|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.
"JNugent" wrote in message On 22/05/2015 12:26, TMS320 wrote: "JNugent" wrote: On 22/05/2015 00:01, TMS320 wrote: "The Medway Handyman" wrote: There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors. How do you know? Perhaps because he spends a lot of his driving time in urban areas where exactly those conditions apply? He claims to represent the other 32,999,999 motorists. Or to have seen and observed (at the very least) a representative sample of such situations. What do you think? Think it's a runner? Not by any stretch. Really? Whyever not? Why are cyclists' anecdotes so important but professional drivers' hundreds of thousands of miles of experience less so? Here's an equivalent anecdote. I have never died in a road traffic accident. I don't know anyone that has died in a road traffic accident. Then I must suppose that people don't die in road traffic accidents. Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that. Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get wider. It has something to do with the requirement to increase space between vehicles as speed rises. Yes, but he wasn't talking about high speed routes, was he? He was talking about urban (probably inner-city) streets and relatively low speeds (eg, 30 mph or less). Oh dear, you're at it again. It seems my paragraph included enough letters for you to reorder into "high speed routes". You should have grown out of needing alphabetti spaghetti. Stop wriggling: it's undignified. Stop changing things. You're your own worst enemy. Your relevant subordinate clause was "...as roads get faster...". That still doesn't say "high speed". Are you suggesting that 31mph is a magic number where laws of physics change? Do you think that roads do that on their own? A stationary car also does not generate as much air turbulence as one travelling at 30mph plus. You've never noticed the bow wave and wash of large lorries when you pass them on the motorway? What does that have to do with the topic? Plenty. You obviously haven't noticed "the topic" was - "Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that." I had *definitely* noticed that and fully agree with the implicit sentiment. It *is* odd that cyclists need to be passed with a clearance of twenty meters (or whatever) but all of this requirement fades away to nothing when they are squeezing between lines of traffic - isn't it? You have changed "parked cars" to "lines of traffic". Totally different things, unless the line is stationary and can be judged that it will remain stationary long enough to complete the overtake. Putting aside the problem of opening doors (and when nobody is inside a car there is no possibility of a problem), I have given two reasons why it is reasonable. You insist on wide clearances (when you insist on wide clearances) on supposed safety and caution grounds. Indeed. And clearance is not a fixed number but something that varies according to curcumstances. Why are other road-users not entitled to a similar margin of safety and caution? So yet again you change the subject. |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.
On 22/05/2015 14:08, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message On 22/05/2015 12:26, TMS320 wrote: "JNugent" wrote: On 22/05/2015 00:01, TMS320 wrote: "The Medway Handyman" wrote: There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors. How do you know? Perhaps because he spends a lot of his driving time in urban areas where exactly those conditions apply? He claims to represent the other 32,999,999 motorists. Or to have seen and observed (at the very least) a representative sample of such situations. What do you think? Think it's a runner? Not by any stretch. Really? Whyever not? Why are cyclists' anecdotes so important but professional drivers' hundreds of thousands of miles of experience less so? Here's an equivalent anecdote. I have never died in a road traffic accident. I don't know anyone that has died in a road traffic accident. Then I must suppose that people don't die in road traffic accidents. That is by no stretch of the imagination (even yours) an equivalent, whether anecdotal or not. You are well aware - by observation, albeit at second hand - that people die in road traffic accidents. You read about such incidents every day. They are reported on TV and radio. You *know* that people die in road traffic accidents. Mr MH *knows* (because it is so frequently reported, not least here) that cyclists often ride straight into open car doors, failing to observe the road conditions in front of them until it is too late and failing to proceed at a speed which is safe in all the circumstances. He does *not* know that drivers drive into open car doors. Such occurrences, if reported in the media at all, are vanishingly rare, and in all the years he has been driving, much of it in narrow inner-city streets and routes (IOW, just the sort of conditions in which cyclists plough into obstacles of all sorts, including open car doors), he has never seen such an incident or come close to being involved in one. Neither have I. Neither, I'll bet, have you. Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that. Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get wider. It has something to do with the requirement to increase space between vehicles as speed rises. Yes, but he wasn't talking about high speed routes, was he? He was talking about urban (probably inner-city) streets and relatively low speeds (eg, 30 mph or less). Oh dear, you're at it again. It seems my paragraph included enough letters for you to reorder into "high speed routes". You should have grown out of needing alphabetti spaghetti. Stop wriggling: it's undignified. Your relevant subordinate clause was "...as roads get faster...". Do you think that roads do that on their own? That still doesn't say "high speed". Are you suggesting that 31mph is a magic number where laws of physics change? No. You did, though, in trying to introduce "high speed" as a factor even though it isn't one. A stationary car also does not generate as much air turbulence as one travelling at 30mph plus. You've never noticed the bow wave and wash of large lorries when you pass them on the motorway? What does that have to do with the topic? Plenty. You obviously haven't noticed "the topic" was - "Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that." I had *definitely* noticed that and fully agree with the implicit sentiment. It *is* odd that cyclists need to be passed with a clearance of twenty meters (or whatever) but all of this requirement fades away to nothing when they are squeezing between lines of traffic - isn't it? You have changed "parked cars" to "lines of traffic". Absolutely no distinction to be drawn between them. Either it's safe to leave a gap of a couple of inches, or it isn't. Which is to be today? Totally different things, unless the line is stationary and can be judged that it will remain stationary long enough to complete the overtake. What about the risk of misjudgement and damage to the property of innocent third parties? Putting aside the problem of opening doors (and when nobody is inside a car there is no possibility of a problem), I have given two reasons why it is reasonable. You insist on wide clearances (when you insist on wide clearances) on supposed safety and caution grounds. Indeed. And clearance is not a fixed number but something that varies according to curcumstances. Why are other road-users not entitled to a similar margin of safety and caution? So yet again you change the subject. There *have* been these two distinct but related subjects raised (both raised by others, I might add). Are you incapable of dealing with both in the same post? I'll assume that you are not incapable and so ask the question again: You insist on wide clearances (when you insist on wide clearances) on supposed safety and caution grounds. Why are other road-users not entitled to a similar margin of safety and caution? |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.
"Tarcap" wrote "TMS320" wrote in message ... "JNugent" wrote in message On 22/05/2015 00:01, TMS320 wrote: "The Medway Handyman" wrote in There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors. How do you know? Perhaps because he spends a lot of his driving time in urban areas where exactly those conditions apply? He claims to represent the other 32,999,999 motorists. What do you think? Think it's a runner? Not by any stretch. Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that. Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get wider. It has something to do with the requirement to increase space between vehicles as speed rises. Yes, but he wasn't talking about high speed routes, was he? He was talking about urban (probably inner-city) streets and relatively low speeds (eg, 30 mph or less). Oh dear, you're at it again. It seems my paragraph included enough letters for you to reorder into "high speed routes". You should have grown out of needing alphabetti spaghetti. A stationary car also does not generate as much air turbulence as one travelling at 30mph plus. You've never noticed the bow wave and wash of large lorries when you pass them on the motorway? What does that have to do with the topic? Plenty. You obviously haven't noticed "the topic" was - "Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that." No. The topic was "Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck". The clue is in the Subject line. Hope this helps. Then I suggest you moan at Medway for veering off. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.
"JNugent" wrote in message On 22/05/2015 14:08, TMS320 wrote: "JNugent" wrote in message On 22/05/2015 12:26, TMS320 wrote: "JNugent" wrote: On 22/05/2015 00:01, TMS320 wrote: "The Medway Handyman" wrote: There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors. How do you know? Perhaps because he spends a lot of his driving time in urban areas where exactly those conditions apply? He claims to represent the other 32,999,999 motorists. Or to have seen and observed (at the very least) a representative sample of such situations. What do you think? Think it's a runner? Not by any stretch. Really? Whyever not? Why are cyclists' anecdotes so important but professional drivers' hundreds of thousands of miles of experience less so? Here's an equivalent anecdote. I have never died in a road traffic accident. I don't know anyone that has died in a road traffic accident. Then I must suppose that people don't die in road traffic accidents. That is by no stretch of the imagination (even yours) an equivalent, whether anecdotal or not. Too bad. It is valid. You are well aware - by observation, albeit at second hand - that people die in road traffic accidents. You read about such incidents every day. They are reported on TV and radio. You *know* that people die in road traffic accidents. Mr MH *knows* (because it is so frequently reported, not least here) that cyclists often ride straight into open car doors, failing to observe the road conditions in front of them until it is too late and failing to proceed at a speed which is safe in all the circumstances. He does *not* know that drivers drive into open car doors. He (and us) do(es) not know that drivers don't. Such occurrences, if reported in the media at all, are vanishingly rare, Unless reported, there is little widespread knowledge. Without blood the press has no interest and the press does not report all, even when there is blood. and in all the years he has been driving, much of it in narrow inner-city streets and routes (IOW, just the sort of conditions in which cyclists plough into obstacles of all sorts, including open car doors), he has never seen such an incident or come close to being involved in one. Neither have I. Neither, I'll bet, have you. Near incidents are usually forgotten very quickly. I'll bet we have. Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that. Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get wider. It has something to do with the requirement to increase space between vehicles as speed rises. Yes, but he wasn't talking about high speed routes, was he? He was talking about urban (probably inner-city) streets and relatively low speeds (eg, 30 mph or less). Oh dear, you're at it again. It seems my paragraph included enough letters for you to reorder into "high speed routes". You should have grown out of needing alphabetti spaghetti. Stop wriggling: it's undignified. Your relevant subordinate clause was "...as roads get faster...". Do you think that roads do that on their own? That still doesn't say "high speed". Are you suggesting that 31mph is a magic number where laws of physics change? No. You did, though, in trying to introduce "high speed" as a factor even though it isn't one. You introduced "high speed" and are attempting to wriggle your way out in usual fashion. A later (with emphasis, much later) paragraph I made about overtaking lorries on the motorway was to illustrate a similar situation that happens on a different scale. It *is* odd that cyclists need to be passed with a clearance of twenty meters (or whatever) but all of this requirement fades away to nothing when they are squeezing between lines of traffic - isn't it? You have changed "parked cars" to "lines of traffic". Absolutely no distinction to be drawn between them. Either it's safe to leave a gap of a couple of inches, or it isn't. There is much to distinguish. Why did you not read further before replying? Totally different things, unless the line is stationary and can be judged that it will remain stationary long enough to complete the overtake. I will expand further even though I know it is futile. To overtake a moving car the car's position will change during the overtake. By definition. It might even move sideways. A stationary car will remain in position during the overtake, by definition. A "couple of inches" past a stationary car will be enough almost unconditionally. Starting an overtake a "couple of inches" from a moving car is very high risk. What about the risk of misjudgement and damage to the property of innocent third parties? It is not impossible for a cyclist to crash into a parked car, obviously. What a passing cyclist cannot do to a stationary car is to cause it, either through surprise or by catching it with its bow wave to swerve into a ditch. A passing cyclist can only cause damage with a direct collision. Putting aside the problem of opening doors (and when nobody is inside a car there is no possibility of a problem), I have given two reasons why it is reasonable. You insist on wide clearances (when you insist on wide clearances) on supposed safety and caution grounds. Indeed. And clearance is not a fixed number but something that varies according to curcumstances. Why are other road-users not entitled to a similar margin of safety and caution? So yet again you change the subject. There *have* been these two distinct but related subjects raised (both raised by others, I might add). If the other road user is a pedestrian they are certainly entitled to a comfort gap. A stationary car is a completely inanimate object that needs to be dealt with no differently than anything else that has to be skirted round. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.
On 22/05/2015 22:54, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message On 22/05/2015 14:08, TMS320 wrote: "JNugent" wrote in message On 22/05/2015 12:26, TMS320 wrote: "JNugent" wrote: On 22/05/2015 00:01, TMS320 wrote: "The Medway Handyman" wrote: There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors. How do you know? Perhaps because he spends a lot of his driving time in urban areas where exactly those conditions apply? He claims to represent the other 32,999,999 motorists. Or to have seen and observed (at the very least) a representative sample of such situations. What do you think? Think it's a runner? Not by any stretch. Really? Whyever not? Why are cyclists' anecdotes so important but professional drivers' hundreds of thousands of miles of experience less so? Here's an equivalent anecdote. I have never died in a road traffic accident. I don't know anyone that has died in a road traffic accident. Then I must suppose that people don't die in road traffic accidents. That is by no stretch of the imagination (even yours) an equivalent, whether anecdotal or not. Too bad. It is valid. That is not argument; it is contradiction. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says. You are well aware - by observation, albeit at second hand - that people die in road traffic accidents. You read about such incidents every day. They are reported on TV and radio. You *know* that people die in road traffic accidents. Mr MH *knows* (because it is so frequently reported, not least here) that cyclists often ride straight into open car doors, failing to observe the road conditions in front of them until it is too late and failing to proceed at a speed which is safe in all the circumstances. He does *not* know that drivers drive into open car doors. He (and us) do(es) not know that drivers don't. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says. Such occurrences, if reported in the media at all, are vanishingly rare, Unless reported, there is little widespread knowledge. Without blood the press has no interest and the press does not report all, even when there is blood. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says. and in all the years he has been driving, much of it in narrow inner-city streets and routes (IOW, just the sort of conditions in which cyclists plough into obstacles of all sorts, including open car doors), he has never seen such an incident or come close to being involved in one. Neither have I. Neither, I'll bet, have you. Near incidents are usually forgotten very quickly. I'll bet we have. You are better than this - usually. Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that. Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get wider. It has something to do with the requirement to increase space between vehicles as speed rises. Yes, but he wasn't talking about high speed routes, was he? He was talking about urban (probably inner-city) streets and relatively low speeds (eg, 30 mph or less). Oh dear, you're at it again. It seems my paragraph included enough letters for you to reorder into "high speed routes". You should have grown out of needing alphabetti spaghetti. Stop wriggling: it's undignified. Your relevant subordinate clause was "...as roads get faster...". Do you think that roads do that on their own? That still doesn't say "high speed". Are you suggesting that 31mph is a magic number where laws of physics change? No. You did, though, in trying to introduce "high speed" as a factor even though it isn't one. You introduced "high speed" That is a silly *lie* on your part and it is hard to see what you hope to achieve by it. You tried to introduce the concept of "roads get[ting] faster". I had *already* made clear that the context was traffic moving at sensibly low speeds in buitly-up inner-city areas. and are attempting to wriggle your way out in usual fashion. A later (with emphasis, much later) paragraph I made about overtaking lorries on the motorway was to illustrate a similar situation that happens on a different scale. Gibberish. Is that your chosen MO now? It *is* odd that cyclists need to be passed with a clearance of twenty meters (or whatever) but all of this requirement fades away to nothing when they are squeezing between lines of traffic - isn't it? You have changed "parked cars" to "lines of traffic". Absolutely no distinction to be drawn between them. Either it's safe to leave a gap of a couple of inches, or it isn't. There is much to distinguish. Why did you not read further before replying? Totally different things, unless the line is stationary and can be judged that it will remain stationary long enough to complete the overtake. I will expand further even though I know it is futile. To overtake a moving car the car's position will change during the overtake. By definition. It might even move sideways. A stationary car will remain in position during the overtake, by definition. A "couple of inches" past a stationary car will be enough almost unconditionally. Starting an overtake a "couple of inches" from a moving car is very high risk. What about the risk of misjudgement and damage to the property of innocent third parties? It is not impossible for a cyclist to crash into a parked car, obviously. What a passing cyclist cannot do to a stationary car is to cause it, either through surprise or by catching it with its bow wave to swerve into a ditch. A passing cyclist can only cause damage with a direct collision... ....or a sideswipe, which is EXACTLY what we are talking about when we discuss inadequate clearance. Putting aside the problem of opening doors (and when nobody is inside a car there is no possibility of a problem), I have given two reasons why it is reasonable. You insist on wide clearances (when you insist on wide clearances) on supposed safety and caution grounds. Indeed. And clearance is not a fixed number but something that varies according to curcumstances. Why are other road-users not entitled to a similar margin of safety and caution? So yet again you change the subject. There *have* been these two distinct but related subjects raised (both raised by others, I might add). If the other road user is a pedestrian they are certainly entitled to a comfort gap. A stationary car is a completely inanimate object that needs to be dealt with no differently than anything else that has to be skirted round. Do you not accept that this mere "completely inanimate object" is the expensive property of someone or other who stands to face significant financial loss if it is damaged? |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.
"TMS320" wrote in message ... "Tarcap" wrote "TMS320" wrote in message ... "JNugent" wrote in message On 22/05/2015 00:01, TMS320 wrote: "The Medway Handyman" wrote in There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors. How do you know? Perhaps because he spends a lot of his driving time in urban areas where exactly those conditions apply? He claims to represent the other 32,999,999 motorists. What do you think? Think it's a runner? Not by any stretch. Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that. Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get wider. It has something to do with the requirement to increase space between vehicles as speed rises. Yes, but he wasn't talking about high speed routes, was he? He was talking about urban (probably inner-city) streets and relatively low speeds (eg, 30 mph or less). Oh dear, you're at it again. It seems my paragraph included enough letters for you to reorder into "high speed routes". You should have grown out of needing alphabetti spaghetti. A stationary car also does not generate as much air turbulence as one travelling at 30mph plus. You've never noticed the bow wave and wash of large lorries when you pass them on the motorway? What does that have to do with the topic? Plenty. You obviously haven't noticed "the topic" was - "Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that." No. The topic was "Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck". The clue is in the Subject line. Hope this helps. Then I suggest you moan at Medway for veering off. I'm not moaning at anyone. I'm merely pointing out that you are wrong again. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.
