|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Mason Verdict ( a sober review )
On 18/04/17 11:05, Peter Keller wrote:
On 18.04.2017 19:20, TMS320 wrote: On 18/04/17 03:26, JNugent wrote: On 18/04/2017 00:08, TMS320 wrote: On 15/04/17 10:17, Peter Keller wrote: The car hit the bicyclist on the driver's side. What was the bicyclist doing so far away from the left side of the road? I am often in this position when approaching a right turn. Is that wrong? It depends on how quickly you get there from wherever you are beforehand, and whether or not you accord priority to other vehicles appropriately and in compliance with the rules. The basic rule is that one should not cause one's vehicle to move into the path of another vehicle if doing so will necessitate a change of speed or direction for that other vehicle. So you will be able to see that the answer to your question is "maybe". Since I was asking in response to Peter's post I hoped he would give his view without you butting in. I have above. Sorry I can't be here 24/7 I wouldn't expect that. I was rebuking a certain poster that believes he is the font of all wisdom but doesn't know that he has more in common with a toothache. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Mason Verdict ( a sober review )
On 18/04/17 16:12, JNugent wrote:
On 18/04/2017 08:20, TMS320 wrote: On 18/04/17 03:26, JNugent wrote: On 18/04/2017 00:08, TMS320 wrote: On 15/04/17 10:17, Peter Keller wrote: The car hit the bicyclist on the driver's side. What was the bicyclist doing so far away from the left side of the road? I am often in this position when approaching a right turn. Is that wrong? It depends on how quickly you get there from wherever you are beforehand, and whether or not you accord priority to other vehicles appropriately and in compliance with the rules. The basic rule is that one should not cause one's vehicle to move into the path of another vehicle if doing so will necessitate a change of speed or direction for that other vehicle. So you will be able to see that the answer to your question is "maybe". Since I was asking in response to Peter's post I hoped he would give his view without you butting in. This is a newsgroup. It is. If you prefer, you may communicate with Peter by email. It's not difficult to notice a targeted question and let that person have first reply. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Mason Verdict ( a sober review )
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:39:13 +0100
TMS320 wrote: but to understand why he was in the position he was is not a difficult question. One of those simple questions that seem to confound a great many people and apparently runs contrary to some people's common sense (which we all know is not as common as one might assume). Poor motorists shouldn't have to look out for anything smaller than a car or dimmer than a Christmas tree, anything else just shouldn't be in the road ... |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Mason Verdict ( a sober review )
On 18/04/2017 19:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/04/17 16:12, JNugent wrote: On 18/04/2017 08:20, TMS320 wrote: On 18/04/17 03:26, JNugent wrote: On 18/04/2017 00:08, TMS320 wrote: On 15/04/17 10:17, Peter Keller wrote: The car hit the bicyclist on the driver's side. What was the bicyclist doing so far away from the left side of the road? I am often in this position when approaching a right turn. Is that wrong? It depends on how quickly you get there from wherever you are beforehand, and whether or not you accord priority to other vehicles appropriately and in compliance with the rules. The basic rule is that one should not cause one's vehicle to move into the path of another vehicle if doing so will necessitate a change of speed or direction for that other vehicle. So you will be able to see that the answer to your question is "maybe". Since I was asking in response to Peter's post I hoped he would give his view without you butting in. This is a newsgroup. It is. If you prefer, you may communicate with Peter by email. It's not difficult to notice a targeted question and let that person have first reply. There is no requirement to that effect. If you ask a question on usenet, anyone may answer it. If you don't for just anyone to answer it, ask it in an email. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Mason Verdict ( a sober review )
On 19/04/17 01:50, JNugent wrote:
On 18/04/2017 19:50, TMS320 wrote: On 18/04/17 16:12, JNugent wrote: On 18/04/2017 08:20, TMS320 wrote: On 18/04/17 03:26, JNugent wrote: On 18/04/2017 00:08, TMS320 wrote: On 15/04/17 10:17, Peter Keller wrote: The car hit the bicyclist on the driver's side. What was the bicyclist doing so far away from the left side of the road? I am often in this position when approaching a right turn. Is that wrong? It depends on how quickly you get there from wherever you are beforehand, and whether or not you accord priority to other vehicles appropriately and in compliance with the rules. The basic rule is that one should not cause one's vehicle to move into the path of another vehicle if doing so will necessitate a change of speed or direction for that other vehicle. So you will be able to see that the answer to your question is "maybe". Since I was asking in response to Peter's post I hoped he would give his view without you butting in. This is a newsgroup. It is. If you prefer, you may communicate with Peter by email. It's not difficult to notice a targeted question and let that person have first reply. There is no requirement to that effect. Your whole existence seems to work round rules (made by other people). Make a decision for yourself occasionally. If you ask a question on usenet, anyone may answer it. If you don't for just anyone to answer it, ask it in an email. There is also mid ground which should be easy to identify. Clearly, some people don't get it. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Mason Verdict ( a sober review )
On 19.04.2017 12:50, JNugent wrote:
On 18/04/2017 19:50, TMS320 wrote: On 18/04/17 16:12, JNugent wrote: On 18/04/2017 08:20, TMS320 wrote: On 18/04/17 03:26, JNugent wrote: On 18/04/2017 00:08, TMS320 wrote: On 15/04/17 10:17, Peter Keller wrote: The car hit the bicyclist on the driver's side. What was the bicyclist doing so far away from the left side of the road? I am often in this position when approaching a right turn. Is that wrong? It depends on how quickly you get there from wherever you are beforehand, and whether or not you accord priority to other vehicles appropriately and in compliance with the rules. The basic rule is that one should not cause one's vehicle to move into the path of another vehicle if doing so will necessitate a change of speed or direction for that other vehicle. So you will be able to see that the answer to your question is "maybe". Since I was asking in response to Peter's post I hoped he would give his view without you butting in. This is a newsgroup. It is. If you prefer, you may communicate with Peter by email. It's not difficult to notice a targeted question and let that person have first reply. There is no requirement to that effect. If you ask a question on usenet, anyone may answer it. If you don't for just anyone to answer it, ask it in an email. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com Agreed |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Mason Verdict ( a sober review )
On 19.04.2017 03:23, JNugent wrote:
On 18/04/2017 11:03, Peter Keller wrote: On 18.04.2017 11:08, TMS320 wrote: On 15/04/17 10:17, Peter Keller wrote: The car hit the bicyclist on the driver's side. What was the bicyclist doing so far away from the left side of the road? I am often in this position when approaching a right turn. Is that wrong? Legally, no. However in times of reduced visibility it may be unwise. I have an aversion to explaining that I am in the right from bed 13 of the Intensive Care Unit. I quite often use a "hook turn" if i need to turn right in heavy traffic. Cross the intersection on green on the left, then stop in front of the cars on the left of the cross road (they will have red), then when the lights turn green go straight ahead. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ____________________o| |________________ --------------------! | ^ | ^--- _____________________ | ________________ o| | | | ^ | | | | | | | | | | | ^ | | | | Peter, that would not be aggressive enough for many UK cyclists; it would neither inconvenience nor threaten enough (other) road users to be acceptable for them. I think it's fair, though, to reflect on the fact that the Mason accident didn't occur at a light-controlled crossroads. It happened in (the upper part of) Regent Street, London W1, between Oxford Circus (which was behind those involved) and the BBC building and All Souls Church at Langham Place further north. [see map URL below] It is said that the cyclist moved from the (non-existent) inside lane to the offside between the bus-stop seen at this URL and the site of the colleion some yards further on. The quote is: "What we do know is that Mick moved across to the outside lane". There is, of course, *no* inside lane and *no* "outside lane". There is only one lane on each side of the centre line. Cycling UK, confused, much? That's probably the charitable way to put it. /data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYu03LDPsc-D6tUsczoABrQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en Yes I am confused. What was visibility like at the time of the accident? Was it day, night etc? And unfortunately it does happen that people sometimes honestly do not perceive bicyclists on the road. The image on the retina does not lead to an appropriate signal to the consciousness, especially iff the driver is distracted somehow or the bicyclist "camouflaged" in some way. I tend to assume I am not seen unless I have evidence to the contrary; eg eye contact, car slowing down or turning slightly or something. I just assume that drivers sometimes do stupid things and aim to be in a different place if and when they do it. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Mason Verdict ( a sober review )
On 19.04.2017 06:39, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/04/17 11:03, Peter Keller wrote: On 18.04.2017 11:08, TMS320 wrote: On 15/04/17 10:17, Peter Keller wrote: The car hit the bicyclist on the driver's side. What was the bicyclist doing so far away from the left side of the road? I am often in this position when approaching a right turn. Is that wrong? Legally, no. However in times of reduced visibility it may be unwise. I have an aversion to explaining that I am in the right from bed 13 of the Intensive Care Unit. I will never suggest that blind faith is a substitute for judgement. Great! I quite often use a "hook turn" if i need to turn right in heavy traffic. Cross the intersection on green on the left, then stop in front of the cars on the left of the cross road (they will have red), then when the lights turn green go straight ahead. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ____________________o| |________________ --------------------! | ^ | ^--- _____________________ | ________________ o| | | | ^ | | | | | | | | | | | ^ | | | | That is certainly a possible bail out. There are other permutations, depending on junction layout. But to understand why he was in the position he was is not a difficult question. Sure. It just shows that everyone using the roads, including bicyclists and drivers, must be vigilant and considerate at all times |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Mason Verdict ( a sober review )
