"Paul Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Ahh!! More wisdom from Smith.
Quoted message said:It's just the quality of driver's risk assessment. Whenever they see a hazard they recognise as
dangerous (and I mean dangerous to anyone) they give it a wide berth.
In general, yes.
Quoted message said:If they don't perceive the risk they don't bother to give a wide berth. There's no logical reason
they should. It's the quality of risk assessment that needs improving.
Again, yes. But we have to cope with the terminally stupid.
Quoted message said:The thing about "softer targets" or "risk to others" simply isn't true. Any risk will do, but it
has to be recognised as such.
No - and I give you an example. Driver starts to overtake a cyclist on a blind, right hand bend.
Initially pulling out sufficiently to avoid the cyclist - but, in doing so reducing his view round
the bend and placing himself in increased risk of traffic coming in the opposite direction.
The driver has percieved the immediate 'risk' - the cyclist - but has ignored the potential risk -
the van coming in the opposite direction.
Now said van is coming in the opposite direction. The cyclist sees it and
1) pulls in to increase the following drivers available space (knowing exactly what is comming) and
2) attempts to indicate to the following driver to stay back (the famous Smith signal 'understood
by most drivers - but not thisone).
Driver suddenly sees the oncoming van (white, and obviously travelling too fast itself so taking a
wide line).
The VAN is now the immediate perceived risk. The cyclist is either forgotten or ignored. The car
pulls over to the left leaving nowhere to go but the bank (no- not one that you get money from).
Van & car vanish into their various distances. Cyclist picks himself from the nettles, briars and
other stuff - checking spectacles, testicles, wallet and watch - plus all limbs and his bike.
Swears an evil oath, praises any passing deity for salvation, climbs gingerly back on his bike,
aborts ride and wobbles the 2 miles back back home t change his trousers, dress his wounds and
recover his composure.
Fanciful? No. Happened to me about six years ago.
Quoted message said:As far as cyclists and close passing are concerned, most drivers recognise the dangers and pass
wide enough.
Yes
Quoted message said:Those that don't simply didn't anticipate the risks properly.
No, those that don't are a danger to other road users and should be removed from the roads.
Quoted message said:And anticipation is absolutely required, one could pass a non-wobbling, non-deviating, unaffected
by slipstream cyclist safely with a foot or so to spare.
No cyclist is so wobble proof. Did the driver also scan the road ahead to check for pot holes,
small children on the pavement, gusts of wind etc. that might have caused even the most stable
cyclist to wobble.
Quoted message said:Recognising that cyclists have none of these quality is a function of driver anticipation.
As I said, no cyclist is so stable -- all of the time.
Quoted message said:
Waving your brolly around looks like a risk, even to the worst, and I'm not surprised.
Driving well isn't easy, yet we allow all sorts of folk to drive. Most people consider that the
risks of allowing the dumbest to drive are outweighed by permitting the population the freedom of
movement that driving allows. Personally I'd rather see the worst 10% permanently excluded from
the roads, but I don't rate that as likely.
You presume that removing the right to drive limits a persons freedom of movement. There are many
other available forms of transport and something over 25% of all households (thouse wiothout cars)
make use of them.
Quoted message said:Perhaps I'm the only one around here who has actually studied road driving?
No, most of us do it daily -- from behind the wheel and / or the handlebars. I tell you, the
standards are dire.
T
