|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Near Miss of the Day 481: A very scary close encounter with'Farmer Giles' (includes swearing)
On 17/10/2020 23:02, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2020 12:27, TMS320 wrote: On 15/10/2020 23:46, JNugent wrote: On 15/10/2020 22:55, TMS320 wrote: On 15/10/2020 14:31, Simon Mason wrote: QUOTE: A cyclist who was riding downhill and suddenly encountered a convoy of tractors as he headed under a railway bridge says the incident is “one of the top five near misses I’ve had, filmed or not.” The incident happened in Houghton near Preston, Lancashire, with road.cc reader Jon, who shot the footage, saying: “On a commute to work in the evening I changed my route so was going downhill and approaching this corner when out of the darkness there appeared a massive tractor taking the whole road – hence the swearing as it was very scary. “What made all this harder is the poor road surface, people on a pavement and taking a corner so having to lean over so needing more space. “I’m not blaming the driver it was just one of those incidents,” he added. https://road.cc/content/news/near-mi...r-giles-277965 Based on the following tractors, it looks like the lead one did not need to be that far out. It's a two lane road with a centre line which does not disappear under the bridge. It was wider than half the carriageway width. Tractors often are. Gosh. Remarkably enough, on some roads, they can even take up the full width. On some roads there can be plenty of space. The difficulty is the intermediate. That is one reason why one must not cycle or drive at an inappropriately high speed into an area one cannot see to be clear of obstruction or other traffic. There is no "must" about it because it is just words without a scientific definition. I guess the cyclists' immediate concern was to give the pedestrians space, which meant moving to the right of the riding line on a right hand bend. Why would he be concerned to do that? Because cyclists are like that. There was absolutely no need for the cyclist to be concerned about the pedestrians. They were on the footway. he was on the carriageway. He'd already passed them before he reached the tunnel. Saying that "the cyclists' immediate concern was to give the pedestrians space" sounds like invention. They had the space they needed. So did he. Their requirements were never in conflict. (Any *good* driver also makes a different assessment of gaps to kerbs and to walls or elbows.) That's true enough; it's important to stay some safe distance away from kerbs for a variety of good reasons. What's the relevance here? Then according to you I was wrong to do this - https://www.dropbox.com/s/kv2z4x7jna...-2020.mp4?dl=0 (no need to login, just click the X to dismiss.) I expect that as I am a cyclist (even though driving at the time), in your mind, I would have had two wheels on the pavement expecting them to leap out of the way. They were on the footway, some distance before the tunnel under the bridge. He had passed them. Comparing the video with Google Earth, they were approximately 10m from the bridge. That does not detract from what I said. He'd passed the pedestrians by the time he reached the tunnel. You haven't a clue what you're talking about. Look at the video to see how much road it takes to move a couple of feet off-line. Continuing to follow the curve while making a step move to the left and mashing the brakes shows good control. Travelling at a more moderate speed (a speed from which he could stop within the distance seen to be clear) would have been the correct thing to do. Prevention better than cure, etc. Your mantra involves a making a hasty change of plan because of a scary development to avoid a crash. No, it *doesn't*. Yes, it does. People plan to take a corner smoothly. Dealing with an eventuality inevitably requires the driver/cyclist to move outside their comfort zone. Most eventualities are of little matter, a few are important. "Speed from which to stop within the distance seen to be clear" does not rule out violent avoidance. It involves not progressing at speed into a location which cannot be *seen* to be clear, thereby avoiding any need for such "a hasty change of plan". The darkened space in the tunnel would be a good example of such a location.* It was daytime. You can't see the tractor because of a difference between the sensitivity of the human eye and a camera (in fact, frame by frame, trees beyond the bridge can be seen in the gap between tractor roof and bridge for some distance before reaching the pedestrians). Initially, the gap must have been deemed to be wide enough but it reduced on approach. Perhaps the driver was slow to turn to follow the bend. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Near Miss of the Day 481: A very scary close encounter with 'Farmer Giles' (includes swearing)
On 19/10/2020 20:26, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/10/2020 23:02, JNugent wrote: On 17/10/2020 12:27, TMS320 wrote: On 15/10/2020 23:46, JNugent wrote: On 15/10/2020 22:55, TMS320 wrote: On 15/10/2020 14:31, Simon Mason wrote: QUOTE: A cyclist who was riding downhill and suddenly encountered a convoy of tractors as he headed under a railway bridge says the incident is “one of the top five near misses I’ve had, filmed or not.” The incident happened in Houghton near Preston, Lancashire, with road.cc reader Jon, who shot the footage, saying: “On a commute to work in the evening I changed my route so was going downhill and approaching this corner when out of the darkness there appeared a massive tractor taking the whole road – hence the swearing as it was very scary. “What made all this harder is the poor road surface, people on a pavement and taking a corner so having to lean over so needing more space. “I’m not blaming the driver it was just one of those incidents,” he added. https://road.cc/content/news/near-mi...r-giles-277965 Based on the following tractors, it looks like the lead one did not need to be that far out. It's a two lane road with a centre line which does not disappear under the bridge. It was wider than half the carriageway width. Tractors often are. Gosh. Remarkably enough, on some roads, they can even take up the full width. On some roads there can be plenty of space. The difficulty is the intermediate. That is one reason why one must not cycle or drive at an inappropriately high speed into an area one cannot see to be clear of obstruction or other traffic. There is no "must" about it because it is just words without a scientific definition. Gosh... Have you thought of complaining to the writers of the Highway Code about the "lack of a scentific definition"? While you're at it, you could raise the very obvious point that there is no "scientific definition" - or any other sort of definition - of "as much space as you would give a car". I suggest that "within the distance you can see to be clear" is absolutely clear and needs no further definition. If you are going so fast that your brakes (if fitted) would and could not stop you within... you know... the distance which you can see is clear... you're going too fast. Could it be more straightforward? I guess the cyclists' immediate concern was to give the pedestrians space, which meant moving to the right of the riding line on a right hand bend. Why would he be concerned to do that? Because cyclists are like that. There was absolutely no need for the cyclist to be concerned about the pedestrians. They were on the footway. he was on the carriageway. He'd already passed them before he reached the tunnel. Saying that "the cyclists' immediate concern was to give the pedestrians space" sounds like invention. They had the space they needed. So did he. Their requirements were never in conflict. Good. No disagreement on that. (Any *good* driver also makes a different assessment of gaps to kerbs and to walls or elbows.) That's true enough; it's important to stay some safe distance away from kerbs for a variety of good reasons. What's the relevance here? Then according to you I was wrong to do this - https://www.dropbox.com/s/kv2z4x7jna...-2020.mp4?dl=0 (no need to login, just click the X to dismiss.) I expect that as I am a cyclist (even though driving at the time), in your mind, I would have had two wheels on the pavement expecting them to leap out of the way. I haven't looked at your files. If you want to explain what you're talking about, feel free. [The pedestrians:] They were on the footway, some distance before the tunnel under the bridge. He had passed them. Comparing the video with Google Earth, they were approximately 10m from the bridge. That does not detract from what I said. He'd passed the pedestrians by the time he reached the tunnel. You haven't a clue what you're talking about. Look at the video to see how much road it takes to move a couple of feet off-line. The cyclist had *passed* the pedestrians *before* he reached the mouth of the tunnel / bridge / whatever you want to call it. Trying to shift some of the blame for the cyclist's self-inflicted (and slightly later) predicament on the pedestrians (or even on their mere presence) won't wash. They were on the footway. He was on the carriageway. Their requirements were not in conflict. Continuing to follow the curve while making a step move to the left and mashing the brakes shows good control. Travelling at a more moderate speed (a speed from which he could stop within the distance seen to be clear) would have been the correct thing to do. Prevention better than cure, etc. Your mantra involves a making a hasty change of plan because of a scary development to avoid a crash. No, it *doesn't*. Yes, it does. People plan to take a corner smoothly. Dealing with an eventuality inevitably requires the driver/cyclist to move outside their comfort zone. Most eventualities are of little matter, a few are important. "Speed from which to stop within the distance seen to be clear" does not rule out violent avoidance. Can you not see that this is EXACTLY why one should not travel at such a speed that one cannot stop within the distance which can be seen to be clear? It involves not progressing at speed into a location which cannot be **seen* to be clear, thereby avoiding any need for such "a hasty change of plan". The darkened space in the tunnel would be a good example of such a location.* It was daytime. You can't see the tractor because of a difference between the sensitivity of the human eye and a camera (in fact, frame by frame, trees beyond the bridge can be seen in the gap between tractor roof and bridge for some distance before reaching the pedestrians). So why didn't the cyclist slow down? I suggest he did not notice the tractor until the tractor was visible to the camera. Initially, the gap must have been deemed to be wide enough but it reduced on approach. Perhaps the driver was slow to turn to follow the bend. A space into which the cyclist could not see (thanks for accepting that at last). The fact that anything might be there in the dark (a broken-down vehicle, for instance, or an injured pedestrian) is the reason not to go hurtling into a splace into which one cannot see. I wouldn't do it. I don't believe that you wouldn't do it. You just can't bring yourself to put the blame where it belongs. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Near Miss of the Day 481: A very scary close encounter with'Farmer Giles' (includes swearing)
On 19/10/2020 23:22, JNugent wrote:
On 19/10/2020 20:26, TMS320 wrote: On 17/10/2020 23:02, JNugent wrote: On 17/10/2020 12:27, TMS320 wrote: I guess the cyclists' immediate concern was to give the pedestrians space, which meant moving to the right of the riding line on a right hand bend. Why would he be concerned to do that? Because cyclists are like that. There was absolutely no need for the cyclist to be concerned about the pedestrians. They were on the footway. he was on the carriageway. He'd already passed them before he reached the tunnel. Saying that "the cyclists' immediate concern was to give the pedestrians space" sounds like invention. They had the space they needed. So did he. Their requirements were never in conflict. Good. No disagreement on that. My opinion has already been stated. You frequently complain about cyclists riding too close to pedestrians. Now you complain when they move away. (Any *good* driver also makes a different assessment of gaps to kerbs and to walls or elbows.) That's true enough; it's important to stay some safe distance away from kerbs for a variety of good reasons. What's the relevance here? Then according to you I was wrong to do this - https://www.dropbox.com/s/kv2z4x7jna...-2020.mp4?dl=0 (no need to login, just click the X to dismiss.) I expect that as I am a cyclist (even though driving at the time), in your mind, I would have had two wheels on the pavement expecting them to leap out of the way. I haven't looked at your files. If you want to explain what you're talking about, feel free. Then stop arguing. [The pedestrians:] They were on the footway, some distance before the tunnel under the bridge. He had passed them. Comparing the video with Google Earth, they were approximately 10m from the bridge. That does not detract from what I said. He'd passed the pedestrians by the time he reached the tunnel. You haven't a clue what you're talking about. Look at the video to see how much road it takes to move a couple of feet off-line. The cyclist had *passed* the pedestrians *before* he reached the mouth of the tunnel / bridge / whatever you want to call it. Trying to shift some of the blame for the cyclist's self-inflicted (and slightly later) predicament on the pedestrians (or even on their mere presence) won't wash. They were on the footway. He was on the carriageway. Their requirements were not in conflict. Trying to shift the blame? You just don't realise how stupid that makes you sound. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Near Miss of the Day 481: A very scary close encounter with 'Farmer Giles' (includes swearing)
On 20/10/2020 12:00, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/10/2020 23:22, JNugent wrote: On 19/10/2020 20:26, TMS320 wrote: On 17/10/2020 23:02, JNugent wrote: On 17/10/2020 12:27, TMS320 wrote: I guess the cyclists' immediate concern was to give the pedestrians space, which meant moving to the right of the riding line on a right hand bend. Why would he be concerned to do that? Because cyclists are like that. There was absolutely no need for the cyclist to be concerned about the pedestrians. They were on the footway. he was on the carriageway. He'd already passed them before he reached the tunnel. Saying that "the cyclists' immediate concern was to give the pedestrians space" sounds like invention. They had the space they needed. So did he. Their requirements were never in conflict. Good. No disagreement on that. My opinion has already been stated. You frequently complain about cyclists riding too close to pedestrians. Now you complain when they move away. I have no complaint *at all* about that cyclist's behaviour in respect of pedestrians on the footway or any traffic that might or might not have been following him. His positioning on the carriageway seemed reasonable in all the circumstances. It was his excessive *speed* as he headed into the darkness of the tunnel (and plainly could not see whether or not the tunnel was already occupied) which gave rise to the (ie, his own) problem. The pedestrians are a total red herring. (Any *good* driver also makes a different assessment of gaps to kerbs and to walls or elbows.) That's true enough; it's important to stay some safe distance away from kerbs for a variety of good reasons. What's the relevance here? Then according to you I was wrong to do this - https://www.dropbox.com/s/kv2z4x7jna...-2020.mp4?dl=0 (no need to login, just click the X to dismiss.) I expect that as I am a cyclist (even though driving at the time), in your mind, I would have had two wheels on the pavement expecting them to leap out of the way. ....whatever that means. The pedestrians had nothing to do with it. I haven't looked at your files. If you want to explain what you're talking about, feel free. Then stop arguing. I am disagreeing with your "argument" that the pedestrians on the footway were anything to do with the excessive speed of that cyclist (or even with his road position). They obviously were *nothing* of the sort. [The pedestrians:] They were on the footway, some distance before the tunnel under the bridge. He had passed them. Comparing the video with Google Earth, they were approximately 10m from the bridge. That does not detract from what I said. He'd passed the pedestrians by the time he reached the tunnel. You haven't a clue what you're talking about. Look at the video to see how much road it takes to move a couple of feet off-line. The cyclist had *passed* the pedestrians *before* he reached the mouth of the tunnel / bridge / whatever you want to call it. Trying to shift some of the blame for the cyclist's self-inflicted (and slightly later) predicament on the pedestrians (or even on their mere presence) won't wash. They were on the footway. He was on the carriageway. Their requirements were not in conflict. Trying to shift the blame? You just don't realise how stupid that makes you sound. Whose fault was the incident? You now seem to be backing off from blaming the presence of pedestrians as a causative factor. Thank heavens for small mercies. Was it the lead tractor-driver's fault? If you "think" so, please say what he could or should have done differently (other than not taking his tractor onto the road). Or was it open to the cyclist to slow down to such a speed where his brakes (if fitted) could slow him sufficiently so as to bring his machine to a halt within the distance he could see to be clear? Have a think about it. There *was* a problem and there *was* some very obvious danger. It was *someone's* fault. Someone had either failed to do something they were supposed to so or had done something they were not supposed to do. Or both of those things. I'll give you a couple of hints: (A) The pedestrians didn't set a foot wrong. (B) The tractor drivers were behaving lawfully and reasonably. But someone was at fault. For the avoidance of fault, let me add (as though it were necessary) that I would make exactly the *same* criticism of the driver of a *car* who failed to adequately control his speed so that he could stop within the distance he could see to be clear and short of a potential collision point. I bet you snip the bit about the brakes. Again. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Near Miss of the Day 481: A very scary close encounter with'Farmer Giles' (includes swearing)
On 20/10/2020 16:05, JNugent wrote:
I bet you snip the bit about the brakes. Again. Your wish is my command. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Near Miss of the Day 481: A very scary close encounter with 'Farmer Giles' (includes swearing)
On 20/10/2020 17:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 20/10/2020 16:05, JNugent wrote: I bet you snip the bit about the brakes. Again. Your wish is my command. It is a pity that you have: (a) so little skill in debate, and (b) such a poor sense of humour. Isn't it? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Near Miss of the Day 481: A very scary close encounter with 'Farmer Giles' (includes swearing)
On 21/10/2020 14:38, JNugent wrote:
On 20/10/2020 17:32, TMS320 wrote: On 20/10/2020 16:05, JNugent wrote: I bet you snip the bit about the brakes. Again. Your wish is my command. It is a pity that you have: (a) so little skill in debate, and It is a pity you think there is some sort of debate involved and that you can't hold a conversation or discussion. (b) such a poor sense of humour. Isn't it? If you think taking everything said and putting a dishonest twist on it is having a sense of humour, that is something to rejoice about. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Near Miss of the Day 481: A very scary close encounter with'Farmer Giles' (includes swearing)
On 21/10/2020 15:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/10/2020 14:38, JNugent wrote: On 20/10/2020 17:32, TMS320 wrote: On 20/10/2020 16:05, JNugent wrote: I bet you snip the bit about the brakes. Again. Your wish is my command. It is a pity that you have: (a) so little skill in debate, and It is a pity you think there is some sort of debate involved and that you can't hold a conversation or discussion. This arises out of a cyclist posting a video where he did something stupid and (effectively) tried to blame an oncoming tractor driver for it. Then *you* tried to attach some of the blame to some pedestrians seen nearby on the hilarious basis that the cyclist acted stupidly - on the carriageway - only because he was somehow forced into it by the presence of pedestrians on the footway some distance before the incident. There really isn't much room for debate in this case. The facts, as seen in the video, spoke for themselves. The cyclist was going too fast for the circumstances. The pedestrians were not involved in any way. On an open road with good sightlines and no areas of darkness, the cyclist's speed and behaviour would have been fine. But that is not what the circumstances in that location amounted to. And for the avoidance of all doubt (a second time) it would have been just as stupid for a driver or a motorcyclist to do what the cyclist did. (b) such a poor sense of humour. Isn't it? If you think taking everything said and putting a dishonest twist on it is having a sense of humour, that is something to rejoice about. What is wrong with adding the phrase "if fitted" to any sub-discussion about bicycle brakes? We (unfortunately) know for a fact that not all bicycles are fitted with brakes, irrespective of the requirements of the law. To remind ourselves of that fact is not dishonest, is it? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Near Miss of the Day 481: A very scary close encounter with'Farmer Giles' (includes swearing)
On 21/10/2020 15:30, JNugent wrote:
On 21/10/2020 15:12, TMS320 wrote: On 21/10/2020 14:38, JNugent wrote: On 20/10/2020 17:32, TMS320 wrote: On 20/10/2020 16:05, JNugent wrote: I bet you snip the bit about the brakes. Again. Your wish is my command. It is a pity that you have:... (b) such a poor sense of humour. Isn't it? If you think taking everything said and putting a dishonest twist on it is having a sense of humour, that is something to rejoice about. What is wrong with adding the phrase "if fitted" to any sub-discussion about bicycle brakes? I don't know. Looking back I notice you had buried he phrase in a string of text that a quick scan showed your post wasn't worth reading. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Near Miss of the Day 481: A very scary close encounter with'Farmer Giles' (includes swearing)
On 21/10/2020 22:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/10/2020 15:30, JNugent wrote: On 21/10/2020 15:12, TMS320 wrote: On 21/10/2020 14:38, JNugent wrote: On 20/10/2020 17:32, TMS320 wrote: On 20/10/2020 16:05, JNugent wrote: I bet you snip the bit about the brakes. Again. Your wish is my command. It is a pity that you have:... (b) such a poor sense of humour. Isn't it? If you think taking everything said and putting a dishonest twist on it is having a sense of humour, that is something to rejoice about. What is wrong with adding the phrase "if fitted" to any sub-discussion about bicycle brakes? I don't know. Looking back I notice you had buried he phrase in a string of text that a quick scan showed your post wasn't worth reading. That's just childish. You had already provided lengthy, if ultimately unsuccessful, attempts at response to it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Near Miss of the Day 462: Maserati driver zooms past cyclist in "blink-and-you’ll-miss-it" close pass | Simon Mason[_6_] | UK | 1 | August 27th 20 09:20 AM |
Near Miss of the Day 449: Cyclist gets very close pass from driver ofbus ... operated by company that has given its drivers close pass training | Simon Mason[_6_] | UK | 6 | August 6th 20 05:54 PM |
Near Miss of the Day 422: Close pass by driver towing horse box(includes swearing) | Simon Mason[_6_] | UK | 2 | June 15th 20 08:08 PM |
Close Encounter | Gags | Australia | 2 | March 31st 06 12:35 PM |
scary encounter. | Callistus Valerius | Techniques | 42 | May 16th 05 12:19 PM |