Near Miss of the Day 481: A very scary close encounter with 'FarmerGiles' (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.

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
Â**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.

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.

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.

On 20/10/2020 16:05, JNugent wrote:

I bet you snip the bit about the brakes. Again.

Your wish is my command.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.