Hit and run in Yorkshire

"Howard" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Apr 10, 1:13 pm, (Ziggy) wrote:
On 10 Apr 2007 05:02:19 -0700, "Howard" wrote:

In any case what do you think the headlights on your vehicle
are for numbskull!

Headlights only tend to illuminate things in front of them ;-)

True enough, but it is amazing how many drivers try to deny even this!


Headlights also need something reflective to be of much use. Good
retroreflective material can be seen a huge distance away, whereas normal
clothing needs to be illuminated by the beam of the headlights, which can be
less than a hundred feet. I know whenever I`m in a position where I want
traffic to see me at any kind of distance I use good reflective material,
and this is indeed what good cyclists use. It makes life a lot easier when
I can see a cyclist 500m up the road, as it lets me judge my overtaking so
it can be done much more easily and safely for everyone involved. Whereas
when you suddenly find an almost invisible biker 20m infront of your bonnet,
it`s a lot more difficult to do it safely :-)

--
Items on ebay:
http://search.ebay.co.uk/_W0QQsassZscousesifinQQhtZ-1

"Marc Brett" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:19:20 +0100, "naked_draughtsman"
wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/n...re/6538611.stm

"North Yorkshire Police said the man, who was about 50 years old, was hit
by
a vehicle which failed to stop.
He was taken to hospital where he died."

The victim is, as yet, unidentified. His description is he

http://www.leedstoday.net/viewarticl...3&sectionid=39

Sadly, a pedestrian was killed on the same road a couple of days earlier.
Drunk
driving suspected:


Suspected? Seems a weird thing to say - surely if there was any suspicion
the driver would have been tested immediately which would have answered the
question (and if found guilty then hopefully be punished in an appropriate
manner suiting the offence - premeditated murder, as he made the decision to
drink and drive). Is the suspected due to the case not having hit court
yes?

--
Items on ebay:
http://search.ebay.co.uk/_W0QQsassZscousesifinQQhtZ-1

--
Items on ebay:
http://search.ebay.co.uk/_W0QQsassZscousesifinQQhtZ-1

"Marc Brett" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:19:06 +0100, "Simon Finnigan"

wrote:

"naked_draughtsman" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/n...re/6538611.stm

"North Yorkshire Police said the man, who was about 50 years old, was
hit
by a vehicle which failed to stop.
He was taken to hospital where he died."

I bet if/when they find him it'll be a slap on the wrists and points on
his licence. I'd like to be proved wrong.


To be fair, when a cyclist collided with my car and was knocked off, it
was
essentially silent - if I had my radio on at any volume I wouldn`t have
heard it. The reason I knew I had been involved in the incident was
because
I saw the cyclist trying to filter along my inside about 15 seconds after
I
had started moving from a set of traffic lights. The near side of my car
was hard up against some cones, and in lane 2 there was a HGV, giving me
no
further room to move either direction. The cyclist tried to filrt past
me,
got caught between a cone and my car and fell off. When I moved my car
out
the way of the junction and went back to check on him, he decided that it
was my fault (how he can blame me when he had no qualification to drive a
vehicle on the road,

What qualification, exactly, does he need?

None, but I was making the point that I hold qualifications to use two
different classes of vehicles on the road. He blamed me for the crash,
despite never having to pass any standard of test of knowledge, road
awareness or similar. When questioned about why he`d oen what he had he
couldn`t give a good answer, and infact quickly realised (after other
witnesses had told him he was a f*cking idiot for undertaking me there) that
the accident was ENTIRELY his fault. By the time I could have done anything
to avoid the crash, it would have involved me driving my car into a HGV to
make a big enough gap for the bike, and obviously there is no way i`m going
to do that.

couldn`t give even the most basic of answers to
questions about what the highway code said about filtering and when he had
been stupid enough to try and squeeze down a ga that wasn`t there is
beyond
me).

But the point is that if it where dark,

It wasn't dark -- the body was found at 7 PM, and sunset in Yorkshire
these days
is well past that. All the ranting and speculation about lights is quite
irrelevant.

7PM - maybe the sun was in the drivers eyes? Not making excuses for the
driver (if you can`t see far due to the sun, then slow down to a safe
speed), but equally every road user has the responsibility to minimise their
chances of being in an accident. Lights being used on vehicles, reflective
areas etc.

and the cyclist wasn`t using
suitible lights, I could very easily have driven off without knowing that
anything had happened at all - if the cyclist then died then it could have
been a similar situation to the one in the story quoted. If the cyclist
had
good lights then obviously it would be a lot harder to not see them,
depending on both their riding behaviour and the positioning of cars.
This
is only valid in a situation similar to mine - if you are both moving down
a
road, then provided the cyclist has good lights (and not the weird
flashing
ones that make it almost impossible to judge their distance, or lights
that
are far too dim) then there isn`t really any excuse.

