible to pass the test and then not get
behind the wheel again for 50 years.

Not getting behind the wheel is not the problem.

However, having not bothered to drive for some 16 years now, I know I
would not try driving again until I'd had some refresher lessons and
been assured by the instructor that my skills had been restored to
something at least adequate.

Is there any evidence that there is an actual problem with people going
back to driving completely unprepared after giving it up for many years?

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Velvet said:

JLB said:

the.Mark said:

Paul D wrote:

> I really should read the whole highway code again.
>
> It's weird the way someone can pass a test, and still be
> driving possibly 50 years later without ever re-reading the
> highway code.
>
> I would say without ever _having_ to read the highway code
> again, but I expect someone would post detailing somewhere in
> the RTA where it says drivers must do what is necessary to
> keep up with current regulations. (And if it doesn't, it
> should).

I think it's worse that it's possible to pass the test and then not
get behind the wheel again for 50 years.

Not getting behind the wheel is not the problem.

However, having not bothered to drive for some 16 years now, I know I
would not try driving again until I'd had some refresher lessons and
been assured by the instructor that my skills had been restored to
something at least adequate.

Is there any evidence that there is an actual problem with people
going back to driving completely unprepared after giving it up for
many years?

I drive lots, but notice after a break of 6-8 weeks (post-surgery
recovery time) I was 'rusty' to a minor degree. I remember taking more
care over things, but don't think that after a break of about 5-6 months
from driving it was any more pronounced.

I did find everyone seemed to be driving faster than before the
several-months break from it though.

I'd be much more concerned about getting back behind the wheel after a
year or more of not driving. I think it doesn't take long to get back
into everythign you need to be aware of, but that initial period *is*
more dangerous to yourself and others, I think.

Of course, 50 years on it's not just driving that's changed - traffic
levels, behaviour and attitudes, much of society has changed. There are
those who can't cope with that and find it very hard to adapt, I dread
to think what they'd be like behind the wheel after that length of time!

I agree; so is there any evidence that drivers who have taken a
substantial time off don't recognise the problem? Is it an issue, as I
think implied by some earlier posts, something that should be addressed
by formal means? Or is it actually so obvious, to everyone else as well
as you and me, that great care is needed by all those who used to drive
and intend to start again, that it can be left to sort itself out?

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap