Interesting 'accident' ...

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Martin Bulmer

(') said:

Delighted to hear it, BUT (Devil's Advocate time), given what we know
about inconsiderate and impatient drivers, a bit of considerate
submissive cycling could have prevented this accident.

I really strongly do not agree. If the driver learns he can bully cyclists,
he will bully cyclists - and some less experienced cyclist will either be
put off cycling for ever, or seriously injured, or killed.

I guess it will probably confirm /his/ opinion of cyclists, and he will
probably blame /all/ cyclists for his predicament. The result will
possibly be an even less tolerant attitude towards them.

Generally, aggressive drivers are probably best accommodated. They are,
as far as you are concerned, safer in front of you than behind you.

Imagine a similar scenario as a pedestrian on a narrow path. If you
were strolling along, and a jogger was approaching more quickly from
behind, would you give way, or would you stubbornly stand your ground,
making them wait, until you eventually arrived at a point where the path
was wide enough for them to pass without you having to "pull over".

--
Matt B

In article <[email hidden]>

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Martin Bulmer

(') said:

Delighted to hear it, BUT (Devil's Advocate time), given what we know
about inconsiderate and impatient drivers, a bit of considerate
submissive cycling could have prevented this accident.

I really strongly do not agree. If the driver learns he can bully cyclists,
he will bully cyclists - and some less experienced cyclist will either be
put off cycling for ever, or seriously injured, or killed.

Agreed - if confident cyclists are willing to give [censored] drivers a hard
time then the drivers may realise that treating cyclists badly can
create hassle, and try to avoid it.

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Martin Bulmer

(') said:

Delighted to hear it, BUT (Devil's Advocate time), given what we know
about inconsiderate and impatient drivers, a bit of considerate
submissive cycling could have prevented this accident.

I really strongly do not agree. If the driver learns he can bully cyclists,
he will bully cyclists - and some less experienced cyclist will either be
put off cycling for ever, or seriously injured, or killed.

Agreed - if confident cyclists are willing to give [censored] drivers a hard
time then the drivers may realise that treating cyclists badly can
create hassle, and try to avoid it.

Or, alternatively, they may "take it out" on softer cyclist targets. Do
not antagonise them would be my advice. Would you deliberately goad an
aggressive dog?

--
Matt B

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Martin Bulmer

(') said:

Delighted to hear it, BUT (Devil's Advocate time), given what we know
about inconsiderate and impatient drivers, a bit of considerate
submissive cycling could have prevented this accident.

I really strongly do not agree. If the driver learns he can bully cyclists,
he will bully cyclists - and some less experienced cyclist will either be
put off cycling for ever, or seriously injured, or killed.

Agreed - if confident cyclists are willing to give [censored] drivers a hard
time then the drivers may realise that treating cyclists badly can
create hassle, and try to avoid it.

Of course. It's not a question of "allowing" aggressive drivers
through, it's about being in a far better position than the driver to
assess what is a good place for over taking.

In article <[email hidden]>

spindrift said:

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Martin Bulmer
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

> Delighted to hear it, BUT (Devil's Advocate time), given what we know
> about inconsiderate and impatient drivers, a bit of considerate
> submissive cycling could have prevented this accident.

I really strongly do not agree. If the driver learns he can bully cyclists,
he will bully cyclists - and some less experienced cyclist will either be
put off cycling for ever, or seriously injured, or killed.

Agreed - if confident cyclists are willing to give [censored] drivers a hard
time then the drivers may realise that treating cyclists badly can
create hassle, and try to avoid it.

Of course. It's not a question of "allowing" aggressive drivers
through, it's about being in a far better position than the driver to
assess what is a good place for over taking.

That seems contradictory to me. Also I'm not in the habit of making
other drivers' decisions for them, but if I need some space on the road
then I'll take it regardless of whether they think I should or not.

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:31:00 GMT someone who may be "David Lloyd"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

The company would at least be interested in the damage to the van.

And the contents.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Response to Rob Morley:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course. It's not a question of "allowing" aggressive drivers
through, it's about being in a far better position than the driver to
assess what is a good place for over taking.

That seems contradictory to me. Also I'm not in the habit of making
other drivers' decisions for them, but if I need some space on the road
then I'll take it regardless of whether they think I should or not.

I can't see why it seems contradictory [or do you mean he should have
put another "not" in there somewhere?], I was thinking more or less just
those words. There are a couple of places on my short commute where
drivers would like to overtake, but which I know are extremely iffy; so
I don't let them overtake.

