|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |