Re: Paul Smith

[raisethe]

Ekul Namsob wrote:
> raisethe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Farmer John wrote:
>
>
> Have you renamed Steve just to wind him up or did you have a valid
> reason?
>

He's a farmer in the real world. More like a gentle tease than a wind up
really. Can't believe he's that strung out, especially with all the
money they've made this year.


> I, too, don't think that Peter said 'regularly'. I wonder, however,
> whether he thought this to be the case when he asks what I, as a car
> driver, would do "if there's another lorry closing up from behind" while
> I had another lorry overtaking me.

How can you 'keep clear of lorries' when there is one passing you, and
one approaching your rear? You can't, and that, I presume, is his point.


>
> I honestly would like to know what Pete would do as it does seem to me
> that he thinks the lorry behind me would be driven as though its driver
> were auditioning for a key role in a remake of Steven Spielberg's
> "Duel".
>
>

He hasn't said that.

 

[Ekul Namsob]

raisethe <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
> > raisethe <[email protected]> wrote:

> > I, too, don't think that Peter said 'regularly'. I wonder, however,
> > whether he thought this to be the case when he asks what I, as a car
> > driver, would do "if there's another lorry closing up from behind" while
> > I had another lorry overtaking me.
>
> How can you 'keep clear of lorries' when there is one passing you, and
> one approaching your rear? You can't, and that, I presume, is his point.

So I now believe. As I have pointed out elsewhere, it appeared clear to
me that this was advice and not an instruction.

> > I honestly would like to know what Pete would do as it does seem to me
> > that he thinks the lorry behind me would be driven as though its driver
> > were auditioning for a key role in a remake of Steven Spielberg's
> > "Duel".

> He hasn't said that.

Indeed. That's why I neither claimed that he had said that nor implied
it but rather invited him to comment.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[MrBitsy]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> MrBitsy wrote:
>
>> I stay away from lorries as a car driver. I do so because they are
>> bigger than me and I am likely to come off worst in a collision.
>>
>> I'll give you an example.
>>
>> On a motorway I will not position myself to the side of a lorry, if
>> there is not space ahead of it for me to move into. The lorry driver
>> is supposed to stay in his lane, but what if he nods off? What if he
>> veers into my lane because he is reading or lighting a ***? What
>> about the safety issues - tyre blowouts, heart attack etc?
>
> But what if a lorry positions itself to the side of you? You don't
> always get the choice.

You always have a choice.

>> I think Brimstones advice of staying away from lorries to be good
>> advice.
>
> But not actually useful where you don't get the choice. And down
> here o the on the UK roads on Planet Earth you don't always get the

Perhaps your not on planet earth - I don't have a problem.
--
MrBitsy

 

[MrBitsy]

Nick wrote:
> MrBitsy wrote:
>> Nick wrote:
>>> MrBitsy wrote:
>>>> Alan Braggins wrote:
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, NM wrote:
>>>>>> Alan Braggins wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Conor wrote:
>>>>>>>> Just a note..cabs a feckin high now with the bottom of
>>>>>>>> windscreens over 6ft off the floor so try and be a few feet in
>>>>>>>> front of the lorry if you're directly in front of it.
>>>>>>> If you're stopped at a red light and a lorry pulls up right
>>>>>>> behind you, that means going a few feet through the red light.
>>>>>>> Sometimes that's safe and advisable, but sometimes it would
>>>>>>> mean pulling into the middle of a pedestrian crossing which is
>>>>>>> being used.
>>>>>> If you are approaching a cyclist stopped in the middle of your
>>>>>> lane waiting a red light (I know this is extremly rare) then when
>>>>>> stopping behid him you should stop where you keep him in sight,
>>>>>> it's not up to him to move.
>>>>> Exactly. Just telling cyclists to keep clear of lorries isn't the
>>>>> whole answer, the drivers have to pay attention too. (Which almost
>>>>> all of them do, almost all of the time.)
>>>> Which we have all said throuought this thread - but even a human
>>>> with the best intentions will make mistakes from time to time. For
>>>> this reasons, cyclists should think self preservation before
>>>> rights, blame or revenge.
>>> That is precisely what they are doing here.
>>>
>>>
>>> Experience tell us that the moment motorists decide that other
>>> people have a responsibility to avoid potentially dangerous
>>> situations with their vehicles they start to believe it is no
>>> longer their responsibility to avoid a collision.
>>
>> I don't agree with that at all.
>>
>> As a driver who has passed the IAM, DSA and RoSPA advanced driving
>> tests, I can assure you I know my, and other road users,
>> responsibilities. However, I stay away from large vehicles where I
>> possibly can - because they are bigger than me and I will come off
>> worse in a collision. I don't base my driving plan on the assumption
>> of others always following the rules - humans make mistakes.
>>
>> I have always tried to understand the difficulties faced by drivers
>> of large vehicles. Early this year I spent a very enjoyable 6 weeks
>> training for the PCV license. I drove large coaches, single and
>> double decker busses. If you have never driven a large vehicle, let
>> me tell you the following ... 1.. There are huge blindspots.
>> 2.. Other drivers/cyclists regularly put themselves into the
>> blindspots. 3.. Think of the blindspots created by standing passengers
>> on a bus.
>>
>> I put all my previous driver training to good use when driving the
>> busses. However, out of all other road users, cyclists were often
>> crazy around the bus, seemingly having no understanding at all of
>> the problems driving one. Cyclists would put themselves into the
>> blindspots daily.
>
>> The most stupid actions were those that would squeeze down the side
>> of the bus at junctions - even when I was signalling to turn left!
>> They would put themselves straight into the blindpot and sit there.
>> I never collided with one as I always spotted them early, but I am
>> never surprised when I hear of a cyclist being run down.
>>
>
> So you felt it was OK to continue driving in a way that put other road
> users lives at risk.

Eh - how the hell did you come to that conclusion?

> Presumably this is because you felt it would be
> their fault if you did kill them?

Good grief, I really can't believe this reply.

> I realise that professional drivers come from the lower end of the
> intelligence scale but can you not see this was exactly my point.

I have no idea what your point is - it is almost like you are replying to a
completely different post!

>>> This is what the argument is all really about. Motorists want
>>> everyone other road user to behave in a much more ordered and
>>> predictable way so that the can drive faster and take less care.
>>
>> Try and think about what you have written above and what you want as
>> a cyclists - don't you want motorists to behave in an ordered and
>> predictable way?
>>
>
> No, I want motorists to drive safely.

<groans loudly>

> In particular I want them to
> exercise additional care that the dangerous machinery that they
> operate does not injure more vulnerable road users.


Yes <takes a deep breath>, we all agree with that.

<takes another deep breath>

Who is going to come off worse? At the point a situation is looking
dangerous, forget blame and think self preservation.

>> In an ideal world, everyone will follow the rules and we can always
>> take our rights and priorities. As we don't live in that ideal
>> world, we have to compromise. We have to assume others are not
>> always going to drive perfectly, so we should drive/ride defensivly
>> - we have to anticipate mistakes others make.
>>
>
> Yes drivers should drive/ride anticipating that other people may
> unexpectedly come into their path. Dwelling on how it was the other
> persons mistake/ stupidity/ fault makes motorist less willing to take
> action to avoid such collisions.

WTF?

> Do you actually ride a bike?

Yes, over many years - you driven a large vehicle?

>> We anticipate because being alive is better than being dead but
>> right. Cyclists are so vunerable on the roads, and will mostly come
>> off worst in a collision, I would absolutley take Brimstones advice
>> and 'stay away from large vehicles.
>>
>
> I see there was a recent case of kids throwing bricks off a bridge and
> killing a lorry driver. Presumably you think that as boys will be boys
> lorry drivers should stay away bridges. I wonder if their punishment
> will be a fine of 150 pounds.

How is this even slightly similiar?
--
MrBitsy

 

[raisethe]

Ekul Namsob wrote:
it appeared clear to
> me that this was advice and not an instruction.

Not to me, because we were also treated to this a wee bittie earlier in
the thread:

'If someone is crushed by a lorry after pulling away from traffic lights
then they are the architect of their own misfortune'

Soon after that we got:

'But the general thrust is quite simple. The lorry is bigger than the
cyclist. Keep clear.'

In other words, keep clear from lorries, if you get crushed its your own
fault. The perfectly reasonable response to that is that you cannot
always keep clear of them.

 

[raisethe]

MrBitsy wrote:
> Nick wrote:
>> MrBitsy wrote:
>>> Nick wrote:
>>>> MrBitsy wrote:
>>>>> Alan Braggins wrote:
>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, NM wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan Braggins wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Conor wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Just a note..cabs a feckin high now with the bottom of
>>>>>>>>> windscreens over 6ft off the floor so try and be a few feet in
>>>>>>>>> front of the lorry if you're directly in front of it.
>>>>>>>> If you're stopped at a red light and a lorry pulls up right
>>>>>>>> behind you, that means going a few feet through the red light.
>>>>>>>> Sometimes that's safe and advisable, but sometimes it would
>>>>>>>> mean pulling into the middle of a pedestrian crossing which is
>>>>>>>> being used.
>>>>>>> If you are approaching a cyclist stopped in the middle of your
>>>>>>> lane waiting a red light (I know this is extremly rare) then when
>>>>>>> stopping behid him you should stop where you keep him in sight,
>>>>>>> it's not up to him to move.
>>>>>> Exactly. Just telling cyclists to keep clear of lorries isn't the
>>>>>> whole answer, the drivers have to pay attention too. (Which almost
>>>>>> all of them do, almost all of the time.)
>>>>> Which we have all said throuought this thread - but even a human
>>>>> with the best intentions will make mistakes from time to time. For
>>>>> this reasons, cyclists should think self preservation before
>>>>> rights, blame or revenge.
>>>> That is precisely what they are doing here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Experience tell us that the moment motorists decide that other
>>>> people have a responsibility to avoid potentially dangerous
>>>> situations with their vehicles they start to believe it is no
>>>> longer their responsibility to avoid a collision.
>>> I don't agree with that at all.
>>>
>>> As a driver who has passed the IAM, DSA and RoSPA advanced driving
>>> tests, I can assure you I know my, and other road users,
>>> responsibilities. However, I stay away from large vehicles where I
>>> possibly can - because they are bigger than me and I will come off
>>> worse in a collision. I don't base my driving plan on the assumption
>>> of others always following the rules - humans make mistakes.
>>>
>>> I have always tried to understand the difficulties faced by drivers
>>> of large vehicles. Early this year I spent a very enjoyable 6 weeks
>>> training for the PCV license. I drove large coaches, single and
>>> double decker busses. If you have never driven a large vehicle, let
>>> me tell you the following ... 1.. There are huge blindspots.
>>> 2.. Other drivers/cyclists regularly put themselves into the
>>> blindspots. 3.. Think of the blindspots created by standing passengers
>>> on a bus.
>>>
>>> I put all my previous driver training to good use when driving the
>>> busses. However, out of all other road users, cyclists were often
>>> crazy around the bus, seemingly having no understanding at all of
>>> the problems driving one. Cyclists would put themselves into the
>>> blindspots daily.
>>> The most stupid actions were those that would squeeze down the side
>>> of the bus at junctions - even when I was signalling to turn left!
>>> They would put themselves straight into the blindpot and sit there.
>>> I never collided with one as I always spotted them early, but I am
>>> never surprised when I hear of a cyclist being run down.
>>>
>> So you felt it was OK to continue driving in a way that put other road
>> users lives at risk.
>
> Eh - how the hell did you come to that conclusion?
>
>> Presumably this is because you felt it would be
>> their fault if you did kill them?
>
> Good grief, I really can't believe this reply.
>
>> I realise that professional drivers come from the lower end of the
>> intelligence scale but can you not see this was exactly my point.
>
> I have no idea what your point is - it is almost like you are replying to a
> completely different post!
>
>>>> This is what the argument is all really about. Motorists want
>>>> everyone other road user to behave in a much more ordered and
>>>> predictable way so that the can drive faster and take less care.
>>> Try and think about what you have written above and what you want as
>>> a cyclists - don't you want motorists to behave in an ordered and
>>> predictable way?
>>>
>> No, I want motorists to drive safely.
>
> <groans loudly>
>
>> In particular I want them to
>> exercise additional care that the dangerous machinery that they
>> operate does not injure more vulnerable road users.
>
>
> Yes <takes a deep breath>, we all agree with that.
>
> <takes another deep breath>
>
> Who is going to come off worse? At the point a situation is looking
> dangerous, forget blame and think self preservation.
>
>>> In an ideal world, everyone will follow the rules and we can always
>>> take our rights and priorities. As we don't live in that ideal
>>> world, we have to compromise. We have to assume others are not
>>> always going to drive perfectly, so we should drive/ride defensivly
>>> - we have to anticipate mistakes others make.
>>>
>> Yes drivers should drive/ride anticipating that other people may
>> unexpectedly come into their path. Dwelling on how it was the other
>> persons mistake/ stupidity/ fault makes motorist less willing to take
>> action to avoid such collisions.
>
> WTF?
>
>> Do you actually ride a bike?
>
> Yes, over many years - you driven a large vehicle?
>
>>> We anticipate because being alive is better than being dead but
>>> right. Cyclists are so vunerable on the roads, and will mostly come
>>> off worst in a collision, I would absolutley take Brimstones advice
>>> and 'stay away from large vehicles.
>>>
>> I see there was a recent case of kids throwing bricks off a bridge and
>> killing a lorry driver. Presumably you think that as boys will be boys
>> lorry drivers should stay away bridges. I wonder if their punishment
>> will be a fine of 150 pounds.
>
> How is this even slightly similiar?

I doubt if there is a single person who will read your post from start
to end. Please don't be a lazy snipper.

 

[MrBitsy]

Nick wrote:
> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>> Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> MrBitsy wrote:
>>
>>>> The most stupid actions [by cyclists] were those that would
>>>> squeeze down the side of the bus at junctions - even when I was
>>>> signalling to turn left! They would put themselves straight into
>>>> the blindpot and sit there. I never collided with one as I always
>>>> spotted them early, but I am never surprised when I hear of a
>>>> cyclist being run down.
>>
>>> So you felt it was OK to continue driving in a way that put other
>>> road users lives at risk.
>>
>> How would you suggest that Mr Bitsy should have continued driving? He
>> observed the cyclists and never collided with one. Filtering up the
>> left of a left-indicating vehicle is foolish.
>>
>
> The implication of his statement is that he regarded the events as
> risky to the cyclist. Having understood this there are two possible
> ways he could react.
>
> One he could decide that he had taken all reasonable steps to drive
> in a responsible way and hence he could continue to drive in the same
> way even tough he understood it posed a risk to foolish cyclists.

Iam advanced test pass.
RoSPA (gold) test pass
DSA driving instructor test pass
PCV license holder

Just how much more experience do you think I should go for?

> Or he could decide that he had to exercise additional care to avoid
> such circumstances in future. Steps such as fitting additional
> mirrors,

So I should I have purchased some mirrors, fitted them to the bus then look
shifty when an Arriva manager asked about it?

> avoiding certain roads

I would love to have recorded my passengers response, announcing the 300
wasn't going through St.Albans high street - because there might be a
cyclist at the lights!

> or driving especially carefully.

What in my description suggested otherwise?

> These are all steps I take every day to avoid incidents caused by
> other peoples foolishness.

Try your advice driving a bus - you may not have a job for long!

>>> Presumably this is because you felt it would be
>>> their fault if you did kill them?
>>
>> Lack of surprise does not imply blame.
>>
>
> ??? I don't understand your response do you think it would be his
> fault or not?

1.. Bus driver checks left mirror for pedestrians and cyclists.
2.. Bus driver checks offside mirror for the left turn, pedestrians and
cyclists (because the back of the bus is going to swing out into the road)

<cyclist squeazes down side of bus>

3.. Bus driver looks into road he is turning into (because the front of the
bus is now completely on the wrong side of the road due to its length.
4.. Bus driver checks nearside mirror, looking for peds and cyclists -
doesn't see any.