That's one of the very few parts of the Highway Code which - if taken
literally - I think is unequivocally dangerous bollocks: "Never obstruct
drivers who wish to pass." If I never did that, I'd prolly be dead by
now. [Unless a h*lm*t saved my life, obv. ;-)]

I wouldn't put it as making drivers' decisions for them, because I don't
think the decision is the drivers' to make. To put it like that implies
what many drivers already wrongly believe and what the HC reinforces,
that the decision to overtake is and should be solely for the overtaker.

--
Mark, UK
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat,
and wrong."

"Rob Morley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>
spindrift <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course. It's not a question of "allowing" aggressive drivers
through, it's about being in a far better position than the driver to
assess what is a good place for over taking.

That seems contradictory to me. Also I'm not in the habit of making
other drivers' decisions for them, but if I need some space on the road
then I'll take it regardless of whether they think I should or not.

It's not firstly about making other people's decisions for them, it's
firstly about you putting your *safety* above the *convenience* of a third
party, where their convenience of saving a few seconds places you in danger.

Example - where I am there are lots of narrow, twisting lanes, where it is
difficult to overtake safely. If necessary, I will occupy road space to
prevent a driver behind me from overtaking if I think his/her overtaking
would place me in danger. If a driver is courteous and gives me physical
space and patience to wait until it is safe to overtake, I will always try
to acknowledge their courtesy with a 'thank you' wave and a smile, or if
they've got their window down, I'll say a 'thank you'. Similarly, I will
happily pull in to the side of the road to allow a motorist to overtake, if
there's a safe place for me to pull in. I find that will often get a 'thank
you' wave from the motorist as he/she goes by.

A bit of mutual respect and courtesy goes a long way to making the roads
safer and enjoyable for all.

From the OP's first posting where he says, "As the road is a 30 limit, I'm
doing approx 25mph, there are shops down one side with a railing and
pedestrian crossing islands every few yards I'm disinclined to move over,
and so continue to hold my position and pace." I think I'd be holding my
ground as it sounds as if it wouldn't be safe to pull over to the side due
to the railing.

Clive George said:

"Rob Morley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>

Tony Raven said:

Paul - [censored] wrote on 18/10/2006 12:39 +0100:
>
> 'Revenge' was pretty sweet. 😉
>

Sometimes events happen that really challenge my atheism ;-)

There's no need for a divine being, it's the natural balance being re-
established - it just happens that sometimes the action is gratifyingly
apparent.

I was wondering if it was trying to cancel out Don's crash.

That's it! I bet Paul - [censored] has just applied for one of those credit cards.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"Lord, please make me the kind of person my dog thinks I am."

(Original msg quote)
Until there's a longer stretch, so he revs freely, drives wildly past, moves
into the space, slams anchors on, which I had anticipated, only for me to
overtake him and resume station, as I kept pace and he nearly stopped. [1]

"Martin Bulmer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Delighted to hear it, BUT (Devil's Advocate time), given what we know

about

Quoted message said:

inconsiderate and impatient drivers, a bit of considerate submissive

cycling

Quoted message said:

could have prevented this accident. Would it have hurt you to let him

past?

Quoted message said:

Would you, perhaps have been a few seconds late arriving at your journey's
end? It could have been journey's end for any peds/kids/puschairs on that
crossing island, and although that would not be your fault, you would
probably not be feeling quite so triumphant. I do things like this myself,
but always end up wondering whether it is worth standing our ground, or

just

Quoted message said:

better to let the idiot have his accident somewhere where I'm not.
ps, I hope you weren't using that camera phone while taking part in this
joust?
(ducks & runs)
--

Martin Bulmer

As a bit of newbie here, Martin has said what I dared not to! Similar to
Martin, I also have this sort revengefull lapse, but often feel guilty
afterwards! I think it is good practice to try to stop someone overtaking
you where it is unsafe, even if they sound aggitated. However once a angry
WVM has past, I would say that is the best place for him! Assuming I have
read the original message correctly (relevant paragraph posted above),
overtaking the WVM, whilst amazingly satisfying cannot be the safest
option - I would not consider it submisive cycling to resist the temptation
to overtake someone who would very soon need to pass me again.

I dont think think that it is a cyclist's job, however competant to teach
motorist 'lessons' - If they are poor or unlawfull drivers, that is between
them and the authorities. I see my duty as a road user to cycle in a way
that is safe for me & other road users - and where possible, to set an
example to others. Moments when the red comes down over the eyes only cloud
judgement!

Colin

Martin Bulmer said:

a bit of considerate submissive cycling could have prevented this
accident. Would it have hurt you to let him past?

Possibly. On a road with traffic-islands and insufficient space to
pass, it could possibly have killed him to let the van past.

Is that a reasonable trade in your view? Delay of 30 seconds to a
driver is worth risk of death to cyclist? Obviously the van driver
decided it was a worthwhile risk (and also decided the risk of killing
a pedestrian was worth the benefit of cycling at a cyclist that
delayed him), but do you really think likewise?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Don Whybrow came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

David Lloyd said:

The company would at least be interested in the damage to the van. I
doubt that they will get the honest picture from the van driver.

The local authority will be interested in the damage to the street
furniture. It's amazing just how expensive that stuff can be when
someone else is paying for it.

As I'm a school caretaker I also know exactly whom to contact to get this
moving. 🙂

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

Simon Mason came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

"Paul - [censored]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Best bit was an ambulance had also been following and the
driver/paramedic both witnessed it all and called him all kinds of names
before he even got a chance to say anything to me ...

'Revenge' was pretty sweet. 😉

If the phone camera pics come out anything like decent I'll upload them
sometime.

Look forward to seeing them Paul :-)

So am I ... unfortunately the phone is at Foneclinic getting the screen
fixed (totally separate 'sitting down quickly' incident) and I dunno what
state the existing pics/mp3's will be in when it gets back. 🙁

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

Quoted message said:

As a bit of newbie here, Martin has said what I dared not to! Similar to
Martin, I also have this sort revengefull lapse, but often feel guilty
afterwards! I think it is good practice to try to stop someone overtaking
you where it is unsafe, even if they sound aggitated. However once a angry
WVM has past, I would say that is the best place for him! Assuming I have
read the original message correctly (relevant paragraph posted above),
overtaking the WVM, whilst amazingly satisfying cannot be the safest
option - I would not consider it submisive cycling to resist the

temptation

Quoted message said:

to overtake someone who would very soon need to pass me again.

I dont think think that it is a cyclist's job, however competant to teach
motorist 'lessons' - If they are poor or unlawfull drivers, that is

between

Quoted message said:

them and the authorities. I see my duty as a road user to cycle in a way
that is safe for me & other road users - and where possible, to set an
example to others. Moments when the red comes down over the eyes only

cloud

Quoted message said:

judgement!

Colin

After re-reading a couple of times, it appears I !have! misunderstood the
original message. For some bizarre reason, I thought that Paulxxx had
overtaken the WVM because he had simply slowed down from overtaking speed to
a more sedate pace (I had promoted Paul to TDF contender :-) Rather than as
I now understand it, slowed down to almost stop for the purposes of giving
Paul an unwanted bit of his probably meagre mind!

I would have done the same in Paul's place, being quite slight I prefer
flight rather than fight so if for no other reason, I would have overtaken
him so I could wheel it away!

Therefore I retract that bit of my posting! However the second part still
stands. Staying out in the road in this scenario is nothing really to do
with teaching WVM a lesson, just a matter of self preservtion - allthough I
would not want to anger somone to the point where they tap my back wheel
with their bumper, I fear they would win!

Many Apologies,

Colin
(still, most obviously a newbie :-/!)

Martin Bulmer came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

Delighted to hear it, BUT (Devil's Advocate time), given what we know
about inconsiderate and impatient drivers, a bit of considerate
submissive cycling could have prevented this accident. Would it have hurt
you to let him past?

I think probably more so than how I proceeded. Certainly stopping to let
him by would have probably made him slow down more, maybe to a complete
stop, until I could get the bike off the road sufficiently for him to pass.
Pinch-points and pedestrian islands are pretty narrow road spaces ... and
the areas between pretty short. I couldn't slow down enough without
stopping and getting off the road to _safely_ allow him by.

Quoted message said:

Would you, perhaps have been a few seconds late
arriving at your journey's end?

Nope, no 'end' in sight really ...

Quoted message said:

It could have been journey's end for any
peds/kids/puschairs on that crossing island, and although that would not
be your fault, you would probably not be feeling quite so triumphant. I
do things like this myself, but always end up wondering whether it is
worth standing our ground, or just better to let the idiot have his
accident somewhere where I'm not.
ps, I hope you weren't using that camera phone while taking part in this
joust?

Heheheheh, nope.

I took the view that whilst I'm a very competent cyclist (and driver, driver
of a 4x4, van, horse-box, 24' bed flat bed lorry, cars, motorcycles and
sundry other vehicles), it simply wasn't safe to be passed by a van in the
space available, hence I kept my position and speed.