"JNugent" wrote in message ... On 22/05/2015 22:54, TMS320 wrote: "JNugent" wrote in message On 22/05/2015 14:08, TMS320 wrote: "JNugent" wrote in message On 22/05/2015 12:26, TMS320 wrote: "JNugent" wrote: On 22/05/2015 00:01, TMS320 wrote: "The Medway Handyman" wrote: There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors. How do you know? Perhaps because he spends a lot of his driving time in urban areas where exactly those conditions apply? He claims to represent the other 32,999,999 motorists. Or to have seen and observed (at the very least) a representative sample of such situations. What do you think? Think it's a runner? Not by any stretch. Really? Whyever not? Why are cyclists' anecdotes so important but professional drivers' hundreds of thousands of miles of experience less so? Here's an equivalent anecdote. I have never died in a road traffic accident. I don't know anyone that has died in a road traffic accident. Then I must suppose that people don't die in road traffic accidents. That is by no stretch of the imagination (even yours) an equivalent, whether anecdotal or not. Too bad. It is valid. That is not argument; it is contradiction. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says. You should practice what you preach. Respond to what people say; do not create a new random string of words and try to build an argument from there. You are well aware - by observation, albeit at second hand - that people die in road traffic accidents. You read about such incidents every day. They are reported on TV and radio. You *know* that people die in road traffic accidents. Mr MH *knows* (because it is so frequently reported, not least here) that cyclists often ride straight into open car doors, failing to observe the road conditions in front of them until it is too late and failing to proceed at a speed which is safe in all the circumstances. He does *not* know that drivers drive into open car doors. He (and us) do(es) not know that drivers don't. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says. See above. Such occurrences, if reported in the media at all, are vanishingly rare, Unless reported, there is little widespread knowledge. Without blood the press has no interest and the press does not report all, even when there is blood. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says. and in all the years he has been driving, much of it in narrow inner-city streets and routes (IOW, just the sort of conditions in which cyclists plough into obstacles of all sorts, including open car doors), he has never seen such an incident or come close to being involved in one. Neither have I. Neither, I'll bet, have you. Near incidents are usually forgotten very quickly. I'll bet we have. You are better than this - usually. I see only sniping and no reasoned argument. Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that. Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get wider. It has something to do with the requirement to increase space between vehicles as speed rises. Yes, but he wasn't talking about high speed routes, was he? He was talking about urban (probably inner-city) streets and relatively low speeds (eg, 30 mph or less). Oh dear, you're at it again. It seems my paragraph included enough letters for you to reorder into "high speed routes". You should have grown out of needing alphabetti spaghetti. Stop wriggling: it's undignified. Your relevant subordinate clause was "...as roads get faster...". Do you think that roads do that on their own? That still doesn't say "high speed". Are you suggesting that 31mph is a magic number where laws of physics change? No. You did, though, in trying to introduce "high speed" as a factor even though it isn't one. You introduced "high speed" That is a silly *lie* on your part and it is hard to see what you hope to achieve by it. Repeat my quote verbatim. You tried to introduce the concept of "roads get[ting] faster". I had *already* made clear that the context was traffic moving at sensibly low speeds in buitly-up inner-city areas. and are attempting to wriggle your way out in usual fashion. A later (with emphasis, much later) paragraph I made about overtaking lorries on the motorway was to illustrate a similar situation that happens on a different scale. Gibberish. Then it is way over your head. Is that your chosen MO now? It *is* odd that cyclists need to be passed with a clearance of twenty meters (or whatever) but all of this requirement fades away to nothing when they are squeezing between lines of traffic - isn't it? You have changed "parked cars" to "lines of traffic". Absolutely no distinction to be drawn between them. Either it's safe to leave a gap of a couple of inches, or it isn't. There is much to distinguish. Why did you not read further before replying? Totally different things, unless the line is stationary and can be judged that it will remain stationary long enough to complete the overtake. I will expand further even though I know it is futile. To overtake a moving car the car's position will change during the overtake. By