<cyclist continues forward motion, unaware of being in blind spot.

5... Bus driver checks offside mirror to make sure nothing is going to try
and pass down the offside.

<bus driver feels bump>

Anyone who has driven a large vehicle will understand what has been posted
above. Thankfully, due to the skill and care taken by most drivers,
accidents are rare. Cyclists - if you haven't driven a large vehicle, you
will be amazed just how much observation needs to be done on both sides of
the vehicle.

>>> I realise that professional drivers come from the lower end of the
>>> intelligence scale but can you not see this was exactly my point.
>>
>> There was no need for that.
>>
>
> It is true.

No, it is not always true. Many drivers of all types of vehicles can be good
or bad. It is up to the good ones to spot the mistakes of the bad ones. With
so many vehicles and types of drivers, it is inevitable that two bad ones
will meet on a regular basis.

> The problem with campaigns that concentrate on pedestrian or cycling
> safety training is that they also convince motorists and lorry drivers
> that it is the pedestrian or cyclist's fault if an accident does
> occur.

This is the case for all road users. One reason I have taken so many driving
courses is to be the safest I can be on the roads. This not just mean
vehicle handling skills, but is also about the way the driver thinks about
the roads, and how he understands the needs of others.

> It is also true that the less intellectually gifted are more
> likely to misinterpret such a safety campaign's message.

Your replies to me have demonstrated an extreme level of misunderstanding.
Do some advanced courses. Try and get some idea of the problems faced by
drivers of large vehicles. Maybe write to your local bus company and ask if
you can sit in the driving cab of a large bus or coach.
--
MrBitsy

 

[MrBitsy]

Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:20:20 GMT, MrBitsy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> As a driver who has passed the IAM, DSA and RoSPA advanced driving
>> tests, I can assure you I know my, and other road users,
>> responsibilities. However, I stay away from large vehicles where I
>> possibly can - because they are bigger than me and I will come off
>> worse in a collision.
>
> If you are in a small car (a mini for example) do you stay away from
> Transit sized vans? It is the same principle you espouse above.
>
> As a cyclist that principle would mean me staying away from roads
> where I possibly can because all cars (as well as lorries) are bigger
> than me. This just isn't practicable.

Try understanding the point being made.

If you are on a road with many large vehicles, do what you can to avoid
being close to one - stop behind one instead of going down its side. If a
lorry is overtaking you, drop back and allow it in etc.

--
MrBitsy

 

[DavidR]

"raisethe" <[email protected]> wrote

>
> How can you 'keep clear of lorries' when there is one passing you, and
> one approaching your rear? You can't, and that, I presume, is his point.

You have a speed control in your car. If you're boxed in front, slow down
to let the first past. Then match lorry speed. When your way ahead is
blocked again, slow down until second is past. Repeat as necessary.

 

[MrBitsy]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>
>> "Keep clear" to a person of average intelligence means doing what is
>> within your power to give yourself and the lorry enough space to do
>> what you both want to do.
>
> It means "keep clear". Keeping clear means staying away from. Not
> "doing one's best to stay away from".
>
> And in any case, there are numerous cases where i'll go close and
> be happy in the knowledge that I'll be safe.

By jove I think he got it!

If you have looked at all the outcomes, but your sure of safety, don't stay
away from the lorry!.

> There are so many
> possible scenarios for beign interaction that a simple "keep clear"
> is quite obviously ridiculous, at least to anyone that's bothered
> to think about it and has experience odf actually using the roads.

