Re: Paul Smith

[Ekul Namsob]

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.

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

Lack of surprise does not imply blame.

> 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.

Luke


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

 

[Steve Firth]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

Not if you're sensible. I can't understand cyclists who whine on about
trucks, I've been riding bikes for decades her and in Italy. I tend to
find that truck drivers tend to be more aware of cyclists than the
average driver.

> > 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.

I see you're still too dumb to realise that *you* are responsible for
your safety to a large degree. That includes choice of route, position
on road and general awareness of traffic law and good riding practices.
So far you're showing yourself to be woefully deficient in common sense.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Ekul Namsob wrote:

> If, on a motorway, a lorry positions itself to the side of me, I slow
> down enough to give it space to pull in.

That's nice. What if there's another lorry closing up from behind?

> 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.

Perhaps you didn't want to, perhaps you were joining relatively slowly
from a slip road, perhaps you were boxed in while a stream of vehicles
passed in the faster lane you couldn't get into perhaps etc. etc. etc.

If you can't envisage a single possible scenario for getting into a less
than perfectly comfortable situation relative to an HGV then you're just
not trying or have a rather feeble imagination.

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/

 

[Steve Firth]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>
> > If, on a motorway, a lorry positions itself to the side of me, I slow
> > down enough to give it space to pull in.
>
> That's nice. What if there's another lorry closing up from behind?

Are you really as bad a driver as the above comment makes you sound?
Slow down let the nice man in the big truck in, if big truck behind
wants to maintain speed he indicates pulls out and overtakes you, or he
slows down. It's his call what he wants to do.

> > 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.
>
> Perhaps you didn't want to, perhaps you were joining relatively slowly
> from a slip road,

Match your speed to that of traffic in lane 1. It's easy to do. Merge
safely with the traffic in lane 1.

> perhaps you were boxed in while a stream of vehicles
> passed in the faster lane you couldn't get into

You mean that you weren't observing traffic and let yourself get boxed
into a position that makes you feel uncomfortable?

> perhaps etc. etc. etc.

Perhaps you should sign up for some driver training?

> If you can't envisage a single possible scenario for getting into a less
> than perfectly comfortable situation relative to an HGV then you're just
> not trying or have a rather feeble imagination.

I can imagine many scenarios. They all start with the driver being of a
low standard, as do your examples above.

 

[JNugent]

The Luggage wrote:
> 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...

Absolutely none of that "comment in 1999" would be admissible in court
as a defence against a charge of cycling along the footway. I don't
know why you think it would (though it might be used in mitigation).
If a minister said that the law against theft was only to be used in
extreme cases, that wouldn't be a defence against a shoplifting bust.
The reason for this is simple - it's got nothing to do with ministers
who gets prosecuted and who doesn't. And still less who gets acquitted
of an offence of which they are manifestly guilty.

So... criminals cannot rely on the fact that they've been advised by a
minister that they'll get away with it. IOW, it isn't a defence and
you have not provided a source for such a thing any more than the PP
did. That's because there isn't one.

 

[JNugent]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> 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.

But you can try, can't you?

 

[Brimstone]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> 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.
>
"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.

Please accept my sincerest apologies for including you in the average.

 

[Brimstone]

JNugent wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> 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.
>
> But you can try, can't you?

He's certainly does that.

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:

> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>Brimstone wrote:

[ ... ]

>>"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.

> "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.
> Please accept my sincerest apologies for including you in the average.

I think the rest of us understood you perfectly.

Along with the argument: "The lorry might not keep clear of me so
there's no point in my steering clear and taking responsibility for my
own safety", I fancy I can hear the unmistakable sounds of
back-pedalling and yet another barrel being scraped.

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>
> > If, on a motorway, a lorry positions itself to the side of me, I slow
> > down enough to give it space to pull in.
>
> That's nice. What if there's another lorry closing up from behind?

It will slow down in my experience.
>
> > 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.
>
> Perhaps you didn't want to, perhaps you were joining relatively slowly
> from a slip road, perhaps you were boxed in while a stream of vehicles
> passed in the faster lane you couldn't get into perhaps etc. etc. etc.

> If you can't envisage a single possible scenario for getting into a less
> than perfectly comfortable situation relative to an HGV then you're just
> not trying or have a rather feeble imagination.

You asked "But what if a lorry positions itself to the side of you? You
don't always get the choice." You did not ask about me positioning my
car to the side of a lorry. I believe, however, that my reference to Top
Gear implied that I avoid doing just that.

I see no need for your suggestion that I may have a rather feeble
imagination when I answered your civil question in a civil fashion. I
see nowhere where anyone has suggested a "perfectly comfortable
situation" relative to any vehicle. Indeed, I don't think perfect
comfort should be sought when in control of a vehicle.

At this present moment in time, I do not see any circumstances where I
would need to dally in the blind spot of a 40-tonne vehicle in
free-flowing traffic.

