Manifesto

Paul Smith said:

<snip type="out of office">

While I haven't attempted to look, are you sure your address isn't readily obtainable? Posting
things like this to a public newsgroup is almost as sensible as putting a "Hi, I'm in India for the
next four weeks" out of office reply on your email. (Some enlightened companies do not allow "out of
office" replies to go outside the company network (and forward them to someone who can deal with
them) but most do not :-( )

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

tjw.hn.orgtjw.hn.orgOpen ↗ locofungus.btinternet.co.uklocofungus.btinternet.co.ukOpen ↗

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

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It was also a direct risk to the driver's own survival -- as such it is understandable that he
ignored the minor inconvenience (aka lesser danger) -- me.

You might think it understandable, but that's not how it works.

How else does it work then? The human brain prioritises. The most greater risk to an individual's
own survival (or injury) takes priority over a risk to another individual. More recent risks take
priority over older risks (unless the older is significantly more serious).

There are exceptions -- parent (particularly Mother)-child being the most obvious though war heroes
have frequently ignored their own safety to rescue colleagues.

However, this is not vital to the argument. I accept that, under the circumstances the driver was
going to be squeezing my space.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But you could have avoided your accident by braking hard as soon as you realised that the
overtaking car was relying on the non-appearence of oncoming traffic. Then when the overtaker
had to swing left you would have been behind.

Quoted message said:

Given the circumstances -- at which I was present and you were not -- I expect that there was
more I could have done to reduce the risk to

myself.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Probably, I too, reacted to the primary risk at each point of the

incident.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I do not believe braking hard would have made that much diffeernce -- but

I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cnanot swear to that. However, I do dismiss it as another Smith broad generalisation based on
inadequate knowledge.

You gave a reasonable description. I quote:

"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 perceived the immediate 'risk' - the cyclist - but has ignored the potential risk -
the van coming in the opposite direction."

At this point you are as well equipped as the driver to recognise the potential danger. You would
not have had to think hard to realise that oncoming traffic appearing would force the overtaker
left into your space. You could have pre-empted the risk by stopping to allow space for the daft
overtaker to pull left.

I have reflected on this some more. There are good reasons why this was NOT a viable course of
action -- as, I suspect, any cyclist will confirm. Firstly, braking hard while going round a bend
significantly compromises the accuracy of steering and accurate steering was necessary to provide
the maximum space for my motorised friends.

Secondly, slamming on the anchors with a tonne plus of metal relatively close to one's jacksee does
not seem a good option -- especially given that my perception of his position would be derived from
sound only (and his first indication that I am slowing is when I am disappearing under the wheels --
bikes are not fitted with brake lights). Turning to look where he was would again compromise
steering, could initiate a wobble and result in a car up the jacksee.

Finally, you will remember I had already given the famous Paul Smith universal stay behind me signal
-- which was ignored -- which had already compromised my steering slightly. A bicycle is, by its
very nature, an inherently unstable device that requires continuous closed loop control (much of it
subconscious) to keep it stable. Any perturbation will induce a wobble.

On balance I think my choices were about right (allowing, obviously, that there may have been better
options if I had perceived the danger earlier but the opportunities for this were, I believe,
limited. Remember this was a road I knew well and this was the worst but not the only incidence of
this sort of stupid driving). I did succeed in steering close enough to the road edge to provide
both drivers sufficient space -- and this was important since any collision (even a glancing
contact) between the car and van would probably have thrown the car in my direction with unpleasant
consequences.

I was not hit by the car though its proximity and draft may have been the final straw. Basically I
ended up in the hedge because I ran out of manoeuvring room and clipped the bank -- ultimately my
failure to steer precisely enough.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The 'solution' I adopted after this incident was to be MUCH more

aggressive

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in cycling round this bend -- pulling 1/2 to 2/3rds of the way out into

MY

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

lane (i.e. the only lane going in that direction) so giving drivers a

MUCH

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

starker choice if they wanted to overtake. This resulted in frequent hooting and significant
abuse -- but tough [censored].