Damm, I thought you had got it.
--
MrBitsy

 

[MrBitsy]

Brimstone wrote:
> Adrian wrote:
>> Peter Clinch (Peter Clinch <[email protected]>) gurgled
>> happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>
>>>> To try to pretend otherwise suggests that there's absolutely no
>>>> point whatsoever to defensive road use.
>>
>>> But I'm not pretending any such thing, just pointing out I can't
>>> simply stay a wide berth clear of lorries because they are prone to
>>> driving past me and behind me where there's little I can do but hope
>>> the driver is on the ball.
>>
>> Very true. But what you CAN do is to minimise the chance that a
>> driver who is sort of wavering around near the ball doesn't just
>> blither past you. MAKE him see you. MAKE him think about you. GET in
>> his face a bit.
>>
>> That's what's we're trying to emphasise. Just sitting there like a
>> lemon whinging about it being inevitable that cars squeeze past your
>> bike when there isn't really space just shows that your road
>> positioning is wrong. But that doesn't mean that where there IS space
>> you can't help them past you easily and safely. Just vary your road
>> positioning. Traffic island coming up? Move out from the kerb a bit
>> so they CAN'T squeeze past. Past the island? Move back in, and wave a
>> thank you.
>>
>> The same is easy to apply at junctions. You're there first? Get in
>> the middle of the lane. Then they CAN'T pull alongside and turn left
>> without indication.
>>
>> They've seen you, they've thought about you - because you took
>> ownership of the space around you.
>
> DING!!!!

<CLAPS>
--
MrBitsy

 

[MrBitsy]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Adrian wrote:
>> Clive George ("Clive George" <[email protected]>) gurgled
>> happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>>> Mostly you'll find they're arguing with Brimstone and his daft
>>> assertions.
>>
>> The daft assertions that are shared with u.r.c?
>
> No, the daft assertion that:
>
> "The lorry is bigger than the cyclist. Keep clear"
>
> is actually all there is to avoiding unpleasant entanglements with
> lorries.

When the cyclist has done everthing correctly, but the lorry drivers is
being a twit, STAY AWAY from the lorry is sensible advice. Of course you
could just sit there full of the thought you are in the right.
--
MrBitsy

 

[MrBitsy]

