Nasty accident

[Noel[_2_]]

Witnessed a nasty accident coming off a London bridge yesterday.

Static traffic and bumbling along the kerb with a girl about 20 metres in
front of me. Suddenly 'bang' and she is wiped out along the length of a
jeep thing crossing into the T-junction.

To her right (in our traffic stream) was a huge removals lorry that had
stopped to allow the traffic to cross from the junction on other side of
the road. Unfortunately the girl had not slowed to check nothing was
heading into the junction in front of the removals van.

Obviously I stopped and helped out looking after her along with some
pedestrians and the removals guys. An off-duty police officer also
appeared. She was semi-conscious with a very badly broken arm
and head wound (worryingly near her temple) and wheezing with a foamy
white sputum which turned red with the blood from her nose. We could only
really try and keep her comfortable and check her breathing kept going.
The ambulance appeared after only about 5mins along with several police
cars but it seemed like an age.

The car driver was badly shaken and you could tell from where the car had
stopped that it had not been going fast. I guess you could argue the car
driver should have proceeded extremely slowly for cyclists coming
from behind the removals van but I guess they got the go-ahead from the
lorry driver to proceed. Also reflecting later, I hope to God I always
have and always will slow and assume the worst at
traffic-locked T-junctions.

The bike was remarkably unscathed and only the handle bars twisted around.
It looked pretty new too... :-(

Shook me up. I hope she is OK.

Noel

[POHB]

On 21 Sep, 12:12, Noel > wrote:
> I hope to God I always
> have and always will slow and assume the worst at
> traffic-locked T-junctions.
> Shook me up. I hope she is OK.

Nasty, I nearly saw something similar earlier this week, thankfully
just a near miss.
Those situations are really hard to watch out for, with a big vehicle
like that you often really can't tell they've left a gap for someone
to pull across and the visibility is so poor you have to virtually
stop to peer in front.

[Rob Morley]

In article om>, POHB
says...

> Those situations are really hard to watch out for, with a big vehicle
> like that you often really can't tell they've left a gap for someone
> to pull across and the visibility is so poor you have to virtually
> stop to peer in front.
>
So stop before someone stops you - then you have a better chance of
starting again. This sounds like a 50/50 accident to me, but who gets
hurt?

[Rob Morley]

In article >, Rob Morley
says...
> In article om>, POHB
> says...
>
> > Those situations are really hard to watch out for, with a big vehicle
> > like that you often really can't tell they've left a gap for someone
> > to pull across and the visibility is so poor you have to virtually
> > stop to peer in front.
> >
> So stop before someone stops you - then you have a better chance of
> starting again. This sounds like a 50/50 accident to me, but who gets
> hurt?
>
Should have been 'incident', not 'accident". :-)

[Marc]

Rob Morley wrote:
> In article om>, POHB
> says...
>
>> Those situations are really hard to watch out for, with a big vehicle
>> like that you often really can't tell they've left a gap for someone
>> to pull across and the visibility is so poor you have to virtually
>> stop to peer in front.
>>
> So stop before someone stops you - then you have a better chance of
> starting again. This sounds like a 50/50 accident to me, but who gets
> hurt?


More like

10% bike
50% 4x4 for not checking
40% Lorry for ceding right of way and allowing the situation to occur.

[Dave Larrington]

In k,
Noel > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:
> Witnessed a nasty accident coming off a London bridge yesterday.


[snip]

BTDTGTTS. In my case a WVM in the RH lane, me in the bus lane. White vans
being opaque, I couldn't see the car turning across my path until it was too
late to take any kind of action. Three-quarter somersault over the bars to
land flat on my back on the bonnet of the car, but no damage to car, bike or
me.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
The System is well pleased with this Unit's performance, which
falls within expected parameters.

[cupra]

marc wrote:
> Rob Morley wrote:
>> In article om>,
>> POHB says...
>>
>>> Those situations are really hard to watch out for, with a big
>>> vehicle like that you often really can't tell they've left a gap
>>> for someone to pull across and the visibility is so poor you have
>>> to virtually stop to peer in front.
>>>
>> So stop before someone stops you - then you have a better chance of
>> starting again. This sounds like a 50/50 accident to me, but who
>> gets hurt?
>
>
> More like
>
> 10% bike
> 50% 4x4 for not checking
> 40% Lorry for ceding right of way and allowing the situation to occur.

I'd say that the cyclist shares more of the blame - if you're riding
defensively you *expect* this sort of thing to happen rather than hoping it
doesn't (or not being aware that it could......)

[Coyoteboy]

marc wrote:
> Rob Morley wrote:
>> In article om>,
>> POHB says...
>>
>>> Those situations are really hard to watch out for, with a big vehicle
>>> like that you often really can't tell they've left a gap for someone
>>> to pull across and the visibility is so poor you have to virtually
>>> stop to peer in front.
>>>
>> So stop before someone stops you - then you have a better chance of
>> starting again. This sounds like a 50/50 accident to me, but who
>> gets hurt?
>
>
> More like
>
> 10% bike
> 50% 4x4 for not checking
> 40% Lorry for ceding right of way and allowing the situation to occur.

Not sure I agree with that, Id put more blame on the car as the lorry
has only stopped to keep the junction clear, which is what he is meant
to do. Was the bike on the pavement or in the road, was there a cycle
path marked or not? But the cyclist should have been taking some
responsibility too, after all scooting up the inside of traffic is bound
to risk this with side roads. Great care is needed when cycling in
stationary/slow traffic and most people seem to think the opposite. The
other thing is where do people clonk their heads on cars? When I hit a
car (fairly fast pace) I scooted right over the top of it and bounced on
the floor!

I hope she gets better, not sure I like the sound of frothy white stuff
from the nose - sounds rather nasty.

[Marc]

Coyoteboy wrote:
> marc wrote:
>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>> In article om>,
>>> POHB says...
>>>
>>>> Those situations are really hard to watch out for, with a big vehicle
>>>> like that you often really can't tell they've left a gap for someone
>>>> to pull across and the visibility is so poor you have to virtually
>>>> stop to peer in front.
>>>>
>>> So stop before someone stops you - then you have a better chance of
>>> starting again. This sounds like a 50/50 accident to me, but who
>>> gets hurt?
>>
>>
>> More like
>>
>> 10% bike
>> 50% 4x4 for not checking
>> 40% Lorry for ceding right of way and allowing the situation to occur.
>
> Not sure I agree with that, Id put more blame on the car as the lorry
> has only stopped to keep the junction clear, which is what he is meant
> to do.
AIUI the cyclist and lorry were on the main road the 4x4 was on a minor
road on the right. The lorry has no requirement to keep the junction
clear as the only two routes the traffic from the minor road could take
are :-
Right , in front of the lorry.
Left, in which case the incident woudn't have occured.
If the lorry had not ceded the right of way the 4x4 coudn't have moved,
but this woudn't have affected the junction in any other way.
The lory driver was obvioulsy one of these that goes around searching
for a warm glo TM by ignoring the HC ,and the traffic behind and
around him.



Was the bike on the pavement or in the road, was there a cycle
> path marked or not?

10%?


But the cyclist should have been taking some
> responsibility too, after all scooting up the inside of traffic is bound
> to risk this with side roads.

Not "bound to" if the lorry had followed the HC and the 4x4 had also
there would have been little risk.
Great care is needed when cycling in
> stationary/slow traffic and most people seem to think the opposite.

Agreed
The
> other thing is where do people clonk their heads on cars? When I hit a
> car (fairly fast pace) I scooted right over the top of it and bounced on
> the floor!

Depends on vehicle/ angle if your talking a 3 box saloon if you miss
the middle box you may end up on bonnet or windscreen, a one box
hatchback no bonnet...
If you hit the middle box you may go over depening on height
People mover or 4x4 more verticla surface to choose from ...