After the event. That's OK, but getting a good solution first time would have been better.

I lived to tell the tale with only minor scratches and bruises - sound a good enough outcome to me!!

We can all dream up idealised 'solutions' later in the comfort of our bath!!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The problems with this approach were 1) I reduced my view round the bend

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2) I needed to tapper my move across the lane to maintain my visibility

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

following traffic and so avoid becoming road kill as some stupid sod

roarded

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

round the bend at stupid speeds. From this you may estimate that, while driving is hard, cycling
can require even more thought and skill -- and, sadly, there is no (as far as I am aware) Instute
of Advanced Cyclists

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

nice people to train you in survival strategies. See -- motorists have

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

easy!!

No one has it easy. We must all take proper responsibility for our own safety.

What about taking responsibility for the safety of others?? That would seem to be the critical issue
here. One [censored]-head could not predict danger, would not be delayed (despite being advised of a
danger) and so threatened at least 3 lives.

Quoted message said:

If you think there should be a groups of advanced cyclists, then start one. I think it's an
excellent idea.

Frankly, getting some cyclists trained to a very basic level would be more cost effective.
Getting idiot drivers off the road until they are competent to control a tonne of metal would be
even better.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>As I said, no cyclist is so stable -- all of the time.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yeah. That's what I said too.

Quoted message said:

Please point to the place where you said this because I have re-read your post and do not see it.
I accept your 'perfect' cyclist is an abstraction -- but you never actually say so -- rather
describing him as

if

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

he exists.

Yawn...

Keeping you up, are we. Pay attention.

Quoted message said:

Quoting myself:

"As far as cyclists and close passing are concerned, most drivers recognise the dangers and pass
wide enough. Those that don't simply didn't anticipate the risks properly. 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. Recognising that cyclists have none of these quality is
a function of driver anticipation."

That last sentence does the job. Shame I wrote "quality" rather than "qualities"

I corrected your English. I even made the wild assumption that you were, in the first part,
describing an idealised cyclist. I will take your word that 'the last sentence does the job' though
I have to be generous so to do.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>You presume that removing the right to drive limits a persons freedom

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>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:

Quoted message said:

I don't. You agreed with me.

Quoted message said:

At the risk of entering a Did/Didn't arguement -- No I din't.

Yawn. Quoting self again:

"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."

That last sentence. (and that I said "most people consider..."😉

We are both clearly fluent -- sadly, in different languages.

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is gross arrogance to claim that your 'study' is inherently better

than

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

anyone else's 'observation'.

No it isn't. I've been specifically studying and researching for many years. It's just fact.

Then you don't seem able to put over any earthshattering ideas in such a way as to convince some of
the very experienced road users here.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe you have, indeed, 'studied' driving -- but you still manage to put forward some
stupid ideas.

That's because you don't understand... And this message shows very clearly that your comprehension
is seriously [censored].

Well thank you kind Sir. As you no doubt appreciate, I believe you are a self opinionated idiot
promoting a delusional set of dangerous ideas.

Have a nice 10 days away -- I( am sure many here will appreciate the peace and quiet.

T

Quoted message said:

--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK safespeed.org.uksafespeed.org.ukOpen ↗ please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's
make speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving

Paul Smith said:

Because I've observed a lot of drivers and I see something different of course.

I guarantee that per mile/hour/year whatever, I observe many more different motorists (when cycling)
than you do (when driving) because you are generally stuck in a line with the same car behind and in
front, whereas I am almost always either significantly faster or slower.

Quoted message said:

The my risk / your risk value judgement you imagine simply does not exist.

How can you claim this? You have absolutely no clue, and are just making it up as you go along.

Quoted message said:

If they see a risk they DO avoid it. It doesn't matter whose risk it
is. When they don't see the risk things go badly wrong. This happens too often, but less here than
in any other country.

That does not explain the way that drivers will cut into cyclists when they overtake with
insufficient forward visibility. Perhaps they do not see the risk at first, but when the oncoming
vehicle appears they clearly and demonstrably choose to pass the risk to others (the cyclist) rather
than keep it for themselves.

James

No reply from Mr Smith of Scotland, UK.

Strange!!

T

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Fanciful? No. Happened to me about six years ago.

I'm not at all surprised by your story.

Sadly it is but the worst of many such incidents.

Quoted message said:

But as usual it's all down to risk perception errors. Of course the oncoming van is seen as a
bigger risk. It's bigger. That's the level of simplicity of the judgement that many driver make.

It was also a direct risk to the driver's own survival -- as such it is understandable that he
ignored the minor inconvenience (aka lesser danger) -- me.

Quoted message said:

But you could have avoided your accident by braking hard as soon as you realised that the
overtaking car was relying on the non-appearence of oncoming traffic. Then when the overtaker
had to swing left you would have been behind.

Given the circumstances -- at which I was present and you were not -- I expect that there was more
I could have done to reduce the risk to myself. Probably, I too, reacted to the primary risk at
each point of the

incident.

Quoted message said:

I do not believe braking hard would have made that much diffeernce -- but

I

Quoted message said:

cnanot swear to that. However, I do dismiss it as another Smith broad generalisation based on
inadequate knowledge.

The 'solution' I adopted after this incident was to be MUCH more agressive in cycling round this
bend -- pulling 1/2 to 2/3rds of the way out into MY lane (i.e. the only lane going in that
direction) so giving drivers a MUCH starker choice if they wanted to overtake. This resulted in
frequent hooting and significant abuse -- but tough [censored].

The problems with this approach were 1) I reduced my view round the bend

and

Quoted message said:

2) I needed to tapper my move across the lane to maintain my visibility to following traffic and
so avoid becoming road kill as some stupid sod

roarded

Quoted message said:

round the bend at stupid speeds. From this you may estimate that, while driving is hard, cycling
can require even more thought and skill -- and, sadly, there is no (as far as I am aware) Instute
of Advanced Cyclists

with

Quoted message said:

nice people to train you in survival strategies. See -- motorists have it easy!!

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As I said, no cyclist is so stable -- all of the time.

Yeah. That's what I said too.

Please point to the place where you said this because I have re-read your post and do not see it.
I accept your 'perfect' cyclist is an abstraction -- but you never actually say so -- rather
describing him as

if

Quoted message said:

he exists.

Quoted message said:

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You presume that removing the right to drive limits a persons freedom

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

movement. There are many other available forms of transport and

something

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

over 25% of all households (thouse wiothout cars) make use of them.

I don't. You agreed with me.

At the risk of entering a Did/Didn't arguement -- No I din't.

Quoted message said:

I think standards are too low too. But I don't think it's sensible to claim that you "study
driving" from behind the wheel. If it were true then we would have something like 30,000,000
experts, but we have very few, probably less than 10,000.

30 million consider themselves experts -- which is a major part of the problem. To be as non
contentious as possible here let me substitute 'observe' for 'study' in my last reply -- but point
out that I do

'observe'

Quoted message said:

from more than one viewpoint.

It is gross arrogance to claim that your 'study' is inherently better than anyone else's
'observation'.

Maybe you have, indeed, 'studied' driving -- but you still manage to put forward some
stupid ideas.

T

(wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter) said:

There's a right angle bend narrow country lane near me, we get HGVs on it - next to an area of
ancient woodland, and in winter, that stretch of road is in virtually permanent shade, so it acts
as an ice trap. It's also a local HGV route and a local resident had his vehicle totalled by an
oncoming HGV taking the corner too fast in the conditions & losing it. The pictures of said
resident's vehicle are seriously scary - by some miracle the guy wasn't hurt much as he literally
threw himself as far as possible to the other side of the vehicle. Plod's reaction was, "Sorry
mate, he wasn't driving dangerously as he was under the speed limit." I'll bet you can guess the
reaction of the local resident.

There is little doubt that an offence has been committed under these circumstances, but no doubt
Plod has it in mind that proving said offence is much easier if a simple test can be used. Speeding
is relatively easy to prove, obviously.

I would advocate a two pronged approach here: I would be lobbying the council for better signage and
gritting cover, and I would take the lorry driver and CHGO. Obviously :-)

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

Just zis Guy said:

... and CHGO. Obviously :-)

Is there any non-obvious way to do it? (I may regret asking that.)

(Geraint Jones) said:

Is there any non-obvious way to do it? (I may regret asking that.)

Not as far as I know - bolt croppers is the usual implement, I believe.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote: ...

Quoted message said:

And the Carrot......

Drivers' organisations will undoubtedly bleat about any increase in penalties for carelessness.
How dare we infringe their right to drive their cars carelessly? Surely they can hardly be held to
account for accidents, even if they are negligent. It's an accident. Not very convincing, but you
should see the claptrap they keep coming up with to justify protesting against speed cameras. So a
quid pro quo: 80mph limits on motorways, more variable limits around towns (20 limits only when
lights flashing or whatever) and a study to see if some lengths of motorway are suitable for
complete derestriction of speed. A key criterion would be the existence of a parallel route of
good quality for those drivers who don't want to join a racetrack.

Hmm, I see much speeding as an addiction, a dependency. I wouldn't try offering an alcie a bottle of
whisky in exchange for drinking no cheap lager for a month.

--
Patrick Herring dcs.shef.ac.ukmakepersonOpen ↗

Paul Smith said:

you know? said:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 19:13:20 +0000, Paul Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I still don't see how the example helps.

Quoted message said:

It helps because it shows the fact taht drivers react to perceived risk to themselves, not known
risk to others. This supports one of your pet points, risk compensation. Only in this case the
driver compensates for the risk being placed on other people by deciding that it's therefore
perfectly acceptable.

I'd rate that claim as pure fantasy.

I'd be quite happy to believe that the risk was not foreseen, and that had it been foreseen the
lady driver would have been completely horrified.

But /why/ was it not foreseen? Why wasn't she sufficiently concerned with the possibilities to have
considered the one that did in fact happen?

--
Patrick Herring dcs.shef.ac.ukmakepersonOpen ↗

Paul Smith said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But as usual it's all down to risk perception errors. Of course the oncoming van is seen as a
bigger risk. It's bigger. That's the level of simplicity of the judgement that many driver make.

Because the risk attaches to someone else, yes.

No. You're mistaken.

So you keep saying. But, as has repeatedly been pointed out, this interpretation is not only
consistent with the observed facts but widely held among those whose experience extends to both
cycling and driving. Car overtaking cyclist, car coming the other way - two possible courses of
action: brake and drop back behind, or squeeze the cyclist out. I bet you a pound you can guess
which one happens. Every time,

Quoted message said:

There's nothing wrong with advanced self preservation. Get that chip off your shoulder and start
preaching self preservation.

I ride on the road every working day, rain or shine. I have taught numerous people to ride bikes on
the road, with reference to the Highway Code and books like Cyclecraft and Effective Cycling, I ride
with a club full of experienced cyclists from whom I learn, I exchange cycling techniques with
friends on this newsgroup, I will be teaching Cycling Proficiency this year, I have been riding a
bike on the road since I was ten years old and in that time managed to avoid all but two motorists,
one of whom started from stationary and accelerated fast into the side of me and the other hit me
from behind because he wasn't looking what he was doing.

You, on the other hand, have no discernible expertise in cycling.

