A cheeky Smidsy......

"chris French" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Driving the car this afternoon, tootling along the road, a chap, at least 16-17, riding a bike on
the pavement. (on my side of the road, going the same way.

As reach him, there is a side road on the left, halfway across the side road he decides that he'd
rather ride on the road, and swerves onto the carriageway..

A lot of cyclists also seem to assume that if they are turning left out of a side road then they
don't need to give way to traffic on the main road, presuambly assuming there is room for it to
safely overtake.

"chris French" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Driving the car this afternoon, tootling along the road, a chap, at least 16-17, riding a bike on
the pavement. (on my side of the road, going the same way.

As reach him, there is a side road on the left, halfway across the side road he decides that he'd
rather ride on the road, and swerves onto the carriageway. He did give the briefest glance behind,
but I think his eyes stayed facing forwards as he seemed to miss this rather large lump of metal,
glass and plastic bearing down on him.

The glance behind, and my general experience of idiot pavement cyclists did mean though that I was
able to hit the horn and brake/ swerve in time to avoid a potentially nasty collision. The chap
swerved back towards the gutter and almost fell off.

When we'd both stopped he looked at me, and then had the cheek to say those immortal words.....'
Sorry Mate I................'' !!
--

Sounds like a pretty common occurrence.

A careful competent driver should anticipate and take care to avoid an accident.

"Frank X" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

A careful competent driver should anticipate and take care to avoid an accident.

So that accounts for me, you & 4 others. What about the rest????

Frank X said:

Sounds like a pretty common occurrence.

A careful competent driver should anticipate and take care to avoid an accident.

And what should a careful competent cyclist do or is it acceptable for them to be careless and
incompetent on the road?

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain

"Tony W" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Frank X" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

A careful competent driver should anticipate and take care to avoid an accident.

So that accounts for me, you & 4 others. What about the rest????

Fair enough, but it really pisses me off when a driver nearly hits someone in a quite predictable
situation and then claims they were totally blameless because the other person had broken some rule.

This is one of the fundamental problems with driving today. The government's emphasis on pedestrian
safety over the last 30 years has led drivers to believe that the burden of avoiding accidents lies
entirely with the pedestrian (or cyclist) in this case.

So they feel no need to drive more carefully when they see a potentially dangerous situation because
any accident wouldn't be their fault.

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Frank X said:

Sounds like a pretty common occurrence.

A careful competent driver should anticipate and take care to avoid an accident.

And what should a careful competent cyclist do or is it acceptable for

them

Quoted message said:

to be careless and incompetent on the road?

A cyclist should be careful.

I give the same response to cyclists who think it is ok to cycle fast and run pedestrians over.

Frank X said:

Quoted message said:

Fair enough, but it really pisses me off when a driver nearly hits someone in a quite
predictable situation and then claims they were totally blameless because the other person had
broken some rule.

Ah the blame transfer rationale. Its not the poor cyclists fault for riding like an idiot, its the
driver's fault for not realising the cyclist was an idiot

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Frank X said:

Quoted message said:

Fair enough, but it really pisses me off when a driver nearly hits someone in a quite
predictable situation and then claims they were totally blameless because the other person had
broken some rule.

Ah the blame transfer rationale. Its not the poor cyclists fault for

riding

Quoted message said:

like an idiot, its the driver's fault for not realising the cyclist was an idiot

Yep, "people who make mistakes deserve to die", "why don't parents teach their kids the highway
code", "evolution in action".

Yep I'm familiar with the arguments as to why drivers aren't responsible if they hit someone. Last
Friday I saw a kid lying in the road (maybe 12) Ambulance and Police all around, he probably wasn't
looking so I guess he deserved it, the kids are always messing around where it happened. I just hope
his irresponsibility didn't hurt the car to much.

At the end of the day it is the car that does the damage and that is why the burden of
responsibility to avoid accidents should always be with the driver.

That is why drivers should slow down if they see a potentially dangerous situation. I would have
thought a cyclist would have been aware of the frequently discussed (in this group anyway) and
classic dangers of pavement cycling.

I do always try and point out the dangers of crossing roads to pavement cyclists, particularly kids,
but he wasn't the one who posted was he?

