police, camera, action 11:35pm tonight

[chris French]

In message <[email protected]>, Adam Lea
<[email protected]> writes
>
>"spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:e490bcdc-83ea-4411-ae8c-e0229570a698@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> On 6 Feb, 11:04, JNugent <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> David Martin wrote:
>>> > "Adam Lea" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >>Just spotted in the TV guide:
>>> >>"Presenters Alastair Stewart and Adrian Simpson reveal the dangers
>>> >>facing
>>> >>car drivers when they overtake in the enormous blind spot areas of
>>> >>larger
>>> >>vehicles. Plus a graphic demonstration for cyclists who fail to heed
>>> >>safety
>>> >>advice on sharing the road with trucks and vans."
>>> >>I will be interested to hear what their safety advice is.
>>> > Well?
>>> > What was it?
>>> > And who would take road safety advice from a drink driver anyway?
>>>
>>> Do either of them write their own scripts?
>>
>> Nice victim blaming there, a lorry driver overtakes a cyclist and
>> immediately turns left, then claims the cyclist, who is dead, was
>> undertaking. Case closed.
>>
>> Drunk driver Alistair Stewart presenting on road safety is like Gary
>> Glitter giving nursery advice.
>
>What is wrong with advising cyclists to avoid going up the inside of lorries
>at junctions?
>
>
Yup. I didn't see the program, but I still observe cyclists doing this
quite often. I think it's probably one of the most dangerous things you
can do on a bike. There was coverage in the local papers recently of a
woman (and according to the newspapers an experienced regular cyclist)
who got killed after doing exactly this. Up the inside and stopped
right in the drivers blind spot by the side of the cab somewhere. As
they moved off, she wobbled and ended up under the wheels.

--
Chris French

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 11:54:35 -0800 (PST) someone who may be Sir
Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>If you want to risk your necks then by all means mix it with the
>traffic just don't come whining when you end up in hospital. Your
>choice.

Ah, personalisation.

I note that you were unwilling or unable to comment on the paper
<http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/cfi_jaf.pdf>. It explains why
one is more likely to end up in hospital by using cycle "facilities"
rather than the road.


--
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

 

[spindrift]

On 6 Feb, 18:10, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
> > "Are you mad"?
> > Read what was written again. The assumption is made that cyclists need
> > instruction, not that drivers need to take care. Assumption of guilt.
>
> I made no statements of any kind, whether predicated on an imaginary
> assumption or not. I asked a question.
>
> > "Do you really not understand that presenters of programmes like the
> > one mentioned are just faces hired to do a job and that they do not
> > write their own scripts?"
> > I don't care, what difference does it make? The words are there. Don't
> > care who wrote them.
>
> If you read: "Drive carefully near cyclists and give them sufficient
> room" (or any words to the same sort of general effect) in a
> publication similar to the Highway Code, do you think that is:
>
> (a) good, or
> (b) bad?
>
> If someone like Alastair Stewart reads out the scripted words: "Drive
> carefully near cyclists and give them sufficient room" (or any words
> to the same sort of general effect) on a television programme, do you
> think that is:
>
> (a) good, or
> (b) bad?
>
> If the answer to one is different from the answer to the other, please
> explain why.

I know you didn't make a statement, the programme makers did. They
assumed the cyclist wasd at fault and I took issue with that. reign
you ego in a bit old boy, not every post here is abouit you.

The answers are a) and a)

But that's not what was said, once again you replaced what is being
discussed with your own random extrapolation. The programme didn't
even mention drivers taking care. Lorry drivers kill cyclists and then
say "She undertook". Case closed.

 

[Nigel Randell]

>
> It seems to me that if cyclists want to be safe then they need to get
> off the roads, because traffic is simply too heavy and too fast. If
> cyclists kept to cycle paths such as those provided by Sustans then
> they'd be alot safer.

.....and nowhere near where they want to go.

How many Sustrans, and similar, paths do you think there actually are?
Compare this to the number and distribution of roads and you start to get an
idea of why so many cyclists ride on the road.

--

Nigel

 

[[email protected]]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 11:54:35 -0800 (PST) someone who may be Sir
> Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> If you want to risk your necks then by all means mix it with the
>> traffic just don't come whining when you end up in hospital. Your
>> choice.
>
> Ah, personalisation.
>
> I note that you were unwilling or unable to comment on the paper
> <http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/cfi_jaf.pdf>.

That's because he's a troll, and not even an especially subtle one (the
stupid name is a clue). Why are you even responding?

-dan

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 7 Feb, 08:23, David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 11:54:35 -0800 (PST) someone who may be Sir
> Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >If you want to risk your necks then by all means mix it with the
> >traffic just don't come whining when you end up in hospital. Your
> >choice.
>
> Ah, personalisation.
>
> I note that you were unwilling or unable to comment on the paper
> <http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/cfi_jaf.pdf>. It explains why
> one is more likely to end up in hospital by using cycle "facilities"
> rather than the road.
>
> --
>   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


I've read it. I don't agree that with its conclusions
especially

" Thirdly, design to discourage fast or aggressive driving and to
reinforce the message that roads are a shared
resource. The most helpful action would be for national Government to
tame the ferocity of modern cars, to
make them better suited for sharing the roads."

if you can't take the heat then stay out of the kitchen, or off the
road in this case

 

[Mark T]

Sir Jeremy writtificated

Trolling Score /10:

Originality 1/10
Humour 0/10
Effectiveness 0/10
Obviousness -10/10

Total score: Minus 9/10

Time to shift yer fat ****.

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 8 Feb, 18:17, Mark T
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Sir Jeremy writtificated
>
> Trolling Score /10:
>
> Originality    1/10
> Humour         0/10
> Effectiveness  0/10
> Obviousness   -10/10
>
> Total score: Minus 9/10
>
> Time to shift yer fat ****.


Thank you for your original,witty, and above all well-considered reply.