Cyclist hit and runs - what is the answer?



Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:27:13 +0000 (UTC), "p.k."
> <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>> Simply stating someting to be so does not make it so Guy, Try
>> reading it again and look at the accomanying pictures.
>
> You assume I have not. You are wrong. I know it is highly unuusual
> for any driver to be familiar with the Highway Code, but I am one of
> those who is.

Oh i know you have read it, but you do so with your "Cyclists can do no
wrong and the only good drivers are also cyclists" head on - but that is no
surprise as that is apparently your attitude to all things car & bike

>
> Perhaps you would like to describe precisely how you can maintain a
> two-second gap when there is no car in front, which is the case at
> issue?

Straw man.


HC 105 is relevant in moving traffic streams not to a single car.

Others issues of Due care & attention etc are relevant to ther points at
issue, not hc 105.

but if a black dressed idiot without lights cycles on the road and is hit by
a car driving within the laws & rules of the road and at a speed appropriate
to the conditions, then it is the idiots fault.

pk
 
in message <[email protected]>, Just zis Guy,
you know? ('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:29:31 GMT, "calum" <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>I've found what appears to be your explanation.
>
> So has everyone else: he's a troll. A particularly stupid and
> persistent troll :)

Which makes you a particularly stupid and persistent troll-feeder?

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and we had run out of gas for the welding torch.
 
(apologies for quoting this post in full, just wanted to make sure there
was no wiggle room. Followup at the bottom)

in message <[email protected]>, p.k.
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:16:03 +0000 (UTC), "p.k."
>> <[email protected]> said in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> The stopping distances referred to (HC 105) relate to distances
>>> between moving cars. to use the same rule in relation to (say)
>>> pedestrians stepping of pavements or seeing stealth cyclists is
>>> wrong, intellectually dishonest and deliberately distorting.
>>
>> Bzzt! Wrong. Rule 105 makes no reference at all to moving cars. It
>> says you should be able to stop well within the distance you can see
>> to be clear. It's always said that, give or take the odd word. I
>> have heard Plod telling some clueless old bat who drove into a fallen
>> tree exactly that.
>>
>> Of course, some drivers like to /interpret/ it as meaning the distance
>> you can't see to be occupied, or some other variant, but what it
>> /actually/ says is "well within the distance you can see to be clear".
>> It is, to my reading, quite unambiguous.
>
> Simply stating someting to be so does not make it so Guy, Try reading
> it again and look at the accomanying pictures.
>
> the reference to moving traffic is clear and unambiguous hc105 is a
> guide about stopping distances in movign traffic.
>
> HC section in full
>
> Stopping distances
>
> 105: Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the
> distance you can see to be clear. You should
>
> a.. leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so
> that
> you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe
> rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance (see
> Typical Stopping Distances diagram below)
> b.. allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle
> in
> front on roads carrying fast traffic. The gap should be at least
> doubled on wet roads and increased still further on icy roads
> c.. remember, large vehicles and motorcycles need a greater
> distance
> to stop.
>
> Use a fixed point to help measure a two second gap
>
> Typical Stopping Distances
>
> 20
> MPH
> 6 metres 6 metres = 12 metres
> (40 feet)
> or 3 car lengths
>
> 30
> MPH
> 9 metres 14 metres = 23 metres
> (75 feet)
> or 6 car lengths
>
> 40
> MPH
> 12 metres 24 metres = 36 metres
> (120 feet)
> or 9 car lengths
>
> 50
> MPH
> 15 metres 38 metres = 53 metres
> (175 feet)
> or 13 car lengths
>
> 60
> MPH
> 18 metres 55 metres = 73 metres
> (240 feet)
> or 18 car lengths
>
> 70
> MPH
> 21 metres 75 metres = 96 metres
> (315 feet)
> or 24 car lengths
>
> Thinking Distance
> Braking Distance
> average car length = 4 metres

Exactly. As you can see, as Guy said, no reference whatever to moving
cars. There's reference to 'vehicles', and there's reference to 'car
lengths' as units of distance, but none to moving cars. What part of
"Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance
you can see to be clear" do you have /such/ trouble understanding?

