Re: Oops, bloody cyclists ...

Pip said:

dog said:

it's not confined to red lights though. giving way to pedestrians at
zebra crossings appears to be regarded largely as optional, and i
honestly can't remember the last time i saw a vehicle giving way to
a pedestrian while turning into a t-junction (highway code rule
170). it's just that the british are a lot more selfish and
inconsiderate these days.

I don't think it is selfishness, not entirely, anyway. I've seen
drivers stop when turning, to give way to peds crossing - and I've
seen the stopped car run into from behind by the too-close-behind
driver too. I've also seen apoplectic road rage explode from the
driver of the car behind, when the driver in front has the temerity to
impede their passage for a few moments, by complying with the law.

All those moments will be lost in time, like brain-cells in beer...

Eiron said:

Pip wrote:

<snip wibble>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I floored it and got in front of the dippy [censored], pulling in with
shaking head and trembling hands.

You appear to be a bit of a hypocrite.

I don't deny the accusation, but I am intrigued as to why you think
that, in this case.

--
Pip: B12

Pip said:

Eiron said:

Pip wrote:

<snip wibble>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I floored it and got in front of the dippy [censored], pulling in with
shaking head and trembling hands.

You appear to be a bit of a hypocrite.

I don't deny the accusation, but I am intrigued as to why you think
that, in this case.

So it's not road rage when you drive like a [censored] and lose your temper,
only when others do it?

--
Eiron.

Eiron said:

So it's not road rage when you drive like a [censored] and lose your temper,
only when others do it?

Ding!

Pip said:

Phil Armstrong said:

Which is not to say that I haven't been guilty of making the same
mistake in similar circumstances in the past, but it's still a driving
error. If you don't acknowledge your own errors, you'll never learn
from them. If car in front had stopped because a tree branch had
fallen into the road in front of them, would you still be blaming them
for the fact that you hadn't left enough braking distance?

I stopped. Therefore, I had sufficient distance between my car and
that of the dippy [censored] in front to enable stopping in the event of an
unexpected manoeuvre. I therefore refute your allegation. Oh, and
there's no trees on that junction.

By your own admission you managed to stop only a few feet behind
someone who wasn't panic braking, they just decided to stop
normally. At least one vehicle behind you locked its wheels in order
to avoid running into the back of you or the vehicle behind.

Could you have changed your driving behaviour such that in the event
of someone stopping in front of you like this, none of this drama
would have occurred? That's the question I suggest you should be
asking: What could you have done to make it so this wasn't a 'close
call'?

Quoted message said:

The truck was behind the vehicle behind me. How far back down the
line of following vehicles should I go, making allowances for the
incompetence of others?

I'd stop at the truck personally 🙂

Phil

--
http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/gpg.txt

Eiron said:

Pip said:

Eiron said:

Pip wrote:

<snip wibble>

Quoted message said:

> I floored it and got in front of the dippy [censored], pulling in with
> shaking head and trembling hands.
You appear to be a bit of a hypocrite.

I don't deny the accusation, but I am intrigued as to why you think
that, in this case.

So it's not road rage when you drive like a [censored] and lose your temper,
only when others do it?

Road rage, by your obviously outdated criteria, consists of a
peremptory horn blast, followed by an overtake and a shake of the
head? When I referred to road rage in a previous post, I was
picturing what I've seen - driver out of car, beating on the windows
of victim's car, screaming abuse and kicking panels in.

Similarly, driving like a [censored] in your world apparently includes sharp
braking to avoid an unexpected stationary vehicle, followed by an
overtake in order to let the dippy cow do the same to somebody else,
rather than me.

We live in different worlds.

--
Pip: B12

Phil Armstrong said:

Pip said:

Phil Armstrong said:

Which is not to say that I haven't been guilty of making the same
mistake in similar circumstances in the past, but it's still a driving
error. If you don't acknowledge your own errors, you'll never learn
from them. If car in front had stopped because a tree branch had
fallen into the road in front of them, would you still be blaming them
for the fact that you hadn't left enough braking distance?

I stopped. Therefore, I had sufficient distance between my car and
that of the dippy [censored] in front to enable stopping in the event of an
unexpected manoeuvre. I therefore refute your allegation. Oh, and
there's no trees on that junction.

By your own admission you managed to stop only a few feet behind
someone who wasn't panic braking, they just decided to stop
normally. At least one vehicle behind you locked its wheels in order
to avoid running into the back of you or the vehicle behind.

Yes, I stepped hard on the brake pedal. A few feet is better than in
the back end of the car in front, in my book. She didn't appear to
panic brake, but the sudden cessation of forward movement from ~20mph
was unexpected, to say the least. Yielding her right of way to an
oncoming driver who was already stationary was also unexpected - and
not just to me, but to the drivers behind me and not least, to the
oncoming driver, who did a double-take at being let across the
junction.

The panic braking happened behind me and I'm afraid I could do nothing
about that.

Quoted message said:

Could you have changed your driving behaviour such that in the event
of someone stopping in front of you like this, none of this drama
would have occurred? That's the question I suggest you should be
asking: What could you have done to make it so this wasn't a 'close
call'?