As it happens, when we got to the wider bits where he could pass, I did move
over a little to accomodate him ... I was merely proceeding at a speed
commensurate with safe riding and driving conditions, he seemed to want to
get a point across. If I had moved over earlier there would still, In My
Opinion, not have been enough space for a safe overtake at the speeds we
were going.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

Simon Brooke came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Martin Bulmer

(') said:

Delighted to hear it, BUT (Devil's Advocate time), given what we know
about inconsiderate and impatient drivers, a bit of considerate
submissive cycling could have prevented this accident.

I really strongly do not agree. If the driver learns he can bully
cyclists, he will bully cyclists - and some less experienced cyclist will
either be put off cycling for ever, or seriously injured, or killed.

Not how my thought processes worked on the day, see my direct reply to MB
but absolutely spot-on.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

Matt B came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Martin Bulmer
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

> Delighted to hear it, BUT (Devil's Advocate time), given what we know
> about inconsiderate and impatient drivers, a bit of considerate
> submissive cycling could have prevented this accident.
I really strongly do not agree. If the driver learns he can bully
cyclists, he will bully cyclists - and some less experienced cyclist
will either be put off cycling for ever, or seriously injured, or
killed.

Agreed - if confident cyclists are willing to give [censored] drivers a hard
time then the drivers may realise that treating cyclists badly can
create hassle, and try to avoid it.

Or, alternatively, they may "take it out" on softer cyclist targets. Do
not antagonise them would be my advice. Would you deliberately goad an
aggressive dog?

I wasn't 'goading' him at all, merely keeping pace and line commensurate
with safe riding and driving conditions.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

wafflycat came up with the following;:

<snipped other stuff that was also absolutely bang-on>

Quoted message said:

From the OP's first posting where he says, "As the road is a 30 limit, I'm
doing approx 25mph, there are shops down one side with a railing and
pedestrian crossing islands every few yards I'm disinclined to move over,
and so continue to hold my position and pace." I think I'd be holding my
ground as it sounds as if it wouldn't be safe to pull over to the side due
to the railing.

Spot on ... 😉

.... and yes, the railings were on 'my' side ... 😉

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

Colin came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

(Original msg quote)
Until there's a longer stretch, so he revs freely, drives wildly past,
moves into the space, slams anchors on, which I had anticipated, only for
me to overtake him and resume station, as I kept pace and he nearly
stopped. [1]

"Martin Bulmer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Delighted to hear it, BUT (Devil's Advocate time), given what we know
about inconsiderate and impatient drivers, a bit of considerate
submissive cycling could have prevented this accident. Would it have
hurt you to let him past? Would you, perhaps have been a few seconds
late arriving at your journey's end? It could have been journey's end
for any peds/kids/puschairs on that crossing island, and although that
would not be your fault, you would probably not be feeling quite so
triumphant. I do things like this myself, but always end up wondering
whether it is worth standing our ground, or just better to let the idiot
have his accident somewhere where I'm not.
ps, I hope you weren't using that camera phone while taking part in this
joust?
(ducks & runs)
--

Martin Bulmer

As a bit of newbie here, Martin has said what I dared not to! Similar to
Martin, I also have this sort revengefull lapse, but often feel guilty
afterwards! I think it is good practice to try to stop someone overtaking
you where it is unsafe, even if they sound aggitated. However once a angry
WVM has past, I would say that is the best place for him! Assuming I have
read the original message correctly (relevant paragraph posted above),
overtaking the WVM, whilst amazingly satisfying cannot be the safest
option - I would not consider it submisive cycling to resist the
temptation to overtake someone who would very soon need to pass me again.

Possibly true. I took the view that as he'd nearly stopped, and I had
barely caressed the brake levers, it was more prudent to go past and
continue. By the time he'd caught up with me again, the road was beginning
to widen out anyway ...

I probably also assumed that as he'd just about braked to a standstill he
was possibly likely to get out and be even more physically argumentative.

Quoted message said:

I dont think think that it is a cyclist's job, however competant to teach
motorist 'lessons' -

I wasn't. (See other posts for my thought processes)

Quoted message said:

If they are poor or unlawfull drivers, that is
between them and the authorities. I see my duty as a road user to cycle
in a way that is safe for me & other road users

Which is _exactly_ what I was doing.

Quoted message said:

- and where possible, to set an example to others.

I prefer my example to not be riding in the gutter and over manhole/drainage
covers.

Quoted message said:

Moments when the red comes down over the eyes
only cloud judgement!

The red mist wasn't in my eyes ...

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

Quoted message said:

So am I ... unfortunately the phone is at Foneclinic getting the
screen fixed (totally separate 'sitting down quickly' incident) and I
dunno what state the existing pics/mp3's will be in when it gets back.
🙁

I think they usually delete them for no particular reason :-/