Also note that 'typical stopping distances' does not mean 'legal
distances'. You have to be able to stop /your/ vehicle, with /its/
foibles, well within the space /you/ can see to be clear, under the
prevailing conditions. If you hit someone, 'but I left enough room
according to the table in the Highway Code' is precisely no defence at
all.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Copyright (c) Simon Brooke; All rights reserved. Permission is
granted to transfer this message via UUCP or NNTP and to store it
for the purpose of archiving or further transfer. Permission is
explicitly denied to use this message as part of a 'Web Forum', or
to transfer it by HTTP.
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> Exactly. As you can see, as Guy said, no reference whatever to moving
> cars. There's reference to 'vehicles', and there's reference to 'car
> lengths' as units of distance, but none to moving cars. What part of
> "Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance
> you can see to be clear" do you have /such/ trouble understanding?

Now you are just being silly:

"so
> that
> you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops"


ie moving traffic

pk
 
in message <[email protected]>, p.k.
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>> Exactly. As you can see, as Guy said, no reference whatever to moving
>> cars. There's reference to 'vehicles', and there's reference to 'car
>> lengths' as units of distance, but none to moving cars. What part of
>> "Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance
>> you can see to be clear" do you have /such/ trouble understanding?
>
> Now you are just being silly:
>
>> "so that
>> you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops"

which is not only not part of the same sentence, it's not even part of
the same clause. You have to /both/ 'drive in a speed that will allow
you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear' /and/
'leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can
pull up safely'. Not one or the other. You can't choose.

> ie moving traffic

Indeed. Not 'cars'. Pedestrians and horse riders can perfectly legally
show no lights or reflectives at all in the dark.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundum variat.
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> Which makes you a particularly stupid and persistent troll-feeder?
>

I think your earlier call to ignore the trolls, after nods of agreement
all round, has now been roundly ignored.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote on Wednesday 28 December 2005 23:08:

> At least 90% of road "accidents" are not accidents at all, but the
> result of negligence.

Guy,

this aligns remarkably well with my prejudices, although I would have
thought that the number would be higher.

Where would one look for the statistics?

--
Regards
Alex
The From address above is a spam-trap.
The Reply-To address is valid
 
James Annan wrote on Wednesday 28 December 2005 23:56:

> Clearly pedestrians stepping out is a separate situation, since in
> that case the road was seen to be clear

Possibly poor observation?

Pedestrians are always likely in inhabited places.

--
Regards
Alex
The From address above is a spam-trap.
The Reply-To address is valid
 
in message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>> Which makes you a particularly stupid and persistent troll-feeder?
>
> I think your earlier call to ignore the trolls, after nods of agreement
> all round, has now been roundly ignored.

Yes, sorry, apologies everyone. I'll make an early resolution.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Due to financial constraints, the light at the end of the tunnel
has been switched off.
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> Indeed. Not 'cars'. Pedestrians and horse riders can perfectly legally
> show no lights or reflectives at all in the dark.

but the highway code is far from silent as to suggesting what should be worn
by both:

pedestrians
3: Help other road users to see you. Wear or carry something light coloured,
bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions. When it is dark, use
reflective materials (e.g. armbands, sashes, waistcoats and jackets), which
can be seen, by drivers using headlights, up to three times as far away as
non-reflective materials.


34-44: Rules about animals
Horses:
36: At night. It is safer not to ride on the road at night or in poor
visibility, but if you do, make sure your horse has reflective bands above
the fetlock joints. Carry a light which shows white to the front and red to
the rear

pk
 
p.k. wrote:

> HC 105 is relevant in moving traffic streams not to a single car.

Funny. I can't find the bit in 105 that says it doesn't apply to a
single car. The fact that it gives instructions about leaving adequate
gaps in moving traffic does not alter the meaning of its opening
sentence, which I assume you've read as you've quoted it. It's quite
clear that it applies in all conditions.

--
Dave...
 
Alex Potter wrote:

> James Annan wrote on Wednesday 28 December 2005 23:56:
>
>
>>Clearly pedestrians stepping out is a separate situation, since in
>>that case the road was seen to be clear
>
>
> Possibly poor observation?
>
> Pedestrians are always likely in inhabited places.
>

Sure, I'm not suggesting that the driver should be given a free pass in
that situation. But it's not a case of driving (or not) at a "speed that
will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be
clear", and p.k. only seems to have brought it up for the purposes of
distraction.

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/
 
Jim Ley wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:08:08 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> <[email protected]> wrote:

> >if the tree is struck the driver is blamed;
>
> No... that depends on the situation, generally it would be though as
> the tree is rarely in the road, so in the majority of situations the
> car has left the road, that is rarely to anyones blame other than the
> driver.