You continually tell me (and others) how we can make our own safety, but we have to do that every
single time we ride - we know how to make our own safety, our concern is the motorised onanists who
can overcome the effort and attention that we put into riding and kill and injure us anyway.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

Paul Smith said:

Quoted message said:

The observation that 85% of drivers think they are above average is consistent with 100% of
drivers overestimating their skills.

Quoted message said:

Highly improbable. Not impossible.

You mean a small number of drivers might exist who underestimate their own abilities? I'll be sure
to let you know if I meet one.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Right, so how do you pass the training? Answer in one word not using the word test or anyhting
listed in the thesaurus as semantically equivalent........

Quoted message said:

ContinuousAssessment.

Check thesaurus for "assessment"..... "test". You fail.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dream on. The current situation is that a vanishingly small proportion of drivers buy the new
Highway Code when it's published, even thogh it's dirt cheap. Spend Real Money (TM) on training
when they are already above average drivers? I think not.

Quoted message said:

Right, so we enforce and incentivise.

Enforce and incentivise - yes. Foir example, enforce the laws as they exist (can you say
"speeding?"😉 and incentivise with.... stiffer penalties, including bans and compulsory
training! Aha!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, we could start by imposing realistic sentences on those whose bad driving causes death and
serious injury. Oh, I forgot - that's an intolerable imposition. Better wait until "they" come up
with a way of encouraging people to improve, then.

Quoted message said:

Nah. No need to wait. We could start on sensible policies tomorrow.

OK, sensible policy number 1: the rules of the road having been published well in advance, any
infraction results in an immediate compulsory training course and retest. In addition any injury or
death caused thorugh negligence results in a ban. No problem there.

Quoted message said:

The same old misquote.

OK, so you agree she should have been banned. Fine.

Quoted message said:

I call for higher driving standards across the board, which automatically would lead to higher
charges and tougher sentences.

Or we could start right now by starting to ban people and impose compulsory training and retests
when they kill and injure through negligence - that way the ones who are the worst drivers (judged
by results) will be trained first. Perfect.

Quoted message said:

Let's make speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving

Let's not.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

Just zis Guy said:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:36:44 +0000, Paul Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:

...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'd also allow them in some cases to "trade" a ban for a training course at the driver's expense
- but keeping the extended retest.

Fine, although I'd rather see continuous assessment training.

My view is that any proved error has shown that the driver isn't safe, which is what the driving
licence is supposed to have tested, so they have to re-take the test from scratch, plus the usual
fines and points. I think most people would see that as harsh but fair, and when it's pointed out
that death is also rather harsh would come to see it as basically fair.

...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

b) She was convicted of DWDCAA which is pretty lightweight for a death crash. I thought we agreed
about that? Or do you think DWDCAA is sufficient, if only the sentence was greater?

The structure of offences has been watered down because juries (of motorists) were reluctant to
convict, which is why for example the offence of causing death by dangerous driving was
introduced.

Trouble is "dangerous driving" can't be defined to be only minimally different from what we all do
most of the time, even though it is, because it makes it too difficult to prove. I reckon we need a
new offence, between DWDCAA and CDBDD, of "causing death by negligent control". Isn't that already
an offence in the general context of handling big machinery?

--
Patrick Herring dcs.shef.ac.ukmakepersonOpen ↗

Paul Smith <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>... [snipped]

Quoted message said:

No. I offer no defence for bad driving.

Quoted message said:

Why not accept that there are bad drivers and that they should be penalised for it?

I absolutely do.

Quoted message said:

You should be agreeing with many of the arguments here for stricter sentencing etc. because this
would remove dangerous drivers from the road and incentivise everyone to drive better. That may
aid your argument for higher speeds.

I've seen little or no evidence that using the law as it stands against bad drivers improves them.
They might get taken out of circulation for a while, but if they come back just as bad after (say)
six short months, what have we gained?

As a society the way our laws are structured say a lot about the way we view the acceptability of
certain ways of behaviour. We punish murder very highly because we abhor it. We also punish
manslaughter highly since we expect everyone to take active steps to avoid causing death. We
focus police time on the crimes that we most detest (or at least, those the tabloids most detest
this week).

My disappointment with this sentence for someone who was conviced of 'causing death by dangerous
driving' is twofold:

1. that it declares such behaviour acceptable.

2. that it was too light to have any effect. No other driver will be encouraged to behave in a more
'considerate' (maybe 'safe' would be a better word) towards a fellow road user. In this case it
was a cyclist killed; had the death been another driver the sentence would have probably been no
worse and there would have been less discussion.

To increase the scentence alone is a blunt weapon, but surely it would encourage better practise if
drivers who killed someone (anyone) with their vehicle were aware that such an action had more
consequences for them. As a society we are stating that such deaths are acceptable to us; I think
this is wrong (and I don't limit that to the death of cyclists - I drive as well and don't want to
die using either form of transport due to some other road user behaving dangerously).

We accept that the sentence for the same action can vary according to the consequences (ABH, GBH,
Manslaughter could all result from the same physical action - swinging a fist or a foot). What is
the problem with the idea that in this case the driver's action (overtaking where it was not
appropriate to do so) should be more heavily punished because it caused a death? In other
circumstances the same action would not have caused a death. In other circumstances it would not
even have been dangerous. In these circumstances, however, these actions did cause a death. That
makes the offense committed worse.

Arguing that the driver does not know what the likely outcome of their actions are (that they're
ability to predict and assess risk in context is imperfect) is fine. Arguing that this facet of
driving should be improved is also fine. However, arguing that this particular form of ignorance is
mitigation is not at all fine. We do not accept an ignorance of biology to excuse the act of killing
someone with an unlucky blow during a fight. Ignorance is not, explicitly not, an excuse under our
law; nor should it be.

I'd prefer a world where driver education was so good there were no accidents at all. I'd prefer a
world where no road user was so arrogant and inconsiderate that they believed saving themselves a
few seconds by endangering another was socially and legally acceptable. So education has a part to
play. So does reasonable, deterrent, scentencing.

The irony is (I guess) that a driver who has killed one cyclist is far less likely to kill another.
Driver education proves to be expensive; this is a lesson that driver is unlikely to forget.

Quoted message said:

There's no such thing as a strategy that would makes the roads safer overnight. Therefore, for a
period at least, we all have to make the best of the roads as we find them. Mostly this means that
all good road users adopt strategies of self-preservation.

NO IT DOESN'T. It means that all _good_ road users _should_ adopt strategies to preseve both
themselves and all other road users. Selfishness on the road is the biggest problem (IMO encouraged
in car drivers by their isolation from those around them, but not absent in cyclists). To encourage
an attitude of pure self-preservation is irresponsible and dangerous.

Quoted message said:

In the medium term, safer roads can only come from better road user training and individual road
user responsibility.

[abuse snipped]

One way to help encourage responsibility is suitable sentences for those who show criminal
irresponsibility. This is the basis of much of our lawmaking. People are too selfish to educate
themselves; buying a car with more airbags/cycling on the pavement is easier.

- Richard

Paul Smith said:

Because I've observed a lot of drivers and I see something different of course.

Ah, well, that would be because you lack the perspective offered by viewing the situation from both
sides, obviously.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

Patrick Herring said:

Trouble is "dangerous driving" can't be defined to be only minimally different from what we all do
most of the time, even though it is, because it makes it too difficult to prove. I reckon we need a
new offence, between DWDCAA and CDBDD, of "causing death by negligent control". Isn't that already
an offence in the general context of handling big machinery?

There is some thought going on in Government circles at the moment which indicates that the public
generally agrees - but that's before Paul Dacre at the Central Policy Disapproval Unit has had his
say. After the Official View of the Public has been published in the usual place, the Daily Mail, we
can confidently expect things to remain much as they are :-(

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

Patrick Herring said:

Quoted message said:

I'd be quite happy to believe that the risk was not foreseen, and that had it been foreseen the
lady driver would have been completely horrified.