[Noel[_2_]]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:29:05 +0100, Coyoteboy wrote:

> Not sure I agree with that, Id put more blame on the car as the lorry
> has only stopped to keep the junction clear, which is what he is meant
> to do. Was the bike on the pavement or in the road, was there a cycle
> path marked or not? But the cyclist should have been taking some
> responsibility too, after all scooting up the inside of traffic is bound
> to risk this with side roads. Great care is needed when cycling in
> stationary/slow traffic and most people seem to think the opposite. The
> other thing is where do people clonk their heads on cars? When I hit a
> car (fairly fast pace) I scooted right over the top of it and bounced on
> the floor!

No cycle lane and she was on the road. This was not a wide road so
distance between lorry and kerb was about 1-1.30m.

The car in question was a small jeep thing so no chance of going over the
top. The left side of her head (thinking about the cut on her temple)
smashed the nearside passenger window. The timing was such that she hit
the passenger door and then was taken sideways with the car. There was a
bigger dent in the rear passenger door which could have been made by the
bike swinging round I guess.

Noel

[Noel[_2_]]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:47:05 +0100, marc wrote:

> AIUI the cyclist and lorry were on the main road the 4x4 was on a minor
> road on the right. The lorry has no requirement to keep the junction
> clear as the only two routes the traffic from the minor road could take
> are :-
> Right , in front of the lorry.
> Left, in which case the incident woudn't have occured.

Or straight on over the main road (which is where the car wanted to go).
It was a crossroads with the lorry and the static traffic on the other
side of the main road allowing the crossing traffic to move between the
side roads.

Noel

[Marc]

Noel wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:47:05 +0100, marc wrote:
>
>> AIUI the cyclist and lorry were on the main road the 4x4 was on a minor
>> road on the right. The lorry has no requirement to keep the junction
>> clear as the only two routes the traffic from the minor road could take
>> are :-
>> Right , in front of the lorry.
>> Left, in which case the incident woudn't have occured.
>
> Or straight on over the main road (which is where the car wanted to go).
> It was a crossroads with the lorry and the static traffic on the other
> side of the main road allowing the crossing traffic to move between the
> side roads.
>
> Noel

" Suddenly 'bang' and she is wiped out along the length of a
jeep thing crossing into the T-junction."

Make up your mind.

Then we have
Bike 30%
4x4 60%
lorry 8%
opposing traffic 2%

[Coyoteboy]

Noel wrote:
> No cycle lane and she was on the road. This was not a wide road so
> distance between lorry and kerb was about 1-1.30m.

See nipping up the inside of traffic, imo, is always a risky business.
If you know there are junctions there its safer to stop. If it had been
cycle lane I could give her more leeway in that she might assume she was
safe to keep riding and the traffic should not cross without checking
first, but IMO when you scoot up the inside of traffic its on your own
head. No pun intended. I do it, but i make damn sure Im careful about
it, and sometimes still get caught out, so i prefer to go up the outside
instead, but either side has the same dangers.

> The car in question was a small jeep thing so no chance of going over the
> top.

Side impact, fair enough - thats going to smart. Still makes me wonder
how fast she was going to end up with such severe injuries? That said,
thinking about it, I've hit the side of a 20ft, 1.5ton boat at ~15mph
and managed to shift it on its trailer by about 10mm - that nearly
knocked me out and left me with a chipped hip bone. Ive never pulled
down the drive so fast since! My car incident saw me meet the back of a
saloon, leaving the bike behind, spreading my nose over the back window
and leaving a trail right over the bonnet onto the floor in front of it.
Ahh them were the days... :) Now i think i'd break something.

> The left side of her head (thinking about the cut on her temple)
> smashed the nearside passenger window. The timing was such that she hit
> the passenger door and then was taken sideways with the car. There was a
> bigger dent in the rear passenger door which could have been made by the
> bike swinging round I guess.
>
> Noel

Hope she recovers fully. The skull was never designed to meet solid
objects so fast.

[Noel[_2_]]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:01:42 +0100, marc wrote:

> " Suddenly 'bang' and she is wiped out along the length of a
> jeep thing crossing into the T-junction."
>
> Make up your mind.

Yes 'jeep thing' exited one T-junction and entered another on the other
side of the main road.

