Re: cyclist nearly kills himself

[Art]

On 20 Dec 2006 02:52:55 -0800, "The Luggage" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Art wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:04:46 -0000, Conor <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>, Art says...
>> >
>> >> When was the last time a pedestrian was arrested/fined/imprisoned for
>> >> violating the Highway Code?
>> >>
>> >When was the Highway Code the Road Traffic Act?
>>
>> See other post, thicko.
>
>D'oh! If you actually knew how to use the internet, you might have
>noticed that Conor posted _before_ you posted your comments elsewhere
>in the thread, thicko.

I read them and reply to them in the sequence I see them,
shiteforbrains.

 

[Art]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:44:03 -0000, Conor <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Art says...
>
>> See other post, thicko.
>>
>What other post, thicko?

My other post.

>LEARN HOW TO POST PROPERLY.

LEARN TO READ, SHITEFORBRAINS.

 

[Paul Boyd]

Art said the following on 21/12/2006 04:56:

>>> That's probably because they don't just do it after amber. They do it
>>> any time.
>> You're still talking about car drivers, right?
>
> Obviously not.

Why "obviously"? Are drivers in your area all as good as gold? Here
(Somerset/Avon), drivers consistently continue to drive through red
lights even when the other lights have changed to green and traffic or
pedestrians have started is already across the junction or crossing.
This happens in many other parts of the country as well, and is
universally ignored by the authorities. Yet it's only when cyclists
jump red lights that it attracts media interest, as if it's acceptable
for drivers of motor vehicles to do it, but not cyclists. I'm certainly
not saying that cyclists should be jumping lights, but why should
cyclists be singled out?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Tony Raven]

Art wrote on 21/12/2006 04:57 +0100:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:44:03 -0000, Conor <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Art says...
>>
>>> See other post, thicko.
>>>
>> What other post, thicko?
>
> My other post.
>
>> LEARN HOW TO POST PROPERLY.
>
> LEARN TO READ, SHITEFORBRAINS.
>

Erudite debates like this make us realise just what we're normally
missing over in urc.

--
Tony

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

 

[Brimstone]

"Art" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:43:33 -0000, Conor <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Art says...
>>
>>>
>>> And this from an asshole who sits for hours (if not days) on end in
>>> the cab of a lorry!
>>>
>>At least I'll unload 20 tonnes by hand a few times a week.
>
> We have machines for that kind of monkey work, thicko.
> Think automation!

i.e idleness.

 

[Ian]

"Earl Purple" wrote in message
>
> Ian wrote:
>>
>> I can't find a report on the Court case at the moment, but it related to
>> this incident
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/4262766.stm
>> . I note that another pedestrian was killed by a cyclist only just over a
>> week ago http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/6168129.stm in Devon.
>
> Neither of those links says that the cyclist was riding on the
> pavement. The pedestrians might have stepped out into the road without
> looking. Quite likely in fact if the cyclist was going at a speed
> significant enough to kill, it is unusual for a cyclist to be able to
> achieve a high enough speed on a pavement.
>

From other reports at the time the pedestrian was knocked over whilst
walking along the pavement.

Ian

 

[Simon Jester]

X-No-Archive:yes

Conor wrote:


> At least I'll unload 20 tonnes by hand a few times a week.
>

One day you will meet the right girl and save your aching wrist.

 

[p.k.]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> I'm
> certainly not saying that cyclists should be jumping lights, but why
> should cyclists be singled out?

The difference (from the perspective of the pedestrian not wishing to be
hit) is that if I wait until the front car has stopped, no other car (save
in the most exceptional of circumstances) is going to run the red light.
However it is a common experience (here in London) to be crossing at traffic
lights, or a light controlled crossing, with cars stopped in both directions
and to find oneself confronted by a cyclist weaving through pedestrians on
the crossing.

Clearly not all cyclists do that, and I'm pretty sure all on URC would
deplore that behaviour, but the fact is it happens far to frequently and
gives the rest of us who cycle responsibly a bad name.

pk

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote

[snip]

>> 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.
>
>
> Well as I said, I can see some merit in the idea, but unless it is
> done in a reasonable manner I can imagine it may upset some
> drivers, and possibly lead to conflict.
>
> I'm not saying that drivers would be right to expect cyclists to
> 'keep out of my way' etc., but I'm wary of anything that might
> increase that feeling.

If a lane is wide enough for a car and bike to share, then courtesy
says that the cyclist should do so. If it's too narrow to share,
then self preservation says that the cyclist should keep the motorist
out.

This is a judgement call to some extent. It should be the cyclist's
call, not the motorist's. The cyclist has more at stake.

A beginner cyclist will be less adapt at judging the exact distance
needed, but a beginner cyclist needs and deserves greater clearance
anyway, so if a beginner keeps a motorist out of a lane when an
experienced cyclist wouldn't, that's only fair.

It's a good idea for the cyclist to create the impression that the
reason the motorist has to stay out is because the lane is too
narrow, not to create the impression the cyclist is being
deliberately obstructive. This is fairly easy in practice. The near
side tyre track of the cars is about the optimum riding position.

David Knowles's word "conflict" is rather ambiguous. I've seen
traffic engineering papers where a conflict is deemed to exist
whenever a cars brake lights go on, or a car makes a noticeable
change in course. If that's the meaning here, then conflicts are
exactly what we want. We don't motorists to obliviously continue in
a straight line right over the top of cyclists. On the other hand,
if "conflict" means some road users trying to murder others, that's
probably a bad thing

It's conventional wisdom that the amount of room a motorist gives a
cyclist is roughly equal to the amount of room the cyclist gives the
kerb. That's probably oversimplified, but nevertheless, in getting
on for 100 000 miles of cycling, and four times that distance
driving, I've found it a good rule to follow in practice.

Jeremy Parker

 

[Earl Purple]

p.k. wrote:
> Paul Boyd wrote:
> > I'm
> > certainly not saying that cyclists should be jumping lights, but why
> > should cyclists be singled out?
>
> The difference (from the perspective of the pedestrian not wishing to be
> hit) is that if I wait until the front car has stopped, no other car (save
> in the most exceptional of circumstances) is going to run the red light.
> However it is a common experience (here in London) to be crossing at traffic
> lights, or a light controlled crossing, with cars stopped in both directions
> and to find oneself confronted by a cyclist weaving through pedestrians on
> the crossing.

A common occurrence when I am on my bicycle is for traffic to be in a
queue so unable to move even though the light is green, and pedestrians
just cross without looking at the possibility that a cyclist may be
passing. Of course the cyclist is also looking out for pedestrians who
are crossing anyway but ringing the bell and even yelling "look out"
doesn't always get the message through.

Another common thing for drivers to do is think they are being
courteous to let traffic out in front of them even though they have
right of way. The problem is the drivers will do that even when there
is a cyclist nearby, usually one they have just overtaken, and the
cyclist is highly unlikely to want to stop and give way (when they have
right of way).

> Clearly not all cyclists do that, and I'm pretty sure all on URC would
> deplore that behaviour, but the fact is it happens far to frequently and
> gives the rest of us who cycle responsibly a bad name.

The correct way to behave when crossing at a traffic light is to wait
for the signal to change, then make sure all the traffic has stopped or
is clearly going to stop, and then move out. Jumping out the second the
signal turns red without looking first is not the appropriate course.

Most cyclists I see will go through red signals only when there is
nothing there, i.e. no traffic or pedestrians to stop for.

btw, it is not always possible for a cycle to stop in 3 seconds and you
cannot expect cyclists to slow down as they approach green lights in
case they change.

 

[p.k.]

Earl Purple wrote:
> Another common thing for drivers to do is think they are being
> courteous to let traffic out in front of them even though they have
> right of way. The problem is the drivers will do that even when there
> is a cyclist nearby, usually one they have just overtaken, and the
> cyclist is highly unlikely to want to stop and give way (when they
> have right of way).

I agree as Ped/Cyclist/Driver I find it frustrating when someone does that -
more than frustrating because it is often actively dangerous as no-one knows
who is going to do what next. Especially dangerous when a driver stops and
waves across a child who set off on an adults instruction and pays no heed
to other traffic.


> The correct way to behave when crossing at a traffic light is to wait
> for the signal to change, then make sure all the traffic has stopped
> or is clearly going to stop, and then move out. Jumping out the
> second the signal turns red without looking first is not the
> appropriate course.
>
> Most cyclists I see will go through red signals only when there is
> nothing there, i.e. no traffic or pedestrians to stop for.
>
> btw, it is not always possible for a cycle to stop in 3 seconds and
> you cannot expect cyclists to slow down as they approach green lights
> in case they change.

Agree all of that, BUT I was referring to the irresponsible minority who
AFTER all other traffic has stopped, overtake stationary cars and proceed
across the crossing forcing pedestrians to take avoiding action.
Indefensible behaviour that gives the rest of us a bad name.

pk

 

[Daniel Barlow]

Referring to cyclists who scatter pedestrians at crossings, p.k. wrote:
> Indefensible behaviour

Yes

>that gives the rest of us a bad name.

Does it? Does the minority of motorists who are uninsured and fail to
stop after causing accidents give the rest a bad name? Does the
minority of brown-eyed people who murder their parents give the rest a
bad name? No, because motorists and people with brown eyes are "people
like us" (or insufficiently unlike us) and aren't perceived as "different".

If cyclists have a bad reputation it's for a more fundamental reason
than any specific acts of wrongdoing: motorists first decide they don't
like cyclists (or any other minority) and only /then/ start looking for
rationalisations. Whether those rationalisations are based on actual
law and reality - and sometimes as in the above case they are - or on
motorists' preconceptions of same ("get on the cycle path where you
belong", "you should be wearing a helmet", etc) makes little difference.
Underneath it all they're basically feeling threatened, and that causes
the ancient tribal instincts to come forward.


-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

 

[Brimstone]

"TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Brimstone wrote:
>> TripleS wrote:
>>> Conor wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, TripleS says...
>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>> Pretty much. It's supposed to be slightly to the right as I recall
>>>> on a motorbike.
>>>>
>>> Thanks for that.
>>>
>>> I've noticed motorcyclists often position themselves just to the left
>>> of the centre-line as standard procedure on single carriageway roads,
>>> even when it appears to offer no advantage to them. This can be a
>>> nuisance if you're looking to overtake them* and it can give the
>>> impression that they're trying to be obstructive, though they may not
>>> be.
>>> * Yes OK, I do appreciate that normally it's the bikers who are doing
>>> the overtaking!
>>
>> If you you look at the position of the driver, rather than the vehicle,
>> they should be occupying the same relative position on the road as a car
>> or van driver.
>
> I'm not sure that I see the reasoning there. Whether we're driving cars
> or riding motorbikes I think keeping tucked in to the left as far as
> reasonably possible is the thing to do, though of course we may decide to
> depart from this from time to time for improving vision etc.
>
> There is also the point that none of us should be expected to drive/ride
> so close to the edge that we fall foul of all the rough stuff and debris
> that tends to accumulate there.
>
> Having said all that, I still feel the bikers take up more space near the
> centre of the road than seems appropriate.

Simple, if there's not enough space to overtake a car then there's not
enough to pass a bike. The biker adopting the commanding position makes the
car driver wanting to pass think about it rather than trying to squeeze past
and force the bike into the gutter or worse.

 

[TripleS]