raisethe wrote:
> MrBitsy wrote:
>> Nick wrote:
>>> MrBitsy wrote:
>>>> Nick wrote:
>>>>> MrBitsy wrote:
>>>>>> Alan Braggins wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, NM
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Alan Braggins wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Conor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Just a note..cabs a feckin high now with the bottom of
>>>>>>>>>> windscreens over 6ft off the floor so try and be a few feet
>>>>>>>>>> in front of the lorry if you're directly in front of it.
>>>>>>>>> If you're stopped at a red light and a lorry pulls up right
>>>>>>>>> behind you, that means going a few feet through the red light.
>>>>>>>>> Sometimes that's safe and advisable, but sometimes it would
>>>>>>>>> mean pulling into the middle of a pedestrian crossing which is
>>>>>>>>> being used.
>>>>>>>> If you are approaching a cyclist stopped in the middle of your
>>>>>>>> lane waiting a red light (I know this is extremly rare) then
>>>>>>>> when stopping behid him you should stop where you keep him in
>>>>>>>> sight, it's not up to him to move.
>>>>>>> Exactly. Just telling cyclists to keep clear of lorries isn't
>>>>>>> the whole answer, the drivers have to pay attention too. (Which
>>>>>>> almost all of them do, almost all of the time.)
>>>>>> Which we have all said throuought this thread - but even a human
>>>>>> with the best intentions will make mistakes from time to time.
>>>>>> For this reasons, cyclists should think self preservation before
>>>>>> rights, blame or revenge.
>>>>> That is precisely what they are doing here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Experience tell us that the moment motorists decide that other
>>>>> people have a responsibility to avoid potentially dangerous
>>>>> situations with their vehicles they start to believe it is no
>>>>> longer their responsibility to avoid a collision.
>>>> I don't agree with that at all.
>>>>
>>>> As a driver who has passed the IAM, DSA and RoSPA advanced driving
>>>> tests, I can assure you I know my, and other road users,
>>>> responsibilities. However, I stay away from large vehicles where I
>>>> possibly can - because they are bigger than me and I will come off
>>>> worse in a collision. I don't base my driving plan on the
>>>> assumption of others always following the rules - humans make
>>>> mistakes. I have always tried to understand the difficulties faced by
>>>> drivers
>>>> of large vehicles. Early this year I spent a very enjoyable 6 weeks
>>>> training for the PCV license. I drove large coaches, single and
>>>> double decker busses. If you have never driven a large vehicle, let
>>>> me tell you the following ... 1.. There are huge blindspots.
>>>> 2.. Other drivers/cyclists regularly put themselves into the
>>>> blindspots. 3.. Think of the blindspots created by standing
>>>> passengers on a bus.
>>>>
>>>> I put all my previous driver training to good use when driving the
>>>> busses. However, out of all other road users, cyclists were often
>>>> crazy around the bus, seemingly having no understanding at all of
>>>> the problems driving one. Cyclists would put themselves into the
>>>> blindspots daily.
>>>> The most stupid actions were those that would squeeze down the side
>>>> of the bus at junctions - even when I was signalling to turn left!
>>>> They would put themselves straight into the blindpot and sit there.
>>>> I never collided with one as I always spotted them early, but I am
>>>> never surprised when I hear of a cyclist being run down.
>>>>
>>> So you felt it was OK to continue driving in a way that put other
>>> road users lives at risk.
>>
>> Eh - how the hell did you come to that conclusion?
>>
>>> Presumably this is because you felt it would be
>>> their fault if you did kill them?
>>
>> Good grief, I really can't believe this reply.
>>
>>> I realise that professional drivers come from the lower end of the
>>> intelligence scale but can you not see this was exactly my point.
>>
>> I have no idea what your point is - it is almost like you are
>> replying to a completely different post!
>>
>>>>> This is what the argument is all really about. Motorists want
>>>>> everyone other road user to behave in a much more ordered and
>>>>> predictable way so that the can drive faster and take less care.
>>>> Try and think about what you have written above and what you want
>>>> as a cyclists - don't you want motorists to behave in an ordered and
>>>> predictable way?
>>>>
>>> No, I want motorists to drive safely.
>>
>> <groans loudly>
>>
>>> In particular I want them to
>>> exercise additional care that the dangerous machinery that they
>>> operate does not injure more vulnerable road users.
>>
>>
>> Yes <takes a deep breath>, we all agree with that.
>>
>> <takes another deep breath>
>>
>> Who is going to come off worse? At the point a situation is looking
>> dangerous, forget blame and think self preservation.
>>
>>>> In an ideal world, everyone will follow the rules and we can always
>>>> take our rights and priorities. As we don't live in that ideal
>>>> world, we have to compromise. We have to assume others are not
>>>> always going to drive perfectly, so we should drive/ride defensivly
>>>> - we have to anticipate mistakes others make.
>>>>
>>> Yes drivers should drive/ride anticipating that other people may
>>> unexpectedly come into their path. Dwelling on how it was the other
>>> persons mistake/ stupidity/ fault makes motorist less willing to
>>> take action to avoid such collisions.
>>
>> WTF?
>>
>>> Do you actually ride a bike?
>>
>> Yes, over many years - you driven a large vehicle?
>>
>>>> We anticipate because being alive is better than being dead but
>>>> right. Cyclists are so vunerable on the roads, and will mostly come
>>>> off worst in a collision, I would absolutley take Brimstones advice
>>>> and 'stay away from large vehicles.
>>>>
>>> I see there was a recent case of kids throwing bricks off a bridge
>>> and killing a lorry driver. Presumably you think that as boys will
>>> be boys lorry drivers should stay away bridges. I wonder if their
>>> punishment will be a fine of 150 pounds.
>>
>> How is this even slightly similiar?
>
> I doubt if there is a single person who will read your post from start
> to end. Please don't be a lazy snipper.

The rest of the post was important for context - do mind your own business.
--
MrBitsy

 

[Brimstone]

raisethe wrote:
> Ekul Namsob wrote:
> it appeared clear to
>> me that this was advice and not an instruction.
>
> Not to me, because we were also treated to this a wee bittie earlier
> in the thread:
>
> 'If someone is crushed by a lorry after pulling away from traffic
> lights then they are the architect of their own misfortune'
>
> Soon after that we got:
>
> 'But the general thrust is quite simple. The lorry is bigger than the
> cyclist. Keep clear.'
>
> In other words, keep clear from lorries, if you get crushed its your
> own fault. The perfectly reasonable response to that is that you
> cannot always keep clear of them.