definition. It might even move sideways. A stationary car will remain in position during the overtake, by definition. A "couple of inches" past a stationary car will be enough almost unconditionally. Starting an overtake a "couple of inches" from a moving car is very high risk. What about the risk of misjudgement and damage to the property of innocent third parties? It is not impossible for a cyclist to crash into a parked car, obviously. What a passing cyclist cannot do to a stationary car is to cause it, either through surprise or by catching it with its bow wave to swerve into a ditch. A passing cyclist can only cause damage with a direct collision... ...or a sideswipe, which is EXACTLY what we are talking about when we discuss inadequate clearance. Completely wrong. Inadequate clearance between cyclist and parked car has to involve a collision. Inadequate clearance between moving car and cyclist need not involve a collision. (Just as reduced motorway lane widths during roadworks are still wide enough for the physical width of vehicles but provide inadequate clearance; so that drivers move into staggered formations and only overtake when one of the lanes is clear.) Putting aside the problem of opening doors (and when nobody is inside a car there is no possibility of a problem), I have given two reasons why it is reasonable. You insist on wide clearances (when you insist on wide clearances) on supposed safety and caution grounds. Indeed. And clearance is not a fixed number but something that varies according to curcumstances. Why are other road-users not entitled to a similar margin of safety and caution? 2 So yet again you change the subject. There *have* been these two distinct but related subjects raised (both raised by others, I might add). If the other road user is a pedestrian they are certainly entitled to a comfort gap. A stationary car is a completely inanimate object that needs to be dealt with no differently than anything else that has to be skirted round. Do you not accept that this mere "completely inanimate object" is the expensive property of someone or other who stands to face significant financial loss if it is damaged? First you changed the subject to safety to others. Now you've moved to property damage. You do so chop and change. I analysed what I do today. I have always noticed that at normal speed (10-20mph roughly) I set my road position with peripheral vision such that a line drawn from my eyes to the verge/kerb runs past my left hand. Obviously I increase gap at higher speed, just like drivers increase spacing as they go faster (not just on "high speed" roads). If the corridor ahead is narrower than the base of the triangle formed from glancing past both hands (about 4 foot wide) this is too narrow to take at normal speed. You might be pleased to know that I noticed that when passing tall objects such as walls or parked cars, I move out so the line to the wheels or base of the wall moves up to go past my elbow. As a test, I consciously moved in to a kerb's distance away from parked cars on a few occasions today; it is curiously uncomfortable. When passing people on foot (even when we are separated by a kerb), I move out further so that the line to their feet moves up past the top of my arm. When being overtaken, it is a close overtake when the line to the wheels goes below the top of my right arm. Do you begrudge me at least as much space from passing vehicles as I give to people on foot? Or to put another way, if the distance from passing vehicles is not considered by JNugent to be inadequate so long as I survive, are you happy for me to pass much closer to pedestrians? |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.
On Wed, 20 May 2015 15:05:29 +0100, RJH wrote:
snip Quite - I think you'd need to be a cyclist to realise. As I said up thread, the school run is a terror for this. And parents who unload their kids into the road. I despair at times. There was a cyclists used to post he Simon Mason from Hull. He explained how he cycled at more than 20mph (the posted limit) past a series of three schools - because the 20mph speed limit did not apply to cyclists. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.
On 26/05/15 22:44, Judith wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2015 15:05:29 +0100, RJH wrote: snip Quite - I think you'd need to be a cyclist to realise. As I said up thread, the school run is a terror for this. And parents who unload their kids into the road. I despair at times. Maybe that's because there are too many cyclists on the pavement. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cyclist dies | Simon Mason | UK | 42 | November 5th 11 03:20 AM |
Hilarious Cyclist's Anthem-"The Bicycle Wreck" by Tennessee Mafia Jug Band | meb[_80_] | Techniques | 2 | March 12th 08 12:33 PM |
QLD cyclist dies in hit / run | Jock | Australia | 3 | July 1st 07 08:34 AM |
{SYD} Cyclist dies after being hit by car | cfsmtb | Australia | 3 | May 29th 06 10:34 AM |
another cyclist dies. | Steve Knight | General | 67 | November 1st 03 07:16 PM |