Re: cyclist nearly kills himself

[LSMike]

Art wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:19:52 +0000, Don Whybrow
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Art wrote:
> >>
> >> As road users, cyclists have as much responsibility to know the
> >> Highway Code as car drivers.
> >
> >Since the HC also covers pedestrians, lets make everyone pass a test
> >before they can leave their house.
>
> Pedestrians don't ride/drive.

Perhaps you should see Rules for Pedestrians:

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/pedestrians.htm

I expect most pedestrians would also be motons and cyclists at some
point.

 

[LSMike]

Art wrote:
>
> Most of them don't even seem to know what a traffic light at red
> means.

ITYM most humans, given that 1 in 10 car drivers and 1 in 5 bus drivers
went through red lights in one study, and that was only measuring a
full three seconds after the light turned red, rather than from orange
when including safe stopping.

In general, motor vehicle drivers aren't especially law abiding either,
it seems all will break laws we think we can get away with breaking.

 

[Tony Raven]

Art wrote on 19/12/2006 05:09 +0100:
>
> Most of them don't even seem to know what a traffic light at red
> means.
>

Which is why many more cyclists are killed in London by motorists
ignoring red lights than by ignoring red lights themselves. Plus ca
change.....

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Adrian]

Art ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

>>Since the HC also covers pedestrians, lets make everyone pass a test
>>before they can leave their house.

> Pedestrians don't ride/drive.

Have you ever read the HC?

 

[Brimstone]

Adrian wrote:
> Art ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying :
>
>>> Since the HC also covers pedestrians, lets make everyone pass a test
>>> before they can leave their house.
>
>> Pedestrians don't ride/drive.
>
> Have you ever read the HC?

He can't, it's in English.

 

[Ian]

"James Grabowski" wrote in message
> Ian wrote:
>>
>> "p.k." wrote in message
>> > Señor Chris wrote:
>> >> p.k. wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> a contributing factor was
>> >>> wearing dark clothing.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Would that be in the same way that cars contribute to accidents by
>> >> being painted a dark colour ?
>> >
>> > No the clothing advised in the highway code, if the motorist is being
>> > criticised for not following the HC, so should be the cyclist.
>> >
>> > 45: Clothing. You should wear
>> >
>> > a.. a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations
>> > b.. appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get
>> > tangled
>> > in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
>> > c.. light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road
>> > users
>> > to see you in daylight and poor light
>> > d.. reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands)
>> > in
>> > the dark.
>> > If as a cyclist, I wear inappropriate clothing in poor light and
>> > position
>> > myself incorrectly then any accident is partly my fault.
>> >
>>
>> That's most of the cyclists in my area partly responsible for any
>> accident
>> in which they are involved. Most don't wear safety helmets
>
> Do you wear a helmet in your car?
>

The Highway Code doesn't suggest I should, whereas it does for cyclists.

Ian

 

[JNugent]

Art wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:46:17 GMT, "Ian" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Art" wrote in message
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:22:54 -0000, Conor <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>, p.k. says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The cyclist was at fault for failing to wear light clothing at dusk,
>>>>
>>>>Nope
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>was
>>>>>further at fault by failing to approach a roundabout correctly
>>>>>positioned in
>>>>>the Primary position, was further at fault for undretaking on the inside
>>>>>of
>>>>>a stationary vehicle waithing to enter the roundabout.
>>>>>
>>>>>The driver was at fault for failing to observe fully.
>>>>>
>>>>>Who was the more incompetent?
>>>>
>>>>The car driver. A cyclist may not have a car licence so may not
>>>>actually know. As a car driver, like 99% of other car drivres, he would
>>>>have experienced cyclists doing this before and should be aware of it.
>>>
>>>As road users, cyclists have as much responsibility to know the
>>>Highway Code as car drivers.
>>>
>>
>>No they don't. A car driver must pass a test proving that they have
>>knowledge of the Highway Code. A cyclist or a pedestrian don't need to have
>>ever seen or heard of the Highway Code before venturing on to the road.
>
>
> A pedestrian doesn't use the highway in the same way a bicycle or car
> does.