Can you offer a scenario in which someone gets crushed in which they are not
even faintly responsible?

 

[raisethe]

x-no-archive:Brimstone wrote:

>
> Can you offer a scenario in which someone gets crushed in which they are not
> even faintly responsible?
>
>

Yes. In my recent post I explained my near miss on the A4. If the mad
trucker had have crushed me, I would not have been even faintly responsible.

 

[Clive George]

"MrBitsy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> Adrian wrote:
>>> Clive George ("Clive George" <[email protected]>) gurgled
>>> happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>
>>>> Mostly you'll find they're arguing with Brimstone and his daft
>>>> assertions.
>>>
>>> The daft assertions that are shared with u.r.c?
>>
>> No, the daft assertion that:
>>
>> "The lorry is bigger than the cyclist. Keep clear"
>>
>> is actually all there is to avoiding unpleasant entanglements with
>> lorries.
>
> When the cyclist has done everthing correctly, but the lorry drivers is
> being a twit, STAY AWAY from the lorry is sensible advice. Of course you
> could just sit there full of the thought you are in the right.

To bring this discussion back to the original topic, it is amusing that the
subject of this thread tried to teach the denizens of URC how to ride a
bike, in the same manner as you appear to be doing.
(though it was funnier when he tried to do the same in ukrm).

clive

 

[Clive George]

"Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Can you offer a scenario in which someone gets crushed in which they are
> not even faintly responsible?

Lorry comes up to traffic queue at speed, doesn't brake eg due to playing
with mobile or being asleep, crushes cars in front. It's happened more than
once.

clive

 

[Simon Dean]

Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Conor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <1i9a4ji.1k2k7rz6kh6wlN%
>> [email protected]>, Ekul Namsob says...
>>
>>>>>> If he's turning right, he should be on the right hand side of the
>>>>>> lane. Now who's stupid?
>>>>>>
>>>>> You, because apparently you haven't noticed how wide and high trucks
>>>>> are.
>>>> Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle all you like. You're wrong, he's wrong.
>>> Go and look at a lorry. Notice its size.
>>>
>> Go take a cycling proficiency test. Note where they tell you to place
>> yourself when turning right.
>
> I took CPT in 1983 (or was it 1982, it was a long while ago). Remind me
> where I'm going wrong by generally positioning myself on the right.
>> As a lorry driver, I'd rather have you on the right than hidden down
>> the left.
>
> Who said anything about being hidden down the left? I'm sorry if I've
> missed something here but it seems as though we may be writing at cross
> purposes. For instance, in your comment "You're wrong, he's wrong", who
> is he?
>
> Cheers,
> Luke
>

That was Huge, not Conor.

Depisable though he is, he never made that comment.
>

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Brimstone
[email protected] says...

> "Keep clear" to a person of average intelligence means doing what is within
> your power to give yourself and the lorry enough space to do what you both
> want to do.
>
"Keep clear" could mean anything from "don't approach" to "don't
clutter" to "run away from". In the context of a cyclist stopped at a
junction who is then approached uncomfortably close by a large vehicle,
it could easily mean "get off your bike and on the pavement". This is
clearly an unreasonable expectation, and makes the exhortation to "keep
clear" pretty meaningless.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Brimstone
[email protected] says...

> Can you offer a scenario in which someone gets crushed in which they are not
> even faintly responsible?
>
Me riding on a fairly narrow country road with a high stone hedge to the
left and a woodland to the right, approaching a right hand bend. Truck
starts to overtake me as we turn into the bend, sees something coming
the other way and pulls over on me, presumably in the belief that once
I'm behind the cab I must be gone. Actually I was nearly under his back
wheels, with nowhere to go. There was just room for me to pull back
level with the cab and thump the door rather hard, he did an emergency
stop and I squeezed between the cab and the hedge. If I had been a less
confident cyclist, or not fast enough to keep up with the truck, they'd
have been scraping me off the road. If I had been squashed, would it
have been my fault?