Interesting 'accident' ...

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:01:25 GMT, "Colin" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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 wholeheartedly agree and ignore poor driving when I'm out and about
with children teaching them to cycle safely. However... when I'm on
my own I find making drivers make fools of themselves to be a great
sport. Great job, Paul.

My favourite comment on seeing a driver perched atop a road bollard
was, "That's a damn fool place to park."

In article <[email hidden]>

Mark McNeill said:

Response to Rob Morley:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>

spindrift 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.

On the one hand he says it's not about preventing the driver from
overtaking, while on the other he will presumably only let the driver
overtake when he deems it suitable. I wasn't disagreeing with the
sentiment, just the way in which it was expressed.

Quoted message said:

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.

Me too - I won't be bullied to the side of the road and if someone tries
to overtake too close then I'll look at him over my shoulder, veering
towards him as I do so to leave him in no doubt about how much road I
need. (I don't do the veering on purpose, it's just that my neck is
knackered since that [censored] in a Capri drove in the back of me.)

Quoted message said:

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. ;-)]

It's OK when combined with the rules for safe overtaking, but they seem
to get forgotten. Basically it's saying that if the other bloke is
driving like a [censored] you should avoid him.

144: Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a
steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle
pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving
unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to
maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in
front of you.

Quoted message said:

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.

It is really, but unfortunately many drivers don't seem to possess the
mental acuity to determine when it's safe to go.

139: Overtake only when it is safe to do so. You should

not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake

use your mirrors, signal when it is safe to do so, take a quick
sideways glance into the blind spot area and then start to move
out

not assume that you can simply follow a vehicle ahead which is
overtaking; there may only be enough room for one vehicle

move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have
started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left
as soon as you can but do not cut in

take extra care at night and in poor visibility when it is harder
to judge speed and distance

give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles or
other obstructions on your side of the road

only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to
turn right, and there is room to do so

stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the
queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may
pass on the left

give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much
room as you would a car when overtaking (see Rules 188, 189 and
191.

188: When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room
(see Rule 139). If they look over their shoulder whilst you are
following them it could mean that they may soon attempt to turn right.
Give them time and space to do so.

189: Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road
surfaces and obstacles such as draincovers or oily, wet or icy patches
on the road. Give them plenty of room.

Quoted message said:

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 !!!

Paul, Homer certainly rules, please accept my "Doh!", I miss read your
orignal message. I have posted a message elsewhere in the thread saying
as much. I would have done the same in that scenario.

Colin

Mark Thompson came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

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 :-/

bugger.

Here's hoping ...

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

Tom Crispin came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

My favourite comment on seeing a driver perched atop a road bollard
was, "That's a damn fool place to park."

I'll have to remember that one ... 😉

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

GeoffC said:

While I can understand your glee at how things turned out, I am not
convinced that you chose the sensible option.

While I can understand your need to share your opinion, I am not
convinced that you read the whole thread first.

-dan

In news:[email hidden],
Paul - [censored] <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

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.

While I can understand your glee at how things turned out, I am not
convinced that you chose the sensible option. In general, you are better off
with nutters like that in front instead of behind you.
I doubt that he will have learned anything from the incident. Quite possibly
he will react more dangerously the next time he has to interact with a
cyclist.
What would have happened had there been a pedestrian wating on the traffic
island, presumably he would have mown them down too?
Having said all that, I would have probably done the same as you in the same
situation...........and regretted it afterwards.

--

Geoff

In news:[email hidden],
Daniel Barlow <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

GeoffC said:

While I can understand your glee at how things turned out, I am not
convinced that you chose the sensible option.

While I can understand your need to share your opinion, I am not
convinced that you read the whole thread first.

Certainly did

--

Geoff

GeoffC came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

While I can understand your glee at how things turned out,

Hardly glee. More smug satisfaction. 🙂

Quoted message said:

I am not convinced that you chose the sensible option.

Fair comment, we have different views.

Quoted message said:

In general, you are better
off with nutters like that in front instead of behind you.

But this wasn't 'in general'. It happened and I reacted as the situation
presented itself, otherwise there was nothing to tell.

Quoted message said:

I doubt that he will have learned anything from the incident. Quite
possibly he will react more dangerously the next time he has to interact
with a cyclist.

More probably he's going to get a rollocking and possibly a bill from his
bosses, a bill from the council and [censored]-loads of [censored]-taking from his
workmates. I suspect he'll not be as hasty in the future.

Quoted message said:

What would have happened had there been a pedestrian wating on the traffic
island, presumably he would have mown them down too?

Woulda coulda shoulda ... there wasn't, he didn't. Nothing to add.

Quoted message said:

Having said all that, I would have probably done the same as you in the
same situation...........and regretted it afterwards.

I sincerely doNOT regret it at all.

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

Response to Rob Morley:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

It is really,

Is it? I suppose the HC says so, but why, when you think about it?
Many cyclists will have more experience, more critical information, and
a bigger stake in the manouevre than many motorists.

Quoted message said:

but unfortunately many drivers don't seem to possess the
mental acuity to determine when it's safe to go.

Ho yuss.

Drivers can decide whether to overtake or not; but I can in theory
encourage them on the one hand, or prevent them on the other, or of
course do nothing either way. Perhaps the best way to put it is that
they can decide they'd like to overtake; but (depending on the road) I
have a veto.

Funnily enough I seem to be going through a phase [OK, just three times
in the last couple of weeks] of getting honked at when I'm in the
primary position, but going at the same speed as the traffic in front:
it's tempting to graciously allow them through, fall in immediately
behind, and then hit the AirZound. ;-) I wouldn't, though, only partly
because first I'd have to re-install the AirZound.

--
Mark, UK
"The origin of all science is the desire to know causes, and the origin
of all false science and imposture is the desire to accept false causes
rather than none, or, which is the same thing, in the unwillingness to
acknowledge our own ignorance."

In news:[email hidden],
Paul - [censored] <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

GeoffC came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

While I can understand your glee at how things turned out,

Hardly glee. More smug satisfaction. 🙂

Sounds about right :-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am not convinced that you chose the sensible option.

Fair comment, we have different views.

Quoted message said:

In general, you are better
off with nutters like that in front instead of behind you.

But this wasn't 'in general'. It happened and I reacted as the
situation presented itself, otherwise there was nothing to tell.

OK it made a good story, as it happened turned out alright with only
material damage. Not without considerable risk though.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I doubt that he will have learned anything from the incident. Quite
possibly he will react more dangerously the next time he has to
interact with a cyclist.

More probably he's going to get a rollocking and possibly a bill from
his bosses, a bill from the council and [censored]-loads of [censored]-taking
from his workmates. I suspect he'll not be as hasty in the future.

In a perfect world yes, depends how easy it is to replace him. Otherwise
he'll keep his job, insurance will cough up for the damage and he'll go on
his merry way. IME people like that don't readily learn from their mistakes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What would have happened had there been a pedestrian wating on the
traffic island, presumably he would have mown them down too?

Woulda coulda shoulda ... there wasn't, he didn't. Nothing to add.

Still a risk though which is impossible to forsee. Basically, if somebody is
as wound up as he was, unpredictability is the order of the day.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Having said all that, I would have probably done the same as you in
the same situation...........and regretted it afterwards.

I sincerely doNOT regret it at all.

I noticed :-)

--

Geoff

Mark McNeill said:

Response to Rob Morley:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

It is really,

Is it?

Of course it is. The driver behnind decides to overtake, it's his
decision. You can't prevent it.

The decision to overtake is absolutely solely with teh overtaker.
They ytake that decision, you can't prevent it.

Quoted message said:

course do nothing either way. Perhaps the best way to put it is that
they can decide they'd like to overtake; but (depending on the road) I
have a veto.

You have no veto. Nothing you can do can stop them attempting to
overtake (unless you count flinging yourself onto teh bonnet, in
which case they can't actually get ahead of you becauseyou're attached
to their vehicle).

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

Response to Ian Smith:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is it?

Of course it is. The driver behnind decides to overtake, it's his
decision. You can't prevent it.

I can't prevent a decision being made [although of course I can
influence it], but I can certainly prevent it being carried out. As so
often the issue comes down to language, and it depends how pedantic we
want to be.

Just a couple of days ago I had a driver rev his engine hard and pull
out to a position diagonally just behind me. I was in the primary
position, and held it, because there was a car coming the other way and
in *my* judgement the manouevre wasn't safe; the would-be overtaker fell
back and waited - and in the event I turned off that road a few yards
later. I'd say that he had made a decision to overtake, but I had
prevented him from overtaking; you may describe it differently.

