|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.
On 21/05/2015 13:29, Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2015 09:47:21 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote: On 20/05/2015 09:08, Bod wrote: On 20/05/2015 09:02, Mrcheerful wrote: Recumbent rider failed to notice the likelihood of a car door opening, failed to pass sufficiently wide and due to his type of machine and its condition, fell off and died. Viable transport? http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/...e-died-9290908 Hmm! The lady said "Mrs Jackson said: “I consider myself to be a careful and competent driver. I feel very sorry that the cyclist died but don’t think there’s anything I could have done different to avoid this accident.” A 'careful and competent driver' who nevertheless couldn't manage to park outside her house without hitting a wheely-bin. How about looking before opening her door? She *obviously* caused the accident by her carelessness. Recumbents are very low to the ground and would be easy to miss with a quick glance in a mirror. He wasn't riding a recumbent. It appears that you are assuming that because he is pictured with a recumbent that is what he was riding. The article has descriptive text about the bike he was riding, and it doesn't match that recumbent (or, indeed, any recumbent). Further, the pictured recumbent is a short wheel-base bike. The rider's eyeline is rather higher than that of many car drivers (most, if you exclude 4x4s). So, unless you count most of the cars on the road as being "low to the ground and easy to miss", even if he were riding he bike that you're wrongly assuming, your comment would still be wrong. The average normal bicycle allows the riders head to be considerably above the roof of a normal car and therefore offers more area of the cyclist to be seen. Whatever type of machine it was, it should not have been in use as it was unroadworthy, the cyclist should not have been riding it, additionally the cyclist should have been able to take a better line in the first place, braked or swerved without falling off, and even if he fell off, a helmet would probably have saved his life. |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.
On 21/05/2015 13:29, Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2015 09:47:21 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote: On 20/05/2015 09:08, Bod wrote: On 20/05/2015 09:02, Mrcheerful wrote: Recumbent rider failed to notice the likelihood of a car door opening, failed to pass sufficiently wide and due to his type of machine and its condition, fell off and died. Viable transport? http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/...e-died-9290908 Hmm! The lady said "Mrs Jackson said: “I consider myself to be a careful and competent driver. I feel very sorry that the cyclist died but don’t think there’s anything I could have done different to avoid this accident.” A 'careful and competent driver' who nevertheless couldn't manage to park outside her house without hitting a wheely-bin. How about looking before opening her door? She *obviously* caused the accident by her carelessness. Recumbents are very low to the ground and would be easy to miss with a quick glance in a mirror. He wasn't riding a recumbent. How do you know that? He is pictured with one and the caption says 'his bike' not 'one nothing like this'. It appears that you are assuming that because he is pictured with a recumbent that is what he was riding. The article has descriptive text about the bike he was riding, and it doesn't match that recumbent (or, indeed, any recumbent). There is no descriptive text referring to the bike other than "the bike Mr Hamilton was riding, made in the early 1970s, was not well maintained as the tyre tread was worn so much you could see the inner fabric and the brakes did not work well." Further, the pictured recumbent is a short wheel-base bike. The rider's eyeline is rather higher than that of many car drivers (most, if you exclude 4x4s). So, unless you count most of the cars on the road as being "low to the ground and easy to miss", even if he were riding he bike that you're wrongly assuming, your comment would still be wrong. Can you explain the following then; There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors. Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.
