|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
spindthrift - magnatom antics
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 06:19:40 -0000, "AndyC"
said in : At 1.10 minute into the video, the car is clearly indicating to change lane and has already begun to move to the right (although stationary at that time). If I were driving a car behind, I would *not* continue to overtake it unless I was certain that the car was not going to move, Really? Signals are informative, not instructive. I did once get shouted at be some bloke who pulled out right in front of me as I was driving along - I had to brake very sharply to avoid him. He came back and remonstrated with me because he said he had indicated before pulling away. So yes there are drivers who think that their indicator gives them the right to conflict with other traffic, but I believe they are wrong about that. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
spindthrift - magnatom antics
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 06:19:40 -0000, "AndyC" said in : At 1.10 minute into the video, the car is clearly indicating to change lane and has already begun to move to the right (although stationary at that time). If I were driving a car behind, I would *not* continue to overtake it unless I was certain that the car was not going to move, Really? Signals are informative, not instructive. It's all a matter of courtesy and common decency really. -- Matt B |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
spindthrift - magnatom antics
"Matt B" wrote in message ... Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 06:19:40 -0000, "AndyC" said in : At 1.10 minute into the video, the car is clearly indicating to change lane and has already begun to move to the right (although stationary at that time). If I were driving a car behind, I would *not* continue to overtake it unless I was certain that the car was not going to move, Really? Signals are informative, not instructive. It's all a matter of courtesy and common decency really. Agreed. If a car is signalling to pull out in front of you it is best to let them go. OTOH if you are waiting to pull out yourself, it is better to wait until it is safe to do so before performing the manoeuvre. If the traffic is moving very slowly or stopping and starting and you signal that you intend to pull out, any half courteous driver will let you out anyway. If they block you, it just shows their arrogance. Perhaps that's why Guy was shouted at :-) |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
spindthrift - magnatom antics
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 08:55:01 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 06:19:40 -0000, "AndyC" said in : At 1.10 minute into the video, the car is clearly indicating to change lane and has already begun to move to the right (although stationary at that time). If I were driving a car behind, I would *not* continue to overtake it unless I was certain that the car was not going to move, Really? Signals are informative, not instructive. The driver has indicated his intention of pulling out and has already started doing so, and you have seen him. Anyone who would not accept this as a sensible instruction to self: "he is indicating, he is pulling out, I would be a fool to ignore him" - truly is a ****wit. But yes - we are talking about Chapman I wonder did something similar happen to yourself - were you actually knocked off you bike and suffered a bang to the head. You really do seem to have some sort of brain damage- or are you just daft? judith -- I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman) I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman) I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman) I pointed out the web page He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for years. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
spindthrift - magnatom antics
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 09:21:03 -0000, "AndyC"
said in : If the traffic is moving very slowly or stopping and starting and you signal that you intend to pull out, any half courteous driver will let you out anyway. If they block you, it just shows their arrogance. Perhaps that's why Guy was shouted at :-) Unlikely. It was a 40mph limit, I was driving along at 40mph, her pulled out from a lay-by right in front of me and I only just managed to avoid hitting him. Had I hit him, there is no doubt at all that the blame would have been his. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
spindthrift - magnatom antics
Mark Williams wrote:
"AndyC" writes: I notice on this one: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7drPCPfWCIQ He admits to his mistake of not using the whole lane to overtake, but he misses the fact that he overtook a car that was indicating to change lane. While that is commonly done by aggressive drivers, if you do that on two wheels it is suicidal. No it isn't---I haven't watch the cited video clip but have done what you describe several times (often after establishing eye contact, etc.) over the last few decades and I haven't once ended up dead. It only takes once. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
spindthrift - magnatom antics
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message ... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 09:21:03 -0000, "AndyC" said in : If the traffic is moving very slowly or stopping and starting and you signal that you intend to pull out, any half courteous driver will let you out anyway. If they block you, it just shows their arrogance. Perhaps that's why Guy was shouted at :-) Unlikely. It was a 40mph limit, I was driving along at 40mph, her pulled out from a lay-by right in front of me and I only just managed to avoid hitting him. Had I hit him, there is no doubt at all that the blame would have been his. I was only teasing :-) |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
spindthrift - magnatom antics
On Feb 3, 2:43*pm, _ wrote:
Yeah, I read it the first time. I still cant see where you said that the cyclist had broken the law though. Why wont you admit it - its utterly clear that his verbal assault amounted to a S5 public order offence. Why will you ONLY spot offences by car drivers Ooh, I wonder. I dont want to be associated with a group which seems to REVEL in a reputation of being bitter, twisted, jealous 'cage haters'. And who are two of the most prominent posters in that group? Chapman and Spindrift of course. Now I wonder why they just happen to be in the most anti-motorist newsgroup? And I wonder why they support every anti-motorist measure, and always blame the motorist whenever there's a reported conflict between a cyclist and a motorist? It's a tough one.... One day, just maybe, they'll find the intelligence to realise that *no- one* is falling for the "I'm not anti-motorist" crap, and it just makes them more, rather than less, despised. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