On 19/04/2017 09:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/04/17 01:50, JNugent wrote: On 18/04/2017 19:50, TMS320 wrote: On 18/04/17 16:12, JNugent wrote: On 18/04/2017 08:20, TMS320 wrote: On 18/04/17 03:26, JNugent wrote: On 18/04/2017 00:08, TMS320 wrote: On 15/04/17 10:17, Peter Keller wrote: The car hit the bicyclist on the driver's side. What was the bicyclist doing so far away from the left side of the road? I am often in this position when approaching a right turn. Is that wrong? It depends on how quickly you get there from wherever you are beforehand, and whether or not you accord priority to other vehicles appropriately and in compliance with the rules. The basic rule is that one should not cause one's vehicle to move into the path of another vehicle if doing so will necessitate a change of speed or direction for that other vehicle. So you will be able to see that the answer to your question is "maybe". Since I was asking in response to Peter's post I hoped he would give his view without you butting in. This is a newsgroup. It is. If you prefer, you may communicate with Peter by email. It's not difficult to notice a targeted question and let that person have first reply. There is no requirement to that effect. Your whole existence seems to work round rules (made by other people). Make a decision for yourself occasionally. Have you swapped personalities with Wilkinson Sword? If you ask a question on usenet, anyone may answer it. If you don't for just anyone to answer it, ask it in an email. There is also mid ground which should be easy to identify. Clearly, some people don't get it. Usenet : public Email : private --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Mason Verdict ( a sober review )
On 19/04/2017 10:43, Peter Keller wrote:
On 19.04.2017 03:23, JNugent wrote: On 18/04/2017 11:03, Peter Keller wrote: On 18.04.2017 11:08, TMS320 wrote: On 15/04/17 10:17, Peter Keller wrote: The car hit the bicyclist on the driver's side. What was the bicyclist doing so far away from the left side of the road? I am often in this position when approaching a right turn. Is that wrong? Legally, no. However in times of reduced visibility it may be unwise. I have an aversion to explaining that I am in the right from bed 13 of the Intensive Care Unit. I quite often use a "hook turn" if i need to turn right in heavy traffic. Cross the intersection on green on the left, then stop in front of the cars on the left of the cross road (they will have red), then when the lights turn green go straight ahead. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ____________________o| |________________ --------------------! | ^ | ^--- _____________________ | ________________ o| | | | ^ | | | | | | | | | | | ^ | | | | Peter, that would not be aggressive enough for many UK cyclists; it would neither inconvenience nor threaten enough (other) road users to be acceptable for them. I think it's fair, though, to reflect on the fact that the Mason accident didn't occur at a light-controlled crossroads. It happened in (the upper part of) Regent Street, London W1, between Oxford Circus (which was behind those involved) and the BBC building and All Souls Church at Langham Place further north. [see map URL below] It is said that the cyclist moved from the (non-existent) inside lane to the offside between the bus-stop seen at this URL and the site of the colleion some yards further on. The quote is: "What we do know is that Mick moved across to the outside lane". There is, of course, *no* inside lane and *no* "outside lane". There is only one lane on each side of the centre line. Cycling UK, confused, much? That's probably the charitable way to put it. /data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYu03LDPsc-D6tUsczoABrQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en Yes I am confused. What was visibility like at the time of the accident? Was it day, night etc? It was nominally the hours of darkness (around 21:30, IIRC), but o be fair and honest, that spot is never dark. Due to street lights and the ostentatious lighting of the business and retail premises which line that part of Regent Street, it would never get dark except during a night-time power cut or WW2 blackout. And unfortunately it does happen that people sometimes honestly do not perceive bicyclists on the road. The image on the retina does not lead to an appropriate signal to the consciousness, especially iff the driver is distracted somehow or the bicyclist "camouflaged" in some way. I tend to assume I am not seen unless I have evidence to the contrary; eg eye contact, car slowing down or turning slightly or something. I just assume that drivers sometimes do stupid things and aim to be in a different place if and when they do it. That's possible in general terms. I've done it myslf, when a motor-cyclist was hidden behind the B-post of a hired van. Luckily, no harm was done and we exchanged words and parted on good terms. The jury did not find it to apply in this case, though. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
And the verdict is..... | Donald Munro | Racing | 3 | June 30th 08 10:02 PM |
Landis verdict | [email protected] | Racing | 11 | July 5th 07 03:37 AM |
Rhyl verdict out | Tony Raven[_2_] | UK | 97 | July 2nd 07 09:44 AM |
sober reflection on an inebriated conversation | Andy Gee | General | 9 | October 3rd 05 10:17 PM |
VDB penal verdict | Van Hoorebeeck Bart | Racing | 3 | June 24th 05 02:00 PM |