Brimstone wrote:
> "TripleS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> TripleS wrote:
>>>> Conor wrote:
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, TripleS says...
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>> Pretty much. It's supposed to be slightly to the right as I recall
>>>>> on a motorbike.
>>>>>
>>>> Thanks for that.
>>>>
>>>> I've noticed motorcyclists often position themselves just to the left
>>>> of the centre-line as standard procedure on single carriageway roads,
>>>> even when it appears to offer no advantage to them. This can be a
>>>> nuisance if you're looking to overtake them* and it can give the
>>>> impression that they're trying to be obstructive, though they may not
>>>> be.
>>>> * Yes OK, I do appreciate that normally it's the bikers who are doing
>>>> the overtaking!
>>> If you you look at the position of the driver, rather than the vehicle,
>>> they should be occupying the same relative position on the road as a car
>>> or van driver.
>> I'm not sure that I see the reasoning there. Whether we're driving cars
>> or riding motorbikes I think keeping tucked in to the left as far as
>> reasonably possible is the thing to do, though of course we may decide to
>> depart from this from time to time for improving vision etc.
>>
>> There is also the point that none of us should be expected to drive/ride
>> so close to the edge that we fall foul of all the rough stuff and debris
>> that tends to accumulate there.
>>
>> Having said all that, I still feel the bikers take up more space near the
>> centre of the road than seems appropriate.
>
> Simple, if there's not enough space to overtake a car then there's not
> enough to pass a bike. The biker adopting the commanding position makes the
> car driver wanting to pass think about it rather than trying to squeeze past
> and force the bike into the gutter or worse.
>

I'm not wanting to squeeze past or force them into the gutter or
anything like that, but it does make it that bit more difficult to get a
clear view past them when they are so far out into the road.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, Art says...
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:43:33 -0000, Conor <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, Art says...
> >
> >>
> >> And this from an asshole who sits for hours (if not days) on end in
> >> the cab of a lorry!
> >>
> >At least I'll unload 20 tonnes by hand a few times a week.
>
> We have machines for that kind of monkey work, thicko.
> Think automation!
>
And you have the gall to call me lazy?


--
Conor

"You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart

 

[DavidR]

"Art" <[email protected]> wrote

> Let me rephrase that, then. When was the last time a pedestrian was
> arrested/fined/prosecuted for violating any of the Traffic Acts?

Not much point when they are lying on a slab.
I can't think of any other reason to prosecute a pedestrian.

 

[Art]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:54:37 -0000, "Brimstone"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Art" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:43:33 -0000, Conor <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, Art says...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And this from an asshole who sits for hours (if not days) on end in
>>>> the cab of a lorry!
>>>>
>>>At least I'll unload 20 tonnes by hand a few times a week.
>>
>> We have machines for that kind of monkey work, thicko.
>> Think automation!
>
>i.e idleness.

Or better still, time spent on more productive and worthwhile things.

 

[Art]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 07:59:40 +0000, Paul Boyd
<usenet.dont.work@plusnet> wrote:

>Art said the following on 21/12/2006 04:56:
>
>>>> That's probably because they don't just do it after amber. They do it
>>>> any time.
>>> You're still talking about car drivers, right?
>>
>> Obviously not.
>
>Why "obviously"? Are drivers in your area all as good as gold? Here
>(Somerset/Avon), drivers consistently continue to drive through red
>lights even when the other lights have changed to green and traffic or
>pedestrians have started is already across the junction or crossing.
>This happens in many other parts of the country as well, and is
>universally ignored by the authorities. Yet it's only when cyclists
>jump red lights that it attracts media interest, as if it's acceptable
>for drivers of motor vehicles to do it, but not cyclists. I'm certainly
>not saying that cyclists should be jumping lights, but why should
>cyclists be singled out?

I've never once seen a driver go through red after stopping.

 

[Art]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:48:54 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Art wrote on 21/12/2006 04:57 +0100:
>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:44:03 -0000, Conor <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Art says...
>>>
>>>> See other post, thicko.
>>>>
>>> What other post, thicko?
>>
>> My other post.
>>
>>> LEARN HOW TO POST PROPERLY.
>>
>> LEARN TO READ, SHITEFORBRAINS.
>>
>
>Erudite debates like this make us realise just what we're normally
>missing over in urc.

Shut up and be grateful.

 

[Brimstone]

Art wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:54:37 -0000, "Brimstone"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Art" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:43:33 -0000, Conor <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Art
>>>> says...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And this from an asshole who sits for hours (if not days) on end
>>>>> in the cab of a lorry!
>>>>>
>>>> At least I'll unload 20 tonnes by hand a few times a week.
>>>
>>> We have machines for that kind of monkey work, thicko.
>>> Think automation!
>>
>> i.e idleness.
>
> Or better still, time spent on more productive and worthwhile things.

The term "couch potato" is one of yours.