[Brian G]

Noel wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:01:42 +0100, marc wrote:
>
>> " Suddenly 'bang' and she is wiped out along the length of a
>> jeep thing crossing into the T-junction."
>>
>> Make up your mind.
>
> Yes 'jeep thing' exited one T-junction and entered another on the other
> side of the main road.

I think most of us regard a T junction as one where a minor road
terminates in a junction with a more major one. A junction in which the
minor road continues on the other side of the more major one would be
described as a crossroads.

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

In article >,
says...
>
> More like
>
> 10% bike
> 50% 4x4 for not checking
> 40% Lorry for ceding right of way and allowing the situation to occur.
>

Legally its 100% car driver. In law, you can't rely on signals another
driver might give you, responsibility rests with you to ensure it is
clear and safe to proceed. He didn't do that. It may be wise to check
as a cyclist but as it appears she had right of way it was for the
driver, not her, to check that it was safe to proceed.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[Rob Morley]

In article >, Tony Raven
says...
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > More like
> >
> > 10% bike
> > 50% 4x4 for not checking
> > 40% Lorry for ceding right of way and allowing the situation to occur.
> >
>
> Legally its 100% car driver. In law, you can't rely on signals another
> driver might give you, responsibility rests with you to ensure it is
> clear and safe to proceed. He didn't do that. It may be wise to check
> as a cyclist but as it appears she had right of way it was for the
> driver, not her, to check that it was safe to proceed.
>
>
I agree the truck driver has no blame, but the cyclist must bear some as
she was not "proceeding at such a speed that she could stop within the
distance she could see to be clear" - with a truck obscuring most of the
road ahead it's crazy not to take extreme care, and you should bever
rely on having ROW.

[Ian Smith]

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, Rob Morley > wrote:

> I agree the truck driver has no blame, but the cyclist must bear
> some as she was not "proceeding at such a speed that she could stop
> within the distance she could see to be clear"

Actually, she might have been (you can't tell).

Note that the requirement is NOT to proceed at such speed as you can
stop within the distance that will remain clear irrespective of any
possible occurrence.

You can see a clear road and then have something pull out from the
side into what was previously your clear stopping distance.

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

[Don Whybrow]

Brian G wrote:
> Noel wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:01:42 +0100, marc wrote:
>>
>>> " Suddenly 'bang' and she is wiped out along the length of a
>>> jeep thing crossing into the T-junction."
>>>
>>> Make up your mind.
>>
>> Yes 'jeep thing' exited one T-junction and entered another on the other
>> side of the main road.
>
> I think most of us regard a T junction as one where a minor road
> terminates in a junction with a more major one. A junction in which the
> minor road continues on the other side of the more major one would be
> described as a crossroads.

Probably a staggered crossroads.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

You guys got something against spam? (Vriess, in _Alien 4_)

[Rob Morley]

In article >, Ian Smith
says...
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, Rob Morley > wrote:
>
> > I agree the truck driver has no blame, but the cyclist must bear
> > some as she was not "proceeding at such a speed that she could stop
> > within the distance she could see to be clear"
>
> Actually, she might have been (you can't tell).
>
> Note that the requirement is NOT to proceed at such speed as you can
> stop within the distance that will remain clear irrespective of any
> possible occurrence.
>
> You can see a clear road and then have something pull out from the
> side into what was previously your clear stopping distance.
>
I conject that she couldn't see the full width of the road, so should
have been proceeding more cautiously - it's not enough simply to see
that the way ahead is clear, as will have been noted by anyone who has
had oncoming vehicles suddenly perform an unexpected (but not altogether
unlikely) right turn or overtaking manoeuvre.

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

In article >,
says...
>
> I agree the truck driver has no blame, but the cyclist must bear some as
> she was not "proceeding at such a speed that she could stop within the
> distance she could see to be clear" - with a truck obscuring most of the
> road ahead it's crazy not to take extreme care, and you should bever
> rely on having ROW.
>

She could see it to be clear, just not that a car was going to pull
into her right of way without checking. Otherwise you would bear
responsibility every time a car pulled out of a side turning in front of
you or turned right across you.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[iarocu]

On 22 Sep, 01:51, Tony Raven > wrote:
> In article >,

> She could see it to be clear, just not that a car was going to pull
> into her right of way without checking. Otherwise you would bear
> responsibility every time a car pulled out of a side turning in front of
> you or turned right across you.