On 21/05/2015 03:06, Phil W Lee wrote:
Bod considered Wed, 20 May 2015 10:44:23 +0100 the perfect time to write: On 20/05/2015 09:47, Mrcheerful wrote: On 20/05/2015 09:08, Bod wrote: On 20/05/2015 09:02, Mrcheerful wrote: Recumbent rider failed to notice the likelihood of a car door opening, failed to pass sufficiently wide and due to his type of machine and its condition, fell off and died. Viable transport? http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/...e-died-9290908 Hmm! The lady said "Mrs Jackson said: “I consider myself to be a careful and competent driver. I feel very sorry that the cyclist died but don’t think there’s anything I could have done different to avoid this accident.” How about looking before opening her door? She *obviously* caused the accident by her carelessness. Recumbents are very low to the ground and would be easy to miss with a quick glance in a mirror. The cyclist was also careless, he would have seen the vehicle stop and would know that the likelihood is that a door will open soon after, he failed to allow enough room or stopping distance to avoid the possibility, his machine was of such a type and in such poor condition that he left it all too late to slow, stop or otherwise avoid the obvious obstacle. "a quick glance"!? Unlike you, I look *very* carefully before opening my car doors. She was to blame, unless you strangely consider that the accident would've happened even if she hadn't opened the door? She opened her door carelessly, resulting in his death. How you can side with her is beyond me. Even she didn't side with her, as she admitted the charge and was banned for a somewhat inadequate 6 months - yet another case of under-charging a clear case of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving (which can always be found as careless, so no reason not to go after the more serious charge). I hope the personal liability section of the cyclists household contents insurance is able to adequately compensate the motorist for any damage to his property and injuries caused by the cyclists stupidity. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.
"RJH" wrote
On 20/05/2015 09:08, Bod wrote: On 20/05/2015 09:02, Mrcheerful wrote: Recumbent rider failed to notice the likelihood of a car door opening, failed to pass sufficiently wide and due to his type of machine and its condition, fell off and died. Viable transport? http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/...e-died-9290908 Hmm! The lady said "Mrs Jackson said: "I consider myself to be a careful and competent driver. I feel very sorry that the cyclist died but don't think there's anything I could have done different to avoid this accident." Who doesn't consider themselves to be careful and competent? It is amazing to consider the difference between the tiny errors that have to be avoided in the test to get a licence and the massive errors that can be made afterwards without losing that licence. How about looking before opening her door? She *obviously* caused the accident by her carelessness. Quite - and hence the finding of the court. I've just bought a new to me car, with swish electric folding mirrors. But they only work off a switch inside the car, so I have to check without mirrors. Hardly a great hardship, but irritating. Mine works off the locks. That other manufacturers do differently seems curious. But there is a simple technique for opening a door that reduces the unreliabilty of a visual from inside the car: it can also apply kerb side for pedestrians. Release the catch so the door moves out slightly to give those about to pass a signal of intention. Wait a couple of seconds before opening further. Opening is a two action process of release and push, anyway, so it's just a matter of including the time separation. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors. How do you know? Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that. Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get wider. It has something to do with the requirement to increase space between vehicles as speed rises. A stationary car also does not generate as much air turbulence as one travelling at 30mph plus. You've never noticed the bow wave and wash of large lorries when you pass them on the motorway? |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.
On 22/05/2015 00:01, TMS320 wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors. How do you know? Perhaps because he spends a lot of his driving time in urban areas where exactly those conditions apply? What do you think? Think it's a runner? Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that. Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get wider. It has something to do with the requirement to increase space between vehicles as speed rises. Yes, but he wasn't talking about high speed routes, was he? He was talking about urban (probably inner-city) streets and relatively low speeds (eg, 30 mph or less). A stationary car also does not generate as much air turbulence as one travelling at 30mph plus. You've never noticed the bow wave and wash of large lorries when you pass them on the motorway? What does that have to do with the topic? |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.
On 22/05/2015 00:08, JNugent wrote:
On 22/05/2015 00:01, TMS320 wrote: "The Medway Handyman" wrote in There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors. How do you know? Perhaps because he spends a lot of his driving time in urban areas where exactly those conditions apply? What do you think? Think it's a runner? Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that. Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get wider. It has something to do with the requirement to increase space between vehicles as speed rises. Yes, but he wasn't talking about high speed routes, was he? He was talking about urban (probably inner-city) streets and relatively low speeds (eg, 30 mph or less). A stationary car also does not generate as much air turbulence as one travelling at 30mph plus. You've never noticed the bow wave and wash of large lorries when you pass them on the motorway? What does that have to do with the topic? Thank you Mr N, exactly what I was going to say. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.
"JNugent" wrote in message On 22/05/2015 00:01, TMS320 wrote: "The Medway Handyman" wrote in There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors. How do you know? Perhaps because he spends a lot of his driving time in urban areas where exactly those conditions apply? He claims to represent the other 32,999,999 motorists. What do you think? Think it's a runner? Not by any stretch. Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that. Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get wider. It has something to do with the requirement to increase space between vehicles as speed rises. Yes, but he wasn't talking about high speed routes, was he? He was talking about urban (probably inner-city) streets and relatively low speeds (eg, 30 mph or less). Oh dear, you're at it again. It seems my paragraph included enough letters for you to reorder into "high speed routes". You should have grown out of needing alphabetti spaghetti. A stationary car also does not generate as much air turbulence as one travelling at 30mph plus. You've never noticed the bow wave and wash of large lorries when you pass them on the motorway? What does that have to do with the topic? Plenty. You obviously haven't noticed "the topic" was - "Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that." Putting aside the problem of opening doors (and when nobody is inside a car there is no possibility of a problem), I have given two reasons why it is reasonable. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.
On 22/05/2015 12:26, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote: On 22/05/2015 00:01, TMS320 wrote: "The Medway Handyman" wrote: There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors. How do you know? Perhaps because he spends a lot of his driving time in urban areas where exactly those conditions apply? He claims to represent the other 32,999,999 motorists. Or to have seen and observed (at the very least) a representative sample of such situations. What do you think? Think it's a runner? Not by any stretch. Really? Whyever not? Why are cyclists' anecdotes so important but professional drivers' hundreds of thousands of miles of experience less so? Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that. Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get wider. It has something to do with the requirement to increase space between vehicles as speed rises. Yes, but he wasn't talking about high speed routes, was he? He was talking about urban (probably inner-city) streets and relatively low speeds (eg, 30 mph or less). Oh dear, you're at it again. It seems my paragraph included enough letters for you to reorder into "high speed routes". You should have grown out of needing alphabetti spaghetti. Stop wriggling: it's undignified. Your relevant subordinate clause was "...as roads get faster...". Do you think that roads do that on their own? A stationary car also does not generate as much air turbulence as one travelling at 30mph plus. You've never noticed the bow wave and wash of large lorries when you pass them on the motorway? What does that have to do with the topic? Plenty. You obviously haven't noticed "the topic" was - "Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that." I had *definitely* noticed that and fully agree with the implicit sentiment. It *is* odd that cyclists need to be passed with a clearance of twenty meters (or whatever) but all of this requirement fades away to nothing when they are squeezing between lines of traffic - isn't it? Putting aside the problem of opening doors (and when nobody is inside a car there is no possibility of a problem), I have given two reasons why it is reasonable. You insist on wide clearances (when you insist on wide clearances) on supposed safety and caution grounds. Why are other road-users not entitled to a similar margin of safety and caution? |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.
"TMS320" wrote in message ... "JNugent" wrote in message On 22/05/2015 00:01, TMS320 wrote: "The Medway Handyman" wrote in There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors. How do you know? Perhaps because he spends a lot of his driving time in urban areas where exactly those conditions apply? He claims to represent the other 32,999,999 motorists. What do you think? Think it's a runner? Not by any stretch. Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that. Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get wider. It has something to do with the requirement to increase space between vehicles as speed rises. Yes, but he wasn't talking about high speed routes, was he? He was talking about urban (probably inner-city) streets and relatively low speeds (eg, 30 mph or less). Oh dear, you're at it again. It seems my paragraph included enough letters for you to reorder into "high speed routes". You should have grown out of needing alphabetti spaghetti. A stationary car also does not generate as much air turbulence as one travelling at 30mph plus. You've never noticed the bow wave and wash of large lorries when you pass them on the motorway? What does that have to do with the topic? Plenty. You obviously haven't noticed "the topic" was - "Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that." No. The topic was "Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck". The clue is in the Subject line. Hope this helps. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cyclist dies | Simon Mason | UK | 42 | November 5th 11 04:20 AM |
Hilarious Cyclist's Anthem-"The Bicycle Wreck" by Tennessee Mafia Jug Band | meb[_80_] | Techniques | 2 | March 12th 08 01:33 PM |
QLD cyclist dies in hit / run | Jock | Australia | 3 | July 1st 07 08:34 AM |
{SYD} Cyclist dies after being hit by car | cfsmtb | Australia | 3 | May 29th 06 10:34 AM |
another cyclist dies. | Steve Knight | General | 67 | November 1st 03 08:16 PM |