I was evidently far enough back. I could and did observe the
junction, but really didn't expect the driver in front of me to stop,
mid-manoeuvre, to forego her right of way, to let in an oncoming
driver to the detriment of those following her.

What could I have done?

1. Overtaken the dippy [censored] before the junction.
2. Employed the footman with a red flag to precede me down the road.
3. Deployed the Trunk Monkey.
4. Hung back so far from the car in front that I could have rolled to
a lazy stop without using the brakes at all, thus allowing the
oncoming driver to try and turn across me just as the van behind me
made a lunge for freedom past me, killing all of us.

Your call.

--
Pip: B12

Pip writtificated

Quoted message said:

What could I have done?

1. Overtaken the dippy [censored] before the junction.
2. Employed the footman with a red flag to precede me down the road.
3. Deployed the Trunk Monkey.
4. Hung back so far from the car in front that I could have rolled to
a lazy stop without using the brakes at all, thus allowing the
oncoming driver to try and turn across me just as the van behind me
made a lunge for freedom past me, killing all of us.

This is basically about defensive driving (or whatever you want to call
it).

5. Left a slightly larger gap so unexpected braking manouvres can be made
more gently. This would have given more time for the vehicles behind to
brake. They'd be less likely to run out of road and more likely to leave a
bigger gap between them and the car in front. This may have avoided the
accident, or of the shunt reaching Pip's car.

In article said:

was unexpected, to say the least. Yielding her right of way to an
oncoming driver who was already stationary was also unexpected - and

You need to drive in Wiltshire more - it's standard here. Especially in
Swindon.

Quoted message said:

4. Hung back so far from the car in front that I could have rolled to
a lazy stop without using the brakes at all, thus allowing the
oncoming driver to try and turn across me just as the van behind me
made a lunge for freedom past me, killing all of us.

This one would help solve the overcrowded roads..

Phil (A different Phil from the other poster..)

--
Phil Launchbury, IT PHB
'I'm training the bats that live in my cube
to juggle mushrooms'

Wicked Uncle Nigel said:

they have absolutely no ability to judge speed and distance

and in a bizarre twist only ever seen on usenet, the thread again
becomes vaguely relevant to URC.

Many drivers don't even *try* to judge speed/distance and instead rely
on the shape of the objects they see. "Oh, cyclist-shaped, therefore
it's stationary and must be safe to pull out in front of".

Sadly this doesn't even stop at judging speed but also applies to
position: "I didn't actually see him but he was a cyclist so I thought
he was on the cycle path not the road" in one notable recent case

-dan

Quoted message said:

Many drivers don't even *try* to judge speed/distance and instead rely
on the shape of the objects they see. "Oh, smaller than me, therefore
it has little momentum and must be safe to pull out in front of".

post corrected
--
dog
sl1000 two#5 pwcram#3

dog said:

Quoted message said:

Many drivers don't even *try* to judge speed/distance and instead rely
on the shape of the objects they see. "Oh, smaller than me, therefore
it has little momentum and must be safe to pull out in front of".

post corrected

They still whinge about their paint job when I hit them, though.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember [email hidden] saying something
like:

Quoted message said:

Many drivers don't even *try* to judge speed/distance and instead rely
on the shape of the objects they see. "Oh, cyclist-shaped, therefore
it's stationary and must be safe to pull out in front of".

Sadly this doesn't even stop at judging speed but also applies to
position: "I didn't actually see him but he was a cyclist so I thought
he was on the cycle path not the road" in one notable recent case

Cyclists are not the only ones affected by lazy thinking of some
drivers. The classic comment made by one dozy old bat after she'd pulled
out in front of a motorcycle cop and caused him to fall off, "Gee, I'm
sorry Officer, I thought you were just some kid on a Honda."
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"A scone and tea at half past three
Makes the day a little brighter
Keep your cakes and fancy [censored]
And stick them up your [censored]."

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Grimly Curmudgeon
<[email hidden]> typed

Quoted message said:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember [email hidden] saying something
like:

Quoted message said:

Many drivers don't even *try* to judge speed/distance and instead rely
on the shape of the objects they see. "Oh, cyclist-shaped, therefore
it's stationary and must be safe to pull out in front of".

Sadly this doesn't even stop at judging speed but also applies to
position: "I didn't actually see him but he was a cyclist so I thought
he was on the cycle path not the road" in one notable recent case

Cyclists are not the only ones affected by lazy thinking of some
drivers.

Indeed they are not. Someone pulled out in front of my car from a
supermarket entrance into the RH lane of a one-way system last night
(dark, wet road). "That was a bit cheeky" I thought, but a lift off the
throttle meant it was OK (especially as he accelerated quite briskly).

Then the following car, which had stopped, came out too...

I had no chance of stopping at all, fortunately the guy on the lane
inside me was awake and moved over to give me *just* enough room to
squeeze by. Thank god for ABS, say I, the steering was still playing.

The dozy [censored] was apparently so startled by my presence (and horn!) that
he then stopped in the outside lane to compose himself, with a queue of
traffic behind him.

I can only conclude that he is nightblind, or was blind drunk.

--
Wicked Uncle Nigel - "He's hopeless, but he's honest"

My position was (and, to be honest, largely remains) one of complete ambiguity.