Yes. It was the jeep drivers fault. Bt the collision was avoidable if
the cyclist had decided to slow down because her visibilty was
obstructed.
There is no satisfaction in being in the right and in hospital.

Iain

[Rob Morley]

In article >, Tony Raven
says...
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > I agree the truck driver has no blame, but the cyclist must bear some as
> > she was not "proceeding at such a speed that she could stop within the
> > distance she could see to be clear" - with a truck obscuring most of the
> > road ahead it's crazy not to take extreme care, and you should bever
> > rely on having ROW.
> >
>
> She could see it to be clear, just not that a car was going to pull
> into her right of way without checking. Otherwise you would bear
> responsibility every time a car pulled out of a side turning in front of
> you or turned right across you.
>
You would bear some responsibility if you were going too fast in
circumstances that severely impaired your view of the road ahead (the
whole road, not just enough for you to squeeze through) which is what
apparently happened in this case.

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

In article >,
says...
> In article >, Tony Raven
> says...
> >
> > She could see it to be clear, just not that a car was going to pull
> > into her right of way without checking. Otherwise you would bear
> > responsibility every time a car pulled out of a side turning in front of
> > you or turned right across you.
> >
> You would bear some responsibility if you were going too fast in
> circumstances that severely impaired your view of the road ahead (the
> whole road, not just enough for you to squeeze through) which is what
> apparently happened in this case.
>

Given the OP was following her and described himself as "bumbling
along" it would appear that is not what happened in this case.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[Noel[_2_]]

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 19:27:01 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:

>> You would bear some responsibility if you were going too fast in
>> circumstances that severely impaired your view of the road ahead (the
>> whole road, not just enough for you to squeeze through) which is what
>> apparently happened in this case.
>>
>
> Given the OP was following her and described himself as "bumbling
> along" it would appear that is not what happened in this case.
>

As the OP I can tell you Rob is correct here. She could not see anything
to her right at all except a high sided removals lorry.

I don't know why she didn't slow down - maybe she was a new cyclist who did
not see the danger or maybe she was day dreaming - but I would imagine (and
hope!) that every one of us would have slowed to almost a stop and peeked
around the front of the removals lorry before proceeding.

Noel

[Noel[_2_]]

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 08:44:07 +0100, Rob Morley wrote:

> I conject that she couldn't see the full width of the road, so should
> have been proceeding more cautiously - it's not enough simply to see
> that the way ahead is clear, as will have been noted by anyone who has
> had oncoming vehicles suddenly perform an unexpected (but not altogether
> unlikely) right turn or overtaking manoeuvre.

You conjecture is correct.

Noel

[Coyoteboy]

Rob Morley wrote:
>>It may be wise to check
>> as a cyclist but as it appears she had right of way

Not if she was undertaking at the time (which is what sneaking up the
inside of traffic is effectively)

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Coyoteboy
') wrote:

> Rob Morley wrote:
>>>It may be wise to check
>>> as a cyclist but as it appears she had right of way
>
> Not if she was undertaking at the time (which is what sneaking up the
> inside of traffic is effectively)

While I agree passing large vehicles on the inside is unwise, she
undoubtedly had right of way.

Lots of people get killed when they have right of way.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Diplomacy, American: see Intelligence, Military

[Rob Morley]

In article >, Coyoteboy
says...
> Rob Morley wrote:
> >>It may be wise to check
> >> as a cyclist but as it appears she had right of way
>
> Not if she was undertaking at the time (which is what sneaking up the
> inside of traffic is effectively)
>
I didn't write that.

[7@m3 G33k]

Rob Morley wrote:
> In article >, Coyoteboy
> says...
>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>>> It may be wise to check
>>>> as a cyclist but as it appears she had right of way
>> Not if she was undertaking at the time (which is what sneaking up the
>> inside of traffic is effectively)
>>
> I didn't write that.

It's all a bit academic really: since when did any sensible cyclist
assume that other road users (including novice/casual cyclists) will
obey the Highway Code and the relevant right of way? Especially when
riding in traffic I assume the opposite. So I get through brake pads a
little more frequently and I arrive a bit later than I might but that's
the good end of the deal when the other is head-butting
windscreen/bonnet/tarmac.

Do any of you lot from the big smoke know how she is? Sounds like it
might have been serious enough to make the local media. Oh and I suppose
this is not a good time to ponder if she was wearing a helmet or not? I
suspect not - but no doubt someone here will prove to 7 decimal places
that if she was wearing a helmet she would have had a broken neck
instead of a gash to her temple and concussion :p~

Ian

[Coyoteboy]

Rob Morley wrote:
> In article >, Coyoteboy
> says...
>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>>> It may be wise to check
>>>> as a cyclist but as it appears she had right of way
>> Not if she was undertaking at the time (which is what sneaking up the
>> inside of traffic is effectively)
>>
> I didn't write that.

No, you didn't.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-09-23, Coyoteboy > wrote:
> Not if she was undertaking at the time (which is what sneaking up the
> inside of traffic is effectively)

As time goes on, I'm more and more convinced that undertaking other
vehicles by filtering between the kerb and a stopped vehicle is asking
for a Darwin award.

I think your probability of survival vastly increases if you always
follow the principle of least surprise, and it seems to me that
squeezing by the kerb and stopped traffic is following the principle of
most surprise. Other road users aren't expecting to be overtaken
by vehicles in the two or three feet of road between their nearside
and the kerb. Other road users aren't expecting
vehicles to emerge from that area, either (such as the 4x4 driver under
discussion). If you're a vulnerable two wheeled road user, you don't
want to suddenly appear in areas where other road users aren't expecting
vehicles to be. You might have the right of way, but there's such a
thing as being "dead right".

There are so many hazards in squeezing between traffic and the kerb that
I just will not doing. A passenger in a car won't be expecting a vehicle
there, and may be just deciding to leave the car and walk the rest of
the way - and you get a door opened in your face. The car passenger may
be wrong not to check that two foot of road between the car and the kerb
is clear, but it's the undertaking cyclist who ends up in hospital.

Similarly, when traffic starts to move again, drivers won't be expecting
a vehicle to be undertaking them, and will probably not see the cyclist
pulling this foolish manoevre - which may be fatal to the cyclist if
that traffic is turning left.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

In article >,
says...
>
> As time goes on, I'm more and more convinced that undertaking other
> vehicles by filtering between the kerb and a stopped vehicle is asking
> for a Darwin award.
>

On the way back from Sunday's Freewheel we cycled on a one way street
(Drury Lane) to a cross roads with no right turn for traffic and a minor
road ahead. Most of the cars were indicating left and we were on the
right of them but all the other cyclists were squeezing up the inside
where they all got thoroughly caught up in the left turning traffic when
the lights changed. Not only dumb but unobservant of both the roads and
signs indicating what was likely to happen and the car indicator lights.

At another point I told my daughters to hang back because a car had its
left indicator going and we wanted to go straight on but other cyclists
pulled up alongside the inside of the vehicle and again caused problems
when everyone moved off. Sometimes I despair of some cyclists' common
sense and observational skills.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[Noel[_2_]]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 08:09:58 +0000, 7@m3 G33k wrote:

> Do any of you lot from the big smoke know how she is? Sounds like it
> might have been serious enough to make the local media. Oh and I suppose
> this is not a good time to ponder if she was wearing a helmet or not? I
> suspect not - but no doubt someone here will prove to 7 decimal places
> that if she was wearing a helmet she would have had a broken neck
> instead of a gash to her temple and concussion :p~
>
> Ian

I did search the local BBC site but I didn't find anything. Hopefully she
is on the mend now.

She was wearing a helmet. It might have helped her as her head went
through the window but it had also been pushed up and so exposing her
temple etc so I don't think it afforded much protection in the end. Once
she was on the deck the helmet was still in this position and the strap
was a little tight around her neck but I was loathe to loosen it for fear
of lolling her neck about and her breathing was happening.

