Re: Paul Smith



JNugent wrote:
> 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.


That was the impression I got.

> 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.


On a bike I rode some years ago, if one back pedalled the rear brake
applied.
 
Ekul Namsob <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.


It's that last bit that's key IMO. I often have to travel long distances
by car to get somewhere on schedule. I never do any of it in a hurry
because that leads to accidents. On most journeys I arrive within a few
minutes of people who were in a hurry.

I once accepted a lift off someone who had a new Toyotoa Celica Turbo
something or other. He obviously wanted to show off and drove like a
complete nutter through rush hour traffic on the M1. I reckon he shaved
about 10 minutes off my journey time for the same route.

When we got to the hell-hole that is Bedford he insisted on stopping at
a "Little Chef" for breakast and we ended up 20 minutes late for the
meeting. The way I drive I'd have been on time with 10 minutes or so in
hand. True I would have missed out on the lukewarm coffee and shaved pig
slices but I don't see that as a negative.

Never took a lift off him again, I value my skin too highly.

Over longer distances rushing pays fewer dividends. I sometimes drive
1000 miles plus. I've left the ferry port in the company of people
treating it like a F1 start, by the time I've got to the Italian border.
I can see the same people two cars ahead of me at the toll booth. Hardly
worth the effort on their part.
 
Ekul Namsob <[email protected]> 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?

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


Peter seems to believe that trucks regularly run over other vehicles.
The occasions when it does happen don't seem to be the ones that he
worries about. I've seen a few accidents where a truck has gone over a
car from behind. In every case the truck driver had fallen asleep.

I've never seen or even heard of a truck driving over another car or
cyclist at a roundabout, I have heard of and seen accidents where a car
of cyclist has been pinned to the left or right of a turning truck. My
experience may not be definitive, but it does tell me that when
positioning myself on the road I don't want to be in the blindspot of a
truck, but squarely ahead of it or safely behind it.
 
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


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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...


No I have not forgotten. As has also been repeatedly stated, vehicles
do turn from lanes which are straight ahead only. This is especially
the case when a cyclist is in the primary position - some motorists
then decide that rather than wait behind the cyclist they will pull
alongside in the wrong lane and undertake their manoeuvre from the
wrong lane. Assuming that the drivers of motor vehicles will always
comply with the highway code and road markings is a recipe for a short
life.

So answer the question:

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

It must be an easy question to answer, because you (and others) have
repeatedly stated that it's a trivial action for the cyclist to take
that is certain to prevent an HGV pulling alongside. How does it do
that?

--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
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. 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.

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/
 
raisethe wrote:
> 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?


Occam's Razor suggsts "Because they're numpties" is the front runner...

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/
 
JNugent wrote:
[keeping away from HGVs]
> But you can try, can't you?


But there's rather more to safe interaction with lorries than
staying away, and that was all Brimstone came up with. That is
what I have a problem with. The other problem, of course, is the
likes of you not actually bothering to read what I wrote.

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:

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


The problem here is there is more to it than "the problem",
singular. People have not always been referring to "the problem"
(singular) to which you refer in this thread, and they have
helpfully pointed out that exact fact in there postings. But still
it is dragged back to assuming they're talking about the above: if
they /were/ you'd have a point, but they're not, and very clearly
said they were not.

God's teeth...

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 wrote:
> 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.


I wasn't whining about them, I said I get out there and mix with
them and there are times when "keep clear" is simply not possible.
And when I mix with them I find the drivers tend to be more aware
of cyclists than the average driver, just as you say, yet
apparently the "advice" is to keep clear of them.

> I see you're still too dumb to realise that *you* are responsible for
> your safety to a large degree.


Yes. And I'm still here, and I'm still here despite not always
keeping clear of HGVs, because I have a good idea of when and how I
can safely interact with them even in close proximity. So there's
more to it than "keep clear", yet that was what Brimstone came up with.

> 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.


My common sesne is fine. OTOH, your basic comprehension of plain
English is at the Nul Points level because you keep on making
points according to some notion completely contrary to what I say I
do or think.

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 wrote:
> Steve Firth wrote:
>> 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.

>
> I wasn't whining about them, I said I get out there and mix with
> them and there are times when "keep clear" is simply not possible.
> And when I mix with them I find the drivers tend to be more aware
> of cyclists than the average driver, just as you say, yet
> apparently the "advice" is to keep clear of them.
>
>> I see you're still too dumb to realise that *you* are responsible for
>> your safety to a large degree.

>
> Yes. And I'm still here, and I'm still here despite not always
> keeping clear of HGVs, because I have a good idea of when and how I
> can safely interact with them even in close proximity. So there's
> more to it than "keep clear", yet that was what Brimstone came up
> with.

Indeed I did. I also said it was the "general thrust" of the argument. Do
you understand what that means?

You should also read it in the context of the preceeding comments.
 
Brimstone wrote:

> Indeed I did. I also said it was the "general thrust" of the argument. Do
> you understand what that means?


Yes I do, and /still/ it remains to be a sweeping generalisation of
little actual use. What I've been complaining about is that it was
a sweeping generalisation of little actual use. Nothing more,
nothing less.

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/
 
Alan Braggins <[email protected]> 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.


why?

i ride though heavy traffic most days, i regually have lorries just
behind.

okay i am infront not in the gutter, i can easly out run the lorry over
the junction. if the lorry engadges gear it will not be hard to miss it,
lorry's not being the quietest of things.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
 
Peter Clinch wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>
>> Indeed I did. I also said it was the "general thrust" of the
>> argument. Do you understand what that means?

>
> Yes I do, and /still/ it remains to be a sweeping generalisation of
> little actual use. What I've been complaining about is that it was
> a sweeping generalisation of little actual use. Nothing more,
> nothing less.
>

And did you read in the context of the preceeding comments?
 
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.
 
Brimstone wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed I did. I also said it was the "general thrust" of the
>>> argument. Do you understand what that means?

>> Yes I do, and /still/ it remains to be a sweeping generalisation of
>> little actual use. What I've been complaining about is that it was
>> a sweeping generalisation of little actual use. Nothing more,
>> nothing less.
>>

> And did you read in the context of the preceeding comments?


Yes, and it's still a sweeping generalisation of little actual use.
There's been plenty of sound advice in this thread. That wasn't
any of it.

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 wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>
>>>> Indeed I did. I also said it was the "general thrust" of the
>>>> argument. Do you understand what that means?
>>> Yes I do, and /still/ it remains to be a sweeping generalisation of
>>> little actual use. What I've been complaining about is that it was
>>> a sweeping generalisation of little actual use. Nothing more,
>>> nothing less.
>>>

>> And did you read in the context of the preceeding comments?

>
> Yes, and it's still a sweeping generalisation of little actual use.
> There's been plenty of sound advice in this thread. That wasn't
> any of it.


In which case your even dumber than dumb.
 
Steve Firth wrote:

> Peter seems to believe that trucks regularly run over other vehicles.


Or rather, you seem to have misread what I've written /again/ and
made an unfounded assumption.

I don't think anything of the sort of lorries, just that I can't
keep well away from them if they happen to come up behind me.

> I've never seen or even heard of a truck driving over another car or
> cyclist at a roundabout, I have heard of and seen accidents where a car
> of cyclist has been pinned to the left or right of a turning truck. My
> experience may not be definitive, but it does tell me that when
> positioning myself on the road I don't want to be in the blindspot of a
> truck, but squarely ahead of it or safely behind it.


And if it comes up behind me, then I won't be in its blind spot,
but it will be close to me, and I can't avoid it being close to me.
It's not something that worries me, but /apparently/ one is meant
to "keep clear" of lorries.

I won't, in /part/ because I can't. But also because it isn't
necessarily a problem. Both the fact that I can't and that it
isn't necessarily a problem is why the advice just to keep clear of
lorries was and remains a waste of space.

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/
 
raisethe <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.


Have you renamed Steve just to wind him up or did you have a valid
reason?

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.

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".

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote:
>
> > Peter seems to believe that trucks regularly run over other vehicles.

>
> Or rather, you seem to have misread what I've written /again/ and
> made an unfounded assumption.
>
> I don't think anything of the sort of lorries, just that I can't
> keep well away from them if they happen to come up behind me.
>
> > I've never seen or even heard of a truck driving over another car or
> > cyclist at a roundabout, I have heard of and seen accidents where a car
> > of cyclist has been pinned to the left or right of a turning truck. My
> > experience may not be definitive, but it does tell me that when
> > positioning myself on the road I don't want to be in the blindspot of a
> > truck, but squarely ahead of it or safely behind it.

>
> And if it comes up behind me, then I won't be in its blind spot,
> but it will be close to me, and I can't avoid it being close to me.
> It's not something that worries me, but /apparently/ one is meant
> to "keep clear" of lorries.
>
> I won't, in /part/ because I can't. But also because it isn't
> necessarily a problem. Both the fact that I can't and that it
> isn't necessarily a problem is why the advice just to keep clear of
> lorries was and remains a waste of space.


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.

Rightly or wrongly, I inferred from the advice that one should /attempt/
to keep clear of lorries. It appears to me that you inferred that one
should /always/ keep clear. Obviously, the latter is impossible. Such
are the ways of Usenet.

Cheers,
Luke


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

Similar threads