Re: Paul Smith

[NM]

Brimstone wrote:
> raisethe wrote:
>> x-no-archive:Steve Firth wrote:
>>> raisethe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are you two their resident trolls?
>>> Oh, the irony.
>> Meaning?
>
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=42023&dict=CALD
>
> irony (FIGURATIVE SPEECH)
> noun
> a means of expression which suggests a different, usually humorous or angry,
> meaning for the words used:
> Her voice heavy with irony, Simone said, "We're so pleased you were able to
> stay so long." (= Her voice made it obvious they were not pleased).
>
>

AaH! Here we have Brimstone trying to lead you towards the 'Fountain of
Knowledge', an activity he denies to lorry drivers, you are truly
honoured, drink deeply.

 

[Brimstone]

NM wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> raisethe wrote:
>>> x-no-archive:Steve Firth wrote:
>>>> raisethe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Are you two their resident trolls?
>>>> Oh, the irony.
>>> Meaning?
>>
>> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=42023&dict=CALD
>>
>> irony (FIGURATIVE SPEECH)
>> noun
>> a means of expression which suggests a different, usually humorous
>> or angry, meaning for the words used:
>> Her voice heavy with irony, Simone said, "We're so pleased you were
>> able to stay so long." (= Her voice made it obvious they were not
>> pleased).
>
> AaH! Here we have Brimstone trying to lead you towards the 'Fountain
> of Knowledge', an activity he denies to lorry drivers, you are truly
> honoured, drink deeply.

Wrong again.

 

[NM]

Brimstone wrote:
> NM wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> raisethe wrote:
>>>> x-no-archive:Steve Firth wrote:
>>>>> raisethe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you two their resident trolls?
>>>>> Oh, the irony.
>>>> Meaning?
>>> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=42023&dict=CALD
>>>
>>> irony (FIGURATIVE SPEECH)
>>> noun
>>> a means of expression which suggests a different, usually humorous
>>> or angry, meaning for the words used:
>>> Her voice heavy with irony, Simone said, "We're so pleased you were
>>> able to stay so long." (= Her voice made it obvious they were not
>>> pleased).
>> AaH! Here we have Brimstone trying to lead you towards the 'Fountain
>> of Knowledge', an activity he denies to lorry drivers, you are truly
>> honoured, drink deeply.
>
> Wrong again.
>
>
How? I spy you divulging information to a third party for the purposes
of educating them, an activity you deny truck drivers.

 

[Brimstone]

NM wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> NM wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> raisethe wrote:
>>>>> x-no-archive:Steve Firth wrote:
>>>>>> raisethe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you two their resident trolls?
>>>>>> Oh, the irony.
>>>>> Meaning?
>>>> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=42023&dict=CALD
>>>>
>>>> irony (FIGURATIVE SPEECH)
>>>> noun
>>>> a means of expression which suggests a different, usually humorous
>>>> or angry, meaning for the words used:
>>>> Her voice heavy with irony, Simone said, "We're so pleased you were
>>>> able to stay so long." (= Her voice made it obvious they were not
>>>> pleased).
>>> AaH! Here we have Brimstone trying to lead you towards the 'Fountain
>>> of Knowledge', an activity he denies to lorry drivers, you are truly
>>> honoured, drink deeply.
>>
>> Wrong again.
>>
>>
> How? I spy you divulging information to a third party for the purposes
> of educating them, an activity you deny truck drivers.

Still wrong.

 

[NM]

Brimstone wrote:
> NM wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> NM wrote:
>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>> raisethe wrote:
>>>>>> x-no-archive:Steve Firth wrote:
>>>>>>> raisethe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you two their resident trolls?
>>>>>>> Oh, the irony.
>>>>>> Meaning?
>>>>> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=42023&dict=CALD
>>>>>
>>>>> irony (FIGURATIVE SPEECH)
>>>>> noun
>>>>> a means of expression which suggests a different, usually humorous
>>>>> or angry, meaning for the words used:
>>>>> Her voice heavy with irony, Simone said, "We're so pleased you were
>>>>> able to stay so long." (= Her voice made it obvious they were not
>>>>> pleased).
>>>> AaH! Here we have Brimstone trying to lead you towards the 'Fountain
>>>> of Knowledge', an activity he denies to lorry drivers, you are truly
>>>> honoured, drink deeply.
>>> Wrong again.
>>>
>>>
>> How? I spy you divulging information to a third party for the purposes
>> of educating them, an activity you deny truck drivers.
>
> Still wrong.
>
>
How?

 

[Brimstone]

NM wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> NM wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> NM wrote:
>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>> raisethe wrote:
>>>>>>> x-no-archive:Steve Firth wrote:
>>>>>>>> raisethe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you two their resident trolls?
>>>>>>>> Oh, the irony.
>>>>>>> Meaning?
>>>>>> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=42023&dict=CALD
>>>>>>
>>>>>> irony (FIGURATIVE SPEECH)
>>>>>> noun
>>>>>> a means of expression which suggests a different, usually
>>>>>> humorous or angry, meaning for the words used:
>>>>>> Her voice heavy with irony, Simone said, "We're so pleased you
>>>>>> were able to stay so long." (= Her voice made it obvious they
>>>>>> were not pleased).
>>>>> AaH! Here we have Brimstone trying to lead you towards the
>>>>> 'Fountain of Knowledge', an activity he denies to lorry drivers,
>>>>> you are truly honoured, drink deeply.
>>>> Wrong again.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> How? I spy you divulging information to a third party for the
>>> purposes of educating them, an activity you deny truck drivers.
>>
>> Still wrong.
>>
>>
> How?

I don't deny truck drivers anything they're capable of using.

 

[Trevor A Panther]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> raisethe wrote:
>> x-no-archive:Steve Firth wrote:
>>> raisethe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are you two their resident trolls?
>>>
>>> Oh, the irony.
>> Meaning?
>
> Meaning it's time you realised it's just not worth it any more. I've
> gone on for too long myself and there's nothing more to say. But that
> won't stop the likes of Firth etc. not saying it over and over again.
>
> Pete.
> --
> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Hey look, I occasionally put my foot very deep into it -- so here I go again!

But don't you lot want to switch off from this endless dia/tria/quadra---tribe
and go off and enjoy Christmas.

It is extremely uninteresting (= boring) and you are driving me towards
watching TV --- God forbid! ( btw I don't believe in god but please don't
continue this string by flaming me about that!).

Come on guyz it is time to switch off!

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

 

[Dan Gregory]

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.
I seem to remember the old minis being banned in sveral US states
because they were being squashed due to this (and when trucks turned right)

 

[Steve Firth]

Dan Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.
> I seem to remember the old minis being banned in sveral US states
> because they were being squashed due to this (and when trucks turned right)

That makes no sense at all, a Corvette is lower than a Mini.

 

[MrBitsy]

spindrift wrote:
> On 21 Dec, 12:39, "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> raisethe wrote:
>>> x-no-archive:Brimstone wrote:
>>>> raisethe wrote:
>>>>> MrBitsy wrote:
>>>>>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>>>> , Brimstone
>>>>>>> says...
>>
>>>>>>>> Can you offer a scenario in which someone gets crushed in which
>>>>>>>> they are not even faintly responsible?
>>
>>>>> <megasnip>
>>
>>>>> If I had
>>>>>>> been squashed, would it have been my fault?
>>
>>>>>> He we go again with this fault business. The whole thrust of this
>>>>>> thread has been this ...
>>
>>>>>> 'When at the point a collision is likely, forget fault and save
>>>>>> yourself'.
>>
>>>>> Not when the question being responded to asks who is responsible.
>>>>> A word of advice: read in full the post you are replying to.
>>
>>>> No, again you misread or misunderstand. I said "faintly
>>>> responsible". Primary responsibility lies with the dozo making the
>>>> initial foul up. The person about to be crushed can also shoulder
>>>> some of the responsibility because they either put themselves in
>>>> danger or failed to remove themselves from danger.
>>
>>> What do you mean? If the lorry that aimed for me on the A4 had have
>>> crushed me, are you saying that I would have been faintly
>>> responsible? Please explain what you mean by that?
>>
>> I don't recall seeing the post in which you described the incident.
>> Care to repost?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> fOR INSTANCE:
>
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SfY3wjMmqFE

The lorry driver was a knob - nobody will disagree with you.
--
MrBitsy

 

[MrBitsy]

raisethe wrote:
> x-no-archive:Brimstone wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What do you mean? If the lorry that aimed for me on the A4 had have
>>> crushed me, are you saying that I would have been faintly
>>> responsible? Please explain what you mean by that?
>>
>> I don't recall seeing the post in which you described the incident.
>> Care to repost?
>>
>>
>
>
> Sure. Here it is.
>
>
>
> Farmer John wrote:
>
>>
>> Peter seems to believe that trucks regularly run over other vehicles.
>>
>>
>> I've never seen or even heard of a truck driving over another car or
>> cyclist at a roundabout,
>>
>
> I don't think he ever said 'regularly'. Perhaps you could show where
> he did.
> One particular lorry driver drove at me and my cycle the other day.
> Approaching a roundabout on the A4, the throughroute required a right
> hand exit. As the road is fast and busy, I had to take position toward
> the right hand side of the wide single lane quite early. This
> obviously upset the driver of an artic. Whilst on the roundabout, he
> undertook me, very closely, bawling at me 'to get on the f*cking
> cycle path.' I then had to swerve out of his way as he cut me up taking
> the exit that I
> had been heading toward.
>
>
> For all those who still don't understand Pete's point, please tell me
> how I could've 'kept clear' of this lorry

Why do you not get the point?

In that example, If you had signalled early and positioned correctly, we
will all agree the lorry driver was a dangerous fool. Driving/riding on the
roads can be dangerous. The fact you still ride on them means you accept the
risks.

I don't like the fact the roads are full of drivers with little ability and
bad personalities, but I need to drive so accept the risks. You and I both
try to drive/ride in a safe, predictable and systematic way. We drive/ride
defensivly to stay as safe as we can.

Now let us get to what Brimstone meant by his comment to stay away for
HGV's. If you are in a position to SEE that another driver is going to do
something to put you at danger, take defensive action. If that is not
working, then forget priorities and blame and get the effing hell out the
way to stay safe.

As a driver, I will take whatever action is required to stay safe. Many
times I have pulled over to let a dangerous driver past - I forget priority,
blame or pride and get the hell out the way.

--
MrBitsy

 

[MrBitsy]

Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, MrBitsy
> [email protected] says...
>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Why did you not stop the moment he started to overtake in a dangerous
>> place - you noticed the danger - didn't you?
>
> Becauae I assumed he'd decelerate and pull in without trying to pass -
> that would have put me under his front wheels. I reckon we were about
> evenly matched in terms of acceleration, and he could probably
> out-brake me.

Assuming was your mistake - never assume the best outcome.

>>> 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.
>>
>> So rather than just stop and be out the way entirely, you sped up to
>> be level with the cab?
>
> Front - single wheels - just room to get through
> Back - double wheels - not quite enough room to get through.
> You don't seem to understand quite how close this was - if I'd
> deviated literally three inches to the right I'd have hit the truck,
> three inches to the left I'd have hit the very narrow verge, lost
> control, hit the hedge and likely bounced back under the truck. I'm
> really not exaggerating. To give an example of how comfortable I am
> riding close to large vehicles, I've had occasion to duck into the
> front wheelarch of a coach that pulled out on me as I was passing it
> just as a truck was coming in the other direction.

What????


