Re: Paul Smith



On 19 Dec, 22:12, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Ekul Namsob wrote:
[...]
> > Do you condone cycling on pavements? Many cyclists have put their
> > 'self-preservation' skills into effect and decided that they would be
> > better off there. Indeed, I believe that fear of injury is a defence for
> > people charged with pavement cycling. [1]
>
> Fear of injury would be just as "good" a defence for the shooting dead
> of an armed police officer by the criminal he is confronting. Or of
> the murder of the victim of a mugging "just in case" he or a member of
> his family comes after the mugger.
>
> > Cheers,
> > Luke
> > [1] As with so many things, I cannot provide a source for that.
>
> Of course you can't.

Well I can. It was a comment in 1999 from then Home Office minister
Paul Boateng. 'In a letter to cycling MP Ben Bradshaw Home Office
Minister Paul Boateng wrote "The introduction of the fixed penalty is
not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use
the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to
other pavement users."

Ref:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/407443.stm

So not strictly a defence, but it is clear that the intention of the
FPN system for pavement cycling was NOT to penalise 'responsible
cyclists' but those who cause a danger to pedestrians. This, of
course, has been completely forgotten or ignored by councils and
Police. I don't know if anyone has challenged a FPN and used this in
their argument...

TL
 
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:37:54 +0000, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Indeed. I think it's fair to say that a lot of the heat from the
> > cycling side has come solely from the suggestion in Brimstone's post
> > that we should just avoid lorries, period.
>
> You may continue to mix it with trucks as you like.

Since the trucks are on the roads and no amount of wishful posting
will change that, you would seem to be advocating cyclists only ride
around the inside of their houses. It's not a very practical
recommendation, is it?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
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.

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

> You may continue to mix it with trucks as you like. And you may continue
> to run the risk of beign squashed in consequence.

Much as I (and you) do in cars, and still much the case that getting out
on the roads /at all/ will involve mixing it with trucks, whatever my likes.

> If you don't have an
> instinct for self-preservation feel free to die in whatever manner you
> choose.

Still too dumb to realise a lot of accidents involve little in the way
of choice for the deceased, I see.

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/
 
"Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>> 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. Presumably this is because you felt it would be their
> fault if you did kill them?
>
> 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 think you have demonstrated by that non sequiter that it is you who comes
from the lower end of the intelligence scale: the cyclists were putting
themselves in danger by their positioning and the driver was observing and
behaving correctly.

pk
 
PK wrote:
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> 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. Presumably this is because you felt it would be
>> their fault if you did kill them?
>>
>> 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 think you have demonstrated by that non sequiter

Can you point out where you think the non sequitur occurs?


> that it is you who
> comes from the lower end of the intelligence scale: the cyclists were
> putting themselves in danger by their positioning and the driver was
> observing and behaving correctly.
>

Clearly you are just trying to trade insults.

However we can't really get away from the fact that professional drivers
do tend to be unskilled and not very clever. A rough proxy for how
society values the talents of a professional driver can be seen by the
relatively low pay that the job commands.

The other interesting fact is that despite the risks cycling does on
average increase ones lifespan.



> pk
 
Peter Clinch wrote:
> Adrian wrote:
>
>> VERY VERY few collisions have
>> just one participant at fault.
>
> That is a fair comment, but of course what I'm actually getting at
> primarily is the simple /existence/ of lorries in my space. They're
> often there and I really can't help that, and Brimstone's "just don't
> be near lorries" misses that completely.
>
Which isn't what I said.

> I can choose not to steer
> close to them, but I can't choose whether they steer close to me
> because I'm not at the controls of the lorry.

How is that at variance with what I actually posted?
 
Nick wrote:
> PK wrote:
>> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> 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. Presumably this is because you felt it
>>> would be their fault if you did kill them?
>>>
>>> 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 think you have demonstrated by that non sequiter
>
> Can you point out where you think the non sequitur occurs?
>
>
>> that it is you who
>> comes from the lower end of the intelligence scale: the cyclists were
>> putting themselves in danger by their positioning and the driver was
>> observing and behaving correctly.
>>
>
> Clearly you are just trying to trade insults.
>
> However we can't really get away from the fact that professional
> drivers do tend to be unskilled and not very clever.

How many lorry drivers have you met and had conversations with, how many
have you studied at their work?

> A rough proxy
> for how society values the talents of a professional driver can be
> seen by the relatively low pay that the job commands.

Only in the UK where it is customary to denigrate anyone who does a useful
job. In other European countries drivers are treated with the respect the
relative importance of the job deserves.

> The other interesting fact is that despite the risks cycling does on
> average increase ones lifespan.
>
Only if one behaves appropriate whilst on the road.
 
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.
 
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!!!!
 
"Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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!!!!

Bugger me, that makes two of you who've just caught up with the rest of
uk.rec.cycling.

clive
 
Clive George wrote:
> "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 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!!!!
>
> Bugger me, that makes two of you who've just caught up with the rest
> of uk.rec.cycling.
>
We were there before you.
 
Clive George ("Clive George" <[email protected]>) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

>>> They've seen you, they've thought about you - because you took
>>> ownership of the space around you.

>> DING!!!!

> Bugger me, that makes two of you who've just caught up with the rest of
> uk.rec.cycling.

So how come all the u.r.c lot are arguing with us?
 
"Adrian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Clive George ("Clive George" <[email protected]>) gurgled happily,
> sounding much like they were saying:
>
>>>> They've seen you, they've thought about you - because you took
>>>> ownership of the space around you.
>
>>> DING!!!!
>
>> Bugger me, that makes two of you who've just caught up with the rest of
>> uk.rec.cycling.
>
> So how come all the u.r.c lot are arguing with us?

Mostly you'll find they're arguing with Brimstone and his daft assertions.

clive
 
Clive George ("Clive George" <[email protected]>) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

>>>>> They've seen you, they've thought about you - because you took
>>>>> ownership of the space around you.

>>>> DING!!!!

>>> Bugger me, that makes two of you who've just caught up with the rest
>>> of uk.rec.cycling.

>> So how come all the u.r.c lot are arguing with us?

> Mostly you'll find they're arguing with Brimstone and his daft
> assertions.

The daft assertions that are shared with u.r.c?
 
Brimstone wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> Adrian wrote:
>>
>>> VERY VERY few collisions have
>>> just one participant at fault.
>> That is a fair comment, but of course what I'm actually getting at
>> primarily is the simple /existence/ of lorries in my space. They're
>> often there and I really can't help that, and Brimstone's "just don't
>> be near lorries" misses that completely.
>>
> Which isn't what I said.

What you actually said was:

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

Perhaps you would explain how that's different from what I read it as?

> How is that at variance with what I actually posted?

You said "keep clear". I can't guarantee to keep clear because I can't
guarantee that an HGV won't come close.

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/
 
Adrian wrote:
>
> 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.

We know this. Read the archive of URC and you will see that. It is not
the point Peter C has made ad nauseum.
 
Adrian wrote:

> 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.

And in turn I'd say that's what I have no issue with whatsoever.

> 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.

On the one hand, yes, but on the other, have I actually whinged any such
whinge? Not that I can see.

My point was very uncomplicated, and was that cyclists cannot guarantee
being well clear of lorroes, period, by their own actions. Nothing more
than that.

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/
 
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.

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/
 
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> 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.

If, on a motorway, a lorry positions itself to the side of me, I slow
down enough to give it space to pull in. I might well also pull in at
the next services to try to find out why my car was unable to travel
more swiftly than the lorry.

I recall seeing something on Top Gear (in the days before the entire
staff who weren't called Clarkson moved to Five) about lorry side-swipes
being a significant factor in accidents on motorways and dual
carriageways, sometimes resulting from a car spending too long [1] in
the lorry driver's blind spot.

Cheers,
Luke

[1] supply your own value of too long

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Paul Smith
Replies
32
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Ivor Jones
I
M
Re: Paul Smith
Replies
0
Views
441
UK and Europe
MrBitsy
M
N
Re: Paul Smith
Replies
4
Views
382
UK and Europe
Peter Clinch
P
R
Re: Paul Smith
Replies
0
Views
355
UK and Europe
Rob Morley
R
C
Re: OT: Paul Smith down
Replies
12
Views
404
UK and Europe
cupra
C
Top Bottom Back