spindthrift - magnatom antics
On Feb 3, 3:06*pm, Squashme wrote:
On 3 Feb, 14:43, _ wrote: Squashmewrote: On 3 Feb, 14:25, _ wrote: Squashmewrote: On 3 Feb, 14:19, _ wrote: Squashmewrote: On 3 Feb, 14:02, _ wrote: Squashmewrote: On 3 Feb, 13:15, _ wrote: Squashmewrote: On 3 Feb, 11:26, JNugent wrote: JNugent wrote: AndyC wrote: "relevant" wrote: Here is a letter I have sent - perhaps a few more on similar lines [big snip] I notice on this one: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7drPCPfWCIQ He admits to his mistake of not using the whole lane to overtake, but he misses the fact that he overtook a car that was indicating to change lane. While that is commonly done by aggressive drivers, if you do that on two wheels it is suicidal. If you are going to overtake a car that is already indicating, whether stationary or not, you do so at your own peril. Rights of way are meaningless when you are dead. In his video "Undertaking On A Roundabout", the same poster castigates a car-driver who passes him on the nearside on a large roundabout. The roundabout seems to be the one seen in the video referenced in the OP and the cyclist is way over to the offside, hard up against the island (incidentally passing over a distinctive hatched-off area). Perhaps he thinks that it is unlawful to pass on the nearside on a roundabout (it isn't). And if one really objects to being "undertaken", perhaps it'd be btter not to hog the offside edge of the one-way stretch of road which is the carriageway of a large roundabout. Another of his videos ("White van-driver teaches me a lesson") appears to be functionally identical to the one involving the private hire car - recorded over the same route, in the same sort of conditions and almost at the same spot. Different motor vehicle, different driver, same cyclist. Anyone spot a pattern here? Yes, but let's not be too harsh. Not all motorists are like that. Many are not aggressive and do respect other road-users. LOL. Get some help with your issues, before you end up under my wheels. Do you bring your anger problem up at your regular reviews? And thanks for the warning, I shall avoid cycling in Lincolnshire. Hey, why not complain? You're good at that! LOL But no, I dont, because you dont make me angry. You make me laugh. You seem to have real problems with blinkers, old son. And unless you can get that sack of spuds off your shoulder, you WILL have a serious incident. And since you're on 2 wheels and your inevitable opponent will have four, there's a good chance it'll cost you more than cash. Here's hoping, eh? "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Would you like the address? No thanks it's not Relevant. As you wish. Now, wanna acknowledge the lawbreaking of Magna/you in the video, while you're feeling so magnanimous? To quote me earlier:- "Obviously the vast majority of us do not wish to ride around with a head-mounted camera, whose last ever shot is likely to be blue sky and the fading sound of "sorry mate I didn't s..." Yeah, I read it the first time. I still cant see where you said that the cyclist had broken the law though. Why wont you admit it - its utterly clear that his verbal assault amounted to a S5 public order offence. Why will you ONLY spot offences by car drivers (and thats on the extremely debatable idea that there WAS any). This Sunday I'll be doing a charity race in our gravity racer and I've got some questions about bearings and wheels on it. I daren't ask them here, because I dont want to be associated with a group which seems to REVEL in a reputation of being bitter, twisted, jealous 'cage haters'. Sad, that, innit? Very sad. You are too full of anger, hate and bile (or as you prefer to call it, laughter) to post sensible questions to the group, with which some here could perhaps help. You may not wish to be associated with URC, but, guess what, here you are. Go on, dare to be a Daniel! Hello Squashme. Do you admit to being anti-motorist? Do you think that Spindrift is anti-motorist? Tell the truth now. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
spindthrift - magnatom antics
"JNugent" wrote in message ... DavidR wrote: "JNugent" wrote When turning right at a roundabout (ie, doing 270 degrees around it), using the right-hand side of the carriageway, which I would describe as the offside, is certainly acceptable - for the first part of the journey around the roundabout. Describing a bee-line from the offside edge of the carriageway (next to the island) only when the exit becomes tangential to that tight circle around the island is not the correct way to do it. Wrong, this is the correct way (for motor vehicles). Spiralling wastes road space and creates a t-bone risk from drivers waitiong to join before your exit - a very critical point for cycling. In that case, you'l be able to point out a Highway Code or Road Traffic Act provision which contradicts what I said. I'm not holding my breath. ~ The HC shows both spiral and concentric. ~ Do you claim that spiralling does not create a t-bone risk? ~ Do yo claim that spiralling does not waste road space (why would a dual carriageway be provided if it is intended that it should not be used)? Oh, and I have yet to find a roundabout that matches the one shown in the HC. A 4 arm dual cariageway is very rare (maybe there are a few in London - but London is not the UK). The proportions (width/diameter/vehicle size) are also rather skewed in the picture. The spiral doesn't look as bad as it would in practice where the blue car would have less room to keep rolling. Where roundabouts are cmarked with lane lines (and many are), this is demonstrated vividly. They did this in Bracknell for a while about 6 or 7 years ago and thankfully changed their minds a few months later. I know a few other authorities haven't bothered to remove them. Some are acceptable, some I ignore. Bracknell (for all its merits) is not the United Kingdom. Perhaps so, but Bracknell is a wealthy region and possibly has enough spare tax payers' cash to cover their original errors. Or maybe something to do with the proximity of the TRRL? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
More Drunk Belgium Antics | [email protected] | Racing | 21 | September 27th 06 09:28 AM |
Frigo's antics the death knell for Fassa Bortolo's future? | Carl Sundquist | Racing | 15 | July 14th 05 07:36 AM |