Quoted message said:

But /why/ was it not foreseen? Why wasn't she sufficiently concerned with the possibilities to have
considered the one that did in fact happen?

Just so. In order not to foresee the risk, she had to completely forget six separate sections of the
Highway Code, as well as have no discernible common sense.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There's nothing wrong with advanced self preservation. Get that chip off your shoulder and start
preaching self preservation.

Err? Smith, I believe, contradicts himself (again - no surprise ther, then).

I am strongly of the opinion that he told me exactly the oposite and that drivers (indeed all
humans) prioritise risk not by self preservation but by some other, poorly defined criterium. When
its not late at night and too soon after a visit to the pub to be sure I will look up the
references.

Quoted message said:

I ride on the road every working day, rain or shine. I have taught numerous people to ride bikes
on the road, with reference to the Highway Code and books like Cyclecraft and Effective Cycling, I
ride with a club full of experienced cyclists from whom I learn, I exchange cycling techniques
with friends on this newsgroup, I will be teaching Cycling Proficiency this year, I have been
riding a bike on the road since I was ten years old and in that time managed to avoid all but two
motorists, one of whom started from stationary and accelerated fast into the side of me and the
other hit me from behind because he wasn't looking what he was doing.

Once is unfortunate, twice is careless!!

Quoted message said:

You, on the other hand, have no discernible expertise in cycling.

Which, in Smith's eyes makes him ideally suited to tell us all how to cycle.
(e.g. apply brakes hard while going round a bend (of unknown, to Smith, sharpness) with a tonne + of
metal too close to your jacksee to be sure the moment you percieve the danger that something
may be coming the other way. Hey!! I'm good -- but not [censored] perfect!!

Quoted message said:

You continually tell me (and others) how we can make our own safety, but we have to do that every
single time we ride - we know how to make our own safety, our concern is the motorised onanists
who can overcome the effort and attention that we put into riding and kill and injure us anyway.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

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

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 07:53:50 +0900, James Annan <[email hidden]> wrote:

The my risk / your risk value judgement you imagine simply does not exist. Hell it's hard enough
to get them to recognise a risk at all, let alone subclassify it. (possibly with the exception of
a few criminal boy racers)

If they see a risk they DO avoid it. It doesn't matter whose risk it
is.

Paul, you've written some complete cobblers in your time, but you have excelled even your previous
best with this one. If anything shows that you really don't have a clue about risk and safety, this
is it. As a cyclist who, like Guy, rides every day, I can categorically inform you that your
statement is incorrect, and that drivers take much more care when the threat is to them than when it
is to some third party, especially cyclists/peds.

This is an easily observed phenomenon, just ride a bike every day in a city. Oh, and of course, lots
of drivers fitted bull bars, even though they were aware that they posed a significant threat to
peds/cyclists, and none to themselves. Whilst not every driver ( I am one myself occasionally!) is
terminally selfish and stupid, there are enough of them out there to make the roads dangerous.

When they don't see the risk things go badly wrong. This happens

Quoted message said:

too often, but less here than in any other country.

You've obviously never been cycling in France, Germany, Holland, Denmark etc etc.

cheers Rich

's make speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving

"Colin Blackburn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Paul Smith said:

I'm going away for ten days at lunch time and won't have newsgroup access.

It was a bit miserable when I cycled in this morning in the dark but the day seems to be panning
out well, I think the rest of the week is going to be great too.

Colin

Don't know what you mean Colin!, but I concur completely.

cheers Rich

Quoted message said:

Don't know what you mean Colin!, but I concur completely.

Now he's gone we should organise a party!!

Hey -- we can cycle irresponsibly and not in accordance with advice from on high. Oh the freedom.

T