This knee-jerk reaction to blame the victim is, frankly, quite sickening,
especially given the increasingly hostile press that cycling is getting.
Bikes
are legitimate traffic, not targets to be bulldozed off the road.

I never said they where, nor am I blaming the victim IN THIS CASE. I was
making the point that firstly it is possible to knock a cyclist off their
bike and not be aware of it, and secondly that using lights and
bright/reflective material makes it a lot easier to see a cyclist.

I`ve got a friend who regularly rides his bike, and he was appalled when he
sat in a car and saw how much his bike with a rider on it blended into the
dark one night when he sat in my car (I got him to sit in to make this exact
point). He went out and got some good lights, and now I can see him from
miles away, as he filters through the lights on his way home.

"Howard" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 10, 11:19 am, "Simon Finnigan"
wrote:


To be fair, when a cyclist collided with my car and was knocked off, it
was
essentially silent - if I had my radio on at any volume I wouldn`t have
heard it.

There is a lot of difference between a cyclist falling off at walking
speed after catching a traffic cone and actually being hit by a
vehicle travelling at speed. Have you ever seen the sort of damage
resulting from a high speed impact (say anything over 20 Mph)? There
is NO WAY a motorist can 'collide' with a cyclist at anything above
walking pace and not know about it, especially when the impact was
serious enough to cause fatal injuries. In my experience of driving
even a piece of debris thrown up under ones wheels at speed can sound
apocalyptic.

I`d put money on having seen the result of a lot of impacts of differents
types than you have, any yes I`ve have seen the damage that can be done to a
car in said impacts. However, the slightest clip of a wing mirror could
knock a cyclist off, and why would the impact with the car have to be
particularly hard to kill them? I don`t know whether the bike in the story
was clipped, or hit full on, but surely a slight knock on a handle bar at
the wrong time could cause you to lose control and fall off, suffering fatal
injuries along the way - correct? A slight bang noise in the vehicle (which
the driver may not be able to hear, for example having their radio on, loud
road noise, deaf driver etc) resulting in a fatal injury.

he decided that it
was my fault (how he can blame me when he had no qualification to drive a
vehicle on the road, couldn`t give even the most basic of answers to
questions about what the highway code said about filtering and when he
had
been stupid enough to try and squeeze down a ga that wasn`t there is
beyond
me).


It strikes me that YOU are the one who never read the Highway Code, as
it says nothing specifically about filtering by cyclists! On the other
hand the official handbook of safe cycling 'Cyclecraft' does, and this
points out that 'filtering' is a legitimate manoeuvre, although not
one that should be done at speed. The 'Code does say "only overtake
on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and
there is room to do so'' but this is not 'filtering' as such and any
case the 'Code also says "If the queue on your right is moving more
slowly than you are, you may pass on the left".

So the highway code says nothing about filtering - where did I say it did?
What I said was that the cyclist couldn`t tell me what it said - in other
words he didn`t know. I`ve described the situation we where in, and the
cyclist was trying to ride through a non-existant gap.

The cyclist also wasn`t aware (I did ask him) that the vehicle infront of me
was indicating right, and the cyclist would have riden into the side of him
if he hadn`t first hit my car.

Also a cyclists needs no 'qualification' to use the public road as
they have a legal right to do so. On the other hand, for motor vehicle
users driving on the public road is merely a privilege controlled
through licence, and this is because of the amount of danger motor
vehicles pose to others.

So I`ve proven that I am competent to use the roads safely in a particular
vehicle (a motorbike as well, since I passed that test). The biker has no
obligation to pass a test, which is blatently obvious from the way that some
(note NOT all) riders have absolutely no idea of what is going on around
them, what the rules of the road are or how to avoid dying a horrible
painful death. For every bike I see with decent lights on and the cyclist
making an effort to let me see him as far away as possible, there are others
who ride at night with nothing at all to make them more visible. And the
fact is that whatever the position is from a legal point of view, riding
something that offers as little protection during a crash as a bike while
not doing everything reasonable you can do to protect yourself is stupid.

But the point is that if it where dark, and the cyclist wasn`t using
suitible lights, I could very easily have driven off without knowing that
anything had happened at all

The story does not say that the cyclist was riding without lights, or
even that it was dark at the time, merely that is was 'evening'.
(Think on, what time does it actually get dark now we are on summer
time). In any case what do you think the headlights on your vehicle
are for numbskull!

The lights are to help me see what is coming ahead of me yes, but what if
the cyclist was wearing only dark material, with nothing reflective? It
seems to me that there are a lot of knee jerk reactions in this group - car
drivers must be evil - but you don`t want to take the time to look at the
evidence do you? Do you accept that it IS possible for a car to be involved
in an impact with a bike and the driver to be unaware of this impact, with a
driver of a standard to pass the current driving test? No arguements about
whether the test is too lenient, whether more effort needs to be made in
making people more aware of the road in all directions around them, a bog
standard DSA driving test.