Believe it or not, I drive on the motorway almost every day. I regularly
find that one lorry is attempting to overtake another on a hill when I
am on the sliproad. Before joining the road, I look at where other
vehicles are and consider where they can reasonably be expected to be as
I join. I will not pull into a lane if it is not safe. On the rare
occasion that I find myself boxed in, I will usually slow down so as to
allow the overtaking vehicle to complete its manoeuvre.

Cheers,
Luke


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

 

[Señor Chris]

JNugent wrote:
>
> Absolutely none of that "comment in 1999" would be admissible in court
> as a defence against a charge of cycling along the footway. I don't know
> why you think it would (though it might be used in mitigation). If a
> minister said that the law against theft was only to be used in extreme
> cases, that wouldn't be a defence against a shoplifting bust. The reason
> for this is simple - it's got nothing to do with ministers who gets
> prosecuted and who doesn't. And still less who gets acquitted of an
> offence of which they are manifestly guilty.

Correct - that's for the courts to decide. And they are well within
their rights to acquit people who are 'manifestly guilty'.

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Ekul Namsob wrote:
> >
> > > If, on a motorway, a lorry positions itself to the side of me, I slow
> > > down enough to give it space to pull in.
> >
> > That's nice. What if there's another lorry closing up from behind?
>
> Are you really as bad a driver as the above comment makes you sound?
> Slow down let the nice man in the big truck in, if big truck behind
> wants to maintain speed he indicates pulls out and overtakes you, or he
> slows down. It's his call what he wants to do.

Sometimes, this leads to finding oneself waiting what seems like an
eternity while a long line of trucks overtakes.

In this circumstance, I find it can be helpful to show my intention to
change line by using my indicator. Usually, a lorry driver will let me
pull out. It helps, too, that I very rarely travel in a hurry.

Cheers,
Luke


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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>
> > If, on a motorway, a lorry positions itself to the side of me, I slow
> > down enough to give it space to pull in.
>
> That's nice. What if there's another lorry closing up from behind?

I've given you my response in a separate post but please, out of
interest, tell me what you would do.

Cheers,
Luke

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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

MrBitsy <[email protected]> wrote:

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

> >> Right, so if the lorry driver does indeed pull up too close, the
> >> cyclists brain needs to kick into gear - self preservation now takes
> >> over from blame.
> >
> > 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]
>
> I see no problem with riding responsibly on the pavement. However, if there
> was a safe cycle path available, I would not expect to see a cyclist on the
> pavement.

The problem is that the law does see a problem with riding responsibly
on the pavement and there are junctions at which it would be very hard
for a cyclist to get onto the pavement as barriers may well have been
erected.

Cheers,
Luke


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

 

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

Various people keep saying that, and it keeps getting pointed out that
lots and lost of junctions have more than one lane and therefor what
you are saying simply doesn't work in lots and lots of cases.

And that is just ignored. I haven't seen anyone explain how being in
primary position in a lane stops HGVs pulling alongside.

Again - how does being in the middle of your lane stop a lorry pulling
up alongside IN AN ADJACENT LANE?

--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[raisethe]

Ekul Namsob wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>

A problem that I believe has been exacerbated by the increasing numbers
of LHD lorries from the continent (with inadequate mirrors).

 

[raisethe]

JNugent wrote:

>> You said "keep clear". I can't guarantee to keep clear because I can't
>> guarantee that an HGV won't come close.
>
> But you can try, can't you?

PC hasn't said that he won't try, just that sometimes he won't have a
choice. He's said the same thing in different ways <many> times. Why is
this such a hard concept for you guys to understand?

 

[Nick]

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.

Or he could decide that he had to exercise additional care to avoid such
circumstances in future. Steps such as fitting additional mirrors,
avoiding certain roads or driving especially carefully. These are all
steps I take every day to avoid incidents caused by other peoples
foolishness.

>> 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?


>> 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.

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


> Luke
>
>

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Nick <[email protected]> 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.
>
> Or he could decide that he had to exercise additional care to avoid such
> circumstances in future. Steps such as fitting additional mirrors,
> avoiding certain roads or driving especially carefully. These are all
> steps I take every day to avoid incidents caused by other peoples
> foolishness.

It seems as though Mr Bitsy was driving especially carefully. Do you
have evidence to suggest otherwise?
>
> >> 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?

I cannot apportion blame on such a hypothetical situation. There are too
many variables. I would not seek to blame somebody else, however, for my
own foolishness.

> >> 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.

Is it? How are you defining intelligence?

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

Absolutely. There is a need to educate drivers about many careless
aspects of driving. That does not mean that cyclists and pedestrians
should be denied potentially lifesaving education.

Cheers,
Luke

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

 

[Adrian]

Ian Smith (Ian Smith <[email protected]>) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

> Again - how does being in the middle of your lane stop a lorry pulling
> up alongside IN AN ADJACENT LANE?

<sigh> Ummm, in case you'd forgotten the problem was vehicles pulling up
alongside then turning left...