Quoted message said:

You have no veto. Nothing you can do can stop them attempting to
overtake (unless you count flinging yourself onto teh bonnet, in
which case they can't actually get ahead of you becauseyou're attached
to their vehicle).

So in a situation such as above, where by my road positioning I give a
driver a choice between running me down [which presumably doesn't count
as overtaking], colliding head-on with another car [which wouldn't
result in overtaking], and not overtaking, have I prevented them from
overtaking or not?

--
Mark, UK
"On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created
the Earth."

Ian Smith said:

Of course it is. The driver behnind decides to overtake, it's his
decision. You can't prevent it.

Indeed, like the BMW that overtook me by going the wrong side of the
keep-left bollard in the middle of the road just 20 minutes ago. Gain for
the BMW? None, there was a queue of 5 or 6 cars immediately in front.

Mike

Mark McNeill said:

Quoted message said:

You have no veto. Nothing you can do can stop them attempting to
overtake (unless you count flinging yourself onto teh bonnet, in
which case they can't actually get ahead of you becauseyou're attached
to their vehicle).

So in a situation such as above, where by my road positioning I give a
driver a choice between running me down [which presumably doesn't count
as overtaking], colliding head-on with another car [which wouldn't
result in overtaking], and not overtaking, have I prevented them from
overtaking or not?

There are situations where allowing a driver to overtake puts you at
increased danger. We all recognise them and do what we can to negotiate
with other road users about a consensus for using the roads. In most
cases, if you cannot prevent Mr aggressive from passing, then it is
probably safe for him to pass. If your road positioning can prevent a
pass then it becomes a judgement call on the part of the person in
front.

I will always pull over to let someone past if safe to do so. That may
well be after a mile or so on some of the roads around here.

As regards Matt B: If the driver slows down and waits patiently, I know
he is there and will let them past as soon as it is safe for me to do
so, usually with acknowledgements.

...d

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:05:32 +0100 someone who may be Matt B
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Can anyone suggest an acceptable way of how a motorist can politely say
"excuse me" to a cyclist in front of him?

At the risk of feeding the troll, the motorist doesn't need to. The
cyclist will be aware of the motorist due to the tyre, engine and
possibly wind noise. Anything else the motorist does is impolite.

--
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

Rob Morley twisted the electrons to say:

Quoted message said:

139: Overtake only when it is safe to do so. You should
not assume that you can simply follow a vehicle ahead which is
overtaking; there may only be enough room for one vehicle

It amazing how little attention many people seem to apply to this little
rule. I particularly like those eejits who decide to "follow overtake"
when the vehicle in front is one that they can't see around, over or
through.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Response to David Hansen:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Can anyone suggest an acceptable way of how a motorist can politely say
"excuse me" to a cyclist in front of him?

At the risk of feeding the troll, the motorist doesn't need to. The
cyclist will be aware of the motorist due to the tyre, engine and
possibly wind noise.

This is something that the non-cyclist is particularly likely to be
unaware of; whether MattB falls into that category I don't know. ;-)

--
Mark, UK
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist
the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

David Hansen said:

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:05:32 +0100 someone who may be Matt B
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Can anyone suggest an acceptable way of how a motorist can politely say
"excuse me" to a cyclist in front of him?

At the risk of feeding the troll, the motorist doesn't need to. The
cyclist will be aware of the motorist due to the tyre, engine and
possibly wind noise. Anything else the motorist does is impolite.

Yes, yes. But, if the cyclist doesn't respond (there is such a thing as
a rude cyclist too), or if the motorist isn't sure whether the cyclist
is aware of his desire to pass, what would be be the most acceptable
action to take?

--
Matt B

Mark McNeill said:

Response to David Hansen:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Can anyone suggest an acceptable way of how a motorist can politely say
"excuse me" to a cyclist in front of him?

At the risk of feeding the troll, the motorist doesn't need to. The
cyclist will be aware of the motorist due to the tyre, engine and
possibly wind noise.

This is something that the non-cyclist is particularly likely to be
unaware of;

We could therefore have the situation where the motorist doesn't know
whether the cyclist knows he is there or not. What should the motorist
or the cyclist do to clarify the position?

Quoted message said:

whether MattB falls into that category I don't know. ;-)

Do you care? ;-)

--
Matt B