They use the footway and treat traffic lights in the
same way as a cyclist, though.

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:47:46 +0000, TripleS <[email protected]> wrote:
> p.k. wrote:
>> Señor Chris wrote:
>>> The HC is rendered completely irrelevant when someone is unable to see
>>> what is right in front of their eyes (or was he looking elsewhere ?).
>>> Everything else is just a smoke-screen for the driver's glaring
>>> incompetence.
>>
>> The cyclist was at fault for failing to wear light clothing at dusk, was
>> further at fault by failing to approach a roundabout correctly positioned in
>> the Primary position, was further at fault for undretaking on the inside of
>> a stationary vehicle waithing to enter the roundabout.
>>
>> The driver was at fault for failing to observe fully.
>>
>> Who was the more incompetent?
>>
>> If each were taking a driving or cycling competncey test both would fail.
>>
>
> Pardon my ignorance, but what is meant by Primary position? Does it
> mean cycling down the middle of a lane in order prevent (or at least
> discourage) a driver from overtaking you?

Yes - well at least prevent / discourage a driver overtaking without
giving you the same room as they would do for a car.

> If this is the case
> presumably the thinking is that the cyclist will be able to dominate the
> proceedings and protect his own safety (though I have my doubts about
> that) and drivers will have to follow until he has negotiated the hazard
> and got out of their way. In theory I can see some merit in that, but
> at the same time it also sounds like a recipe for cyclists to be
> bloodyminded and promote added conflict with drivers - so it's not
> totally good news.

The alternative is to cower towards the left-hand side and leave a
tempting gap for a car to squeeze past when in fact there probably isn't
room. Also you are right in a driver's field of view and at no danger
of being hit as a driver not noticing you, turning left and hitting you.

Those people who cycle in the primary position (as I do when appropriate)
do find it to work pretty well. It certainly is much better than any
alternative when approaching a hazard such as the road narrowing for
example.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[JNugent]

Andy Leighton wrote:

[ ... ]

>>Pardon my ignorance, but what is meant by Primary position? Does it
>>mean cycling down the middle of a lane in order prevent (or at least
>>discourage) a driver from overtaking you?

> Yes - well at least prevent / discourage a driver overtaking without
> giving you the same room as they would do for a car.

> The alternative is to cower towards the left-hand side and leave a
> tempting gap for a car to squeeze past when in fact there probably isn't
> room. Also you are right in a driver's field of view and at no danger
> of being hit as a driver not noticing you, turning left and hitting you.

That makes a lot of sense.

Exactly the same set of principles are in play when a
temporarily-stopped (or slow-moving) vehicle is
positioned so as to dissuade a gutter-cyclist from
overtaking on the nearside when approaching a junction.

 

[Al C-F]

p.k. wrote:

>
> The primary error was by the cyclist in not adopting the Primary Position,
> the second error was by the motorist passing the cyclist too close to the
> roundabout
> the third error was by the cyclist passing on the left of a stationary
> vehicle and stopping at the front left comer of the car at the roundabout,
> the fourth error was by the motorist failing to observe fully.
>
> The Key initiating error was by the cyclist & a contributing factor was
> wearing dark clothing.
>
> pk
>
>

Though the motorist overtaking so close to a junction could hardly have
helped.


Observation: the layout of some cycle lanes approaching and around
roundabouts may cause confusion as to the correct positioning of cyclists.

 

[Al C-F]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> p.k. said the following on 18/12/2006 16:01:
>
>> The driver was at fault for failing to observe fully.
>
>
> ...and also for overtaking on the approach to the roundabout:- "just
> passed a cyclist about 15 metres before the roundabout"
>
>> If each were taking a driving or cycling competncey test both would fail.
>
>
> Entirely possible.
>

The driving competency test is mandatory. Not so for cyclists.

 

[Al C-F]

TripleS wrote:

>
> Pardon my ignorance, but what is meant by Primary position? Does it
> mean cycling down the middle of a lane in order prevent (or at least
> discourage) a driver from overtaking you?

Yes.

> If this is the case
> presumably the thinking is that the cyclist will be able to dominate the
> proceedings and protect his own safety (though I have my doubts about
> that) and drivers will have to follow until he has negotiated the hazard
> and got out of their way.

Yes.

> In theory I can see some merit in that, but
> at the same time it also sounds like a recipe for cyclists to be
> bloodyminded and promote added conflict with drivers - so it's not
> totally good news.

This is how some of the ignorami driving cars react. That there may be
an alternative reason for this positioning does not appear to enter
their minds. This is an unfortunate consequence of so few drivers ever
having cycled.
>
> With regard to my initial question it would be appreciated if we could
> avoid getting sidetracked onto Kama Sutra type considerations etc. We
> don't want young Silk getting over excited!

Pure in thought and motive...

 

[Al C-F]

Ian wrote:

>
> That's most of the cyclists in my area partly responsible for any accident
> in which they are involved. Most don't wear safety helmets,

Please explain to me how wearing a safety helmet would prevent an
accident, rather than, say, possibly mitigating its consequences.

Inquiring minds need to know.

 

[Al C-F]

Ian wrote:
> "James Grabowski" wrote in message

>>Do you wear a helmet in your car?
>>
>
>
> The Highway Code doesn't suggest I should, whereas it does for cyclists.
>

And being incapable of independent thought...

....your answer is?

 

[The Luggage]

Conor wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, p.k. says...
>
> > The cyclist was at fault for failing to wear light clothing at dusk,
>
> Nope

> > Who was the more incompetent?
>
> The car driver. A cyclist may not have a car licence so may not
> actually know. As a car driver, like 99% of other car drivres, he would
> have experienced cyclists doing this before and should be aware of it.

I can see the headline in the Daily Wail:

"Conor speaks up for cyclist shock!"

TL

 

[Ian]

"p.k." wrote in message
> Ian wrote:
>>>
>>> As road users, cyclists have as much responsibility to know the
>>> Highway Code as car drivers.
>>>
>>
>> No they don't. A car driver must pass a test proving that they have
>> knowledge of the Highway Code. A cyclist or a pedestrian don't need
>> to have ever seen or heard of the Highway Code before venturing on to
>> the road.
>
>
> True, but if they act against the recommendations of the Code or the law
> from which some of it derives, ignorance would be no defence.
>

You would have thought so, but last year a foreign cyclist illegally riding
on the pavement killed a pedestrian. He was let off as he was only doing
what all of the other cyclists were doing, and he knew no better.

Ian

 

[p.k.]

Ian wrote:
>> True, but if they act against the recommendations of the Code or the
>> law from which some of it derives, ignorance would be no defence.
>>
>
> You would have thought so, but last year a foreign cyclist illegally
> riding on the pavement killed a pedestrian. He was let off as he was
> only doing what all of the other cyclists were doing, and he knew no
> better.

Can you give a reference to a report on that?

pk

 

[Ian]

"Art" wrote in message
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:19:52 +0000, Don Whybrow
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Art wrote:
>>>
>>> As road users, cyclists have as much responsibility to know the
>>> Highway Code as car drivers.
>>
>>Since the HC also covers pedestrians, lets make everyone pass a test
>>before they can leave their house.
>
> Pedestrians don't ride/drive.
>

How do motorists or cyclists get to or from their vehicle?

Ian

 

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:31:29 +0000, Al C-F
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Ian wrote:
>
>>
>> That's most of the cyclists in my area partly responsible for any accident
>> in which they are involved. Most don't wear safety helmets,
>
>Please explain to me how wearing a safety helmet would prevent an
>accident, rather than, say, possibly mitigating its consequences.
>
>Inquiring minds need to know.

Possibly is, on average, wrong.

Cycle helmets have a negative effect on public health.

 

[Nick Finnigan]

Al C-F wrote:
>>
>
> The driving competency test is mandatory. Not so for cyclists.

The driving competency test is not mandatory.