You seem to imply that if a tree is lying in the road and a driver runs
into that's just bad luck. The driver is clearly in breach of HC 105.
If the tree should fall as the driver approaches it you might have a
case.

--
Dave...
 
James Annan wrote:
> Alex Potter wrote:
>
>> James Annan wrote on Wednesday 28 December 2005 23:56:
>>
>>
>>> Clearly pedestrians stepping out is a separate situation, since in
>>> that case the road was seen to be clear
>>
>>
>> Possibly poor observation?
>>
>> Pedestrians are always likely in inhabited places.
>>
>
> Sure, I'm not suggesting that the driver should be given a free pass
> in that situation. But it's not a case of driving (or not) at a
> "speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can
> see to be clear", and p.k. only seems to have brought it up for the
> purposes of distraction.

No, it was used by someone else arguing that a car hitting someone who
stepped off the pavement was (by definition) unable to stop in the distance
seen to be clear.

I did not raise it.

pk
 
p.k. wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
> >
> > Exactly. As you can see, as Guy said, no reference whatever to moving
> > cars. There's reference to 'vehicles', and there's reference to 'car
> > lengths' as units of distance, but none to moving cars. What part of
> > "Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance
> > you can see to be clear" do you have /such/ trouble understanding?
>
> Now you are just being silly:

I think you are.

> "so
> > that
> > you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops"
>
>
> ie moving traffic

You're reading more into that than is there. There is nothing in HC 105
to suggest that its opening sentence only applies in moving traffic. I
don't think it could be any clearer.

--
Dave...
 
Alex Potter wrote:

> James Annan wrote on Wednesday 28 December 2005 23:56:
>
> > Clearly pedestrians stepping out is a separate situation, since in
> > that case the road was seen to be clear
>
> Possibly poor observation?

Yes, possibly, but not a direct violation of HC 105, which I thought
was the issue.

--
Dave...
 
"Jim Ley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:33:20 -0000, "Tony W"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Jim Ley" <[email protected]> wrote in mssage
>>> STOP defending
>>> cyclists who cycling on the pavement or without lights,
>>
>>I do not defend either.
>
> Your repeated failure to condemn, and your repeated attempts to
> justify their behaviour to due a "lack of evidence" that their
> behaviour causes a risk, certainly reads like defending to me and
> others.

I haven't condemned the murder of the first born this week either. That
does not mean that I am generally in favour of murder of the first born --
though maybe *you* could read it as such.

Now, slowly so you can understand :-

1. pavement cycling is illegal and should be discouraged.

2. riding without lights in the dark is illegal and should be
discouraged.

Guy pointed out and I reaffirmed current police and government thinking is
that someone cycling on the pavement due to a 'reasonable fear' of cycling
on the road should not be prosecuted.

My point is that society ('they' or 'government' or 'the highways
authority') should tackle the real problem and make the roads safer for
cyclists to use. That way the 'reasonable fear' would be significantly
reduced.

Two further points :-

1. when our Neighbourhood Wardens were being given powers to issue fixed
penalty notices for various misdemeanours such as dropping litter I
suggested that the Council should also investigate giving them the power to
issue a fixed penalty notice to pavement cyclists. Unfortunately this was
not taken up -- I think because it remains a police responsibility.

2. I have regularly provided detailed criticism and suggestions on 'road
improvement schemes' to make them safer and more suitable for both cyclists
and pedestrians -- hence to reduce the 'reasonable fear' -- both at the
planning stage and once they have been built. Several designs have been
modified to take on board my concerns.

Now what, exactly, have you done -- other than whinge here -- to reduce
pavement cycling?

T
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 01:10:34 +0000, Simon Brooke
> <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>> Which makes you a particularly stupid and persistent troll-feeder?
>
> Only when I am at my mother's house, using her computer without my own
> killfile.
>

Is there no brain to intercede between your eyes and your fingers then?


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Cyclist is killed in hit-and-run
Replies
0
Views
480
UK and Europe
Alex Potter
A
A
Cyclist hit by car - advice please
Replies
33
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Dave Larrington
D
W
Cyclist victim of bus hit-and-run
Replies
1
Views
465
UK and Europe
Tony Raven
T
A
BBC - Cyclist Chased & Hit by Police car
Replies
35
Views
2K
UK and Europe
TooSore
TooSore
I
pedestrian hit by cyclist
Replies
6
Views
508
UK and Europe
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
Top Bottom Back