>>> 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?
>>
>>
>> He we go again with this fault business. The whole thrust of this
>> thread has been this ...
>>
>> 'When at the point a collision is likely, forget fault and save
>> yourself'.
>>
> And the post to which I was responding (still up there ^) asked "Can
> you offer a scenario in which someone gets crushed in which they are
> not even faintly responsible?" Now apart from being responsible by
> riding a bike on the road, obviously a heinous crime as far as some
> people are concerned, I'd really like to know what else I could have
> done.

>>> 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.

Not much of an escape route available by the sounds of it - when did you
become aware of the lorry?

>>> Truck starts to overtake me as we turn into the bend,

Not very early then, because I wouldn't have continued towards 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.

Right, so you had plenty of opportunity to dtop your bike and let this twit
get passed you - did you carry on because you were in the right?
--
MrBitsy

 

[MrBitsy]

spindrift wrote:
> On 21 Dec, 12:07, Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, MrBitsy
>> [email protected] says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>>> Why did you not stop the moment he started to overtake in a
>>> dangerous
>>> place - you noticed the danger - didn't you?
>>
>> Becauae I assumed he'd decelerate and pull in without trying to pass
>> -
>> that would have put me under his front wheels. I reckon we were about
>> evenly matched in terms of acceleration, and he could probably
>> out-brake
>> me.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>> So rather than just stop and be out the way entirely, you sped up
>>> to be level with the cab?
>>
>> Front - single wheels - just room to get through
>> Back - double wheels - not quite enough room to get through.
>> You don't seem to understand quite how close this was - if I'd
>> deviated
>> literally three inches to the right I'd have hit the truck, three
>> inches
>> to the left I'd have hit the very narrow verge, lost control, hit the
>> hedge and likely bounced back under the truck. I'm really not
>> exaggerating. To give an example of how comfortable I am riding close
>> to large vehicles, I've had occasion to duck into the front
>> wheelarch of
>> a coach that pulled out on me as I was passing it just as a truck was
>> coming in the other direction.
>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>>> He we go again with this fault business. The whole thrust of this
>>> thread has been this ...
>>
>>> 'When at the point a collision is likely, forget fault and save
>>> yourself'.
>>
>> And the post to which I was responding (still up there ^) asked "Can
>> you
>> offer a scenario in which someone gets crushed in which they are not
>> even faintly responsible?" Now apart from being responsible by
>> riding a
>> bike on the road, obviously a heinous crime as far as some people are
>> concerned, I'd really like to know what else I could have done.-
>> Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> ""Can you offer a scenario in which someone gets crushed in which they
> are not
> even faintly responsible?"
>
>
> There are many- at least two women killed in London by lorries that
> overtook then IMMEDIATELY turned left.
>
> The cyclists did NOTHING wrong.
>
> The cyclists had nowhere to go, the lorries smashed into them.

Complete and utter rubbish.

As a driver of a car, if someone passes me with a left turn ahead, I will
assume they are going to turn left and take appropriate action to reduce the
risk. Why would a vunerable cyclist continue forward, when being passed by a
car and with a left turn ahead - lack of observation and anticipation is the
reason.

THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE WAS AT FAULT - we all know this. The cyclists need
to ride defensivly and do something about it!

--
MrBitsy

 

[MrBitsy]

raisethe wrote:
> x-no-archive:Brimstone wrote:
>
>>>
>> Hence I prefaced it with "the main thrust is". It was also in the
>> context of someone putting themselves into a potentially hazardous
>> situation. Most other people understood that it was a starting point for
>> action, why didn't you?
>>
>>
>
> You are being disingenuous.
>
> As you do not seem to have read my previous post, I repeat it here:
>
> "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'

Correct - if they saw the possible conflict, but continued because they were
in the right. They may have also continued because they didn't appreciate
the danger, again they are partly responsible for their own misfortune.

