A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

safety in numbers? Fail



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old May 29th 12, 10:14 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.motorcycles
Mrcheerful[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,662
Default safety in numbers? Fail

Andy B wrote:
'Hog wrote:

Andy B wrote:
'Hog wrote:

Pip wrote:

I'd expect you to ride (in the UK) on the same line that I would -
on a left hander, out by the line for maximum visibility around
the bend and on a right hander, near enough in the gutter for
maximum forward view. It's OK if you're a trucker, though, as you
can now legally swerve all over the road, skittling other road
users left and right as it is just too onerous to stay on the
correct side of the road.

Did you read up on the circumstances? The Beak didn't seem to be
far off the mark, unless we think all narrow roads with blind bends
should be closed to large traffic. It was wheels across the white
line because the road was narrow and the truck was not moving
rapidly.

Just how much room do you have to give someone on your side of the
road before it's considered wrong for them to smash you into such a
state that you lose a limb? I was under the impression that you give
way to oncoming traffic if you need to encroach onto their side of
the road and failure to do so puts you in the wrong.

I'd say that the ****ing beak was so far from the mark that he needs
removing from not only his job but the face of the earth.


So what should a truck do every time it encounters a blind bend
that's too narrow for the wheel track? get a man with a red flag to
walk round ahead? I'm not being contrary, I simply bothered to read
the detailed circumstances of the case as everyone and their dog was
claiming to have written to MP's etc.

Try slowing down to a point where they can either stay on their side
of the road or at least be able to see someone coming towards them
and then stop until they'd passed.

Having driven a 7.5t Cargo around the narrow A and single track B
roads (of Scotland) I suggest on such roads everyone proceeds with
caution and the occasional beep of the horn.


Ok, so if I can't stay on my side of the road or stop for oncoming
traffic I'm ok as long as I give a quick toot on the horn? That
doesn't work when you've maimed somebody who was actually riding on
the correct side of the road and expected the same from other road
users.


everyone needs to allow for the unlikely. there are usually at least two
things being done wrong in every crash.


Ads
  #42  
Old May 29th 12, 10:19 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.motorcycles
Peter Parry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,164
Default safety in numbers? Fail

On Tue, 29 May 2012 21:45:10 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

One thing would make a big difference - automatic jail time for any
driver who hit a cyclist.


So the bus and pickup drivers in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDAYkdlKEGI should be jailed and the
incompetent moron on a bike should get a bit of compo?

The thing that would make the biggest difference is mandatory training
for cyclists - why do so many oppose it so vehemently?



  #43  
Old May 29th 12, 10:34 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.motorcycles
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default safety in numbers? Fail

On 29/05/2012 22:19, Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2012 21:45:10 +0100, Phil W
wrote:

One thing would make a big difference - automatic jail time for any
driver who hit a cyclist.


So the bus and pickup drivers in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDAYkdlKEGI should be jailed and the
incompetent moron on a bike should get a bit of compo?

The thing that would make the biggest difference is mandatory training
for cyclists - why do so many oppose it so vehemently?


Because they know they wouldn't find it easy to pass the test which would be
required after the training.
  #44  
Old May 29th 12, 10:39 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.motorcycles
'Hog[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default safety in numbers? Fail

Thomas wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2012 03:06:30 -0700, 'Hog
wrote:

The real problem is LHD truck cabs. The accident stats make a pretty
good case for taking them off UK roads.


Trucks AND cars, ffs. They're all LHD here, and even though the lanes
are ridiculously wide, it seems no one can stay inside them.


*snort*

--
Hog

Remember the 4 "F" rule:
If you're not ****ing me, Feeding me or Financing me
....your opinions really don't matter, so you can **** off


  #45  
Old May 29th 12, 10:41 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.motorcycles
'Hog[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default safety in numbers? Fail

Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2012 21:45:10 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

One thing would make a big difference - automatic jail time for any
driver who hit a cyclist.


So the bus and pickup drivers in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDAYkdlKEGI should be jailed and the
incompetent moron on a bike should get a bit of compo?

The thing that would make the biggest difference is mandatory training
for cyclists - why do so many oppose it so vehemently?


Most road users pay for the privilege of using the road. He who pays comes
first. Those who don't go to the end of the queue. Long past time the RTA
was updated.

--
Hog

Remember the 4 "F" rule:
If you're not ****ing me, Feeding me or Financing me
....your opinions really don't matter, so you can **** off


  #46  
Old May 29th 12, 10:42 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.motorcycles
'Hog[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default safety in numbers? Fail

Phil W Lee wrote:
ogden considered Tue, 29 May 2012 11:32:46 +0100 the
perfect time to write:

'Hog wrote:

ogden wrote:
'Hog wrote:

The real problem is LHD truck cabs.
The accident stats make a pretty good case for taking them off UK
roads.

Is that a problem with LHD cabs, or drivers of LHD cabs not being
sufficiently familiar with driving on the other side of the road?
If the latter, banning the cabs wouldn't solve the problem (if it
exists)

I don't know if the causes have been analysed but the accident
stats were compiled. Nobody wanted to do much about it, although I
think I read a recent suggestion about installing cameras.

TBF a number of the accidents were trucks running over cyclists
when turning


There's a lot to be said for not putting yourself in a position where
you could be flattened under an artic. And, again, an LHD cab is
arguably better for spotting cyclists on your left.


Only if you use mirrors - you know, those big shiny things that you
keep knocking off the side of your vehicle.

One thing would make a big difference - automatic jail time for any
driver who hit a cyclist.
At the moment, cyclists do not present sufficient threat to drivers to
waken them from their slumbers.


Fortunately we have the UK HRA 1998 to mitigate ****s like you.

--
Hog

Remember the 4 "F" rule:
If you're not ****ing me, Feeding me or Financing me
....your opinions really don't matter, so you can **** off


  #47  
Old May 29th 12, 10:46 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.motorcycles
'Hog[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default safety in numbers? Fail

JNugent wrote:
On 29/05/2012 22:19, Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2012 21:45:10 +0100, Phil W
wrote:

One thing would make a big difference - automatic jail time for any
driver who hit a cyclist.


So the bus and pickup drivers in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDAYkdlKEGI should be jailed and the
incompetent moron on a bike should get a bit of compo?

The thing that would make the biggest difference is mandatory
training for cyclists - why do so many oppose it so vehemently?


Because they know they wouldn't find it easy to pass the test which
would be required after the training.


It will be very simple to deal effectively with most cyclists.
Apply the full gamut of RTA law to them, proactively, exactly as if they
were using a motorised vehicle, then endorse their vehicle licences
appropriately, if they have one. Same fines, regardless of licence. Voila,
all the problems of red light jumping, riding on pavements, group
obstruction etc get dealt with.

While at it, save the A&E some trouble and make crash helmets compulsory as
per motorcycles.

--
Hog


  #48  
Old May 29th 12, 10:52 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.motorcycles
'Hog[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default safety in numbers? Fail

Andy B wrote:
'Hog wrote:


Having driven a 7.5t Cargo around the narrow A and single track B
roads (of Scotland) I suggest on such roads everyone proceeds with
caution and the occasional beep of the horn.


Ok, so if I can't stay on my side of the road or stop for oncoming
traffic I'm ok as long as I give a quick toot on the horn? That
doesn't work when you've maimed somebody who was actually riding on
the correct side of the road and expected the same from other road
users.


Like I said, you are making a case to close narrow roads to heavy traffic.
It's never going to fly. The white line is advisory and everyone has to
proceed with "due care", which includes making allowances for narrow roads
and other traffic. You do it, I do it, most people do it, most of the time.
The point was also made we can't be held to a standard of perfection, there
would be no road users left.
Substitute "local school bus full of kids" for smelly furriner and the Beaks
might have been less charitable at the first court hearing.
IYSWIM.

You and I would probably agree the poor sod with the missing leg should have
retained the financial support but one can also see where the opposing
Council and the Ins Co are coming from.

--
Hog

Remember the 4 "F" rule:
If you're not ****ing me, Feeding me or Financing me
....your opinions really don't matter, so you can **** off


  #49  
Old May 29th 12, 11:03 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.motorcycles
Andy B
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default safety in numbers? Fail

'Hog wrote:

Andy B wrote:
'Hog wrote:


Having driven a 7.5t Cargo around the narrow A and single track B
roads (of Scotland) I suggest on such roads everyone proceeds with
caution and the occasional beep of the horn.


Ok, so if I can't stay on my side of the road or stop for oncoming
traffic I'm ok as long as I give a quick toot on the horn? That
doesn't work when you've maimed somebody who was actually riding on
the correct side of the road and expected the same from other road
users.


Like I said, you are making a case to close narrow roads to heavy traffic.
It's never going to fly. The white line is advisory and everyone has to
proceed with "due care", which includes making allowances for narrow roads
and other traffic. You do it, I do it, most people do it, most of the time.
The point was also made we can't be held to a standard of perfection, there
would be no road users left.


Narrow roads should be closed to vehicles that can't use them in a safe
manner.

Where did you read that white lines are advisory? Cite evidence please.

If I was over a white line and got skittled I wouldn't even try to blame
someone else. Is this what you mean when you say that I do it?

Perfection? No. Culpability? Yes.

Substitute "local school bus full of kids" for smelly furriner and the Beaks
might have been less charitable at the first court hearing.
IYSWIM.

That shouldn't make any difference.

You and I would probably agree the poor sod with the missing leg should have
retained the financial support but one can also see where the opposing
Council and the Ins Co are coming from.


I can see where the insurance company are coming from because they're
all cheating, thieving ****s, I fail to see where the opposing council
comes from and I fail to see why the driver is still going to be allowed
to drive over here when he obviously isn't capable of staying on the
correct side of the road or waiting until approaching traffic has gone
past.

You're trolling **** and simply because of that I'll never stop
laughing if you or someone close to you suffers in the same way as the
bike rider. Unhappy about that? Bad luck.
  #50  
Old May 29th 12, 11:03 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.motorcycles
Andy B
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default safety in numbers? Fail

'Hog wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2012 21:45:10 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

One thing would make a big difference - automatic jail time for any
driver who hit a cyclist.


So the bus and pickup drivers in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDAYkdlKEGI should be jailed and the
incompetent moron on a bike should get a bit of compo?

The thing that would make the biggest difference is mandatory training
for cyclists - why do so many oppose it so vehemently?


Most road users pay for the privilege of using the road. He who pays comes
first. Those who don't go to the end of the queue. Long past time the RTA
was updated.


See my previous comment about your trolling. By your reckoning your
child could be left in a wheelchair by a ****ed up driver as long as
he'd paid his dues to be on the road so be careful what you wish for.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Safety In numbers Judith[_4_] UK 10 May 6th 12 09:09 PM
More safety in numbers? Mrcheerful[_3_] UK 1 April 28th 12 03:29 PM
safety in numbers Zebee Johnstone Australia 1 June 25th 09 05:32 AM
Safety in Numbers Roos Eisma UK 249 September 17th 08 09:20 AM
Safety in Numbers. Simon Mason UK 11 April 23rd 05 09:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.