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ah the blame transfer rationale. Its not the poor cyclists fault for

riding

Quoted message said:

like an idiot, its the driver's fault for not realising the cyclist was an idiot

Lots of people do behave like idiots on the road. Pavement lemmings step off the pavement, children
'forget' about the road while absorbed in play, cyclists (and POB's) waver about the road and
motorists concentrate on eating the Big Mac while smoking and chatting on the phone.

The wise road user (independent of mode) will make small adjustments to make allowances -- pulling a
little further from the kerb when passing children and animals (or those who look pavement
lemmingish); slowing down slightly where appropriate and by leaving a reasonable gap between
themselves and the next vehicle.

None of this guarantees you won't have an 'accident' -- but it all gives you a moment or two of
extra time if/when confronted by an idiot.

Then, even if the cyclist/pedestrian/motorist is acting like a complete fool you might still miss
him. OK -- sub optimal in evolutionary terms but generally considered 'a good thing'.

T

Tony W said:

Lots of people do behave like idiots on the road. Pavement lemmings step off the pavement,
children 'forget' about the road while absorbed in play, cyclists (and POB's) waver about the road
and motorists concentrate on eating the Big Mac while smoking and chatting on the phone.

The wise road user (independent of mode) will make small adjustments to make allowances -- pulling
a little further from the kerb when passing children and animals (or those who look pavement
lemmingish); slowing down slightly where appropriate and by leaving a reasonable gap between
themselves and the next vehicle.

None of this guarantees you won't have an 'accident' -- but it all gives you a moment or two of
extra time if/when confronted by an idiot.

Then, even if the cyclist/pedestrian/motorist is acting like a complete fool you might still miss
him. OK -- sub optimal in evolutionary terms but generally considered 'a good thing'.

Don't disagree at all with that but there is a difference between making reasonable allowances and
being at fault. One could argue otherwise that every SMIDSY is the cyclist's fault - after all they
happen often enough that we should expect them and make allowances by stopping and staying out the
way in every situation where a SMIDSY might happen. Likewise if a car is overtaking us near a left
turn we should slow down and stop in case they are going to turn left otherwise its our fault if
they do turn left and collect us. As a cyclist I would find this completely unacceptable. Likewise
car drivers should make allowances and drive for the circumstances but if a cyclist behaves as
reported I find it equally unacceptable to try to transfer the fault to the motorist rather than
place it where it belongs with the cyclist.

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Don't disagree at all with that but there is a difference between making reasonable allowances and
being at fault. One could argue otherwise that every SMIDSY is the cyclist's fault - after all
they happen often enough that we should expect them and make allowances by stopping and staying
out the way in every situation where a SMIDSY might happen. Likewise if a car is overtaking us
near a left turn we should slow down and stop in case

they

Quoted message said:

are going to turn left otherwise its our fault if they do turn left and collect us. As a
cyclist I would find this completely unacceptable. Likewise car drivers should make allowances
and drive for the

circumstances

Quoted message said:

but if a cyclist behaves as reported I find it equally unacceptable to try to transfer the fault
to the motorist rather than place it where it

belongs

Quoted message said:

with the cyclist.

I don't disagree with any of that. However, I do accept a measure of responsibility for my own
safety. There are certain left turns where, from bitter experience, I know there is a higher than
average chance of some prat trying to turn through my front wheel. My response is to ride
significantly wider on the run up to these junctions to force the driver to notice my presence and
to give me more room. It can backfire, a cyclist came up fast on my inside about 6 months ago and I
nearly put his eye out as I indicated I was turning left :~(

Generally I believe cycling is a safe mode of transport (if you are sensible and careful) and that
we should not be scared off of the roads. Most drivers are reasonable and considerate (though often
having no idea what time and space we might prefer).

Somehow one key element always gets lost. A driver is in control (sic) of about 1.5 tonnes of lethal
equipment. They do have a special responsibility to use it carefully. Sadly, some do not.

T

Tony W said:

I don't disagree with any of that. However, I do accept a measure of responsibility for my own
safety. There are certain left turns where, from bitter experience, I know there is a higher than
average chance of some prat trying to turn through my front wheel. My response is to ride
significantly wider on the run up to these junctions to force the driver to notice my presence and
to give me more room.

That I would regard as making reasonable allowances. Expecting you to do it at every single left
turn would not be reasonable IMHO.

Quoted message said:

Generally I believe cycling is a safe mode of transport (if you are sensible and careful) and that
we should not be scared off of the roads. Most drivers are reasonable and considerate (though
often having no idea what time and space we might prefer).

I think a lot is down to how you cycle and your confidence. I have very few problems with motorists
but like those stereotypical American tourists, you only tend to notice the ones that stand out and
assume they represent the whole nation whereas in reality you are failing to notice the large
majority that do not stand out.

Quoted message said:

Somehow one key element always gets lost. A driver is in control (sic) of about 1.5 tonnes of
lethal equipment. They do have a special responsibility to use it carefully. Sadly, some do not.

Sadly some owners of 15kg of bicycle can cause the owners of the 1.5 tonnes to have to take actions
that threaten me so they have an equal responsiblity to be careful. As I've said many times before,
cycling in Cambridge my safety has been threatened more often by other cyclists than by motorists.
Either they steam out of side roads/off pavements without looking or stopping either causing me to
have to take evasive action that puts me at risk from other vehicles or causing other vehicles to
have to take evasive action which again puts me at risk.

I had one recently where a cyclist was happily cycling along coming the opposite way. Motorist
pulled out to pass giving plenty of room to both of us. Cyclist suddenly, without looking,
signalling or any warning, turns across the road, having spotted a friend on the other side, forcing
the car out into my path coming other way. I do not blame the motorist at all - they had the choice
of hitting the other cyclist or hoping I could avoid them. I know natural instinct would cause me to
try to steer away from the most imminent impact if I'd be the driver.

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain

In message <[email hidden]>, adrian boliston
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

"chris French" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Driving the car this afternoon, tootling along the road, a chap, at least 16-17, riding a bike on
the pavement. (on my side of the road, going the same way.

As reach him, there is a side road on the left, halfway across the side road he decides that he'd
rather ride on the road, and swerves onto the carriageway..

A lot of cyclists also seem to assume that if they are turning left out of a side road then they
don't need to give way to traffic on the main road, presuambly assuming there is room for it to
safely overtake.

some do indeed do that, though this chap more sort 'leapt sideways'
--
Chris French, Leeds

In message <[email hidden]>, Frank X <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Frank X said:

>

Fair enough, but it really pisses me off when a driver nearly hits someone in a quite
predictable situation and then claims they were totally blameless because the other person had
broken some rule.

Ah the blame transfer rationale. Its not the poor cyclists fault for

riding

Quoted message said:

like an idiot, its the driver's fault for not realising the cyclist was an idiot

<snip>

Quoted message said:

At the end of the day it is the car that does the damage and that is why the burden of
responsibility to avoid accidents should always be with the driver.

That is why drivers should slow down if they see a potentially dangerous situation. I would have
thought a cyclist would have been aware of the frequently discussed (in this group anyway) and
classic dangers of pavement cycling.

<snip>

I do agree that when driving a large heavy lump of metal we do have a special responsibility to
consider other road users. To then extend that to say that all collisions/ potential collisions
of this sort are the driver responsibility, which seems to be your implication is stretching this
too far IMO.

As has been said elsewhere in the thread, yes we should make a reasonable allowance for other people
doing stupid things . But that won't stop these accidents happening, though it will reduce the
chances. Other responsible road users - in which I include what should be competent adults have a
responsibility as well..

In your initial reply you said

Quoted message said:

Sounds like a pretty common occurrence.

For all the people I see cycling on the pavement round here, it's very unsual IME for them to throw
themselves in front of a moving car without any consideration for there actions. I find pedestrians
crossing out into the road without warning much more common.

Quoted message said:

A careful competent driver should anticipate and take care to avoid an accident.

Implying that I am not and didn't, with which I disagree in his situation.. I did anticipate the
possibility, which was probably why I managed to avoid hitting him.

The road in question is a pretty normal outer suburban local 'main road' with 30 mph speed limit
(though prone to speeding , though much reduced since the speed hump), on approaching this chap I
was probably doing about 25 mph.

I had spotted him on the pavement from some distance away and had kept my eye on him, he didn't
appear to be intending to leave the pavement, though I was expecting this as a possible course of
action on his part.

