On 24/06/2019 23:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/06/2019 21:09, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2019 19:40, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/06/2019 11:38, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2019 09:20, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/06/2019 19:36, JNugent wrote:
On 23/06/2019 17:03, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/06/2019 00:33, JNugent wrote:
On 23/06/2019 00:14, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/06/2019 20:38, JNugent wrote:
On 22/06/2019 16:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/06/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote:
On 22/06/2019 12:55, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote:
To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london






QUOTE: Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian]
Â*... said he was “reelingâ€� from a verdict that would leave
him bankrupt. In a statement he said: “I am of course
deeply disappointed with the outcome … and concerned by
the precedent that it might set for other cyclists. ENDQUOTE

But surely any court decision which reinforces and
emphasises the need for caution and restraint is good for
society in general?

Yes, drivers should not feel smug when they kill or injure
Â*5800 pedestrians a year.

Who is "they"?

OK, drivers should not feel they have some sense of superiority
over this one cyclist.

I have never killed or injured anyone. Perhaps you have and
are extrapolating (incorrectly) to the population level.

This was a civil case, not a criminal one.

Full marks.

But had anyone said different?

It was not from going through a red light, riding on the
pavement, lack of front brake, "riding furiously" or any
other sin that every cyclist is supposed to be guilty of.
He attempted to avoid but failed.

The method of "avoidance" he chose was inappropriate.
Blasting on an air-horn doesn't make a collision less likely
Â*or less dangerous. Braking hard does.

I agree. Attending to a noise maker increases the vehicle
operator's workload (adequately demonstrated in numerous
Youtube videos). The only usefulness of noise to alert someone
Â*is when it is done with enough separation in time and distance
Â*for them to look, realise the situation and calmly make a
course alteration.

Perhaps some people have the idea that if they give a blast
right on top of the recipient, it gives them a "lesson" and
they won't do it again. Unlikely. And there are thousands out
there that haven't had the "lesson". It might make the hooter
feel better but it won't stop someone else doing it. Best to
take a fatalistic view.

I have found that when approaching somebody stepping out
without looking it is best for them to continue in their
oblivion. The worst thing is if they suddenly look up and
notice because it makes them unpredictable.

As you may remember, I have long advocated the banning of
car-horns, bicycle bells and all similar sorts of noise-makers
(ememgerncy service two-tones an obvious exception).

They are rarely of any real productive use to anyone and are a
considerable source of noise nuisance.

Just yesterday, I slowed down, moved to the crown of the road
whilst indicating left and turned left into my driveway. The
female driver behind me must have felt inconvenienced by this.
She was following too close (thereby forcing me to slow even more
than usual in order to fursther reduce the risk of her T-boning
me as I turned and felt the need to sound her horn as she
eventually passed me (I was on the drive by then).

Merely changing direction without changing speed (downward)

He did slow down.

I didn't see the report of that.

is fraught with risk because the cyclist cannot know what the
reaction of the victim will be. The cyclist assumed that the
pedestrian would not try to get out of the way. He was wrong
in that and wrong in not attempting to avoid her by simply
stopping.

Not necessarily. If a driver pulls out and presents a 16ft long
wall in front of you, braking is the only option - if only to
reduce speed of impact. But even an unpredictable pedestrian
has a maximum radius of travel in a given time. Braking takes
longer than tracking round and getting beyond the point where
paths cross: it is better to avoid than to minimise impact. One
or other or a combination of both? It is not possible to sit at
a computer and decide on the best strategy.

Braking is always a part of the best strategy.

Often it can be. Up to now you have have used the word 'stopping'.

The words are synonyms.

Not in the slightest.

If we're lucky, that is. If we're unlucky, we run out of space
before
managing to brake to a necessary halt.

About 10 years ago I was driving along an NSL country road. I
noticed a
vehicle waiting at a t-junction so I lifted and covered the brake.
Had it pulled out when I first saw it there would have been
plenty of
time but it did a Duke of Edinburgh on me.

The ABS was doing its stuff, giving me moments to decide whether
to aim
for the driver's door or the wheels. Fortunately, the vehicle
stopped
before it was halfway across the road. The other carriageway was
clear
so I released the brake and skirted round.

Without that opportunity I have no idea whether my car would have
stopped short or given the other a 5mph kiss.

If you think "a necessary halt" is better than skirting round,
when the
opportunity exist, then I will leave it between you and your
insurance company.

Stop when necessary.

You're backtracking nicely.

If that even appeared to be the case, I would have phrased my
response(s) wrongly.

I'll re-word for absolute clarity: never direct a vehicle - any
vehicle - at a nearby human being at normal travelling speed.
Operate the brakes and be prepared to stop. Do not assume that you
can tell what the pedestrian will do, particularly with respect to
the direction (if any) they take out of your path.

So what's new?

This is not "simply stopping" as written earlier.

But the road-user must *be* *prepared* to stop and not to think
themself so "clever" (or important) that they don't need to.

I will repeat what I said earlier, it is not possible to sit at a
computer and decide on the right strategy for any eventuality. You
obviously like to think you know better.

It isn't difficult to see that reducing speed as rapidly and
completely as possible is going to be the best tactic in the event of
any looming collision forward of the vehicle.

You don't need a computer to work that out.

I certainly don't need a computer to work how thick your skull is.

Here is some advice for you. Concentrate on your responsibilities
when you command a dangerous vehicle;

Unlike the cyclist who featured in the news recently (and the ones who
featured in earlier news stories), I always do exactly that.

I've managed to do nearly fifty years without serious incident,

So what?

So your peevish accusations are childish.

And so nothing's new.

so I didn't need you to demonstrate that your special subject is The
Bleedin' Obvious.

There is no question you need lessons in the bleedin' obvious.

you are not immune from the laws of statistics; and you possess no
knowledge or skill that any other experienced road user does not
have. You are not going to change the world. Mind your own business
about anything that does not affect you.

Good advice, though one marvels that you direct it me rather than at
your fellow cyclists, who clearly need it, whereas I don't.

You haven't even read it.

Run out of "witticisms", have you?