Noel

[Ekul Namsob]

marc > wrote:

> Rob Morley wrote:
> > In article om>, POHB
> > says...
> >
> >> Those situations are really hard to watch out for, with a big vehicle
> >> like that you often really can't tell they've left a gap for someone
> >> to pull across and the visibility is so poor you have to virtually
> >> stop to peer in front.
> >>
> > So stop before someone stops you - then you have a better chance of
> > starting again. This sounds like a 50/50 accident to me, but who gets
> > hurt?
>
>
> More like
>
> 10% bike
> 50% 4x4 for not checking
> 40% Lorry for ceding right of way and allowing the situation to occur.

If drivers never ceded right of way, I would have to leave half an hour
earlier to get out of my street each morning. I live near the Preston
bypass, AKA the M6, and the traffic is free-flowing but constant as
people travel to and from work.

Drivers who cede right of way do so out of courtesy and in order to keep
traffic flowing. [1] Cyclists, and others, should only overtake on the
inside with /extreme/ caution.

Cheers,
Luke

[1] I did feel obliged to wave at the first friendly individual this
morning to suggest they assert their right of way: the police car behind
them looked to be in a hurry.

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

[calum]

On 27 Sep, 17:56, (Ekul
Namsob) wrote:
> marc > wrote:>>Drivers who cede right of way do so out of courtesy..<<

No, mostly they do it out of stupidity and with total disregard to
others.

My daily 7-mile commute into Glasgow takes me along several roads of
four lanes, two in either direction. I ride in the primary position
in lane 1. All motorised traffic prefers to use lane 2 exclusively
and as it ebbs and flows its way along, I carry on as normal, passing
freely on their left as permitted in the Highway Code.

The danger comes when some numpty in lane 2, either to let an oncoming
car turn right or cross from a side road across his path (and mine)
slows further and flashes or otherwise invites the other driver to
cross. The other driver takes for granted that it's safe, waves a
thank you and breezes through, almost colliding with me. Neither
driver has considered other traffic (me) or the effect of their
'courtesy' (read stupidity).

Drivers should neither give nor accept instructions to proceed from
each other. Drivers, and others, crossing another line of traffic
should do so with caution once they've satisfied *themselves* that the
way is clear.

Calum

[Ekul Namsob]

calum > wrote:

> On 27 Sep, 17:56, (Ekul
> Namsob) wrote:
> >Drivers who cede right of way do so out of courtesy..<<
>
> No, mostly they do it out of stupidity and with total disregard to
> others.

Sorry, I disagree, for the reasons that I give below.

> The danger comes when some numpty in lane 2, either to let an oncoming
> car turn right or cross from a side road across his path (and mine)
> slows further and flashes or otherwise invites the other driver to
> cross. The other driver takes for granted that it's safe, waves a
> thank you and breezes through, almost colliding with me. Neither
> driver has considered other traffic (me) or the effect of their
> 'courtesy' (read stupidity).
>
> Drivers should neither give nor accept instructions to proceed from
> each other.

A driver who cedes right of way is not giving an instruction to anyone.
Let me, however, invite you to try to leave my street in Preston at
anytime between 7.45 and 8.30 am on a weekday in a car without accepting
the assistance of a driver who cedes right of way.

> Drivers, and others, crossing another line of traffic
> should do so with caution once they've satisfied *themselves* that the
> way is clear.

Absolutely.

Cheers,
Luke


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

[Rob Morley]

In article om>, calum
says...

> Drivers should neither give nor accept instructions to proceed from
> each other. Drivers, and others, crossing another line of traffic
> should do so with caution once they've satisfied *themselves* that the
> way is clear.
>
Obviously you'd be stupid to take the word of another driver that you're
safe to proceed - ceding ROW is just an invitation which may be accepted
or declined, so if in doubt decline it, but it's ridiculous to say that
such invitations should never be accepted. Around here, letting other
people out is an essential part of maintaining traffic flow on a road
system parts of which at certain times would otherwise soon grind to a
halt.