I was fairly close (a few yards, no more than 10 I guess) when he gave his half-a-glance behind -
about 1-2 seconds before swerving out into my path. It was this which gave me the clue and I'd
already started taking avoiding action when he started to swerve out in front.

If I had been going faster, if I had not paid him so much attention, if I had been a bit closer etc.
then it's likely I would have hit him.

Yes I could have gone slower, but I think my speed was reasonable for the road and situation, Maybe
we should slow down to 10 mph every time we pass a pedestrian because occasionally one of them darts
out into the road in front of cars?

I'm sorry, but while I think it reasonable to expect car drivers to make allowances for other more
vulnerable road users (with extra consideration for children and other with poor understanding
/perception of the risks), I do not think it is reasonable for them to be expected to take on the
responsibility for other competent adults actions

This chap was probably at least 17 quite possibly more, he was not a child, he should have a good
understanding of the risk associated with cars and roads etc. He chose not to exercise proper care,
for no obvious good reason he swerved out into the middle of the road with no real warning, with no
apparent consideration for the consequences of his actions.

He got away with it this time, in part I think because I was aware of the possibility of this
happening, hopefully he's learnt his lesson. I think I was giving him all the consideration he
deserved But I refuse to accept responsibility for the stupid and thoughtless action of what should
be a competent adult.

It was still cheeky comment though .:-)
--
Chris French, Leeds

"chris French" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I do agree that when driving a large heavy lump of metal we do have a special responsibility to
consider other road users. To then extend that to say that all collisions/ potential collisions of
this sort are the driver responsibility, which seems to be your implication is stretching this too
far IMO.

No there are no absolutes we both agree that drivers have a greater burden of responsibility. I
accept that a driver cannot be expected to avoid all potential accidents, but I do think we should
try. So I guess we are just discussing how much greater the burden of responsibility should be.

Quoted message said:

As has been said elsewhere in the thread, yes we should make a reasonable allowance for other
people doing stupid things . But that won't stop these accidents happening, though it will reduce
the chances. Other responsible road users - in which I include what should be competent adults
have a responsibility as well..

In your initial reply you said

Quoted message said:

Sounds like a pretty common occurrence.

For all the people I see cycling on the pavement round here, it's very unsual IME for them to
throw themselves in front of a moving car without any consideration for there actions. I find
pedestrians crossing out into the road without warning much more common.

There is no point in a bigger/lesser argument. Research shows that the major danger with pavement
cyclists is pretty much the situation you describe a cyclist joining or crossing the road without
looking properly. This is going to be even more likely when the distinction between pavement and
road is blurred by the cyclist crossing a sideroad.

If you do see a cyclist riding on the pavement close to the road it doesn't seem too much to ask
that you give him as much overtaking room as if he were riding in the road.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A careful competent driver should anticipate and take care to avoid an accident.

Implying that I am not and didn't, with which I disagree in his situation.. I did anticipate the
possibility, which was probably why I managed to avoid hitting him.

No, it is just a reasonable statement, only you really know what happened. I hoped it was a comment
that might make you consider your own driving. Even given it was the cyclists *fault* maybe you
could have reacted differently?

As an example, as cyclists we all know peds will step off the pavement in front of us without
looking, mainly because unlike cars they don't hear us. We can call them idiots etc, etc but they
will still carry on doing it, so a good cyclists modifies his behaviour when this might happen and
rides slower, further away from the pavement and maybe makes a noise so that the peds do look round.

Quoted message said:

The road in question is a pretty normal outer suburban local 'main road' with 30 mph speed limit
(though prone to speeding , though much reduced since the speed hump), on approaching this chap I
was probably doing about 25 mph.

I had spotted him on the pavement from some distance away and had kept my eye on him, he didn't
appear to be intending to leave the pavement, though I was expecting this as a possible course of
action on his part.

I was fairly close (a few yards, no more than 10 I guess) when he gave his half-a-glance behind -
about 1-2 seconds before swerving out into my path. It was this which gave me the clue and I'd
already started taking avoiding action when he started to swerve out in front.

If I had been going faster, if I had not paid him so much attention, if I had been a bit closer
etc. then it's likely I would have hit him.

Yes I could have gone slower, but I think my speed was reasonable for the road and situation,
Maybe we should slow down to 10 mph every time we pass a pedestrian because occasionally one of
them darts out into the road in front of cars?

I'm sorry, but while I think it reasonable to expect car drivers to make allowances for other more
vulnerable road users (with extra consideration for children and other with poor understanding
/perception of the risks), I do not think it is reasonable for them to be expected to take on the
responsibility for other competent adults actions

This chap was probably at least 17 quite possibly more, he was not a child, he should have a good
understanding of the risk associated with cars and roads etc. He chose not to exercise proper
care, for no obvious good reason he swerved out into the middle of the road with no real warning,
with no apparent consideration for the consequences of his actions.

I can't really comment because only you know what really happened, so you have to decide if you
could have reacted differently.

Quoted message said:

He got away with it this time, in part I think because I was aware of the possibility of this
happening, hopefully he's learnt his lesson. I think I was giving him all the consideration he
deserved But I refuse to accept responsibility for the stupid and thoughtless action of what
should be a competent adult.

If life has taught me one thing, it is that other people's competence is normally much lower than I
expect ;o)

I don't think you should get hung up on the fault/responsibility thing. under current law it's very
unlikely you would get much punishment even if it was your fault.

All I ask is that you consider how much it would cost you in time to be a bit safer, a bit more able
to handle other peoples mistakes.

Maybe I should just give up buy a huge 4x4 and drive everywhere :o(

chris French said:

I do agree that when driving a large heavy lump of metal we do have a special responsibility to
consider other road users. To then extend that to say that all collisions/ potential collisions of
this sort are the driver responsibility, which seems to be your implication is stretching this too
far IMO.

Well, speaking as someone who drives quite as often as he cycles, I don't agree. The duty of care
you have to other road users _must_ be proportional to the amount of damage you could potentially do
them. On a bicycle, I have a considerable duty of care towards pedestrians, because if I collide
with one (s)he's likely to be hurt. I don't have anything like the same duty of care towards car
drivers, because nothing I do is at all likely to hurt them - they are very protected[1].

Conversely, car drivers (including me when I'm driving a car) have a pretty big duty of care towards
pretty much all other road users, because they are driving an extremely lethal weapon. In another
thread we've recently discussed the death of Ken Kifer; one of the things I noted was that the
motorist who killed him hasn't been charged with careless driving or manslaughter or any other
mitigated offence: he's been charged with murder, and I think that is entirely appropriate and
something which should happen a lot more often here.

Yes, it's ill-mannered to startle someone and it's still more ill-mannered to bruise someone's knee;
and a well mannered person is careful to avoid doing either of these things. But it is yet more
ill-mannered to kill someone, and, indeed, that's a form of bad manners that is pretty difficult to
apologise for afterwards.

[1] I'm not advancing this as an excuse for cyclists being careless or discourteous on the road,
merely to point out that there is an assymetry of responsibility consequent on the lethality of
the vehicle.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

Morning had broken, and I found when I looked that we had run out of copper roove nails.

In message <[email hidden]>, Simon Brooke
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

chris French said:

I do agree that when driving a large heavy lump of metal we do have a special responsibility to
consider other road users. To then extend that to say that all collisions/ potential collisions
of this sort are the driver responsibility, which seems to be your implication is stretching this
too far IMO.

Well, speaking as someone who drives quite as often as he cycles, I don't agree. The duty of care
you have to other road users _must_ be proportional to the amount of damage you could potentially
do them. On a bicycle, I have a considerable duty of care towards pedestrians, because if I collide
with one (s)he's likely to be hurt. I don't have anything like the same duty of care towards car
drivers, because nothing I do is at all likely to hurt them - they are very protected[1].

Possibly not directly no, but dangerous actions on a cyclists part may cause harm indirectly if the
driver is forced to take evasive action. But I take the point you are making.

Quoted message said:

Conversely, car drivers (including me when I'm driving a car) have a pretty big duty of care
towards pretty much all other road users, because they are driving an extremely lethal weapon.

<snip>

I pretty much agree with what you are saying about or responsibility to others road users when
driving. I don't think that is the same thing however as saying that all collisions of cars with
other more vulnerable road users are necessarily their responsibility.

--
Chris French, Leeds