> Soon after that we got:
>
> 'But the general thrust is quite simple. The lorry is bigger than the
> cyclist. Keep clear.'

Absolutely correct. The lorry shouldn't be turning left and crushing a
cyclist, but if the cyclist can see what may happen then 'keep away from the
lorry'.

> In other words, keep clear from lorries, if you get crushed its your
> own fault.

No, it is partly the cyclists fault. It generally takes two people to make a
collision. One driver to make the mistake and one not to see it and avoid.

> The perfectly reasonable response to that is that you
> cannot always keep clear of them."

Of course not, and this is the case whatever you decide to use to get from A
to B. I was once piloting an aircraft into land at Elstree. Some idiot of a
pilot decided to cut a corner and I had to take avoiding action to avoid a
collision. The point here is clear - the approach was my priority, but the
other pilot made a mistake. I saw the mistake and took avoiding action - I
didn't try and force my priority, because that would have increased the risk
to all.

If we had collided, it would have been his fault for the initial mistake,
but I would have been partly to plame for not taking action to reduce the
risk.

> You, bitsy and a few others keep repeating the same nonsense. Do you
> not read the replies to your emails? I'm not familiar with urd. Are
> you two their resident trolls?

<sighs>

--
MrBitsy

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, Rob Morley
says...

> 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?
>
***********, you were lucky.

--
Conor

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, Rob Morley
says...

> Front - single wheels - just room to get through
> Back - double wheels - not quite enough room to get through.

Eh? Doesn't make any difference mate. In fact with the front wheels,
you've a higher risk or getting ripped apart by the protruding wheel
studs.

--
Conor

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.

 

[NM]

Conor wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Rob Morley
> says...
>
>> 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?
>>
> ***********, you were lucky.
>

So was the driver, those panels on the cab are really expensive, it's
cheaper to get you with the rear wheels of the unit.

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch says...
> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the clarification. However, the advice to keep clear of
> > lorries is not, in my opinion, a waste of space. It is advice and, as
> > such, it is beneficial to follow that advice when practical.
>
> It is ambiguous. Run "Keep clear of" past the Campaign for Plain
> English and see if anyone there reckons it can possibly be taken as
> meaning "get out of the way". Now see how "get out of the way" compares
> with taking up the primary position very deliberately in the path of an
> approaching HGV.
>
"Get out of the way" is ambiguous.

> But that remains bad advice, for the reason given above. With a lorry
> approaching from behind it is often in my interests to assertively *get
> right in its path*, reasonably safe in the knowledge that the driver
> will give me the space I need. That is not at all clear from "attempt
> to keep clear of lorries", is it?
>
As a lorry driver, I wish more would. Passing cyclists isn't really
that pleasant and I've been driving lorries nearly 15 years yet I'm
still wary of it - mainly because you're never sure WTF they're going
to do and if anything does go wrong, they're likely to get seriously
hurt.

I have no problem crawling behind a cyclist who wants to turn right and
has positioned themselves towards the right of the lane we're in.


> "Keep away from blind spots of lorries" would be much better, for
> example, but that isn't what was given.
>
That only works when people are aware of the blind spots. Take an artic
turning right for example. Many people aren't aware that you cannot see
down the nearside of the trailer at all once you start to turn.


--
Conor

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch says...
> MrBitsy wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> And now we have an injection of context, but that rather changes things.
> Elsewhere in the thread people have gone on about taking the primary
> position, specifically /right in the way of a lorry/. So, do I do that
> for an upcoming lorry, assuming the driver may be on the ball, or pick
> up my bike and jump onto the pavement, assuning the worst case that he
> won't be? And which of those is closer to "keep clear of lorries"?
>
Cycle to the Highway Code, maintain a steady course and make clear
indications of your intentions.


--
Conor

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.

 

[NM]

Conor wrote:

>>
> Cycle to the Highway Code, maintain a steady course and make clear
> indications of your intentions.
>
>
Sounds like the avoidance of collision at sea regulations.