As for the story in question - yes it was evening, my story wasn`t
necessariyl related to that particular impact, but making the point that is
IT possible to be involved in an RTC and not be aware of it, especially with
a vehicle such as a bike. A motorbike will make more noise and be more
noticible, due to the added size and weight, a car more so, and hit a wagon
and you really know about it.

--
Items on ebay:
http://search.ebay.co.uk/_W0QQsassZscousesifinQQhtZ-1

"Simon Finnigan" wrote in message
...

Whereas
when you suddenly find an almost invisible biker 20m infront of your
bonnet, it`s a lot more difficult to do it safely :-)

Especially if your eyesight/observation skills are so poor that the biker
only becomes visible at 20m.

Simon Finnigan wrote on 10/04/2007 14:31 +0100:

None, but I was making the point that I hold qualifications to use two
different classes of vehicles on the road. He blamed me for the crash,
despite never having to pass any standard of test of knowledge, road
awareness or similar.

Your presumption would therefore seem to be that licensed motorists can
never be to blame in a collision with an unlicensed cyclist. Interesting.


7PM - maybe the sun was in the drivers eyes? Not making excuses for the
driver (if you can`t see far due to the sun, then slow down to a safe
speed), but equally every road user has the responsibility to minimise their
chances of being in an accident. Lights being used on vehicles, reflective
areas etc.


So how exactly would lights have helped in daylight with a driver
blinded by the sun?


I never said they where, nor am I blaming the victim IN THIS CASE. I was
making the point that firstly it is possible to knock a cyclist off their
bike and not be aware of it, and secondly that using lights and
bright/reflective material makes it a lot easier to see a cyclist.

UR Peter Cottrell AICMFP
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/4335442.stm

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

On 10 Apr, 11:19, "Simon Finnigan" wrote:
"naked_draughtsman" wrote in message

...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/n...re/6538611.stm

"North Yorkshire Police said the man, who was about 50 years old, was hit
by a vehicle which failed to stop.
He was taken to hospital where he died."

I bet if/when they find him it'll be a slap on the wrists and points on
his licence. I'd like to be proved wrong.

To be fair, when a cyclist collided with my car and was knocked off, it was
essentially silent -

Did the guy hit your windscreen?

If you hit a cyclist where does the guy/girl land on your car? Is it
on the bonnet, or do they hit the window?

Thank you.

"Simon Finnigan" wrote in message
...
"Marc Brett" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:19:20 +0100, "naked_draughtsman"
wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/n...re/6538611.stm

"North Yorkshire Police said the man, who was about 50 years old, was hit
by
a vehicle which failed to stop.
He was taken to hospital where he died."

The victim is, as yet, unidentified. His description is he

http://www.leedstoday.net/viewarticl...3&sectionid=39

Sadly, a pedestrian was killed on the same road a couple of days earlier.
Drunk
driving suspected:


Suspected? Seems a weird thing to say - surely if there was any suspicion
the driver would have been tested immediately which would have answered
the question (and if found guilty then hopefully be punished in an
appropriate manner suiting the offence - premeditated murder, as he made
the decision to drink and drive). Is the suspected due to the case not
having hit court yes?

Suspected, yes. The driver is innocent until proven guilty. As it is the
victim was the one that had been drinking according to the report. Mark
mis-reported the report.

On Apr 10, 2:33 pm, "Simon Finnigan"
wrote:


The lights are to help me see what is coming ahead of me yes, but what if
the cyclist was wearing only dark material, with nothing reflective?

Well, the lights on my car seem to have no problems illuminating
people dressed in dark clothing, debris in the road and so on. Anyone
who needs the 'help' of reflective clothing or even lights in order to
spot other road users is simply driving too fast. NEVER drive at a
speed that is so fast that you cannot pull up in the distance which is
actually illuminated by your headlights, including when driving on a
dipped beam.

Simon Finnigan wrote on 10/04/2007 14:23 +0100:

Headlights also need something reflective to be of much use. Good
retroreflective material can be seen a huge distance away, whereas normal
clothing needs to be illuminated by the beam of the headlights, which can be
less than a hundred feet. I know whenever I`m in a position where I want
traffic to see me at any kind of distance I use good reflective material,
and this is indeed what good cyclists use. It makes life a lot easier when
I can see a cyclist 500m up the road, as it lets me judge my overtaking so
it can be done much more easily and safely for everyone involved. Whereas
when you suddenly find an almost invisible biker 20m infront of your bonnet,
it`s a lot more difficult to do it safely :-)


So despite all your claimed training you still haven't grasped the basic
concept of being able to stop within the distance you can see to be
clear. Do you rely on deer, cows and fallen trees wearing reflective
coats standing in the road at night?
--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell